Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Americans should have healthcare as affordable as what she gets as a Congresswoman

[Jolly_Penguin]

I believe in universal coverage at a level that is as good or better than what Congress receives. There is zero good reason that all Americans (and residents) don’t have this level of coverage and access to excellent medical care.

Happy to see you endorsing single payer universal health care. It really is the best way forward. Even most Canadian conservatives want to keep it. I can't even imagine having to fight insurance companies over every hospital visit or having to be told what particular doctors I may see because my coverage applies to them and not others who do the same thing. With universal, I can go to any walk in clinic or hospital I want, anytime I want. I will have to wait a little while, but I'll get seen and taken care of and all it will cost me is my transportation and possibly parking. I personally think hospital parking is a big overmuch here, and it should be free.

- - - Updated - - -

The more I read or hear from this Congresswoman the more I like her.

Positively impetuous. Now will she prove to be as smart? I hope she represents the start of a Progressive movement.

I am looking forward to tracking her evolution as a politician. In her district, it's easy to get elected on ideology. In DC, ideology is worthless currency.

Bernie made a decent run on little but ideology.

 

[Elixir]

Happy to see you endorsing single payer universal health care. It really is the best way forward. Even most Canadian conservatives want to keep it. I can't even imagine having to fight insurance companies over every hospital visit or having to be told what particular doctors I may see because my coverage applies to them and not others who do the same thing. With universal, I can go to any walk in clinic or hospital I want, anytime I want. I will have to wait a little while, but I'll get seen and taken care of and all it will cost me is my transportation and possibly parking. I personally think hospital parking is a big overmuch here, and it should be free.

- - - Updated - - -

The more I read or hear from this Congresswoman the more I like her.

Positively impetuous. Now will she prove to be as smart? I hope she represents the start of a Progressive movement.

I am looking forward to tracking her evolution as a politician. In her district, it's easy to get elected on ideology. In DC, ideology is worthless currency.

Bernie made a decent run on little but ideology.

Yes, yes he did. I am hoping for more than "a decent run" from AOC though. Don't necessarily expect it - Washington might very well chew her up and spit her out. But if she is able to get a good enough education fast enough, who knows? Look out in 2032? She is obviously very bright and energetic - can she develop the ability to get enough people excited about her ideas without attracting so much attention that the Republicans "pizzagate" her?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, yes he did. I am hoping for more than "a decent run" from AOC though. Don't necessarily expect it - Washington might very well chew her up and spit her out. But if she is able to get a good enough education fast enough, who knows? Look out in 2032? She is obviously very bright and energetic - can she develop the ability to get enough people excited about her ideas without attracting so much attention that the Republicans "pizzagate" her?

I think to a large extent Bernie paved a path for her, and she has a good chance to stand on his shoulders and reach much higher than he did, reaching more people than even he did. We need more like her and him.

 

[laughing dog]

Happy to see you endorsing single payer universal health care.

Universal coverage does not necessitate single payer. For example, Germany has universal health care but it is multi-payer.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Happy to see you endorsing single payer universal health care.

Universal coverage does not necessitate single payer. For example, Germany has universal health care but it is multi-payer.

I'm against employer funded health care. Why should companies that employ people be forced to bear more of the financial burden of the populace in the society they operate than those who do not employ people? Single payer is a better idea. Then everyone pays into it, including all companies at tax rates set based on their income.

 

[laughing dog]

Happy to see you endorsing single payer universal health care.

Universal coverage does not necessitate single payer. For example, Germany has universal health care but it is multi-payer.

I'm against employer funded health care. Why should companies that employ people be forced to bear more of the financial burden of the populace in the society they operate than those who do not employ people? Single payer is a better idea. Then everyone pays into it, including all companies at tax rates set based on their income.

Your opinion on the matter is not relevant to the issue that someone can favor universal health care without favoring single payer. Toni's endorsement of universal health care does not mean Toni endorses single payer. It may mean that but it is not necessarily the case.

Universal health care with multipayer does not require that firms must offer health insurance. It may take that form, or it take the form of allowing people to opt out of the public plan and into private insurance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd like to see what she might say about pre-existing conditions and a very curious scam: insurance companies only paying doctors and hospitals that are "in the network". As if that is something imposed on them.

Actually, it's not a scam. It's the only way the insurance companies can keep the doctors from charging through the roof. It lets them agree with the doctor up front what the price will be as after the fact they can't simply decree what the charge will be.

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing I find a little strange about what the Congresswoman has said, is that her excellent health care is coming from an insurance company. Employees in government or in medium sized and large corporations almost always get the similar insurance offerings. While I agree we should be able to give affordable health care to all citizens, it would make more sense if somebody on Medicaid or Medicare was making a statement about how wonderful their coverage is. Very few doctors will even take Medicaid patients if that's their primary coverage, and in some large cities, there are a lot of doctors who won't even take Medicare. So, I don't think it's fair to compare a good quality insurance plan with our current public plans. But hell yeah, it would be wonderful if all Americans had the same coverage as Congress critters do.

A whopping 93 percent of primary care physicians accept Medicare – just as many who take private insurance. As a Medicare beneficiary, your only concern with accessing care will be finding doctors that are open to new patients.

https://www.healthcare.com/info/medicare/do-all-doctors-accept-medicare

Keywords: "primary care". That's not the problem and if that was the only care we were getting there would be little reason for insurance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’ve hit exactly what my problem is with ‘Medicare for all.’ It’s inadequate and inadequately compensates providers for care provided.

I believe in universal coverage at a level that is as good or better than what Congress receives. There is zero good reason that all Americans (and residents) don’t have this level of coverage and access to excellent medical care.

I want a bit more--I want to be confident that the quality of care will remain good, not get watered down over time in the name of cost cutting.

 

[Toni]

You’ve hit exactly what my problem is with ‘Medicare for all.’ It’s inadequate and inadequately compensates providers for care provided.

I believe in universal coverage at a level that is as good or better than what Congress receives. There is zero good reason that all Americans (and residents) don’t have this level of coverage and access to excellent medical care.

I want a bit more--I want to be confident that the quality of care will remain good, not get watered down over time in the name of cost cutting.

Yes, I worry about economic pressures as well as crazy politics interfering.

We cannot forget: part of making medical care affordable is making education at all levels for all medical professionals (and everyone) excellent, accessible , and easily affordable.

 

[J842P]

You’ve hit exactly what my problem is with ‘Medicare for all.’ It’s inadequate and inadequately compensates providers for care provided.

I believe in universal coverage at a level that is as good or better than what Congress receives. There is zero good reason that all Americans (and residents) don’t have this level of coverage and access to excellent medical care.

I want a bit more--I want to be confident that the quality of care will remain good, not get watered down over time in the name of cost cutting.

Yes, I worry about economic pressures as well as crazy politics interfering.

We cannot forget: part of making medical care affordable is making education at all levels for all medical professionals (and everyone) excellent, accessible , and easily affordable.

This is something that rarely gets talked about in the US, but the price of medical school is absurd. Really, the price of all higher education is absurd.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says All Americans Should Have the Affordable Healthcare she now gets as a Congresswoman noting a recent Tweet from her that was followed by two more Tweets:

In my on-boarding to Congress, I get to pick my insurance plan. As a waitress, I had to pay more than TWICE what I’d pay as a member of Congress. It’s frustrating that Congressmembers would deny other people affordability that they themselves enjoy. Time for #MedicareForAll.


Also, pretty sure one Dante’s Circles of Hell includes scrolling through a mirror-hall of agonizingly similar healthcare plans like “UHG Choice Master HMO 1800” vs “RedGo Option Plus EPO 2000.” I don’t know one normal person in this country that actually enjoys open enrollment.


People don’t want overly complicated choice between pricey, low-quality plans. We want an affordable solution that covers our needs, like the rest of the modern world. Medicare for All: - Single-payer system - Covers physical, mental, & dental care - 0 due *at point of service*

I'd like to see what she might say about pre-existing conditions and a very curious scam: insurance companies only paying doctors and hospitals that are "in the network". As if that is something imposed on them.

I like this lady. And the fact that Sarah Palin hates her is great news.

 

[James Madison]

That doesn't make it less weird that you haven't figured it out. The debate about whether this particular thing should be part of a proper taxing and spending role of the government should have ended decades ago.

Your very post demonstrates why, in the U.S., it is "less weird." The fact you have a particular opinion on one side of the issue does not make it "weird."

I disagree. If your house is in flames and the firefighters show up and say, "OK, just show us your fire insurance documents and we'll turn on our hoses", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. If you're lying in the street with a knife in your gut and the police say "I'm sorry, your police protection coverage was cancelled when you got laid off last month so we won't be able to look into who stabbed you unless you authorize us to bill you directly", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird.

Health care isn't different. If you need to put payment concerns over treatment concerns as an individual instead of having that done collectively as a society, I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. The fact that weird societies actually exist doesn't make them less weird.

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income, was a pervasive notion in colonial U.S. and onward. The Constitution was conceived, in part, to protect this private property. Indeed, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, while debating a term of years for the senate, Madison opined that the term of years should be considerably lengthy, greater than 6 years, to abate any public sentiment of a more “equal distribution...of life’s blessings.”

Madison in Federalist Number 10, in arguing for ratification, stated the Constitution was conceived, in part, to abate factions arising from “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property... Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”

To the end of protecting private property, which includes income, the government was created with limited powers. As Madison so famously observed, the federal government lacked a particular power. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

It was and is this context, among others, the American Republic was conceived. The debate of private property interest in income and limiting redistribution of it persists to this day, and rightfully so. After all, someone labored for the income, it belongs to the individual who so labored, and taking a portion of that income from one person and redistribute it to another, or for all people, through a governmental welfare program, implicates this very notion of a private property in income. Redistributing income though taxation by the government to other people is to take income from one and give it to another, another who didn’t personally labor for it.

The fact you find palatable the idea a considerable quantity of people’s income can be taxed to provide the wider society with affordable health insurance doesn’t not render as “weird” the debate in the U.S. as to the propriety of such a scheme.

I get it, you couldn’t care less with the fact income is private property and government should be limited to redistribution of it. Then by all means, give your income away in buckets! But others find your idea problematic since they, rightfully so, have a different idea of when and how much the government should and shouldn’t redistribute their income. After all, it’s their money, not yours.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Kinda weird how the wealthiest, most powerful country on the planet (for now) can't figure this out.

I

Not really. The debate over healthcare and government’s role, if any, in providing healthcare is a debated inherited from the founders and framers. Since the inception of the U.S. Republic, a debate has raged concerning what is a proper taxing and spending role of the government, shaped by notions of private property, income, and labor.

Those same founders and framers also debated whether non-whites and women should have basic civil and human rights. Yet, we rightly realized that there is no debate to be had on these matters among the rational civilized people of any minimally ethically defensible nation.
Immoral scoundrels love to defer and regress to the ethics of the past because it typically shares their inhumane disregard for others.

There is not an ethically defensible position that taxation should not provide any form of healthcare services. There is only a reasonable debate over the extent of it and what should be covered (e.g., elective procedures that are not neccessary for a person's basic well being). And it isn't just a matter of being minimally empathic and "generous" to those in need. The same economic processes, activities, and infrastructure responsible for virtual all income, wealth, and private property are also costly to and negatively impact human health.

That makes some degree of diversion of that wealth to basic health care needs a matter of restitution and compensation without which there is what amounts to a form of theft and assault. That makes basic public healthcare neccessary based upon application of the most critical founding principles regarding people's rights and the proper role of government in protecting them. Whether the founders had the context and knowledge to realize that implication of those principles is no more relevant to what we should do than the fact that many of them did not realize the application of those same principles to suffrage or slavery.

Those same founders and framers also debated whether non-whites and women should have basic civil and human rights. Yet, we rightly realized that there is no debate to be had on these matters among the rational civilized people of any minimally ethically defensible nation.
Immoral scoundrels love to defer and regress to the ethics of the past because it typically shares their inhumane disregard for others.

I have no idea what you’re rambling about. None of what you said above makes their view wrong on THIS issue. Second, I didn’t reference them or their era to assert some view is right.

Once you address my actual comment, then we can have a productive dialogue.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree. If your house is in flames and the firefighters show up and say, "OK, just show us your fire insurance documents and we'll turn on our hoses", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. If you're lying in the street with a knife in your gut and the police say "I'm sorry, your police protection coverage was cancelled when you got laid off last month so we won't be able to look into who stabbed you unless you authorize us to bill you directly", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird.

Health care isn't different. If you need to put payment concerns over treatment concerns as an individual instead of having that done collectively as a society, I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. The fact that weird societies actually exist doesn't make them less weird.

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income ...

Ya, I get all of that. You're not providing information and it misses the point. The same thing could be said for any other aspect of public spending. Your examples could equally apply to needing to say "Hey, I'm going down to the corner store for some milk. Do you have some cash so that I can pay the toll to walk down the street?" or "Well, we found the guy who shot your brother. Here's the bill, so you'll need to mortgage your house to pay for the investigation and trial costs". If either of those is a potential conversation, you're doing residential streets and policing wrong, even though you're limiting government and the redistribution of income in a manner which may be palpable to some.

Health care for citizens should be considered a similar type of basic service. If your cancer diagnosis needs to be made worse because you're also worrying about the costs, you're doing health care wrong. If there's the potential for people holding off seeing a doctor when there's blood in their urine because they just got a new job and they don't want an official diagnosis before the three month waiting period for coverage kicks in, you're doing health care wrong. It's not different from all the other basic services which should be funded out of a communal pot of taxes.

 

[poster]

I disagree. If your house is in flames and the firefighters show up and say, "OK, just show us your fire insurance documents and we'll turn on our hoses", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. If you're lying in the street with a knife in your gut and the police say "I'm sorry, your police protection coverage was cancelled when you got laid off last month so we won't be able to look into who stabbed you unless you authorize us to bill you directly", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird.

Health care isn't different. If you need to put payment concerns over treatment concerns as an individual instead of having that done collectively as a society, I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. The fact that weird societies actually exist doesn't make them less weird.

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income, was a pervasive notion in colonial U.S. and onward. The Constitution was conceived, in part, to protect this private property. Indeed, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, while debating a term of years for the senate, Madison opined that the term of years should be considerably lengthy, greater than 6 years, to abate any public sentiment of a more “equal distribution...of life’s blessings.”

Madison in Federalist Number 10, in arguing for ratification, stated the Constitution was conceived, in part, to abate factions arising from “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property... Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”

To the end of protecting private property, which includes income, the government was created with limited powers. As Madison so famously observed, the federal government lacked a particular power. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

It was and is this context, among others, the American Republic was conceived. The debate of private property interest in income and limiting redistribution of it persists to this day, and rightfully so. After all, someone labored for the income, it belongs to the individual who so labored, and taking a portion of that income from one person and redistribute it to another, or for all people, through a governmental welfare program, implicates this very notion of a private property in income. Redistributing income though taxation by the government to other people is to take income from one and give it to another, another who didn’t personally labor for it.

The fact you find palatable the idea a considerable quantity of people’s income can be taxed to provide the wider society with affordable health insurance doesn’t not render as “weird” the debate in the U.S. as to the propriety of such a scheme.

I get it, you couldn’t care less with the fact income is private property and government should be limited to redistribution of it. Then by all means, give your income away in buckets! But others find your idea problematic since they, rightfully so, have a different idea of when and how much the government should and shouldn’t redistribute their income. After all, it’s their money, not yours.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for that excellent explanation, JM. I agree!

The American people did have a way to universal heathcare that would have circumvented the taxation debate. As long as this issue is dependant on taxes it will remain stalled.

The way in which congress and Bill Clinton negotiated The Telecommunication Act of 1996 with television and telephone industry lobbyists robbed the public of a continuous source of income that could have not only afforded the public UHC, but much more and kept this debate out of taxation to boot. The irony is that while this Act was being debated Clinton forces were diverting our attention away from it and onto Heath Care, thus killing two birds with one stone.

The airwaves used for cellular/wireless were public domain and instead of our representatives choosing to lease them to the service providers on the public's behalf, they auctioned them off instead. The auction money is a much smaller amount than a leasing agreement would have netted the public. Congress feeds the auction money into the Treasury Deptment and it gets divied out according to whatever scheeming rules they've (lawmakers and lobbyists) invented to serve their needs.

This is a prime example of what neoliberalism is; neoliberalism recognises and favors corporate needs over public needs and trusts the corporations to, in turn, provide the public with its needs. It doesn't work for anyone but the corporations and government officials who want to be reelected or have a future outside of government.

 

[ZiprHead]

The only thing I find a little strange about what the Congresswoman has said, is that her excellent health care is coming from an insurance company. Employees in government or in medium sized and large corporations almost always get the similar insurance offerings. While I agree we should be able to give affordable health care to all citizens, it would make more sense if somebody on Medicaid or Medicare was making a statement about how wonderful their coverage is. Very few doctors will even take Medicaid patients if that's their primary coverage, and in some large cities, there are a lot of doctors who won't even take Medicare. So, I don't think it's fair to compare a good quality insurance plan with our current public plans. But hell yeah, it would be wonderful if all Americans had the same coverage as Congress critters do.

You’ve hit exactly what my problem is with ‘Medicare for all.’ It’s inadequate and inadequately compensates providers for care provided.

I believe in universal coverage at a level that is as good or better than what Congress receives. There is zero good reason that all Americans (and residents) don’t have this level of coverage and access to excellent medical care.

I am sure that reimbursement rates will be addressed when UHC finally gets to negotiations in congress.

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree. If your house is in flames and the firefighters show up and say, "OK, just show us your fire insurance documents and we'll turn on our hoses", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. If you're lying in the street with a knife in your gut and the police say "I'm sorry, your police protection coverage was cancelled when you got laid off last month so we won't be able to look into who stabbed you unless you authorize us to bill you directly", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird.

Health care isn't different. If you need to put payment concerns over treatment concerns as an individual instead of having that done collectively as a society, I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. The fact that weird societies actually exist doesn't make them less weird.

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income, was a pervasive notion in colonial U.S. and onward. The Constitution was conceived, in part, to protect this private property. Indeed, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, while debating a term of years for the senate, Madison opined that the term of years should be considerably lengthy, greater than 6 years, to abate any public sentiment of a more “equal distribution...of life’s blessings.”

Madison in Federalist Number 10, in arguing for ratification, stated the Constitution was conceived, in part, to abate factions arising from “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property... Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”

To the end of protecting private property, which includes income, the government was created with limited powers. As Madison so famously observed, the federal government lacked a particular power. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

It was and is this context, among others, the American Republic was conceived. The debate of private property interest in income and limiting redistribution of it persists to this day, and rightfully so. After all, someone labored for the income, it belongs to the individual who so labored, and taking a portion of that income from one person and redistribute it to another, or for all people, through a governmental welfare program, implicates this very notion of a private property in income. Redistributing income though taxation by the government to other people is to take income from one and give it to another, another who didn’t personally labor for it.

The fact you find palatable the idea a considerable quantity of people’s income can be taxed to provide the wider society with affordable health insurance doesn’t not render as “weird” the debate in the U.S. as to the propriety of such a scheme.

I get it, you couldn’t care less with the fact income is private property and government should be limited to redistribution of it. Then by all means, give your income away in buckets! But others find your idea problematic since they, rightfully so, have a different idea of when and how much the government should and shouldn’t redistribute their income. After all, it’s their money, not yours.

That's an awful lot of words to say "I find it weird that you think it is weird".

It doesn't matter what the founding fathers thought about private property or Lockean rights because
1) our founders were not omnscient,
2) income and property taxes are constitutional and
3) UHC is not prevented by our Constitution.

Whether someone likes it or not, the USA is an outlier among first world countries because we do not have UHC. That may not bother you, but it is a fact.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income, was a pervasive notion in colonial U.S. and onward. The Constitution was conceived, in part, to protect this private property. Indeed, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, while debating a term of years for the senate, Madison opined that the term of years should be considerably lengthy, greater than 6 years, to abate any public sentiment of a more “equal distribution...of life’s blessings.”

Madison in Federalist Number 10, in arguing for ratification, stated the Constitution was conceived, in part, to abate factions arising from “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property... Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”

To the end of protecting private property, which includes income, the government was created with limited powers. As Madison so famously observed, the federal government lacked a particular power. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

It was and is this context, among others, the American Republic was conceived. The debate of private property interest in income and limiting redistribution of it persists to this day, and rightfully so. After all, someone labored for the income, it belongs to the individual who so labored, and taking a portion of that income from one person and redistribute it to another, or for all people, through a governmental welfare program, implicates this very notion of a private property in income. Redistributing income though taxation by the government to other people is to take income from one and give it to another, another who didn’t personally labor for it.

The fact you find palatable the idea a considerable quantity of people’s income can be taxed to provide the wider society with affordable health insurance doesn’t not render as “weird” the debate in the U.S. as to the propriety of such a scheme.

I get it, you couldn’t care less with the fact income is private property and government should be limited to redistribution of it. Then by all means, give your income away in buckets! But others find your idea problematic since they, rightfully so, have a different idea of when and how much the government should and shouldn’t redistribute their income. After all, it’s their money, not yours.

All good stuff certainly, but I think you are engaging in a bit of constitution worship, not uncommon among people who are ideological to the point of losing their pragmatism. Who pays to use the road in front of my house? Who gets to use the water from the fire hydrant? This is all socialized wealth.

If the gist of your post is to be held dear then how does someone like FDR ever get elected? Clearly the constitution by this mere fact allows for the redistribution of wealth if for no other reason than to preserve the constitution. I see no other reason.

I like the fact that states are waking up to the fact that these services should not be taken for granted and that recipients should have an appreciation for same. But those services are certainly needed, and as a nation we will be stronger. The alternative is to just let people die from broken legs and simple infections.

Also, if the top 1 percent owns and controls 90 percent of the nation's wealth then why are they not providing 90 percent of the income to maintain its infrastructure?

 

[J842P]

I disagree. If your house is in flames and the firefighters show up and say, "OK, just show us your fire insurance documents and we'll turn on our hoses", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. If you're lying in the street with a knife in your gut and the police say "I'm sorry, your police protection coverage was cancelled when you got laid off last month so we won't be able to look into who stabbed you unless you authorize us to bill you directly", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird.

Health care isn't different. If you need to put payment concerns over treatment concerns as an individual instead of having that done collectively as a society, I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. The fact that weird societies actually exist doesn't make them less weird.

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income, was a pervasive notion in colonial U.S. and onward. The Constitution was conceived, in part, to protect this private property. Indeed, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, while debating a term of years for the senate, Madison opined that the term of years should be considerably lengthy, greater than 6 years, to abate any public sentiment of a more “equal distribution...of life’s blessings.”

Madison in Federalist Number 10, in arguing for ratification, stated the Constitution was conceived, in part, to abate factions arising from “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property... Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”

To the end of protecting private property, which includes income, the government was created with limited powers. As Madison so famously observed, the federal government lacked a particular power. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

It was and is this context, among others, the American Republic was conceived. The debate of private property interest in income and limiting redistribution of it persists to this day, and rightfully so. After all, someone labored for the income, it belongs to the individual who so labored, and taking a portion of that income from one person and redistribute it to another, or for all people, through a governmental welfare program, implicates this very notion of a private property in income. Redistributing income though taxation by the government to other people is to take income from one and give it to another, another who didn’t personally labor for it.

The fact you find palatable the idea a considerable quantity of people’s income can be taxed to provide the wider society with affordable health insurance doesn’t not render as “weird” the debate in the U.S. as to the propriety of such a scheme.

I get it, you couldn’t care less with the fact income is private property and government should be limited to redistribution of it. Then by all means, give your income away in buckets! But others find your idea problematic since they, rightfully so, have a different idea of when and how much the government should and shouldn’t redistribute their income. After all, it’s their money, not yours.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it is strange. You are merely describing why it is strange. But it is plainly strange in the "this one is not like the others" sense. I don't know why you feel the need to argue against that.

 

[SimpleDon]

Happy to see you endorsing single-payer universal health care.

Universal coverage does not necessitate single payer. For example, Germany has universal health care but it is multi-payer.

Yes, the German system, the Bismark system, has private insurance companies pay for medical care. But they are non-profit insurance companies and they have to use community rate setting, charging the same amount for their customers without regard to age or pre-existing conditions. And they have cooperative price fixing. Once a year the state government sits down with the representatives of the hospitals, the doctors and the insurance companies and they negotiate the rates for the coming year.

People can opt-out of the system and use private usually for-profit insurance if they have an income greater than about 60,000 EUR a year, but once you are out you are out for life. The people who opt-out will pay less when they are young but considerably more when they are older. Everybody is required to have health insurance.

Supposedly employers pay half of the premium and the employee pays the other half but it is rare to find an employer that doesn't pay for some if not all of the employee's premium. The amount that you pay for your health care insurance is capped at 7-5% of your income. If you are unemployed the government pays your premium out of an unemployment insurance fund financed by the employers.

This is for all intents and purposes single-payer health insurance. The 100 or so insurance companies are reinsured by the government to protect them from having to pay for an excessive number of long-term chronically ill patients. Coupled with the fixed rates for the medical costs the system keeps the premiums charged by the insurance companies in a narrow band, not much different from one company to another.