How to Really Fix Healthcare. Conservatives, take a Nitro before reading this

Perhaps I can then get a question answered but first we have to address a fact.

Congress is delegated with the responsibility to determine what the necessary expenditures of government are. Whether we agree or disagree with the decisions of Congress is moot as the American People are responsible for paying for all authorized expenditures of our government.

The current expenditures require much higher tax revenues which logically would be imposed on the highest income earners that can afford the taxation and the Tea Party opposes increasing any taxation to fund the authorized expenditures. From my perspective not funding the authorized expenditures, thereby forcing that financial obligation on our children, is both fiscally irresponsible as well as being immoral.

So why does the Tea Party Movement oppose paying for the authorized expenditures of Congress?

I disagree with many of the authorized expenditures (e.g. I'd cut military spending by at least 50%) but I don't dispute the fact that we still have to pay for them as it would be fiscally irresponsible and immoral to not pay for them.

 

Oh brother.

Let's recap. You claim you were opposed to ObamaCare from the time it was proposed - but it's ONLY NOW...now, when you can see the magnificence of its implementation - that you've been totally turned around, and believe that the law is 'beautiful'.



Yep. There is no cure for that level of crazy.

 

They are also constrained by the Constitution. Paying for Constitutional expenditures only will lower tax rates for the very few of us who still pay taxes.

When the Congress returns to its constitutional moorings you will have a point. When all American people pay the same percentage of their income then again you will have a point.

The Marxist in you eventually creeps out into the open, doesn't it? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" right comrade?

Those of us who still pay the federal income tax are taxed too much already. We do not have a revenue problem. We have a runaway government that needs to be brought back under Constitutional control. The immorality is centered in a Government that is forcing some people into bondage, compelling us to work ffor he benefit of others. Slaves sometimes revolt and kill their slavers.

You write as big a check as you want.

I will continue to fight the Article V fight.

 

Did you miss that whole Constitution thing? No one gave Congress the responsibility to determine what spending is necessary beyond what is required to fulfill its Article I Section 8 responsibilities. Anything they agree to beyond what is Constitution is not my problem. Congress itself is acting unconstitutionally. They should be on the hook to pay the bills that result from their unconstitutional actions.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL. Thank you. Great correction.

God I hate this software! Site owners fix this!

 

You either have a very primitive vocabulary or you are a big fan of Fox News. You refuse to use any other words.

- - - Updated - - -

We do have a revenue problem. A flat tax is class warfare against the middle-class and poor. The price of essential goods are the same for everyone, despite how much you make. Hence, progressive tax is a necessary institution.

 

priceless.

 

With a few exceptions, I use the right word. (Okay, "higher" was the right word). What word do you prefer when what you want is for someone else to work for your benefit without appropriate payment? When you force me, against my will, to work to provide you with something you want how is that not slavery?

It is that marxism in you that just keeps bubbling up. If you want something then you set your priorities and you pay for it. Progressive taxes are theft on a grand scale. Progressive taxes to a Marxist (yes going back to the original Marxist, Radical Karl) are an essential tool for wrecking capitalism. The more progressive the better. If people cannot accumulate capital then they must look to the state for their salvation.

When we force our government to return to doing only its Constitutional, or in your words, its essential duties, all of us can pay lower taxes.

If you want more than make the effort, do what is necessary and earn more. The people you are stealing from are catching on. Did you believe you could continue to steal from us forever?

 

Yeah. I violated one of my rules on that one. After making many changes be sure to go back and read the whole statement one more time.

Still it was a good correction. And I deserved the "drubbing" from Natty Bumpo.

 

it happens.

 

Exactly.

The Federal government can audit the books of any business it does business with.

If there are anomalies, they will be investigated.

If those anomalies are found out to be the result of unfair business practices, those business practices will be investigated.

If those business practices are found to be significant enough, the Federal Government can move to seize the assets either civilly or criminally.

The Federal government would then be able to consolidate all of the seized insurance agencies into one, streamline their operations, and then privatize the enterprise with Congressional oversight.

By the way, smart people often seem like crazy people to dumb people

 

The desire for authoritarian rule, perhaps even a leftist dictatorship is strong in this one. Does she (he?) not know the lame, the cripples, the deficient are the first to be liquidated?

 

The idiocy is stronger with you. It's borderline brick-wall level. If you've bothered to read my other posts in other threads you'd see that I believe in only limited interference in business and only insofar as to ensure customer safety, environmental safety, and employee safety. You'd also see that I have, at numerous times, stated that I am in a same-sex relationship with another male.

I'm far from authoritarian. I am a libertarian Liberal.

 

Really? Libertarian-liberals, whatever that means believe this, "the Federal Government can move to seize the assets either civilly or criminally.
The Federal government would then be able to consolidate all of the seized insurance agencies into one, streamline their operations, and then privatize the enterprise with Congressional oversight."

This looks more like liberal-Marxist to me. Are there any other libertarians who believe the government should be harassing businesses and seizing their property? Are there any other libertarians who agree that the government should be nationalizing private businesses?

Are there any Marxists who disagree with seizing private businesses and then nationalizing them?

 

National health care shouldn't be a private business. PERIOD.

If you want to run a private, for-profit health care clinic, by all means do so. Don't encourage the national health care to be at the mercy of crony insurance companies. F--- that. The United States looks primitive in this regard.

 

What do you mean by national health care? I know the nation is sick but it is a political sickness.

Aw, that is just the Marxist side of your libertarian streak coming through. And aren't you still free to leave the country, to go to a place that is more to your liking?

We will not have reasonably priced quality health care until the government gets completely out of the health care sector. Do you realize how many doctors are refusing to participate in this Marxist scheme? You may have overly expensive government mandated insurance and the government is clearly intent upon destroying the private insurance companies but you may not find a doctor or a hospital.

So what then? What is your next step on the road to your utopia where someone else pays for your health care?

These schemes cannot work without tyranny.

 

Good. Now it won't take 6 follow ups to my surgery and a collection of endorsed perscriptions to tell me I am all clear.

If running a business is a doctor's motivation for getting into medicine, I don't want them to be my doctor. Let em go.

 

It would be far better to let you go. My prediction for you is that a death panel will determine that you have had your fair share and tell you to take an aspirin. After that it is adios.

And there will be nothing you can do about it. When it happens just remember it was you who sowed the wind.

 

PERIOD? That's a terrible argument. It isn't an argument at all, in fact.

The fact that an entity of that type can exist - and succeed - utterly torpedoes your first assertion.

No, it looks (looked) smart. ObamaCare cannot - by definition - make health care less expensive. It is going to do the opposite, and has. Google "ObamaCare skyrocketing premiums".

 

Plummeting hospital price growth drives health care price growth to lowest since 1960

 

I find it most instructive that you consider healthcare insurance a "fundamental right"--even though the Founders (obviously) did not.

But whenever I observe someone pontificating about "fundamental" rights, rather than constitutional rights, I can be certain that he (or she) is a person of the left...

 

In the founder's time, medical care was still pretty much laudinum and leeches. It was not the as expensive or as important as it is today. Meanwhile, we aren't willing just to let people die of treatable illnesses and injuries, at least not usually, so is it or is it not a right? If it is not, then the guy who just drive his motorcycle through a barbed wire fence and is bleeding to death, but who has no money or insurance, should just be allowed to peacefully die beside the road, much as a run over dog is allowed to die beside the road. If it is a right, then we must pick the poor sap up, stop the bleeding ,and try to help him. Which sort of a society do we have? Which sort do we want to have?

 

Your concept of "rights" force other people to do things and provide things. That's not really how the founders understood rights. It would be more honest if you just called it an entitlement rather than try to cloak it in terms that in a constitutional sense, do not apply.

 

It would appear that you are defining a "right" according to what your emotions dictate.

I would define a right according to the text of the US Constitution.

Oh, and as regarding this hypothetical person who "just dr[o]ve his motorcycle through a barbed wire fence and is bleeding to death, but who has no money or insurance," I would suggest you read up a bit on the Hill-Burton Act, as passed in the 1940s and as revised in the 1970s...

 

I'm not really trying to define a right at all.
The fact is, we do provide medical care for the indigent. It's just that we do it in a rather expensive and inefficient fashion. It would be better to do it in a more cost effective way.

 

In post #571 in this thread, you wrote the following:

This certainly has the appearance of a rhetorical question, designed to imply that healthcare insurance should be considered a "right."

But if that is not the meaning you intended to convey, this is your chance to say so...