Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Drafting a new Constitution
Author Message
Claw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,344
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 428
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Orangeville HELP!
Post: #21
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
I want the right to seek medical care guaranteed along with speech, religion, and guns.
09-11-2018 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lord Stanley Offline
L'Étoile du Nord
*

Posts: 19,103
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 994
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #22
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-11-2018 03:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I want the right to seek medical care guaranteed along with speech, religion, and guns.

Is "seek" the word you are looking for here? You already have the unencumbered ability to seek medical care.
09-14-2018 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 60,825
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1354
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-14-2018 08:58 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(09-11-2018 03:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I want the right to seek medical care guaranteed along with speech, religion, and guns.
Is "seek" the word you are looking for here? You already have the unencumbered ability to seek medical care.

I think the point is that single-payer obliterates that right and he wants to make it secure.
09-14-2018 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 34,599
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 816
I Root For: Fire 'Arry!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #24
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-10-2018 02:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(09-07-2018 03:27 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I agree with Cabinet coming from the Senate.

I would throw in a few other things:

1) I would have the Senate require a 2/3rds vote on appointments(not far from what cloture rules used to be anyway). For the cabinet, it shouldnt be too difficult since the appointees would be their colleagues. Really, this is necessary for the judiciary and more bureaucratic/supposedly non-partisan positions IMO.

2) Term limits. No more than 3 terms for the House and 2 terms for the Senate. Senators who are in the cabinet can stay as cabinet officers if their Senate term expires.

3) Federal Judges are term limited to 12 years at each level of the federal judiciary.

4) I agree with 1 six year term for President.

5) House districts are no longer drawn by the states themselves but rather approved at the federal level by a 2/3rds majority of the Senate.

Some interesting ideas. Some thoughts.
Rather than 2/3rds how about 3/5ths? That gets you in line with cloture and if the cabinet comes from Congress is confirmation really needed?

A 12 year judicial term concerns me. A judge that leaves the bench still young is a judge that may be biased in his decisions because he is seeking work when his term is up. If Judge Smith is appointed by a Democrat and a Republican will be in office when he term expires he may assume he won't be reappointed and be open to being bent.

There is no re-appointing. You get 12 years at each level of the judiciary. No more.
09-14-2018 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 34,599
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 816
I Root For: Fire 'Arry!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #25
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
I would also be open to ideas about how to make Senate elections non-partisan. No party support or designations while still keeping popular elections for the seats. I dont have the correct answer to that though.
09-14-2018 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Love and Honor Offline
Skipper
*

Posts: 5,432
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 153
I Root For: Miami, MACtion
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #26
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-11-2018 07:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Sounds like a fun exercise - but most assuredly will get quite complex. One dichotomy that I think will be fascinating to unpack will be "positive rights vs negative rights". Someone with a stronger history/legal background can correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading/studying that a number of the founding fathers did not want to include a bill of rights because these are positive rights.

Aren't they negative rights? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" on its face seems to be limiting government from preventing people to exercise their right to bear arms as opposed to saying "people have the right to bear arms." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." and so on is similar in wording.
09-14-2018 04:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 11,303
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 525
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-14-2018 04:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(09-11-2018 07:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Sounds like a fun exercise - but most assuredly will get quite complex. One dichotomy that I think will be fascinating to unpack will be "positive rights vs negative rights". Someone with a stronger history/legal background can correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading/studying that a number of the founding fathers did not want to include a bill of rights because these are positive rights.

Aren't they negative rights? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" on its face seems to be limiting government from preventing people to exercise their right to bear arms as opposed to saying "people have the right to bear arms." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." and so on is similar in wording.

No. Negative rights means you assume you have the right unless forbidden by the constitution. Positive rights means you assume you are forbidden that right unless it is allowed in the constitution.
09-15-2018 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nomad2u2001 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,502
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 408
I Root For: ECU
Location: NC
Post: #28
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
I would set up the Legislative branch with a mandatory retirement age. I would avoid term limits there.
09-15-2018 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,200
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 701
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-14-2018 10:35 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  
(09-10-2018 02:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(09-07-2018 03:27 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I agree with Cabinet coming from the Senate.

I would throw in a few other things:

1) I would have the Senate require a 2/3rds vote on appointments(not far from what cloture rules used to be anyway). For the cabinet, it shouldnt be too difficult since the appointees would be their colleagues. Really, this is necessary for the judiciary and more bureaucratic/supposedly non-partisan positions IMO.

2) Term limits. No more than 3 terms for the House and 2 terms for the Senate. Senators who are in the cabinet can stay as cabinet officers if their Senate term expires.

3) Federal Judges are term limited to 12 years at each level of the federal judiciary.

4) I agree with 1 six year term for President.

5) House districts are no longer drawn by the states themselves but rather approved at the federal level by a 2/3rds majority of the Senate.

Some interesting ideas. Some thoughts.
Rather than 2/3rds how about 3/5ths? That gets you in line with cloture and if the cabinet comes from Congress is confirmation really needed?

A 12 year judicial term concerns me. A judge that leaves the bench still young is a judge that may be biased in his decisions because he is seeking work when his term is up. If Judge Smith is appointed by a Democrat and a Republican will be in office when he term expires he may assume he won't be reappointed and be open to being bent.

There is no re-appointing. You get 12 years at each level of the judiciary. No more.

Just feels like a formula for corruption or a disincentive to get people to accept appointments. The typical judicial appointment takes a pay cut but prestige coupled with a lifetime appointment and generally better benefits offsets that.

When you are asking someone to return to private practice at age 55-60 they are likely to be more interested in their own financial security than calling them like they see 'em.
09-16-2018 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,558
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 911
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-14-2018 10:35 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  
(09-10-2018 02:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(09-07-2018 03:27 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I agree with Cabinet coming from the Senate.

I would throw in a few other things:

1) I would have the Senate require a 2/3rds vote on appointments(not far from what cloture rules used to be anyway). For the cabinet, it shouldnt be too difficult since the appointees would be their colleagues. Really, this is necessary for the judiciary and more bureaucratic/supposedly non-partisan positions IMO.

2) Term limits. No more than 3 terms for the House and 2 terms for the Senate. Senators who are in the cabinet can stay as cabinet officers if their Senate term expires.

3) Federal Judges are term limited to 12 years at each level of the federal judiciary.

4) I agree with 1 six year term for President.

5) House districts are no longer drawn by the states themselves but rather approved at the federal level by a 2/3rds majority of the Senate.

Some interesting ideas. Some thoughts.
Rather than 2/3rds how about 3/5ths? That gets you in line with cloture and if the cabinet comes from Congress is confirmation really needed?

A 12 year judicial term concerns me. A judge that leaves the bench still young is a judge that may be biased in his decisions because he is seeking work when his term is up. If Judge Smith is appointed by a Democrat and a Republican will be in office when he term expires he may assume he won't be reappointed and be open to being bent.

There is no re-appointing. You get 12 years at each level of the judiciary. No more.

I think it also improves the caliber of the judiciary and expands the pool. Right now, everyone wants to appoint young judges. If they appoint someone 55 or over, he might get replaced too soon by a President of a different party. And you get people who don't want to do the same thing the rest of their life and view it as a "job." I'm reminded of a lawyer I knew talking to someone and said she had a new job. She was going to be a judge. That just struck me the wrong way.
09-16-2018 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,558
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 911
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
What happens now is that judges get out of touch with the real world and get too full of themselves and their own power. There is a risk of corruption, but the alternative is not risk, but reality.

I would probably do 15, however, and maybe 20.
09-16-2018 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Claw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,344
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 428
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Orangeville HELP!
Post: #32
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-14-2018 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-14-2018 08:58 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(09-11-2018 03:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I want the right to seek medical care guaranteed along with speech, religion, and guns.
Is "seek" the word you are looking for here? You already have the unencumbered ability to seek medical care.

I think the point is that single-payer obliterates that right and he wants to make it secure.

Exactly, Owl. In fact, if they would pass that amendment, I would support making national health care available in some form for those that choose to use it. I might even use it for some things.
09-16-2018 04:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,200
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 701
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-16-2018 04:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  
(09-14-2018 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-14-2018 08:58 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(09-11-2018 03:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I want the right to seek medical care guaranteed along with speech, religion, and guns.
Is "seek" the word you are looking for here? You already have the unencumbered ability to seek medical care.

I think the point is that single-payer obliterates that right and he wants to make it secure.

Exactly, Owl. In fact, if they would pass that amendment, I would support making national health care available in some form for those that choose to use it. I might even use it for some things.

We almost had something like that but it got deleted from the ACA. Public option. You don't like your choices you could buy into Medicare, Medicare was to create a premium structure for people who didn't buy in via tax payments. Odds were that people would have found it to be cheaper and migrated to it unless they had a really good group plan.
09-16-2018 11:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 60,825
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1354
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #34
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-16-2018 11:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(09-16-2018 04:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  
(09-14-2018 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-14-2018 08:58 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(09-11-2018 03:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I want the right to seek medical care guaranteed along with speech, religion, and guns.
Is "seek" the word you are looking for here? You already have the unencumbered ability to seek medical care.
I think the point is that single-payer obliterates that right and he wants to make it secure.
Exactly, Owl. In fact, if they would pass that amendment, I would support making national health care available in some form for those that choose to use it. I might even use it for some things.
We almost had something like that but it got deleted from the ACA. Public option. You don't like your choices you could buy into Medicare, Medicare was to create a premium structure for people who didn't buy in via tax payments. Odds were that people would have found it to be cheaper and migrated to it unless they had a really good group plan.

The problem with that approach is that you have the government on the one hand subsidizing the public option and on the other imposing regulations on the private insurance companies. The saying was, “If the private insurers can’t compete, then let them go out of business.” But if I’m getting subsidized and you’re not, and I get to make up regulations that you have to follow but I don’t, then guess what, I’m going to make it impossible for you to compete. So that public option was nothing but a Trojan horse to sneak single-payer in.
09-17-2018 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,028
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #35
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-16-2018 04:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  
(09-14-2018 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-14-2018 08:58 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(09-11-2018 03:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I want the right to seek medical care guaranteed along with speech, religion, and guns.
Is "seek" the word you are looking for here? You already have the unencumbered ability to seek medical care.

I think the point is that single-payer obliterates that right and he wants to make it secure.

Exactly, Owl. In fact, if they would pass that amendment, I would support making national health care available in some form for those that choose to use it. I might even use it for some things.

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.
09-18-2018 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 60,825
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1354
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #36
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(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.
09-18-2018 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,028
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #37
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(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.

I was thinking the same thing, I agree in part, disagree in part.

I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to the role of government. I agree that society benefits from maintaining some base levels. What I believe that to mean is that government should stay out of people's lives and create the conditions where people can be successful and take care of themselves. There should be a (using a cliche) safety net, but only for those who are incapable of taking care of themselves, the sick, the disabled, etc. Making bad life choices shouldn't be included, meaning if someone drops out of school, gets pregnant, gets hooked on drugs, goes to jail, that's on them, not on me. If they shouldn't have to pay for their bad decisions, why should the rest of us?

I also agree with your idea of "everyone benefits, everyone pays". Unfortunately, the reality is that many benefit, but do not pay. Everyone should have "skin in the game". I know this might seem radical, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding to the constitution a clause that gives people the option..... If you're a doer, creator, or contributor, you get the right to vote. If you choose NOT to be, that's fine, but you forfeit that right and the right to have input into governing. It's like the old saying, "when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul's support". If Paul doesn't have a say, people might think twice about how (and where) we spend money.
09-18-2018 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 60,825
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1354
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(09-18-2018 12:47 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I also agree with your idea of "everyone benefits, everyone pays". Unfortunately, the reality is that many benefit, but do not pay. Everyone should have "skin in the game". I know this might seem radical, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding to the constitution a clause that gives people the option..... If you're a doer, creator, or contributor, you get the right to vote. If you choose NOT to be, that's fine, but you forfeit that right and the right to have input into governing. It's like the old saying, "when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul's support". If Paul doesn't have a say, people might think twice about how (and where) we spend money.

Or if Paul has to pay too, then Paul starts to get more reasonable. That's what Europe does, Paul benefits, but so does Peter, and Peter pays, but so does Paul. It's a safety net, not a redistribution scheme.
09-18-2018 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 34,599
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 816
I Root For: Fire 'Arry!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #39
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(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.
09-19-2018 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 60,825
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1354
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #40
RE: Drafting a new Constitution
(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.

That approach is called Bismarck, after Otto von Bismarck (the guy the battleship was named for) who first implemented it in Germany. It is the way I would go as well.

Quote: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.

Bismarck does that too. Employers can still offer supplemental insurance as a benefit, and many actually do, because it is very cheap to do so.
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2018 09:38 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-19-2018 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.