To whom?
If the people decide that those are good uses of the government’s tax dollars, then I see no reason why not.
Many of those are provided by the government, either at the federal level, or a more local level when that level makes sense. We do have government housing, we have government nutrition programs, we have government mass transportation, we have government funded parks and recreation areas, and we have government funded TV in the form of CPB. The only thing missing off your list is clothes, I am unaware of any government funded clothe programs, but they are a trivial cost compared to things like healthcare that I don’t know that there has been a need.
As long as Mississippi people don’t go to New York for the medical treatment that they cannot get in their home state, that’d work. If New York has any level of compassion, and will not let someone die on the curb because they are from Mississippi, this will not work.
If there is no other entity to stand between an ill person and a preventable death, then yes, go bankrupt and die is exactly the message they are getting from you, even if you want to dress it up in some sort of principle.
Cool. I like the public option myself, obviously making many assumptions as to what form it would take.
Okay, so if the bill that I put before congress essentially has 3 things…
-
Public option. It would be just a giant group insurance program, preferably administered by the govt, but administered by a private company with control on their profit taking would be acceptable as well. You would have different levels of coverage to choose from, but it would be the same for everyone at any level.
-
Remove tax deductions for employer contributions to health care plans. Individuals could still get a tax deduction, but only if they get the same tax deduction from being on the public plan. This evens out the playing field a bit. Employer based insurance is about the worst way of providing insurance, and encouraging it to be nudged out is, IMHO, a good thing.
-
Remove the requirement for hospitals to treat patients without method of payment. They can if they want, and the monies they use for treatment would be tax deductible, but they are not required to. This serves as the mandate. It’s not a tax, it’s not a penalty, but as it is, if you are sick, you can go to the hospital with no way of paying for it, and they will at least stabilize you, and will often go further than that. If that safety net is removed, then people will be highly encouraged to get health insurance, whether through an employer, a private insurance, or the public option.
Is that something that you think would be constitutional, a wise role of govt, and something that you would support with your vote?
Seems kinda like an argument I’ve heard somewhere before. “Sure, you can have your progressive agenda, just as soon as you convince two thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states, and good luck with that!”
Can’t recall from whom, perzackly. My memory isn’t what it used to be. Or maybe it is, and I just don’t remember.
Would this Public option be mandatory if people didn’t have another form of insurance?
I liked Obamacare for all it’s warts and faults.
But still, America is unique. Saying “every other xxx country does it differently” makes no difference to me. Every other English speaking First world nation has a Queen, too. 
The powerful and their lawyers, would be my guess.
Thumbs-up.
Here I disagree. We don’t provide this tax deduction from the same rationale as, say, individual mortgage interest deductions. The latter is an effort to encourage home ownership. But employer contributions to a plan are compensation, just like the salary and the town car, and are a business expense.
Wow.
I get the motive, but I’m concerned that we’re not thinking this through. What about undocumented migrants, for example?
Subject to the concerns I’ve laid out above, absolutely.
All of them. The following should help clarify that fact.
Among others, the one in which you argue that “I would not object in the slightest if Virginia did this. It’s the kind of decision that IS the proper role of a government with plenary legislative power.”
Or this one:
You want a federal law, you show me where the Constitution authorizes it.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20184347&postcount=91
Not only are you clearly implying that federal health care laws are unconstitutional, and then forgetting that you did so, you were also wrong when you did it, since such laws have survived for years, and moreover, Helvering v. Davis endorsed exactly the same principle under the “general welfare” clause for Social Security.
Yes, but which one you are arguing for is indeed inconsistent and confusing.
First you argue that health care is fundamentally not the role of government:
My objection to Obamacare has always been one of basic philosophy: I don’t agree that providing everyone with health care is a proper role of government.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20184055&postcount=10
Then, when pressed with how illogical this is, you begin to argue as above that in fact states like Virginia can just go ahead and do it if they want, because they have plenary legislative power.
Then you double down on that. Asked if you would approve of it as good public policy, you state:
Yes. Maybe some tweaks here and there, but yes
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20184308&postcount=79
So in a mere 70 or so posts, you have meandered in fits and starts from “don’t agree that providing everyone with health care is a proper role of government” to approving of it as good public policy! The contradictions are all there in plain sight, from apologizing to those who know people who may be harmed by the Republicans’ outrageous policies, to suddenly deciding that you approve of government health care for all at the state level.
So my questions remain, and to briefly summarize:
[ul]
[li]How do you reconcile this constitutional analysis with the fact that the federal government has in indisputable fact been deeply involved in national health care for a very long time: Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA, ACA, and the tax code in respect of employer-sponsored health insurance?[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]If you do in fact support government health care at the state level as you claim, how would you propose to deal with the fact that for a variety of reasons states cannot in any practical sense implement UHC alone? Among those reasons is the entanglement of any state UHC program with existing Medicaid and other federal programs, and the need for cost-sharing and national standards and uniformity.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]How do you reconcile your novel legal analysis with Helvering v. Davis?[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The final question I asked was, would federal government collaboration with state-run UHC programs even be considered to be the feds being involved in UHC, as opposed to simply providing necessary funds to assist the states? It seems clear now that you couldn’t possibly consider this a problem, since you’re already on record as stating that “Roads are built by states with the federal government’s involvement limited to its spending power” and federally subsidized UHC would be exactly the same thing, right, Bricker?[/li][/ul]
The United States is not so unique that the expression of that statement provides some kind of rationale why we shoudn’t ensure that basic health care is available and affordable for all citizens.
Here, let’s find an example. The Swiss Confederation is a federation of independently managed cantons, and has been so since 1848. It is a federal system with direct democratic elections with high measures in all freedom, security, and transparency indexes as well as some of the highest measures of infant, child, and adult health care in the world. It provides privately funded mandatory universal health care across all cantons under the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance Krankenversicherungsgesetz, which covers costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation with a modest annual deductable of between US$200 and US$1600, and citizens are permitted to select facilities and doctors they wish as well as purchase supplementary insurance to cover expanded hospital service and other elective procedures. Providers are only permitted to price care at cost with a controlled amount of overhead on the basic plan, but can profit on the supplementary plans which are kept in check by competition and mandated transparency in costs.
The Swiss rate their health care system very highly Their health care costs are less than 12% of GDP compared to nearly 20% in the United States. No one is denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions or due to poor life choices, and their system–a privately funded, federally regulated health care system with transparent and regulated costs–has yet to blow up on itself they way critics claim that the Affordable Care Act is perpetually on the edge of doing, although there are projections of rising costs due to the increasing age of the population and lack of medical specialists, which is an issue that nations across Europe, and pretty much the entire industrialized world, is facing.
How about we try to do at least as well for our citizens in terms of health care and medical coverage as Switzerland does for theirs, and without making health care–an issue faced by everyone regardless of political bent–some kind of absurdly partisan issue or ideological challenge by people who don’t have anything on their bookshelf but The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged?
Stranger
Except the government, in some way or another, does serve most of those needs, without control over the market. Food stamps. Welfare. Public transportation systems. School lunches. Public schooling. Gym class. Health education. The government takes on a lot of these roles, and what they do is important. Michele Obama’s school lunch program appears to be working. Obviously, there are limits to how much one can infringe on personal freedom, but the government does, in fact, care for its citizenry.
And indeed, some of these needs are simply better served by a free and open market. This is the nuance some people seem to miss. It’s not just that government-run health care is a solution, it’s that it’s far and away, with absolutely no competition, the best solution. If free market health care worked the best, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. But it doesn’t. The USA’s health care system sucks compared to systems across the world. It’s a straight-up laughingstock.
Taxation is not theft. Taxation is taxation. If you don’t like it, Somalian real estate is pretty cheap last I heard, or you can probably find some unclaimed pacific island and have at it.
Indeed, instead of a mandatory system we all pay into that helps ensure our protection, we should all rely instead on the charity fairy. And if that fails for some reason (, well, tough titties Bobby, guess you just get to die of that easily treatable heart condition. Better luck next life.
Charity is a clunky, poorly-scaling solution that often crassly mismatches need with means, which tends to lose funding when its resources are most needed. The whole reason for government programs is because charity doesn’t solve these problems. Just ask yourself, how many GoFundMe projects exist along the lines of “pay for my medical bills”? What percentage of those get funded?
You’ve also argued over here that health care cost statistics make no difference to you, either, because apparently through some economic miracle your own personal health care is super cheap, costing practically nothing despite all the affordability problems everyone else is having. At some point, you know, reality does have a way of asserting itself. This is why health care economics is actually a scientific discipline, health care cost statistics really do matter, and it really is important to understand what works in other countries with similar economies and democratic structures.
People obviously debate whether it should or not.
But as a Christian, I rejoice when the needs of the poor are met, whether they’re met by government or by private means. Because ISTM that the poor are real flesh-and-blood human beings who know joy and pain, just like the rest of us, rather than being shadows and illusions, existing only to test the reality of our Christian compassion. And that therefore Jesus’ main reason in urging us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. was to aid the poor and needy, and only secondarily for the moral benefit of the giver. So we should rejoice if government steps in and meets their needs. We will surely have other opportunities to practice generosity and compassion.
Now if you too consider yourself some sort of Christian, I would say that you, too, should rejoice when government meets the needs of those who are unable to take care of their own needs.
Not going to play this game anymore. You’ve confused everyone, and still think it’s our problem for not reading correctly. Consider specifying federal government when you mean federal government and not just writing “government”. That might be a start, but I’m not sure that will be the end of it.
Well, that’s a very long thread with many many posts, and I posted a good number of times.
I dont think I said " health care cost statistics make no difference to me". Which post?
Certainly we do need to understand what works in other countries with similar economies and democratic structures. But just because they do it one way, doesnt mean we have to either. The economy and demographics of say Sweden is hugely different than the USA.
I find “xxxx countries do it so the USA is wrong by not doing it” posts completely unpersuasive.
The role of the government is to control people plain and simple. So long as we can’t behave then we can’t have nice things such as absolute liberty. Government is formed to help keep people in check. However government it’s self lacks balance. You either control your people or you trust them. When it comes to the controlling aspect, giving everyone basic supplies to survive is a good way to ensure your people act good. The best way to control people is to make them feel like they need you.
Aside from that, there’s the fact our government is obligated to help us in return for our services to all that it does. If our government is going to invade our privacy, overturn our rights, then they should at the very least ensure everyone has basic necessities. You can’t trust corporations if they are going to oppress real people, once you do then you as a Gov are obligated to fix that problem. You’re losing your control to self inflicted bullying. Not to liberty as any idealistic person would want it to. When you allow giant corporations to run amuck like this they tilt legislation to allow them to do things like raising gas prices pay for tax cuts.
I don’t care what your argument is, Government is obligated to control it’s people and ensure their well being. The government is to act as a way of organizing our money to fund protection for our services to it. Whether that protection be in the form of military, laws, or health insurance. The government will always be obligated to control and ensure the people’s health.
Also good luck in 2018 after you’ve inflicted damage upon 24 million million people for the sake of getting a few more dollars from your daddy.
I believe it’s wiser to run such programs from a state level, not that a federal program is unconstitutional. Just unwise.
I forgot nothing. Again, I am arguing wisdom, not lack of constitutionality.
Take a Post-It note. Write, “Wisdom, not unconstitutionality,” on it. Post it on your monitor edge. Refer to it when you feel the confusion.
Yes. That’s how plenary legislative power is expressed. They can do what they want. It’s unwise for the federal government to be thought to have similar legislative freedom.
If Virginia does it, I’d approve of it as good public policy. If the federal government does it, I don’t: because it’s unwise, but constitutional.
The contradictions disappear when you attach “federal” and “state” to each statement where they belong, and keep looking at the Post-It note on your monitor.
So my questions remain, and to briefly summarize:
Really? The answer is that my constitutional analysis is that all such programs, including the ACA, are constitutional. What you describe as a constitutional analysis was my view that the program was unwise social policy. “Unwise” and “unconstitutional” are not synonyms.
It’s not clear to me why this “entanglement” is fatal to a state program, I don’t agree that national standards and uniformity are necessary, and I don’t agree that states cannot implement such programs alone. Moreover, I have objection to an interstate compact in which several states agree to jointly approach the problem.
What you are trying to frame as my novel legal analysis is simply an observation that I believe the results to be unwise, and this in no way conflicts with Helvering v. Davis, unless there is a missing paragraph that declares “In the future, no one may opine on the wisdom of government programs.”
No, they are not exactly the same thing. But their differences don’t affect the answer to this question: I don’t see a problem with federal spending being used to assist states, as long as the spending power comes with substantively few control strings. Too much control disguised as merely the exercise of spending power remains constitutional, but strikes me as unwise.
None of these require a person to buy something. Medicare and VA coverage is health care/insurance and it is paid for by the feds. But Medicare doesn’t force employers to do provide something, nor does it force people to buy a product.
It also has a population of 8MM, the USA 325 MM.
Look, like I said I think the USA needs some sort of national healthcare. But the argument for that needs to be “The USA needs some sort of national healthcare.” not "Country xxx with a population of 100th of the USA does it this way so we should too. "
I can’t be the only one who looked at this post and said, “…Wut”, right?
And this is relevant because…? Hey, I’d rather have single payer as well.