(03-29-2012 08:00 AM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Sure, start with our "capitalistic" Fortune 50 companies.

What's capitalistic about treating people and not getting paid? That's what is happening now. Also, what is capitalistic about tying our employment to healthcare and retirement savings?

Try starting a business "capitalistic style" in today's business climate, let alone all of the rules and regulations that I constantly hear whining about, the fact that a well funded, backed by Wall Street chain can crater a market and perform penetration marketing (losing money in that sector) to drive out competition makes getting into a business almost formidable. Unless of course, you want to take your hard earned money and put it on the line to gain their trust, then you can be backed by them with CREDIT.

It's a rigged game, we're on the short end of the stick as "capitalists".

The people that made the money under the parameters you described are now doing whatever it takes to preserve their position, not improve it, and we who are pretending that capitalism is still the system are effectively swimming upstream.

You are preaching to the choir DB. Regulations have destroyed business. The people who made their money under the system I described are long since dead. That system vanished ages ago. Government "fixes" started probably even before FDR introduced socialism as acceptable for Americans. Since then people expect that the government should be responsible to take care of all the bad things that exist in life. Health problems, hunger, unemployment, etc.

Government should not attempt to fix all the misfortunes people experience in life. First, its expensive, and government cant afford it. Second (and more precisely), there is no entity in the world that is as inefficient and generally as poor at doing things as the U.S. government.

Quote: Government "fixes" started probably even before FDR introduced socialism as acceptable for Americans.

Quite a few decades before that. Slavery was a big commerce issue, then the railroads and logistics. You should know that from all the commerce decisions that were rendered in the late 19th century.

When "big business" came along, the fix was in, before Standard Oil, it was the railroads getting in bed with our government and obtaining the mineral rights from coast to coach. They made bank, and learned to care less about the rail system for which they were supposed to be in business to do. Then Big Oil, then big government. I think it's hand and hand, one begits the other. You pick which one you want to rail about, (government), I'll always fall on the side of corrupt business practices selling out Americans.

Gee, it's like both sides are fighting for control of us and playing us against the other, huh?!

(03-29-2012 08:18 AM)stdatwmu Wrote:  Brovol - I'm not arguing anything about how our Constitution works. You're the expert here and, as I said in my earlier post, if we want to mandate health care on the national level we very well may have to amend the Constitution to do so. So, if that is what needs to happen, then let's start that process and see if we can get 2/3 of the states to agree. Although I personally believe that we should have a national health care system (that's a great distinction made by DB in his post I quoted below) I realize majority still rules in this country.

Amending the Constitution to allow mandated public health care would be like changing the rules of boxing by prohibiting punches. It would contradict the whole point of the thing. Forcing people to buy insurance, and dictating the conditions on which individuals contract with one another, defies the core principles of the Constitution. This is the very type of thing the Constitution was designed to protect Americans from. If that was appropriate we could also amend the Constitution to bring back a monarchy.

Obviously stdat we disagree. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and do not intend to be condescending. Contrary to conventional wisdom I do have a heart, and I am sympathetic for those who do not have insurance coverage, as I am with sick, needy, and other unfortunate people who could use assistance from others. I am just a passionate constitutionalist.

The government would do far more good if it stayed out of the "social service and welfare" business. Government will never fix the problems of the "needy", but it will, in attempting, create more "needy" in the process. We need to work more on changing attitudes so that people learn and expect to take care of themselves, instead of being taken care of.

OK. Now I have to go and get back to my government job.

(03-29-2012 10:43 AM)brovol Wrote:  OK. Now I have to go and get back to my government job.

Oh the irony!!

Guys, that's as ironic as me worrying about other people, I'm totally on my own and currently shopping my coverage this week during a lull.....I should care less, and might start.

(03-29-2012 11:39 AM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Guys, that's as ironic as me worrying about other people, I'm totally on my own and currently shopping my coverage this week during a lull.....I should care less, and might start.

Don't ever stop caring DB. You couldn't even if you wanted to.

The government mandates/forces us to to a lot of things: seatbelt laws, helmet laws, the banning of transfats in some cities/states, and taking our money through social security are just a few examples.

Their long reach into our personal choices/liberties is not new and likely to continue. Why the big hub bub over yet one more way to control our choices?

(03-29-2012 09:58 AM)brovol Wrote:  Obviously stdat we disagree. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and do not intend to be condescending. Contrary to conventional wisdom I do have a heart, and I am sympathetic for those who do not have insurance coverage, as I am with sick, needy, and other unfortunate people who could use assistance from others. I am just a passionate constitutionalist.

Nope, I appreciate a calm debate and haven't taken anything personally. I know you are far more knowledgeable about our legal system than I could ever dream to be so I appreciate your opinion on things.

I think we need a ton of reform all over the government and, as currently structured, any laws - including health care reform - are made with far too much concern about campaign dollars and influenced by lobbyists. Still, I do fully believe that health care (not necessarily health insurance, mind you) should be a right and that a universal health care system is something we should have in the US.

Again, obviously people have strong opinions on this and we don't all agree. You know where I stand on it.