[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Nevertheless, those are necessary functions of any modern national government worthy of the name.
[/QUOTE]
I agree these are necessary functions. But the government doesn’t have to be involved.
And even if it were necessary for the government to be involved, the federal government should stay out of it. All duties and responsibilities not specifically enumerated in the federal constitution should be left to the states.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
First of all, the role of police is, in all actuality, to maintain order so that the unit of government can continue to function (whether that unit is a city/county/state/of federal). The police have no duty to protect individuals.
Second, we are all forced, by the current system, to be a parasite upon other tax payers in one way or another. And we have few choices about it. There is no way I can opt out of fire/police protection whether I pay for it or not!! If my house is burning and I don’t call the fire department, someone else will. And I have no legal power to stop them from hosing off the fire. There is also no way I can opt out of paying for failures who can’t provide for their families whether I want to or not. (food stamps, rent assistance, etc..) But I would like to keep the system that already has almost all of us trapped from expanding!!!
None of you owe me or my family health care any more than I owe it to you!
[/QUOTE]
What, exactly, is your point?!
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
I agree these are necessary functions. But the government doesn’t have to be involved.
[/quote]
But, if the private sector won’t fulfill those functions adequately, then the government must. That’s what “necessary” means.
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
And even if it were necessary for the government to be involved, the federal government should stay out of it.
[/QUOTE]
Why? (And please answer that question without referring to the Constitution! We’re talking about policy, not law!)
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
What, exactly, is your point?!
[/QUOTE]
Quite simply, I don’t want the “Nanny state” to expand.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Quite simply, I don’t want the “Nanny state” to expand.
[/QUOTE]
Why not?
I hope her plan at least uses spell-check!
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
I hope her plan at least uses spell-check!
[/QUOTE]
Eh?
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
I agree these are necessary functions. But the government doesn’t have to be involved.
And even if it were necessary for the government to be involved, the federal government should stay out of it. All duties and responsibilities not specifically enumerated in the federal constitution should be left to the states.
[/QUOTE]
You obviously don’t consider these notions out dated, however, how long ago did we detour from your conception of the US government?
Actually, come to think of it, the admissions of new state is spelled out pretty sloppy in the Constitution. It of course did not outline the rights of the Federal Government to keep the Union intact. The constitution has been used strictly as a good guideline for well over a century. Your protests mean little to the reality of life and the federal government.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
I hope her plan at least uses spell-check!
[/QUOTE]
Care to elaborate? What specifically was your point?
Jim
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Why not?
[/QUOTE]
Becaue I don’t like it and don’t want to pay for it.
But that’s an opinion/personal position, not a debate point.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
The police have no duty to protect individuals.
[/QUOTE]
That is the position of the law (I could provide cites if required), but it is not that of the institutional culture of police forces, nor should it be.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Becaue I don’t like it and don’t want to pay for it.
But that’s an opinion/personal position, not a debate point.
[/QUOTE]
So? Offer us some debate points, going beyond personal preferences.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
There is no way I can opt out of fire/police protection whether I pay for it or not!! If my house is burning and I don’t call the fire department, someone else will. And I have no legal power to stop them from hosing off the fire.
[/QUOTE]
How convenient.
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
It is thus my opinion that the federal government should stay out of health care all together.
Like any other service, health care is a luxury, not a right. Let the free market take care of it.
[/QUOTE]
That’s absolutely absurd. What do you propose what happens if there is an outbreak of Ebola or Bird Flu? While this may annoy to you read, there are very real and tangible benefits in having a society that is mentally and physically healthy. You are correct health care is a luxury and it is one that the United States of America can afford to its citizens.
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
Like any other service, health care is a luxury, not a right. Let the free market take care of it.
[/QUOTE]
This is precisely what we’ve been doing all along and its clearly not working.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
That is the position of the law (I could provide cites if required), but it is not that of the institutional culture of police forces, nor should it be.
[/QUOTE]
Really? Do tell. You don’t know much about me, do you?
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Really? Do tell. You don’t know much about me, do you?
[/QUOTE]
If you are a police officer, I hope you are not typical of the breed!
[QUOTE=pkbites]
National health care will suck just like public schools suck. All of my children went to private schools.
[/QUOTE]
Public schools provide an indispensable function in providing a basic foundation of literacy and scholarship. If the United States halted public education, we’d be the laughing stock of the Westernized world. You’d have Hugo Chavez building schools in New York city to educate the poor who can’t afford “free market” schooling.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Care to elaborate? What specifically was your point?
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Meh, I screwed up the quoting function, and now it’s irrelvant anyway. I was refering to this nonsense:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9007649&postcount=13
overwalming?
[QUOTE=Honesty]
Public schools provide an indispensable function in providing a basic foundation of literacy and scholarship. If the United States halted public education, we’d be the laughing stock of the Westernized world. You’d have Hugo Chavez building schools in New York city to educate the poor who can’t afford “free market” schooling.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
If you are a police officer, I hope you are not typical of the breed!
[/QUOTE]
Wish granted. I was MUCH better than that.
I retired in July. At NO time in my 25 years was I EVER enrolled in the states (i.e. taxpayer funded) medical plan. I had owned a business on the side and I provided benefits for my employees (including myself). It cost me more to be in my private plan than the departments option.
Let me reverse this, a bit. Why is it, BG, that you think you owe me health insurance?
You don’t. But why do you think your hard earned money should go to cover me?
I’m of able mind/body. I’ve worked my entire life. Why do you think your money should go for my health care?
I mean permanently. I don’t have a problem paying taxes for a temporary safety net for folks. The key word being temporary.
I still pay for my own health care. You can’t convince me that national health scam will cost me less, and my fellow man less, than what I’m already paying.
And what about those who contribute NOTHING to society. Why do we owe them anything? WHY?
I could get behind a national system that works like the one my employer uses.
I pay a set fee each month of, let’s say, $200. This goes into an account (not quite a Health Savings Account, but similar). I can buy prescriptions, make doctor visits, and get surgeries or other medical care as I need them, all for the $200/mo (don’t get hung up on the pricing, it’s just a number for example purposes). Now, once my expenditures exceed $200/mo, I go into a percentage-payment program. I pay 20% of the health expenditures up to a certain amount, and “insurance” covers the rest. When I go to the doc, I swipe my special Visa card, and the doc or hospital is paid DIRECTLY, with no clearing-house earning 4% off the top. Because of this, I get a 4% reduction in pricing - some of which I will never see if I don’t exceed my $200/mo “allowance.” Because of the way this system works, I’m actually ENCOURAGED to “shop” my healthcare, because I want my $200/mo to go as far as it can, before I hit my percentage-based “insurance” program. In this way, market forces actually are put to work, but I’m never at risk of not being insured, if I need it.