Thread: Where Do We Draw The Line?

Originally Posted by gugi

And the private industry is better? The medicare is more efficient than the private alternatives - check the reports with the numbers, not the propaganda.
Social security - let's compare it to what matters, the private citizen's version of it. Most people's assets (home value, stocks & bonds) are down by X%.
Post Office - compare to the alternative, a private company providing postal service to every household in the country. Let me ask you a question - why don't you use FedEx, UPS, or DHL for every single piece of mail you send out?
I also keep getting these 'USP innovations' packages from business who offer 'free shipping' for very low cost items. They drop them off at my local post office and have the USPS delivery person bring them to my house.

The government's role is to provide services for every single citizen. When you transfer that to a private business they provide these services only to those who are profitable to provide services to. It's that simple.
Then you draw the line at whatever place you value your individualism vs. your nationality.


Now, this one I don't believe for a second.

You haven't been following the news. Two doctors in this area have just been arrested for defrauding Medicare for millions.

So why should taxes pay billions for delivering mail? Charge what it really costs. Get rid of extra employees. Have you stood in line at the post office lately. Be prepared for slow service and frustration. This is because they have no one to answer to.

Social Security is bankrupt because the Democrats RAIDED the funds and added them to the general fund and spent the money.

Sure the government is supposed to provide services. Show me where it says anything about healthcare, retirement, and postal service in the constitution.

Have you heard of insider trading? The law that put Martha Stewart in jail? The legislators are in a perfect position to do this since they decide who gets what contracts. They are EXEMPT from insider trading. That's how they get rich. There was a law proposed in just the last few months to make it illegal and the law was rejected.

Originally Posted by gugi

Did I ever say that the international oil companies don't have high costs that they externalize? How about the security provided by the US international policies, backed by the US military, fully paid by the US taxpayers?

The only difference is the likelihood of these cost externalizations changing.


It's like asking for the low cost manufacturing to come back to the western world. If you allow for slavery, workers abuse, destruction of the environment all these jobs can be back from the 3rd world countries. The chances of this happening are pretty slim, but on the other hand the chances of people in the west continuing to support with their wallets the exact same things in far away lands are pretty high.

What you are talking about is the "re-shoring" of our manufacturing. It is happening slowly. People are starting to realize that mistakes caused by language barriers and extra shipping make third world costs more than was realized.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

What sense does it make to run the postal system at a loss? There are more postal employees now than they can use. Many are paid to sit in a room and not work because they are unionized and can't be fired. Making it public and adding competition would make the price and employee levels make sense.

Healthcare costs are rising faster right now because of Obamacare before it is even fully implemented. Mandates like kids until 26 years old and mandated freebies are already driving up costs.

We already have doctors refusing Blue Cross patients because Blue Cross doesn't pay. Obamacare is promising the same end. Doctors will be forced to treat more for less and many will just quit.

I just hope the Supreme Court sees that it is Unconstitutional and throws out the whole law.

The legislators need to READ the law before they vote on it. Pelosie's statement, "We need to pass this law so we can find out what's in it", AAARRRGGGHHHHH!!

I'm not trying to be rude, but this seems to be just following the party line...unions are bad, obamacare will ruin everything...

So we dump the post office since it runs at a loss and now we can only use ups or dhl?

How are lots of countries able to have fully functional government health care programs (which, arguably, take better care of their people than we do) and if we try to go that route, everything will come crumbling down? People making a profit off my well being scares me more than socialized medicine...

Originally Posted by Crotalus

You haven't been following the news. Two doctors in this area have just been arrested for defrauding Medicare for millions.

And Bernie Madoff went to prison defrauding investors for tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Your point?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

So why should taxes pay billions for delivering mail?

Do they? First I'd like you to tell me how much has USPS taken from the US taxpayer. And then I want you to read Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Sure the government is supposed to provide services. Show me where it says anything about healthcare, retirement, and postal service in the constitution.

If the constitution was meant to be the sole law in USA then the US Congress would not have been established.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Have you heard of insider trading? The law that put Martha Stewart in jail? The legislators are in a perfect position to do this since they decide who gets what contracts. They are EXEMPT from insider trading. That's how they get rich. There was a law proposed in just the last few months to make it illegal and the law was rejected.

Perhaps you ought to start reading news instead of propaganda.
Obama signs insider trading bill, wants more curbs on Congress | Reuters

Originally Posted by Crotalus

You haven't been following the news. Two doctors in this area have just been arrested for defrauding Medicare for millions.

By the same token we should ban all handguns because someone once shot someone else?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

You don't have to be able to afford healthcare. It has always been and is still free for the needy. You just have to put up with the long lines at the designated Emergency Room.

Yes. And then they'll be stuck with a 100K$ bill because they were unlucky enough to need a moderately complex procedure, and they're bankrupted immediately. How compassionate.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

What will fix our healthcare will take a long time but you can see the results of the proper direction in a few areas. Right now healthcare costs so much because people on insurance don't know or care what it costs. They only care about their deductible.

It costs so much because it is not affordable without insurance. Ans since the insurance companies then have to pay for everything, hospitals can charge more. And dont' forget the lawyers and insurance companies.

If every person requires on average 100$ of coverage per year here, then it will be about the same in the US, right? Assuming averages work out more or less. Only in the US, each person also contributes to the profit of the insurance companies, and the lawyers that make the entire wheel go round.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Lasik surgery, back treatments, lap bands, body scanning, and others are affordable and wide spread because they are in competition with each other with advertised prices. I think if all medicine was exposed to the free market like this prices would come down dramatically and quality would improve at the same time. The same is true of insurance. If companies were free to compete across state lines insurance rates would improve as well.

Because those are all optional treatements. You can elect not to have them.
Otoh, if your appendix needs to come out or you're having a heart attack or you break a leg, you don't have the option of choosing not to have surgery at the nearest hospital.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

We need less regulation, not more.

Because big business has proven many times over that if they're not regulated, they compete fairly to the betterment of the customers?

To elaborate on what I wrote earlier - what I see as balance:

Government should be able to afford itself
This is pretty self explanatory... The only question is "how?"
In my opinion the best solution is for government to maintain relatively low tax rates, do what it can to promote economic growth - and absolutely not spend more than it takes in.

Government should ensure the liberty of the people
IOW - criminal law. This is not just protecting the physical safety, but also property rights. That includes regulations that prevent business entities from ripping off the people, while not passing laws that over-reach that point. Yeah, there are lots of laws on the books because some idiot somewhere tried to rip people off - those idiots deserve to be incarcerated (note I didn't refer to an evil corporation - most corporations, or large companies are not evil!). Laws that go beyond simple protection of health / safety / property rights are not needed.

Government should not pass laws that change supply / demand of any product or service
Price controls, floors, ceilings, and subsidies have been shown historically to cause more harm than good in the long run.

Government should not spend its time on social or religious issues
This, in my opinion, is not the realm of government. It doesn't matter which way these laws go - it amounts to one side of an issue imposing its will on the other. That is not freedom.

Government should not pass legislation based on news headlines
This is one of the biggest for me - uninformed legislators fighting to be the first to get their name in the news with a popular story that people are following. Probably more stupid laws have been passed as a result of this than anything else.
Also interesting, and ultimately what changed my view of politics - is that a party will go against it's own core values to try and promote itself in the manner they see public opinion going. Amusingly, the other party takes the opposite stance, because the nature of a (ridiculous) two-party system is that you can't be in agreement with the other guys.

Government should not pass "feel good" laws or resolutions
It is not the business of government to waste time on things like baseball or whether a family has a right to "pull the plug" on a brain-dead family member.
It is also pointless to spend time on resolutions regarding stuff school kids send in.

Government should not be a means to a lifestyle
I am all for programs that provide insurance against catastrophe and help people get back on their feet or help to those that are stuck at the bottom due to circumstances beyond their control.
I am absolutely not ok with programs that allow people to use the government as their sole means of living indefinitely, or as a subsidy for people that are not in a situation where a subsidy is necessary.
I may not be expressing myself clearly - the point is that I am in favor of programs that help people become productive members of society. I just think that the maximum level that's paid out by these programs is WAY too high. Doesn't it seem a little incongruous to be on food stamps and getting $8k a year "back" in taxes (when $0 is paid in) while living in a 1400 square foot apartment with a car lease of $400 / month and taking a week long trip to Mexico every spring?

Oh - and don't tell me what I can or can't eat, and for God's sake - keep your hands off my guns!

There is no such thing as free health care. Those with insurance pay for those who do not have it and can't afford to pay.

Also the idea you can just saunter in to the local emergency room and get you problem taken care of is total myth. The emergency room does not handle your problem in such manner, they only stabilize your condition, treat pain and treat a life threatening issue like your bleeding to death or can't breath.

Otherwise you get some pills and are told to see a doctor.

If you think you can get treated from soup to nuts for any other condition, unless you meet the poverty guidelines you are in for a big shock.

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

I'm not trying to be rude, but this seems to be just following the party line...unions are bad, obamacare will ruin everything...

So we dump the post office since it runs at a loss and now we can only use ups or dhl?

How are lots of countries able to have fully functional government health care programs (which, arguably, take better care of their people than we do) and if we try to go that route, everything will come crumbling down? People making a profit off my well being scares me more than socialized medicine...

Obamacare is already costing us lots of money. If Obamacare is so great, why did they rig it so the majority of it won't kick in until after this next election? Because they know what pain it is going to cause.

Make the Post Office clean up, get lean, and charge what they have to. Stop giving huge bulk mail discounts. Do you want all the junk mail?

I don't agree that other countries have better health care. American healthcare and drugs is the best in the world. The British are trying to cut back just a little on healthcare and services to keep their economy from collapsing. The result? Riots!

Socialized medicine where a faceless bureaucrat decides what care and how much can be spent on you should scare the hell out of you. It's the ultimate in tyranny.

it seems I've stirred up a hornets nest...I'm not bowing out of the discussion, but US healthcare is a topic that I am not qualified to comment on...

Have at it boys, but lets stay civil and polite.