Greg G. wrote:
J. Clarke said:
Greg G. wrote:
In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.
People need NASA to live? Do tell.
Actually, and you'll love this, it can be argued that we do -
buncha bull**** snipped
So, since according to you we _need_ NASA to live, how is that in the
approximately 99,950 years that elapsed between the birth of the first human
and the founding of NASA, humanity did not become extinct due to lack of
NASA?
But here is another reason that should satisfy the chickenhawks. Since
the dawn of the nuclear age we have had reasonably plentiful supplies
of Helium-3.
buncha more bull**** snipped
So, what does it cost to make two tons a year of it by fusion or in particle
accelerators? What does it cost to mine 200 million tons a year of lunar
regolith?
Of course, I'm dismissing transportation and injecting ample sarcasm,
but you get the idea...
If the idea is that someone is a loon, then, yeah, I'm getting it. And how
is any of what you describe essential to life?
The founders carefully considered what the government should pay for
and listed it in the Constitution. There is nothing there about the
government paying for medical treatment. And schools, police, and
fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
parks. I don't know what a "community power consortium" is but
there is certainly no Federally funded power grid.
Things have changed quite a bit since the founders wrote the
Constitution.
However the specific provisions of the Constitution have not changed. If
you want to change it, change it. Ignoring it is a dangerous path.
While I'm not going to even suggest that we usurp the
basic tenets of that document, this is not the same world that existed
in 1789.
That's true. It was not ruled by whining do-gooders with their hands out
then.
I believe they left sufficient wiggle room for adaptation. As
for what is not funded by the Federal government, I know quite a few
municipalities that would freak (and fold) if you told them Federal
funds were no longer available.
Which municipalities would those be? And which funds?
The Federal government disburses money
to areas in need based upon needs and census. There are also numerous
Federal programs and grants which promote development of various civil
infrastructure needs.
Perhaps a confusing phrase, but community power consortiums are power
boards and utilities which are owned by local governments, and thus
the people who live there, and sell power, water, sewage, gas, and
garbage service to the residents in lieu of private power/utility/gas
companies. One such example would be from Newt Gingrich's launch pad
in extremely "conservative" Marietta, GA. The Marietta Board of Lights
and Water has been an extremely successful publicly owned municipal
purveyor of services since 1906. They buy power from the grid at
competitive rates and sell to citizens at below GA Power and Cobb EMC
rates. The service is better as well as the locals know every power
pole, water pipe and transformer in their city - and have to face
their irate neighbors if service lapses.
In other words they businesses that have the power of government.
And I do believe that the TVA, among others, qualifies as a "Federally
funded power grid." They are, in fact, a prime link in the management
of the US power grid. The TVA is one of the largest producers of
electricity in the United States and acts as a regional power grid
reliability coordinator. Most of the nation's major hydropower systems
are federally managed. It's the coal, petrochemical and nuclear plants
which are primarily private.
You can believe anything you want to but if TVA is Federally funded it's
news to them.
Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf
And the government paying for it is going to alter those charts in
what way?
Controlling costs, believe it or not.
By what mechanism?
Removing the impetus for fraud
and unnecessary tests in order to pad bills, stuffing hospital beds to
maintain a given profit margin, purchasing drugs at competitive rates.
By what mechanism would the goverment operating as an insurer bring all this
about?
Canadians can purchase a script for Liptor for $33 and yet those in
the US pay anywhere from $125 to $334.
That's nice. Would anybody have even bothered to develop it for that price?
The final effect would be
remove thousands of outstretched hands that expect a cut of the cash
which flows through the health care system as it stands - which is the
root cause of much of the objections heard today. Everything else is
ginned up hysteria promoted by those who fear losing their cash cow.
Health care is not an option - you cannot simply decide to forgo a
purchase because you can't afford it as you can a new car or a
tablesaw - unless death is a valid option for you. It is a captive
market controlled by what is proving to be rank profiteers.
Which "hands" would be removed by the government acting as an insurance
company?
Additionally, acrimony aside, contrary to the private system a
government run system allows citizens to have input as to what and how
these things are run.
When the Post Office stops bombarding me with junk mail get back to me.
Don't like the way things operate? You have the
option of voting the incompetents out of office.
And where, and when, exactly, has this resulted in improvement?
Ever try that with a
hospital, HMO, insurance company, or medical lab? Ha! **** and moan
too much and security will toss you're ass out in the street and the
insurance company will drop your coverage, if they haven't already
refused coverage for a given procedure.
So how will the government acting as insurer change any of this?
Currently, insurance companies
are refusing to cover people who have headaches, mild depression, and
other routine medical ailments. Commonplace operations that are so
pedestrian that they've been performed on kitchen tables in the 1800s
are now priced so high that victims have to sell their homes, enter
bankruptcy, leech from their children just to pay the bills. The bulk
of medical care is not MRIs and brain surgeries - they are common
ailments that demand no unusual skills or treatment techniques.
Removing a bullet used to cost a few chickens and a basket of apples -
drag that into your local hospital and see how far you get...
And the government acting as insurance company will change this how?
FWIW,
Which is less than I paid for it.