Right to Privacy

[2manyrocks]

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism,
but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans
small doses of Socialism
until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."

- Soviet -Russia Leader ~ Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

What gives me the right to tell all the rest of you what to do?

Then nothing gets done. So suppose we agree to contribute to building a road that we all use. No problem there because we agreed to it.

On a certain level, we are operating by mutual agreement. The government undertakes certain activities "with the consent of the governed." The underlying premise is that the government acts in a representative capacity on behalf of all of us to accomplish that upon which we have agreed upon.

From that idea, if there is very substantial opposition to something, perhaps it's something we ought not to undertake because concensus is lacking and out of respect for the freedom of others.

But when any group goes beyond consent and starts operating in opposition to the consent of the governed, call it whatever you want--there have been various names for it in history: slavery, depotism, dictatorship, communism, etc.

I remember LBJ from living through those years and not because of what somebody wrote about him in a history book later. I remember people being sent to a place they didn't want to go for a cause they didn't support. I remember what came after him. Stagflation from overspending, interest rates that destroyed farmers and some guys in Iran thumbing their noses at the USA for months on end. The ghettos are still there. Although we have some well paid civil servants, we still have poor people among us.

If you really think the government acts out of compassion remember what I said about the defenseless, blind, bedridden, old lady in the nursing home for whom the government denied benefits.

The politicians pass programs because it means votes for the politicians, but the folks who do the work get the bill for their benevolence and for their reckless spending and governance.

I know a guy who murdered his estranged wife and her two elementary age children. The evidence that sent him to death row was an enhanced 911 tape of the children pleading for their lives. It's been over 20 years, and he's still sitting on death row. Those kids should have been grown and having families of their own by now. The state should have carried out his sentence a long time ago.

Government wasn't viewed as a friend of the people by the guys who wrote our Constitution. They knew what it was like to live under the thumb of a king. They wrote our Constitution to put limits on the government in order to protect our rights and freedoms. Each generation has the responsibility of protecting those rights and freedoms and passing them on undiminished to the next.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

What gives me the right to tell all the rest of you what to do?

Then nothing gets done. So suppose we agree to contribute to building a road that we all use. No problem there because we agreed to it.

On a certain level, we are operating by mutual agreement. The government undertakes certain activities "with the consent of the governed." The underlying premise is that the government acts in a representative capacity on behalf of all of us to accomplish that upon which we have agreed upon.

From that idea, if there is very substantial opposition to something, perhaps it's something we ought not to undertake because concensus is lacking and out of respect for the freedom of others.

But when any group goes beyond consent and starts operating in opposition to the consent of the governed, call it whatever you want--there have been various names for it in history: slavery, depotism, dictatorship, communism, etc.

I remember LBJ from living through those years and not because of what somebody wrote about him in a history book later. I remember people being sent to a place they didn't want to go for a cause they didn't support. I remember what came after him. Stagflation from overspending, interest rates that destroyed farmers and some guys in Iran thumbing their noses at the USA for months on end. The ghettos are still there. Although we have some well paid civil servants, we still have poor people among us.

If you really think the government acts out of compassion remember what I said about the defenseless, blind, bedridden, old lady in the nursing home for whom the government denied benefits.

The politicians pass programs because it means votes for the politicians, but the folks who do the work get the bill for their benevolence and for their reckless spending and governance.

I know a guy who murdered his estranged wife and her two elementary age children. The evidence that sent him to death row was an enhanced 911 tape of the children pleading for their lives. It's been over 20 years, and he's still sitting on death row. Those kids should have been grown and having families of their own by now. The state should have carried out his sentence a long time ago.

Government wasn't viewed as a friend of the people by the guys who wrote our Constitution. They knew what it was like to live under the thumb of a king. They wrote our Constitution to put limits on the government in order to protect our rights and freedoms. Each generation has the responsibility of protecting those rights and freedoms and passing them on undiminished to the next.

So, NOBODY wants to watch the video?

 

[MossRoad]

Moss;
BIG difference that I have pointed out before,all the services that you mention(police, fire etc) are taxed at the local level.

They are all socialist programs.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

They are all socialist programs.

No, they are programs in any functioning society, be it capitalist, communist, or socialist.
My point AGAIN, is that they being taxed at the local level is which is what is SPECIFIED in the Constitution.

 

[dave1949]

Dave,
In my time I have seen innocent people go to jail and be executed,and when you think that the government is not the driving force behind it you IMHO are being naive.
You don't have to look to far to see examples of what I'm talking about. If you want, I can trot some out. But I think that you can think of many examples yourself

Oh, I am aware of that. Many of those people exhonerated by DNA are examples. Also police and prosecutors can be highly 'selective' as to how they go about enforcing the laws. There is no doubt, if a person finds themselves in serious doo doo in the legal system, they better have a darn good lawyer; innocent or otherwise.

I would guess, certainly don't know, that grand juries seldom reject the charges presented to them by prosecutors. That is an entirely one-sided gov't operation where the potential defendant has no rights - except perhaps privacy.

In the end though, it is a jury that ultimately determines your fate. I don't know of any crimes that carry a mandatory death penalty.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Oh, I am aware of that. Many of those people exhonerated by DNA are examples. Also police and prosecutors can be highly 'selective' as to how they go about enforcing the laws. There is no doubt, if a person finds themselves in serious doo doo in the legal system, they better have a darn good lawyer; innocent or otherwise.

I would guess, certainly don't know, that grand juries seldom reject the charges presented to them by prosecutors. That is an entirely one-sided gov't operation where the potential defendant has no rights - except perhaps privacy.

In the end though, it is a jury that ultimately determines your fate. I don't know of any crimes that carry a mandatory death penalty.
Dave.

Trust me on this one Dave, I HAVE experience
If government really wants you to go away, you WILL.

 

[2manyrocks]

They are all socialist programs.

The dictionary definition of socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Key word in that definition is "collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. "

The fact that we agree to provide for police, fire, schools, etc. does not in and of itself establish socialism. Socialism steps from "collective or governmental ownership of the means of production." Socialism means taking the means of production from the people and putting it under governmental control.

The Nazis were socialists, and remember how that turned out?

Stalin advocated collectivism, and remember how that turned out?

Think of what you were taught about FDR. Were you taught that his economic and political policies prolonged the Great Depression? Were you taught that he ran all over the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans in depriving them of their businesses and homes?

Remember the saying, "absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

Our Constitution was intended to limit the power of government to prevent these kinds of abuses. So the government chips away at the freedom of speech. So the government chips away at the freedom of religion. So the government chips away at the freedom of peaceful assembly. So the government chips away at private property. So the government chips away at the implied right of privacy. So it chips away this right and that right and pretty soon you have no rights, and you have become a slave of the state.

 

[brin]

The dictionary definition of socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Key word in that definition is "collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. "

The fact that we agree to provide for police, fire, schools, etc. does not in and of itself establish socialism. Socialism steps from "collective or governmental ownership of the means of production." Socialism means taking the means of production from the people and putting it under governmental control.

The Nazis were socialists, and remember how that turned out?

Stalin advocated collectivism, and remember how that turned out?

Think of what you were taught about FDR. Were you taught that his economic and political policies prolonged the Great Depression? Were you taught that he ran all over the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans in depriving them of their businesses and homes?

Remember the saying, "absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

Our Constitution was intended to limit the power of government to prevent these kinds of abuses. So the government chips away at the freedom of speech. So the government chips away at the freedom of religion. So the government chips away at the freedom of peaceful assembly. So the government chips away at private property. So the government chips away at the implied right of privacy. So it chips away this right and that right and pretty soon you have no rights, and you have become a slave of the state.

I totally and completely agree with this and your previous post...Very well said !

 

[MossRoad]

No, they are programs in any functioning society, be it capitalist, communist, or socialist.
My point AGAIN, is that they being taxed at the local level is which is what is SPECIFIED in the Constitution.

Social Security is a federal program.

 

[MossRoad]

Think of what you were taught about FDR. Were you taught that his economic and political policies prolonged the Great Depression? Were you taught that he ran all over the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans in depriving them of their businesses and homes?

I was taught with a map that showed the USA larger than the continent of Africa or the country of Canada. :laughing:

I wasn't taught much from the viewpoints of other countries in grade school or high school. I read about lots of this stuff well after school was over. I just learned a couple weeks ago that Japan was on the side of Britain in WWI, and while the U.S. remained neutral a German citizen/soldier bombed a railroad bridge between Maine and Canada in an attempt to disrupt the possible movement of Japanese troops from west to east through the U.S. to get to England to help them fight the Germans.

We weren't taught much about the decimation of the native Americans by the Europeans, either back then.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Social Security is a federal program.

I don't understand your point?
Yes Social Security Is taxed at the Federal level, So?
Police, fire, libraries, ARE and SHOULD be taxed at the local level, to ensure that the people being taxed have control over it.

 

[dave1949]

The dictionary definition of socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Key word in that definition is "collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. "

The fact that we agree to provide for police, fire, schools, etc. does not in and of itself establish socialism. Socialism steps from "collective or governmental ownership of the means of production." Socialism means taking the means of production from the people and putting it under governmental control.

The Nazis were socialists, and remember how that turned out?

Stalin advocated collectivism, and remember how that turned out?

In the context of health care, what means of production will the government take ownership of? Not the hospitals, doctors or insurance companies.

Some countries do have 'socialized' medicine. We can see how that turned out, they get less expensive health care with quality metrics higher than our own. Forget about the scare stories, for every one, there is an equivalent health care horror happening here - without a socialized health care system.

The health care bill ended up attempting to do one major thing - force an insurance pool to function as it must. We use insurance pools for auto, homes, life. It's simple, the vast majority of people prefer to pay a regular small amount to protect themselves from having to someday, maybe, pay a very large amount. The lucky ones subsidize the unlucky, the insurance company takes the 'house' cut on your bet. It's a fact of life, not socialism.

In the current health insurance pool, young and healthy people see no benefit to paying, low income people of any age cannot afford to pay, most retirees can not afford to pay. Those too sick to work cannot pay obviously. What's left are those who are paying for everyone - people wealthy enough to be self insured and people whose employers or businesses pay some portion of their health insurance in lieu of wages.

There are a couple things we know. The poor and infirm will never be able to pay. Young, healthy people will need care eventually. Wealthy people are paying too much, but since their wealth is made possible by the society around them, they have an economic incentive to help that society. The employers and working families who buy insurance can no longer afford the costs.

Costs are the other thing we know, as in ours are high and going higher. Those costs have to brought to a reasonable level somehow. As I said before, I hope politicians find the guts to do it, they won't unless we put some backbone into them. There are reasons why our health care is so expensive, it isn't magic.

You speak of majorities. Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?
Dave.

 

[keegs]

In the context of health care, what means of production will the government take ownership of? Not the hospitals, doctors or insurance companies.

Some countries do have 'socialized' medicine. We can see how that turned out, they get less expensive health care with quality metrics higher than our own. Forget about the scare stories, for every one, there is an equivalent health care horror happening here - without a socialized health care system.

The health care bill ended up attempting to do one major thing - force an insurance pool to function as it must. We use insurance pools for auto, homes, life. It's simple, the vast majority of people prefer to pay a regular small amount to protect themselves from having to someday, maybe, pay a very large amount. The lucky ones subsidize the unlucky, the insurance company takes the 'house' cut on your bet. It's a fact of life, not socialism.

In the current health insurance pool, young and healthy people see no benefit to paying, low income people of any age cannot afford to pay, most retirees can not afford to pay. Those too sick to work cannot pay obviously. What's left are those who are paying for everyone - people wealthy enough to be self insured and people whose employers or businesses pay some portion of their health insurance in lieu of wages.

There are a couple things we know. The poor and infirm will never be able to pay. Young, healthy people will need care eventually. Wealthy people are paying too much, but since their wealth is made possible by the society around them, they have an economic incentive to help that society. The employers and working families who buy insurance can no longer afford the costs.

Costs are the other thing we know, as in ours are high and going higher. Those costs have to brought to a reasonable level somehow. As I said before, I hope politicians find the guts to do it, they won't unless we put some backbone into them. There are reasons why our health care is so expensive, it isn't magic.

You speak of majorities. Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?
Dave.

wwwhhhoooaaaaaa.... wwwhhhoooaaaaaa.....wwwhhhoooooaaaaa

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

In the context of health care, what means of production will the government take ownership of? Not the hospitals, doctors or insurance companies.

Some countries do have 'socialized' medicine. We can see how that turned out, they get less expensive health care with quality metrics higher than our own. Forget about the scare stories, for every one, there is an equivalent health care horror happening here - without a socialized health care system.

The health care bill ended up attempting to do one major thing - force an insurance pool to function as it must. We use insurance pools for auto, homes, life. It's simple, the vast majority of people prefer to pay a regular small amount to protect themselves from having to someday, maybe, pay a very large amount. The lucky ones subsidize the unlucky, the insurance company takes the 'house' cut on your bet. It's a fact of life, not socialism.

In the current health insurance pool, young and healthy people see no benefit to paying, low income people of any age cannot afford to pay, most retirees can not afford to pay. Those too sick to work cannot pay obviously. What's left are those who are paying for everyone - people wealthy enough to be self insured and people whose employers or businesses pay some portion of their health insurance in lieu of wages.

There are a couple things we know. The poor and infirm will never be able to pay. Young, healthy people will need care eventually. Wealthy people are paying too much, but since their wealth is made possible by the society around them, they have an economic incentive to help that society. The employers and working families who buy insurance can no longer afford the costs.

Costs are the other thing we know, as in ours are high and going higher. Those costs have to brought to a reasonable level somehow. As I said before, I hope politicians find the guts to do it, they won't unless we put some backbone into them. There are reasons why our health care is so expensive, it isn't magic.

You speak of majorities. Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?
Dave.

1. The government will control the purse strings ergo control the "means".
2.The metrics(many of which are questionable) of which you speak are those of are those of cost. Personally I would rather have a degree of excellence metric when it comes to my health care, than one of cost.
3. The "scare" stories are real, why shouldn't we believe them?
4. Insurance is not Socialism. People enter into a voluntary pool. This bill will force people into a paying into a system that they have NO control over.
5.So the "wealthy" owe a debt to the "non-wealthy" who will benefit from this program?
6. If you want the costs to be brought to "a reasonable level" LET THE MARKET WORK!.
7. Question: Why do you think the costs of current health care are so high? Great article in the WSJ today about YOUR states Insurance Commissioner not allowing Insurance companies a profit this year, I'm sure that will do WONDERS for Health care in Maine . So STAY healthy Dave, there might not be too many more options soon!

 

[dave1949]

1. The government will control the purse strings ergo control the "means".
Not true. If I purchase insurance from a private company, how does the government control that? Sure, the gov't may force me into a pool, that is the idea.

2.The metrics(many of which are questionable) of which you speak are those of are those of cost. Personally I would rather have a degree of excellence metric when it comes to my health care, than one of cost.

Also not true. The problem is, our cost is high and our quality of care is average.

3. The "scare" stories are real, why shouldn't we believe them?

I didn't say don't believe them. I said we have our own medical horrors - do you deny that? If all of our care was perfect you would have a valid point, it isn't.

4. Insurance is not Socialism. People enter into a voluntary pool. This bill will force people into a paying into a system that they have NO control over.

You really believe most people have control now?

5.So the "wealthy" owe a debt to the "non-wealthy" who will benefit from this program?

Yet again not what I said. I said the wealthy derive their wealth from the society around them and they have an economic interest in the health of that society. Life is not a Monopoly Game where the game ends and one player and bank owns everything and then it's time to order pizza. In real life, no one in the game can afford for it to end. Somebody has to make the pizza.

6. If you want the costs to be brought to "a reasonable level" LET THE MARKET WORK!.

It would be fine for insurance companies to compete. The reality is since they are not actually providing care, they can only reduce costs by lowering their administrative overhead. I am not sure why we actually need them, but I will take your word for it

7. Question: Why do you think the costs of current health care are so high? Great article in the WSJ today about YOUR states Insurance Commissioner not allowing Insurance companies a profit this year, I'm sure that will do WONDERS for Health care in Maine . So STAY healthy Dave, there might not be too many more options soon!

Not that I think WSJ is biased, but - you answer my question and I'll answer yours - Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?

If you cannot, everything else is just noise because if there is to be a pool, it has to be real and undistorted, just like other functioning insurance pools.
Dave.

 

[riptides]

All I know for a fact is my cost have gone up, my service levels have gone down. Year after year after year.....

There must be a better way.

 

[2manyrocks]

All I know for a fact is my cost have gone up, my service levels have gone down. Year after year after year.....

There must be a better way.

Amen.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Not that I think WSJ is biased, but - you answer my question and I'll answer yours - Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?

If you cannot, everything else is just noise because if there is to be a pool, it has to be real and undistorted, just like other functioning insurance pools.
Dave.

Last first:
If I understand your question you are asking me if I can find a majority of people(Americans?) who are willing to buy health care without using a insurance pool?
My reply would be, why would they?
Insurance(real insurance, not a social welfare program, disguised as insurance) is a necessary and prudent thing to use in planning one's life.
REAL insurance has premiums based on actual risk, not some made up number to satisfy some voters.
Again, I agree that health costs are too high
AGAIN, WHY? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS DISTORTED THE MARKET!
As to the WSJ, if you can find me a paper that reports hard news any better, let me know, I will suscribe.
Horror stories: How about this? 20% of NHS facilities in the UK failed to pass BASIC hygiene tests(As reported in The Guardian, As Left as it gets) but facts are facts and hard to ignore. Please inform me which state in the US has a one out of five failure rate in their hospitals.
And also please tell me which state in the Union rations health care?
For everybody out there that thinks they are going to get something from the government for "free" Please explain to me why you are going to be paying into a system for Four years before receiving any benefit.
Did I answer you question?

 

[keegs]

Insurance companies won't insure old people, people who have pre-existing conditions and in some cases even people with insurance who become sick. In fact, if you're not double or triple covered and you require medical care, it's increasingly likely you'll be dissatisfied with your medical insurance policy.

The notion that left to its own devices the unfettered, free market would somehow solve this is ideological fantasy. It's blue skies, healthy forests, drill baby drill, tax cuts pay for themselves, Frank Luntz/Art Laffer garbage.

Our system costs double (almost triple the UK's) what others are paying around the world, leaves fifty million uninsured and produces mediocre results.

The system stifles our cost competitiveness, burdens taxpayers, industry and consumers, increases bankruptcy rates, promotes fear and anxiety and is responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.

We should have dumped this turd fifty years ago.

It's about time we did something about it.

 

[MikePA]

...and having the government run it will be better? How naive. There are plenty of people who are very happy with their health insurance, they just are not as vocal as the whiners and complainers. Having the government take over to 'fix' this so called problem is ridiculous. Comparing us to other countries is a vapid, worthless comparison, as if spending less is a virtue. Our 'costs' are the result of millions of people making individual choices, not a bureaucrat choosing a budget item. Sadly, this current change is permanent and will only get worse, however, when this happens all the people who were in favor of it will go silent.