Global Warming News

[dave1949]

So far, we have had a warm winter here in Maine.

I think it is important to keep in mind that generally, gov't regulation results from a majority of people supporting an idea or shared goal. Regulations are not disembodied mandates from 'the gov't'. Sometimes the debate takes a long time to reach concensus on solutions that are favored by a majority. That's certainly true with health care issues if you look at the history of attempts to improve it.

I think we may have taken a wrong turn when employers began to make health care insurance part of compensation. That created a pool of money that attracted a lot of shenanigans that are playing out now.

For health care, the majority of people do think there is room for improvement I would guess. The cost, availability, and quality can all stand improvement. I don't think it is pointless to compare the US to other countries in this regard. That is like saying we shouldn't 'grade' our own efforts to continue to be a 1st World country.

One of the strengths of the US has always been the ability to compromise around a solution that is seen by the majority to be equitable. We do ourselves a disservice by advocating adherence to strict free market principles - no matter what. That isn't the way the country works now and never has been. What has always worked is compromising a bit on ideals for a better outcome. It's fine to hold to the ideal that the more advantage we give to free market forces, the better off we will be. It's not true that totally unfettered free markets will always solve or prevent problems. Our own history demostrates that.

Compromise is pretty much the opposite of what took place early on in communist countries, the perfection of an ideal was everything to them and it cost them dearly.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

So far, we have had a warm winter here in Maine.

I think it is important to keep in mind that generally, gov't regulation results from a majority of people supporting an idea or shared goal. Regulations are not disembodied mandates from 'the gov't'. Sometimes the debate takes a long time to reach concensus on solutions that are favored by a majority. That's certainly true with health care issues if you look at the history of attempts to improve it.

I think we may have taken a wrong turn when employers began to make health care insurance part of compensation. That created a pool of money that attracted a lot of shenanigans that are playing out now.

For health care, the majority of people do think there is room for improvement I would guess. The cost, availability, and quality can all stand improvement. I don't think it is pointless to compare the US to other countries in this regard. That is like saying we shouldn't 'grade' our own efforts to continue to be a 1st World country.

One of the strengths of the US has always been the ability to compromise around a solution that is seen by the majority to be equitable. We do ourselves a disservice by advocating adherence to strict free market principles - no matter what. That isn't the way the country works now and never has been. What has always worked is compromising a bit on ideals for a better outcome. It's fine to hold to the ideal that the more advantage we give to free market forces, the better off we will be. It's not true that totally unfettered free markets will always solve or prevent problems. Our own history demostrates that.

Compromise is pretty much the opposite of what took place early on in communist countries, the perfection of an ideal was everything to them and it cost them dearly.
Dave.

Good Morning Dave,
I agree that free markets will not aways prevent problems, but I would disagree that it will not always solve problems.
I think that most people make rational decisions regarding how they live their lives. In a truly free market I can decide to buy health insurance, or not buy health insurance, based on the infinite number of variables faced by anyone making an economic decision. Government cannot be expected to make these kind of rational decisions.
The US Constitution limits the amount of power of the Federal government, with very good reason, The Founders feared an all powerful government that controlled their lives.
So if you truly believe that you will be better off supporting "the public option"God bless, but I fear for our future if it ever becomes law

 

[turbo36]

All this is beside the point and irrelevant. It's not the federal government's job to run healthcare.

That's not a fact, that's just your opinion.
If in a democracy the majority of the people want a certian system then so be it. Those that disagree are bound to follow those systems until they are legally changed. Short of armed rebellion there is no other way.

 

[turbo36]

Good Morning Dave,
I agree that free markets will not aways prevent problems, but I would disagree that it will not always solve problems.
I think that most people make rational decisions regarding how they live their lives. In a truly free market I can decide to buy health insurance, or not buy health insurance, based on the infinite number of variables faced by anyone making an economic decision. Government cannot be expected to make these kind of rational decisions.
The US Constitution limits the amount of power of the Federal government, with very good reason, The Founders feared an all powerful government that controlled their lives.
So if you truly believe that you will be better off supporting "the public option"God bless, but I fear for our future if it ever becomes law

Perhaps you should look at this under the context of which services should the government provide? Why should I support a library when I can afford to buy my own books or maybe I can't read?
I have no children so why should I pay a school tax?
Fire departments are a complete waste of my money, I've never had a fire and don't intend to have one.
Roads and streets? Let the those that live on the streets build them and maintain them. Why should I pay for a highway to Chicago when I never plan on going there??

Other the the military what should the government do? In fact, maybe we don't even need the military if we outsource our protection. Think about it, they average Chinese worker makes $.80/hr, why not contract with the Chinese Government to protect us?

Well, I just came to the conclusion that Government in unnecessary so lets abolish it and let the quickest draw and the surest shot rise to the top of the food chain.

 

[keegs]

Perhaps you should look at this under the context of which services should the government provide? Why should I support a library when I can afford to buy my own books or maybe I can't read?
I have no children so why should I pay a school tax?
Fire departments are a complete waste of my money, I've never had a fire and don't intend to have one.
Roads and streets? Let the those that live on the streets build them and maintain them. Why should I pay for a highway to Chicago when I never plan on going there??

Other the the military what should the government do? In fact, maybe we don't even need the military if we outsource our protection. Think about it, they average Chinese worker makes $.80/hr, why not contract with the Chinese Government to protect us?

Well, I just came to the conclusion that Government in unnecessary so lets abolish it and let the quickest draw and the surest shot rise to the top of the food chain.

Yeeeehaaa!!!

 

[MikePA]

That's not a fact, that's just your opinion.
If in a democracy the majority of the people want a certian system then so be it. Those that disagree are bound to follow those systems until they are legally changed. Short of armed rebellion there is no other way.

No, it's not my opinion. The federal government cannot force people to buy something, i.e., take their money, regardless of what the people want. Particularly with the monetary and criminal penalties involved. It's called the due process clause to the constitution. Oh by the way, the majority of people don't want this.

 

[MikePA]

Yeeeehaaa!!!

Yep, this thread has now sunk to the absurd level of analogies. Another 'I've lost the argument so it's time to ridcule' tactic.

 

[20 20]

No, it's not my opinion. The federal government cannot force people to buy something, i.e., take their money, regardless of what the people want. .

WRONG!!! Everyday we are forced to pay, by the government. The wrapping on the box is just a disguise

 

[MikePA]

WRONG!!! Everyday we are forced to pay, by the government. The wrapping on the box is just a disguise

What other product does the government force you to buy simply because you exist?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Perhaps you should look at this under the context of which services should the government provide? Why should I support a library when I can afford to buy my own books or maybe I can't read?
I have no children so why should I pay a school tax?
Fire departments are a complete waste of my money, I've never had a fire and don't intend to have one.
Roads and streets? Let the those that live on the streets build them and maintain them. Why should I pay for a highway to Chicago when I never plan on going there??

Other the the military what should the government do? In fact, maybe we don't even need the military if we outsource our protection. Think about it, they average Chinese worker makes $.80/hr, why not contract with the Chinese Government to protect us?

Well, I just came to the conclusion that Government in unnecessary so lets abolish it and let the quickest draw and the surest shot rise to the top of the food chain.

How about the powers and duties mandated in the US Constitution.

That would be the "context" that I would like to see the Federal Government provide services in.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Perhaps you should look at this under the context of which services should the government provide? Why should I support a library when I can afford to buy my own books or maybe I can't read?
I have no children so why should I pay a school tax?
Fire departments are a complete waste of my money, I've never had a fire and don't intend to have one.
Roads and streets? Let the those that live on the streets build them and maintain them. Why should I pay for a highway to Chicago when I never plan on going there??

Other the the military what should the government do? In fact, maybe we don't even need the military if we outsource our protection. Think about it, they average Chinese worker makes $.80/hr, why not contract with the Chinese Government to protect us?

Well, I just came to the conclusion that Government in unnecessary so lets abolish it and let the quickest draw and the surest shot rise to the top of the food chain.

Further thought:
Do you think that the US Constitution is a "Living" document? I.E. Can it be changed to suit a certain set of circumstances?
BTW We don't live in a democracy, we live in a Representative republic. There is a BIG difference

 

[Ken45101]

f a medicare type program covered everyone we would be much more efficient with our public dollars.

When has the federal government done anything efficiently?

"Government" and "efficient" cannot be put in the same sentenc, sorry

 

[20 20]

MikePA; Police, Fire department, schools, bike cycle trails, snowmobile trails, horse trails, monuments, houses for politicains, planes, cars, the list goes on...... I'm not saying some things aren't needed for a society but what about all the waste? There is more waste then what is needed. I can tell stories of BS spending while I was in the military, just so we could keep the money comming, month after month year after year. Local towns will spend when not needed, otherwise they get cuts. The government FORCES our spending all the time? If ya don't believe me when is the last time you had a cut in taxes

 

[turbo36]

Yep, this thread has now sunk to the absurd level of analogies. Another 'I've lost the argument so it's time to ridcule' tactic.

Absurd? You really need to get out more. I have a nephew that attended a college in Michigan that openly campaigned for the abolishment of all public school systems. It is their belief the God intended man to provide for the education of his children and not the state.

Lost the argument? Again you reality is quite different from mine. Analogies are intended to get someone to open their mind to a differing opinion. But they will only work if someone has the ability to step away from the ideology they worship and look around at the reality that surrounds them.

 

[keegs]

No, it's not my opinion. The federal government cannot force people to buy something, i.e., take their money, regardless of what the people want. Particularly with the monetary and criminal penalties involved. It's called the due process clause to the constitution. Oh by the way, the majority of people don't want this.

Mike,

If congress does pass healthcare and it contains a mandate, whether or not a mandate is constitutional would surely go through the courts.

But to say that a mandate is unconstitutional is clearly your opinion at this point.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Perhaps you should look at this under the context of which services should the government provide? Why should I support a library when I can afford to buy my own books or maybe I can't read?
I have no children so why should I pay a school tax?
Fire departments are a complete waste of my money, I've never had a fire and don't intend to have one.
Roads and streets? Let the those that live on the streets build them and maintain them. Why should I pay for a highway to Chicago when I never plan on going there??

Other the the military what should the government do? In fact, maybe we don't even need the military if we outsource our protection. Think about it, they average Chinese worker makes $.80/hr, why not contract with the Chinese Government to protect us?

Well, I just came to the conclusion that Government in unnecessary so lets abolish it and let the quickest draw and the surest shot rise to the top of the food chain.

Further thought:
To Clarify. All the things that you mention, Libraries,Police,fire etc. are taxed at the local level.
I have NO problem with that. Neither did the Framers of the Constitution. What they envisioned was States COMPETING with each other to provide the most for their citizens using the least amount of resources(taxes)
But, and its a big but, They limited the Federal Govt to a certain number of powers. Only those that needed to be preformed on a large scale, such as providing for the national defense. Hope this clarifies where I'm coming from.

 

[dave1949]

Good Morning Dave,
I agree that free markets will not aways prevent problems, but I would disagree that it will not always solve problems.
I think that most people make rational decisions regarding how they live their lives. In a truly free market I can decide to buy health insurance, or not buy health insurance, based on the infinite number of variables faced by anyone making an economic decision. Government cannot be expected to make these kind of rational decisions.
The US Constitution limits the amount of power of the Federal government, with very good reason, The Founders feared an all powerful government that controlled their lives.
So if you truly believe that you will be better off supporting "the public option"God bless, but I fear for our future if it ever becomes law

Good Morning to You!

I'm not advocating much of anything here. Just trying to step back and see some of the big picture. The Founders had good reason to fear an all powerful government. I think that was rational then and still is now.

I do think we need a government that is powerful enough to level the playing field occassionally when it serves the public interest. What the leveling mechanism should be in the case of health care, I don't know the answer. If I had to choose a solution, I would make all health insurers 'non-profit' entities with some finite definitions on what 'health insurance non-profit' means. That does not encumber their ability to compete. And, there has to be a way to reward those which are better run than others too. Some incentive that is real money but controlled or limited. After all, they are not adding real value to the system in the way that the inventor of a better CAT scan machine does, for example.

Health insurers spend millions on lobbying and buying huge amounts of ad time on TV, and do it with insurance premium money paid by their customers - who thought they were purchasing health care insurance - not ad time and congressional votes. There is room for improvement in that scenario. They are shameless and arrogant as an industry. A little reigning in is called for.
Dave.

 

[20 20]

Analogies are intended to get someone to open their mind to a differing opinion. But they will only work if someone has the ability to step away from the ideology they worship and look around at the reality that surrounds them.

How true this statement is for most things today. With a population that is growing out of control and so many different opinions there is no 1 way anymore. Gone are the days of bible thumpers and dictators, or is this just the beginning of the end? I've allways enjoyed one track minded folks, because they are so edjumcated.

 

[keegs]

MikePA; Police, Fire department, schools, bike cycle trails, snowmobile trails, horse trails, monuments, houses for politicains, planes, cars, the list goes on...... I'm not saying some things aren't needed for a society but what about all the waste? There is more waste then what is needed. I can tell stories of BS spending while I was in the military, just so we could keep the money comming, month after month year after year. Local towns will spend when not needed, otherwise they get cuts. The government FORCES our spending all the time? If ya don't believe me when is the last time you had a cut in taxes

I agree this is a tough issue to solve but this isn't unique to government. I've worked for large corporations all my life and experience the same dynamic.

 

[turbo36]

No, it's not my opinion. The federal government cannot force people to buy something, i.e., take their money, regardless of what the people want. Particularly with the monetary and criminal penalties involved. It's called the due process clause to the constitution. .

If this were true why are we even having a debate? According to you it's clearly unconstitutional. But wait why hasn't that argument gained any traction from the right wing news agencies? Oh yeah it isn't so. Show me where the Constitution prohibits a national health care system.

Oh by the way, the majority of people don't want this.

Mike, this one is too easy, quit throwing me softballs! You know as well as I that we can throw polls against each other all day long; for every poll you find to support "against", I can find one that supports "for".
Majority in U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform This Year