Should Government Take over Health Care?

[pathia]

Someone challenged AT&T in court, if I recall correctly, over the issue of a plug-in answering machine. AT&T lost. Free and open competition became the rule and revolutionized the world.

There is no reason why we cannot have free and open competition in healthcare.

We may not all be doctors, but then we are not all electronics whizbangs and technicians, but we manage to invent and choose among the thousands of offerings in the communications market place.

Then why are cell phone and internet plans a fraction of the cost in Europe/Japan/Korea/ANYWHERE compared to the US?

A big factor is the government, because they mandated that they pick one kind of technology, so all operators could interact. Here, we have 5-6 separate sets of cell phone towers, every single provider has their own set. It’s not like that in almost all other countries. It’s like having five sets of plumbing, and having five different water companies ‘compete’ for your business.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Then why are cell phone and internet plans a fraction of the cost in Europe/Japan/Korea/ANYWHERE compared to the US?

A big factor is the government, because they mandated that they pick one kind of technology, so all operators could interact. Here, we have 5-6 separate sets of cell phone towers, every single provider has their own set. It’s not like that in almost all other countries. It’s like having five sets of plumbing, and having five different water companies ‘compete’ for your business.

Or another example, if we let RCA and Columbia all have their ways during the developement of Television we’d have a 1/2 dozen different broadcast formats and stanrds for tv and that would be utter chaos

 

[mary_bobo]

Then why are cell phone and internet plans a fraction of the cost in Europe/Japan/Korea/ANYWHERE compared to the US?

A big factor is the government, because they mandated that they pick one kind of technology, so all operators could interact. Here, we have 5-6 separate sets of cell phone towers, every single provider has their own set. It’s not like that in almost all other countries. It’s like having five sets of plumbing, and having five different water companies ‘compete’ for your business.

Have you tried TrakPhone? It is much cheaper than most.

 

[rpp]

As I posted on a similar thread…

The US Postal Service

Amtrak

Medicare

Military procurements

Hurricane Katrina response

And now they want all of health care?

 

[pathia]

Have you tried TrakPhone? It is much cheaper than most.

The Trak type phones over in Europe are even cheaper than ours.

 

[po18guy]

It is most certainly nowhere in the constitution. However, since the constitution seems to mean nothing these days, let’s examine this from a purely practical standpoint. The government has either arranged for, or taken over several services in the past century. Let’s look at their report card:

Service: Status:

1. US Postal Service Bankrupt
2. Amtrak Bankrupt
3. Medicare Bankrupt
4. Social Security Bankrupt

Hmmmmmm…

 

[aspawloski4th]

It is most certainly nowhere in the constitution. However, since the constitution seems to mean nothing these days, let’s examine this from a purely practical standpoint. The government has either arranged for, or taken over several services in the past century. Let’s look at their report card:

Service: Status:

1. US Postal Service Bankrupt
2. Amtrak Bankrupt
3. Medicare Bankrupt
4. Social Security Bankrupt

Hmmmmmm…

As I have said before, the constitution has been suspeneded by the 1933 War Powewrs act, and the 1935 Financial Restoration acts. Money is created out of and backed by nothing anymore. It’s printed by a Privae for profit bank that has no gold in the vault, and creates money by the stroke on a keyboard everytime it buys a bond. So as far as bankrupt, they can print money to pay off the debts if they want, and still manipulate the dollar value to not devalue it in the process. We are being played liike a fiddle by one world governement isiders, the principles you bring up may have meant something in an earier time, but will not mean anything till the 2 acts I meantioneed are repealed, the Federal Reserve is abolished, and the dollar is backed by gold in the same way the Swiss Frank is.

 

[fultonfish]

Let me see if I get this right.

The United States system of health care is imperfect and that is why Americans go to Mexico for health care. So we are going to install a Canadian system only a version of it that is much more strict so that basically there will be no private insurance and no private health care providers, only the government provided system will be allowed.

BUT, there is a conflict in that logic because the hospitals in the United States along the border with Canada are filled with Canadians who are fleeing to the United States for health care because the Canadian system is unable to provide adequate health care.

Did I get that right?

[so why is the United States so determined to install a Canadian system if the Canadian system doesn’t work very well and if the Canadian system needs an “escape mechanism” to the United States which has a terrible health care system?]

Please explain.

Please also explain why criticizers of the present U.S. health care system exaggerate by saying the number of people who are involuntarily without insurance is four times what the actual number is. The actual number is 4% [difficult cases that need to be addressed] versus the claim of 16% [which still a small percentage, with 84% being insured].

And criticizers of the present system often present extremely difficult medical situations that may not be curable under ANY system. AND the proposed system has dollar limits so that the difficult cases would be shut out.

 

[gakroeger]

Let me see if I get this right.

The United States system of health care is imperfect and that is why Americans go to Mexico for health care. So we are going to install a Canadian system only a version of it that is much more strict so that basically there will be no private insurance and no private health care providers, only the government provided system will be allowed.

BUT, there is a conflict in that logic because the hospitals in the United States along the border with Canada are filled with Canadians who are fleeing to the United States for health care because the Canadian system is unable to provide adequate health care.

Did I get that right?

[so why is the United States so determined to install a Canadian system if the Canadian system doesn’t work very well and if the Canadian system needs an “escape mechanism” to the United States which has a terrible health care system?]

Please explain.

Please also explain why criticizers of the present U.S. health care system exaggerate by saying the number of people who are involuntarily without insurance is four times what the actual number is. The actual number is 4% [difficult cases that need to be addressed] versus the claim of 16% [which still a small percentage, with 84% being insured].

And criticizers of the present system often present extremely difficult medical situations that may not be curable under ANY system. AND the proposed system has dollar limits so that the difficult cases would be shut out.

It is called stretching the truth or if we want to be more accurate lying. And the 4% uninsured, contrary to what they are implying with their numbers still have some access to medical care. So, in summary, because 4% of the population cannot afford health insurance but still has access to emergency medical care, we should turn the whole thing over the government who created this mess in first place so they can screw up the rest of it??? It is not about health care, for those in government pushing this down our throats, it is about power. If they can keep people subservient, they can control every aspect of their lives. Reagan warned of this 25 years ago.

 

[pathia]

It is called stretching the truth or if we want to be more accurate lying. And the 4% uninsured, contrary to what they are implying with their numbers still have some access to medical care. So, in summary, because 4% of the population cannot afford health insurance but still has access to emergency medical care, we should turn the whole thing over the government who created this mess in first place so they can screw up the rest of it??? It is not about health care, for those in government pushing this down our throats, it is about power. If they can keep people subservient, they can control every aspect of their lives. Reagan warned of this 25 years ago.

People with chronic conditions need much more than ‘emergency care’

 

[po18guy]

People with chronic conditions need much more than ‘emergency care’

And the proper place to receive such needed care is the Church (Catholic Community Services), the municipal government, the county/parish/township government, then from the state government in which they live. The federal government is huge, bloated, excessively wasteful, callous, uncaring and has no proper role in providing such services. Every service they run is bankrupt. How does that help anyone?

Are we forgetting that abortion and euthanasia will be included? That is fact. It does not matter the good that may be in the bill. It’s the murder in it that dooms it.

I know that liberal “Catholics” will dismiss the murder and focus only on the actual help in the bill. To their eternal peril.

 

[pathia]

And the proper place to receive such needed care is the Church (Catholic Community Services), the municipal government, the county/parish/township government, then from the state government in which they live. The federal government is huge, bloated, excessively wasteful, callous, uncaring and has no proper role in providing such services. Every service they run is bankrupt. How does that help anyone?

The local/state has no options for me and my conditions would bankrupt a church/parish just as much as it bankrupts me.

 

[po18guy]

The local/state has no options for me and my conditions would bankrupt a church/parish just as much as it bankrupts me.

Please realize that the Federal “health care” bill will REDUCE medical care. It will not provide more care. It is not increasing either the number or quality of doctors, nurses or any sort of caregivers. It will not open clinics or hospitals. It will reduce all of the above by requiring the clinics, hospitals, doctors and nurses to spend additional time, energy and money in order to comply with federal regulations. This will result in either, or both, of the following: 1. A reduction in the amount of care, or 2. An increase in the cost of that care. This helps no one.

If you suffer now, you will suffer more under the federal government.

 

[pathia]

Please realize that the Federal “health care” bill will REDUCE medical care. It will not provide more care. It is not increasing either the number or quality of doctors, nurses or any sort of caregivers. It will not open clinics or hospitals. It will reduce all of the above by requiring the clinics, hospitals, doctors and nurses to spend additional time, energy and money in order to comply with federal regulations. This will result in either, or both, of the following: 1. A reduction in the amount of care, or 2. An increase in the cost of that care. This helps no one.

If you suffer now, you will suffer more under the federal government.

I suffer now because I get zero care, I cannot get worse than zero.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Please realize that the Federal “health care” bill will REDUCE medical care. It will not provide more care. It is not increasing either the number or quality of doctors, nurses or any sort of caregivers. It will not open clinics or hospitals. It will reduce all of the above by requiring the clinics, hospitals, doctors and nurses to spend additional time, energy and money in order to comply with federal regulations. This will result in either, or both, of the following: 1. A reduction in the amount of care, or 2. An increase in the cost of that care. This helps no one.

If you suffer now, you will suffer more under the federal government.

You do know there isn’t just one bill being proposed don’t you? You know even with a Democrat majority, not all the things being proposed are going to be voted in by the moderate blue dog Democrats. So there will be surprises.

 

[po18guy]

You do know there isn’t just one bill being proposed don’t you? You know even with a Democrat majority, not all the things being proposed are going to be voted in by the moderate blue dog Democrats. So there will be surprises.

I know that health care suffers each and every time the government gains control over it. Government has no role in health care. I see it thus: Would it make any sense if the AMA wanted to oversee the Bureau of Land Management?

 

[mary_bobo]

You do know there isn’t just one bill being proposed don’t you? You know even with a Democrat majority, not all the things being proposed are going to be voted in by the moderate blue dog Democrats. So there will be surprises.

The best surprise would be if they trash the whole mess and start over.

 

[josephdavid]

No - it violates the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

How? Please explain.

 

[fultonfish]

Subsidiarity is one of the essential aspects of Catholic teaching.

There are a ton of posts on this aspect.

Here is one of the most recent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suudy
Let’s be clear here. I never said the Catechism talks about the federal government. The Catechism teaches subsidiarity, and I am applying that teaching to the US.

"1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’ "

Now, when we look at the structure of the United States, it is clear that the federal government is a community of a higher order. Under it are the states, then the counties, then the cities, then the neighborhoods, then the families, then the individuals. If we are to apply the principle of subsidiarity, then it should be clear that the federal government should not be attempting to solve societal problems.
Section 1883 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on subsidiarity is very closely aligned with the Tenth Amendment of the Consititution and Bill of Rights.

The Tenth Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

tenthamendmentcenter.com/

populistamerica.com/10th_amendment

---

 

[gakroeger]

Subsidiarity is one of the essential aspects of Catholic teaching.

There are a ton of posts on this aspect.

Here is one of the most recent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suudy
Let’s be clear here. I never said the Catechism talks about the federal government. The Catechism teaches subsidiarity, and I am applying that teaching to the US.

"1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’ "

Now, when we look at the structure of the United States, it is clear that the federal government is a community of a higher order. Under it are the states, then the counties, then the cities, then the neighborhoods, then the families, then the individuals. If we are to apply the principle of subsidiarity, then it should be clear that the federal government should not be attempting to solve societal problems.
Section 1883 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on subsidiarity is very closely aligned with the Tenth Amendment of the Consititution and Bill of Rights.

The Tenth Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

tenthamendmentcenter.com/

populistamerica.com/10th_amendment

---

Good post…

Right on target.

Thank you…