CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dblack]

Explain exactly how healthcare is vastly different to other shared resources?

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Explain exactly how healthcare is vastly different to other shared resources?

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[dcraelin]

I dont mind idea of a national health care plan....like medicaid and medicare...expanded..

of course 132 countries proved that socialism does not work. In fact, we estimate that capitalism would reduce health care costs 80% from current levels and extend our lifespans 10-20 years.

WE? Who's we and were do those numbers come from...I have no doubt it could reduce overall costs...

 

[dblack]

Explain exactly how healthcare is vastly different to other shared resources?

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And you don't understand how they're different from shared property?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Explain exactly how healthcare is vastly different to other shared resources?

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And you don't understand how they're different from shared property?

Your fallacious assumptions are not my problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...I have no doubt it [capitalism] could reduce overall costs[ of health care]...

reduce?? What about reduce by 80% and add 10-20 years to our life spans. We know what the standards of living were in USSR, Red China, and East Germany under liberalism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Healthcare is not a shared resource. It is a service/product sold by healthcare providers just as food is sold by a supermarket or houses or business spaces are sold by developers or office supplies are sold by Staples or Office Depot. A shared resource is the air we all must breathe--there is no way to separate out some for the use of one person and other for the use of another. Or water in an aquifer that spans a number of properties or counties or water in a river that is shared by multiple states.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Healthcare is not a shared resource. .

liberals like to pretend it is so they can feel entitled to as much of it as they want.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Healthcare is not a shared resource. It is a service/product sold by healthcare providers just as food is sold by a supermarket or houses or business spaces are sold by developers or office supplies are sold by Staples or Office Depot. A shared resource is the air we all must breathe--there is no way to separate out some for the use of one person and other for the use of another. Or water in an aquifer that spans a number of properties or counties or water in a river that is shared by multiple states.

Therein lies the rub!

You perceive healthcare as a product from which profits must be derived.

Did Florence Nightingale share your profit motive? How about Albert Schweitzer? Or Doctors without Borders? Are the healthcare workers putting their lives on the line in Liberia and Sierra Leone doing it to make a profit?

Helathcare is not just about making a profit. Certainly it is a career choice but how many enter the profession with the expectation of becoming wealthy? How many are willing to slave away for 10 years earning next to nothing and racking up hundreds of thousands in loans if they are not dedicated to the concept of helping the sick?

The profit aspect of healthcare is distorted way out of proportion to the real purpose of healthcare.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread Jesus never asked for payment for healing the sick. He did it out of love and compassion for the suffering of the sick. The Hippocratic Oath is not about how much to charge, it is about dealing with the ailments of people.

Here is the modern version used by Johns Hopkins.

Hippocratic Oath (Modern version)

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today. ​

Hippocratic Oath Modern version - Bioethics - Library Guides at Johns Hopkins University

Nowhere does it mention the term profit.

The fundamental difference is your perception of healthcare versus mine.

To me healthcare is something that We the People must provide for the General Welfare of all. Because when we don't care for those less fortunate than ourselves we lessen ourselves as human beings. I don't begrudge the taxes I pay for the healthcare of others because to me that is just part of my duty as a citizen.

 

[Foxfyre]

Explain exactly how healthcare is vastly different to other shared resources?

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

While it is true that human resources are the personnel that serve a business or agency, are you suggesting that people are resources to be regulated and allocated by the government?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Explain exactly how healthcare is vastly different to other shared resources?

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

While it is true that human resources are the personnel that serve a business or agency, are you suggesting that people are resources to be regulated and allocated by the government?

Nope! I am just using the term because it is the appropriate one for this discussion. If you prefer I could call them medical professionals. Doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other.

 

[Foxfyre]

Healthcare is not a shared resource. It is a service/product sold by healthcare providers just as food is sold by a supermarket or houses or business spaces are sold by developers or office supplies are sold by Staples or Office Depot. A shared resource is the air we all must breathe--there is no way to separate out some for the use of one person and other for the use of another. Or water in an aquifer that spans a number of properties or counties or water in a river that is shared by multiple states.

Therein lies the rub!

You perceive healthcare as a product from which profits must be derived.

Did Florence Nightingale share your profit motive? How about Albert Schweitzer? Or Doctors without Borders? Are the healthcare workers putting their lives on the line in Liberia and Sierra Leone doing it to make a profit?

Helathcare is not just about making a profit. Certainly it is a career choice but how many enter the profession with the expectation of becoming wealthy? How many are willing to slave away for 10 years earning next to nothing and racking up hundreds of thousands in loans if they are not dedicated to the concept of helping the sick?

The profit aspect of healthcare is distorted way out of proportion to the real purpose of healthcare.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread Jesus never asked for payment for healing the sick. He did it out of love and compassion for the suffering of the sick. The Hippocratic Oath is not about how much to charge, it is about dealing with the ailments of people.

Here is the modern version used by Johns Hopkins.

Hippocratic Oath (Modern version)

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today. ​

Hippocratic Oath Modern version - Bioethics - Library Guides at Johns Hopkins University

Nowhere does it mention the term profit.

The fundamental difference is your perception of healthcare versus mine.

To me healthcare is something that We the People must provide for the General Welfare of all. Because when we don't care for those less fortunate than ourselves we lessen ourselves as human beings. I don't begrudge the taxes I pay for the healthcare of others because to me that is just part of my duty as a citizen.

Again you have dishonestly mischaracterized what I said. I did not say that profits must be derived from healthcare. I have never said that profits must be derived from food or clothing or office supplies either.

But it is a tortuous and indefensible stretch to suggest that delivery of healthcare is any different than delivery of food, shelter, or clothing or any other necessity of life or even those things that allow us to be happier or more productive humans.

Why is it more in the interest of the 'general welfare' for the government to control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price when it does not (yet) presume to do that for food, water, or shelter or any other necessities of life?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The libertarian Utopian paradigm is completely devoid of merit and substance.

The notions of corporate 'self-regulation' and the 'benevolent employer' are naïve and unfounded; as is the advocacy of returning to pre-Lochner Commerce Clause jurisprudence and the anachronism that is 'liberty to contract.'

It is no longer the 18th Century, most Americans no longer live on farms or in small towns with itinerant workers traveling the labor circuit. For over 100 years now the relationship between employer and employee has been one where the former enjoys the greater advantage, often at the expense of the latter. Current Commerce Clause jurisprudence is necessary, proper, and Constitutional – reflecting the economic reality that is 21st Century America, where there is no 'going back,' regardless how much reactionary libertarians might want to try.

 

[dblack]

Explain exactly how healthcare is vastly different to other shared resources?

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And you don't understand how they're different from shared property?

Your fallacious assumptions are not my problem.

If you expect me to recognize your claim on the service of others as your right, they are.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Healthcare is not a shared resource. It is a service/product sold by healthcare providers just as food is sold by a supermarket or houses or business spaces are sold by developers or office supplies are sold by Staples or Office Depot. A shared resource is the air we all must breathe--there is no way to separate out some for the use of one person and other for the use of another. Or water in an aquifer that spans a number of properties or counties or water in a river that is shared by multiple states.

Therein lies the rub!

You perceive healthcare as a product from which profits must be derived.

Did Florence Nightingale share your profit motive? How about Albert Schweitzer? Or Doctors without Borders? Are the healthcare workers putting their lives on the line in Liberia and Sierra Leone doing it to make a profit?

Helathcare is not just about making a profit. Certainly it is a career choice but how many enter the profession with the expectation of becoming wealthy? How many are willing to slave away for 10 years earning next to nothing and racking up hundreds of thousands in loans if they are not dedicated to the concept of helping the sick?

The profit aspect of healthcare is distorted way out of proportion to the real purpose of healthcare.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread Jesus never asked for payment for healing the sick. He did it out of love and compassion for the suffering of the sick. The Hippocratic Oath is not about how much to charge, it is about dealing with the ailments of people.

Here is the modern version used by Johns Hopkins.

Hippocratic Oath (Modern version)

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today. ​

Hippocratic Oath Modern version - Bioethics - Library Guides at Johns Hopkins University

Nowhere does it mention the term profit.

The fundamental difference is your perception of healthcare versus mine.

To me healthcare is something that We the People must provide for the General Welfare of all. Because when we don't care for those less fortunate than ourselves we lessen ourselves as human beings. I don't begrudge the taxes I pay for the healthcare of others because to me that is just part of my duty as a citizen.

Again you have dishonestly mischaracterized what I said. I did not say that profits must be derived from healthcare. I have never said that profits must be derived from food or clothing or office supplies either.

But it is a tortuous and indefensible stretch to suggest that delivery of healthcare is any different than delivery of food, shelter, or clothing or any other necessity of life or even those things that allow us to be happier or more productive humans.

Why is it more in the interest of the 'general welfare' for the government to control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price when it does not (yet) presume to do that for food, water, or shelter or any other necessities of life?

Again you have dishonestly mischaracterized what I said.

How ironic that you make that false accusation and then follow it with this malicious mischaracterization of what I actually posted.

Why is it more in the interest of the 'general welfare' for the government to control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price

Let's expose the former by asking this all too obvious question...if the private sector is not in the business of making a profit then why is there a private sector at all? So given that the private sector is in the business of making profits it does so out of healthcare too, right? All I did was quote you exactly so there was no "mischaracterization" on my part of what you posted or your position.

As far as your mischaracterization of the latter is concerned where did I post that government has the right to "control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price"?

You cannot point to a single thing that I have posted that supports your canard.

What I have done is make the case that healthcare and profits are not a good combination because they end up denying the least fortunate their access to affordable healthcare. I have also made the case that in order for healthcare to be equitably distributed that can only happen via a central non profit agency that treats everyone equally. I have established that affordable healthcare for all is in the best interests of this nation as a whole and I have debunked your claims that there is bloat and self serving in Medicare.

Since we live in a free society there is nothing stopping anyone from setting themselves up in the private sector and offering "premium" healthcare services for a profit. But when it comes to the fact that everyone requires affordable healthcare at some stages in their life the best means of providing it equitably is from a single nationwide non profit organization.

If you insist upon objecting to this falling under the Federal government then an independent non profit agency could be formed to do the same thing. Payroll deductions could be funneled in directly via the IRS and it could be managed as a single payer for all healthcare services provided to the American people. None of the healthcare providers would be "controlled" by this agency (just as Medicare doesn't control them either). They would just be doing the same jobs in the same careers but would be paid via the single payer non profit instead of the for profit private sector.

This makes fiscal sense too because by eliminating the profit overhead which only gives us 80 cents of healthcare for every dollar in the private sector compared to 98 cents of healthcare for every dollar in the non profit single payer alternative. Healthcare professionals will be better off because they will get more money from the single payer non profit than they do from the for profit private sector right now. (Note that currently Medicare deals only with the most expensive sector of the population. Once the pool is expanded to the entire population there will be more funding for the same coverage.)

The concept is identical to what we have right now with Medicare and it works for millions of Americans. Why break what works and works well? Just expand it to ensure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare. It doesn't matter if it comes via the non profit Federal government or a non profit single payer agency. The end result is the same by ensuring that everyone has affordable healthcare.

Isn't that the humane thing that a "good and moral people" would do in a civilized society?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Explain exactly how healthcare is vastly different to other shared resources?

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And you don't understand how they're different from shared property?

Your fallacious assumptions are not my problem.

If you expect me to recognize your claim on the service of others as your right, they are.

Except that I am not making any such claim. The onus is on you to prove your specious allegation.

 

[Olde Europe]

Well thanks anyway for making my point that most progressives seem unable to argue a point of view without using straw men, non sequitur, personal insults, and ad hominem. If I had to pick one single trait of progressivism to dispute it, it would be the fact that most people who embrace that ideology cannot articulate an objective rationale for their point of view.

Yeah, we've seen this wager before about "liberals cannot make a cogent argument". How did that go for you? (In case you don't remember, you lost.)

I have by now also a good idea as to how this "perception" came to pass, and is being regularly reinforced: You plainly ignore arguments you cannot rebut. Instead you reduce yourself to catapulting Heritage-Cato-Birch propaganda whilst pretending to address your opponents' arguments.

As to why healthcare should be universal, that should be an easy argument to make: It's the decent thing to do, which is why the developed world does it (except for the U.S.). It provides for a healthier workforce, thus boosts productivity. It prevents unnecessary suffering from protracted, chronic diseases due to maladies going untreated. It rectifies a part of the blatant unfairness of the U.S. economic system. It makes controlling epidemics in an ever more intertwined world far easier and more efficient. It is, in the end, more efficient than the healthcare system pre ACA. Oh, and did I mention, as much as it angers the short-sighted I-Me-Mine crowd, it's the decent thing to do?

___________________________________________

The information provided at the link that you quote, if it is correct, is horrifying, simply horrifying. The USA may be in the process of losing the good part of two Southern states to the ocean. That is extremely bad news.

Whilst losing a few square miles of land is bad, the damage is confined to the people living there. Hence, whilst certainly terrible for those directly affected, in the greater scheme of things it isn't the real problem.

The real problem is that corporate interests bought politicians in order to thwart / de-fund counter-measures and to emasculate the judiciary in order to avoid accountability for their law-breaking. And that kind of problem, big corporations playing States and local communities like a fiddle, is pervasive wherever dominant industries meet feeble governments on the hook (in the form of taxes or campaign donations), thus reducing citizens enjoying enlightened self-government to serfs of corporate interests. And that is exactly the base intent of the States' rights propagandists.

 

[dblack]

People aren't resources to be "shared". Does this really need to be explained to you?

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And you don't understand how they're different from shared property?

Your fallacious assumptions are not my problem.

If you expect me to recognize your claim on the service of others as your right, they are.

Except that I am not making any such claim. The onus is on you to prove your specious allegation.

My mistake then. I thought you were claiming healthcare should be ensured by government as a right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'If you insist upon objecting to this falling under the Federal government then an independent non profit agency could be formed to do the same thing. Payroll deductions could be funneled in directly via the IRS and it could be managed as a single payer for all healthcare services provided to the American people. None of the healthcare providers would be "controlled" by this agency (just as Medicare doesn't control them either). They would just be doing the same jobs in the same careers but would be paid via the single payer non profit instead of the for profit private sector.'

And in fact there's no point in creating a private non-profit entity to administer such a program save that of appeasing those on the right; the time, effort, and money to do so could be better spent elsewhere, and there's no evidence private non-profits do a better job than public sector entities – it's just another manifestation of the 'privatization' fad that came into vogue during the late 90s.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You just violated the rules of the experiment.

FYI people are resources which is why HR stands for Human Resources.

Human resources - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And you don't understand how they're different from shared property?

Your fallacious assumptions are not my problem.

If you expect me to recognize your claim on the service of others as your right, they are.

Except that I am not making any such claim. The onus is on you to prove your specious allegation.

My mistake then. I thought you were claiming healthcare should be ensured by government as a right.

Government has an obligation under the Constitution to "provide for" the "General Welfare" of We the People. Providing affordable healthcare is not a right of the people themselves but it is a duty of the government OF the people and FOR the people to ensure their welfare.