The Proper Role of Government - Jeep Patriot Forums
Political Discussion Reserved for all political discussions

 2Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 03:44 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Backlighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 198
 
The Proper Role of Government

“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” ― Milton Friedman
Backlighting is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 07:57 PM
Senior Member

 
Ignatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 4,843
  
Garage
As Thoreau said, "The government is best that governs least."
Ignatz is online now  
post #3 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 10:22 PM
Junior Member
 
sweeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Western Mass
Posts: 26
 
Well we're about to see what that looks like.

He's hope it doesn't tie your knickers in a knot.
sweeper is offline  
 
post #4 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 10:37 PM
Member
 
rush549's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 86
 
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
rush549 is offline  
post #5 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 10:19 AM
Senior Member
 
croat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,351
 
Garage
Far too simplified - and more so in our society and world today.

Quote:
Summary of Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties

Discussions of rights are sometimes confused concerning what are and are not rights of the people or powers of government or the duties of each. This is an attempt to summarize most of the more important rights, powers, and duties recognized or established in the U.S. Constitution, in Common Law as it existed at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, or as implied therein. Not included are certain "internal" or administrative rights and powers that pertain to the various elements of government within each level with respect to each other.
Personhood:[1]

"Persons" are one of the two main classes which are the subject of rights, powers, and duties, the other being "citizens". Persons may be "natural" or "corporate". "Citizens" are a subclass of "natural persons". Only persons have standing as parties under due process. Each government has the power to define what is and is not a "person" within its jurisdiction, subject to certain restrictions of Common Law and the Constitution, the 15th Amendment to which requires that it not exclude anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat. But technology has created a new situation, opening the way for statute or court decision to extend this definition and set the conditions under which personhood begins and ends.

Each government may also establish, within its jurisdiction, "corporate persons" such as governmental entities, associations, trusts, corporations, or partnerships, in addition to the Common Law "natural" persons, but the "personhood" of such corporate entities is not created by the government. Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons.

Under Common Law, persons include only individual human beings and combinations of them acting in concert, but it provides a basis for inclusion of entities that are sufficiently like human beings in their behavior to be indistinguishable for legal purposes, such as aliens, androids, or genetically enhanced animals, which have interests, an ability to reason, and an ability to communicate. This would exclude, however, establishment of other things as persons, such as inanimate objects, which have no ability to represent themselves under due process. Inclusion of such inanimate objects as parties to civil due process, in effect making them "persons", has found its way into the U.S. legal system as in rem proceedings, unconstitutionally, through recent seizure/forfeiture statutes.

Although not a well-developed area, there is also a basis for excluding entities which, although they are born to human beings, lack attributes which would enable them to be functionally human, such as some minimal level of cognitive capacity, but such beings must be considered natural persons as the default unless proven otherwise through due process.
Citizenship:

Citizenship is the attribute of persons who, as members of the polity, have certain privileges and duties in addition to those they have as persons. Citizens include those born on U.S. or State territory or naturalized according to law.
Natural Rights:

The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Personal Security (Life):

(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.

Personal Liberty:

(3) To move freely.

(4) To assemble peaceably.

(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.

(7) To communicate with the world.

(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.

(9) To practice one's religion.

(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

Private Property:

(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.

(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.

(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.

(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.

Non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract:

(1) To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the means to exercise the above natural rights.[1,15]

(2) To enjoy equally the rights, privileges and protections of personhood as established by law.

(3) To petition an official for redress of grievances and get action thereon in accordance with law, subject to the resources available thereto.

(4) To petition a legislator and get consideration thereof, subject to resources available thereto.

(5) To petition a court for redress of grievances and get a decision thereon, subject to resources available thereto.

(6) Not to have one's natural rights individually disabled except through due process of law, which includes:

(a) In criminal prosecutions:

(1) Not to be charged for a major crime but by indictment by a Grand Jury, except while serving in the military, or while serving in the Militia during time of war or public danger.

(2) Not to be charged more than once for the same offense.

(3) Not to be compelled to testify against oneself.

(4) Not to have excessive bail required.

(5) To be tried by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place.

(6) To have a jury of at least six for a misdemeanor, and at least twelve for a felony.[1]

(7) To a speedy trial.

(8) To a public trial.

(9) To have the assistance of counsel of one's choice.

(10) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

(11) To be confronted with the witnesses against one.

(12) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.

(13) To have each charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[1]

(14) To have a verdict by a unanimous vote of the jury, which shall not be held to account for its verdict.[1]

(15) To have the jury decide on both the facts of the case and the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of the law.[1]

(16) Upon conviction, to have each disablement separately and explicitly proven as justified and necessary based on the facts and verdict.[1]

(17) To have a sentence which explicitly states all disablements, and is final in that once rendered no further disablements may be imposed for the same offense.[1]

(18) Not to have a cruel or unusual punishment inflicted upon oneself.

(b) In civil cases:

(1) To trial by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place[1] where the issue in question is either a natural right[1] or property worth more than $20.

(2) In taking of one's property for public use, to be given just compensation therefor.

(3) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.[1]

(c) In all cases:

(1) To have process only upon legal persons able to defend themselves, either natural persons or corporate persons that are represented by a natural person as agent, and who are present, competent, and duly notified, except, in cases of disappearance or abandonment, after public notice and a reasonable period of time.[1]

(2) Not to be ordered to give testimony or produce evidence beyond what is necessary to the proper conduct of the process.[1]

Non-natural rights or citizenship, created by social contract:

(1) To enjoy equally the rights and privileges of citizenship as established by law.

(2) To vote in elections that are conducted fairly and honestly, by secret ballot.

(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials.[17]

(4) To receive militia training.[7]

See also List of constitutional rights.
Disabilities of minority: [1]

Certain of the above rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground" (see below). Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained. The disabilities of minority can also be removed earlier by court order or, if statute allows, extended beyond the usual statutory expiration by court order in cases of incompetence. The right to vote is not included among the disabilities of minority, but is defined separately by law, so that removal of the disabilities of minority does not in itself affect having the right to vote.

Constitutional duties of persons under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To obey laws that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent.

(2) To comply with the terms of legal contracts to which one is a party.

(3) To tell the truth under oath.

Constitutional duties of citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.[6]

(2) To help enforce laws and practices that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent, and to resist those which are not.

(3) To serve on juries, and to render verdicts according to the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of statute and common law, and the facts of the case.

Constitutional duties of able-bodied citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To defend the U.S. or State, individually and through service in the Militia.

(2) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials when present.[17]
croat is offline  
post #6 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 10:20 AM
Senior Member
 
croat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,351
 
Garage
Continued

Quote:
Powers delegated to U.S. (National) Government:

(1) Exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect import duties.[8]

(2) To pay the debts of the U.S. Government.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian Tribes.

(4) To regulate commerce among the States.[2]

(5) To regulate immigration.[7]

(6) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

(7) To establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.

(8) To coin money and regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and to issue bills of credit.

(9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.[3]

(10) To fix the standard of weights and measures.

(11) To provide and regulate postal services.

(12) To establish protection for intellectual property, including patent, copyright, and trademark rights.

(13) To constitute lower national courts.

(14) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.[3]

(15) To declare war, authorize warlike activities by other than the armed forces, and make rules concerning captures.

(16) To raise, support and regulate the armed forces.

(17) To govern what part of the Militia shall be employed in the service of the United States.

(18) To exercise general Legislation[9] over federal ground, which is limited to federal territories and districts, land purchased from states with the consent of their legislatures, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.

(19) To guarantee a republican form[12] of government to the States.[3]

(20) To enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign state.

(21) To declare the punishment for treason.[3]

(22) To prescribe the manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved to other states and what should be done about them.

(23) To admit new states into the Union.

(24) To dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.

(25) To make laws necessary and proper for executing the powers delegated to the U.S. government.

(2) Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers

(1) To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

(2) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.[16]

(3) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

(4) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress, except the places for electing senators.

(5) To conduct a census every ten years.

(3) Non-pre-emptive non-exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect excise taxes on commerce or income taxes on persons.[8]

(2) To borrow money.

Restrictions of the powers of the national Government:

(1) No exercise of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution.

(2) No payment from the Treasury except under appropriations made by law.

(3) Excises and duties must be uniform throughout the United States.

(4) Shall pass no tax or duty on articles exported from any state.[5]

(5) No appointment of a senator or representative to any civil office which was created while he was a member of Congress or for which the amount of compensation was increased during that period.

(6) No preferences to the ports of one state over another in regulation or tax collection.

(7) No titles of nobility shall be granted by the U.S. government, or permitted to be granted to government officials by foreign states.

(8) May not protect a State against domestic violence without the request of its legislature, unless it cannot be convened, in which case, without the consent of its executive.

(9) U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against a state by citizens of another state or foreign country.

Powers delegated to State Governments:

(1) Exclusive powers

(1) To appoint persons to fill vacancies in the U.S. Congress from that state and to hold special elections to replace them. State executive may make temporary appointments if state legislature in recess and until they reconvene, when they shall appoint a temporary replacement.

(2) To appoint the officers of its Militia.[11]

(3) To conduct the training of its Militia.[12]

(2) Non-exclusive powers[4]

(1) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress.[10]

Restrictions of the powers of the State Governments:

(1) State constitutions and laws may not conflict with any provision of the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws pursuant to it.[7]

(2) May not exercise powers not delegated to the State government by the State Constitution.[7]

(3) May not make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

(4) May not pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts.

(5) May not grant a title of nobility.

(6) May not collect imposts or duties on imports or exports without consent of Congress, except fees necessary to cover the costs of inspections and paid to the U.S. Treasury.[8]

(7) May not lay a duty on tonnage.

(8) May not keep troops or ships of war in time of peace or make war without the consent of Congress, unless actually invaded and in imminent danger that does not admit of delay.

(9) May not make a compact or agreement with another state of the U.S. or with a foreign state without the consent of Congress.

Duties of the State Governments:

(1) Must provide a republican form[12] of government to their citizens.[7]

(2) Must conduct honest and fair elections, by secret ballot.[7]

(3) Must give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and recognize the privileges and immunities granted thereby.

(4) Must extradict a person charged with a crime in another state to that state.

(5) Must organize and train their militias.[7]

Restrictions of the powers of all Governments:

(1) Shall not disable any natural or constitutional right without due process of law, and then only to the extent necessary to avoid infringing the rights of others.

(2) Shall not deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

(3) Shall not suspend habeas corpus, except in case of rebellion of invasion and the public safety may require it.

(4) Shall not issue a search warrant but on probably cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

(5) Shall not arrest members of Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, while their house is in session.

(6) Shall not question a member of Congress on anything he says during a speech or debate in his house.

(7) Shall not pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.

(8) Shall allow no slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted.

(9) Shall not deny or abridge the right to vote to any person on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, for failure to pay any tax, or on account of age if older than 18.

(10) Shall not exercise any power in an unreasonable manner or for other than a legitimate public purpose, as partially indicated in the Preamble. (No power is "plenary", and discretion can be abused.)

Some arguably needed national powers:

(1) To regulate the manufacture, distribution, operation, and disposition of aircraft and spacecraft, the regulation of their crews, and the definition and punishment of crimes committed on U.S. registered aircraft or spacecraft or on aircraft or spacecraft operating in U.S. airspace.

(2) To regulate cabled or wireless communications beyond a distance of 1 kilometer.

(3) To regulate the production, distribution, and use of nuclear energy, and electric energy transmitted more than 1 kilometer.

(4) To limit tort liability on commerce and commercial articles subject to U.S. regulation of their manufacture.

(5) To pre-emptively pass and enforce laws needed to conserve wildlife and natural resources, to protect the climate and natural environment, to prevent an excess of population, and to regulate public health and workplace safety.

(6) To provide for the punishment of abuses of power by any official, agent, or employee of, or contractor for, any institution of government, and specifically any violations of the Constitution and laws pursuant thereto.

(7) To provide for the punishment of abuses of the natural rights of persons by other persons, in the event that those abuses, if the occurred on state ground, are not prosecuted by a State government.

(8) To define "due process" to include the elements given above which are not now explicit in the U.S. Constitution.

(9) To define the arms to which persons have a right to keep and bear as including "all those weapons which may be carried by one person and which might be useful or necessary to defend oneself or the community, except weapons of mass destruction such as bombs, heavy missiles or artillery, or biological, chemical, or nuclear agents which may cause lasting injury or death."

(10) To make explicit that only natural persons or corporate persons composed of natural persons may be the subject of due process in any civil or criminal proceeding.

NOTES:

[1] This is established in Common Law at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, but is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution.

[2] Originally, "commerce" meant only transfers of goods or services for a valuable consideration, so that "interstate" commerce would not include interstate migration, carrying across a state border of one's own possessions that one intends to keep, the sending across a state border of a gift or inheritance, nor include articles which had not yet crossed a state border, or articles which had "come to rest" with the completion of the transfer. It would not include manufacturing, local sales, or things that are "part of an aggregate" of interstate commerce, or things that might "affect" interstate commerce. Note also that the power to regulate does not include the power to criminally prosecute violations of regulations, but only to seize property through civil process.

[3] These are the only provisions that allow federal criminal laws jurisdiction outside federal ground.

[4] These powers, if not exercised by the State, revert to the people.

[5] This provision would seem to forbid taxes on interstate commerce if export to another state of the U.S. is included, leaving only intrastate commerce or commerce on federal ground subject to excise taxes or duties, although interstate commerce can otherwise be regulated.

[6] This means obeying constitutional laws and practices, and resisting unconstitutional ones.

[7] This is not clearly stated, but implied.

[8] The power to tax is not the power to regulate or license, and vice versa. That is why the powers to tax and to regulate are separately specified. With one exception, which is never used (in Art. 1 Sec. 10), no allowance is made for the charging of fees to cover the costs of regulation, even though this has become a common practice, in violation of the Constitution.

[9] This use of the word "Legislation" is a term of art which grants general powers within its jurisdiction, including powers of criminal and civil law that a State might exercise within its jurisdiction, but unlike a State in that a State would be restricted by a state constitution granting it only certain powers. This is a major gap in the Constitution. Although it applies only to federal ground, it also does not make clear what are the limitations on such legislative power, other than the natural and constitutional rights of persons, and so has been interpreted to allow anything that does not violate those rights. There is a need for a federal sub-constitution, similar to a typical state constitution, that applies to federal ground.

[10] The wording suggests that the States have the power, but allows the Congress to pre-empt it.

[11] But this implies that if the State fails to appoint such officers, local militias are left to elect their own, which was the established Common Law practice at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. But "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". This means Congress can direct, but not forbid it, and implies that, in the absence of any training conducted by the State, local militias are left to organize and train themselves, which was the established Common Law practice established at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

[12] The term used is "form" of government, but the Framers seem to have meant substance as well, and that is reasonably implied.

[13] The original term was "well-regulated", but this is what was meant. Militias were originally local and independent of official authority, and it was intended that although they be subject to official authority when called into service by such authority, that they also be able to convene and operate independently when not.

[14] "Vehicle" was not explicitly included, but implied as an "effect".

[15] This is needed to allow persons not only to have rights but the means to exercise them, and also to acquire those means if they do not already have them, without which the right would be unduly burdened. However, beyond this right, the community has the general power to restrict contracts for reasons of public policy and not just to avoid conflicts with the rights of others, so that there is not a general "right" of contract, but a "default privilege" of doing so, subject to law, for contracts that do not involve securing the means to exercise their natural rights.

[16] This is worded as "to execute the Laws of the Union", thus allowing States to also call forth their Militias to execute their own laws.

[17] The exercise of general police powers is both a right of citizens, and a duty of able-bodied ones. All citizens are policemen, although ordinary citizens may be outranked by professional police officers when such officers are present in a law enforcement situation.

[18] Likewise, the keeping and bearing of arms, while a right of persons, is also a duty of able-bodied citizens.

Last edited by croat; 03-20-2017 at 04:46 PM.
croat is offline  
post #7 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 04:10 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 62
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rush549 View Post
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Well said. I've never understood the American obsession over the role of government. Instead of talking about health care, politicians and so many people instead focus and obsess over the philosophies of government itself instead of addressing a practical need.

Here in Canada its pretty much a given, there's things government does better. You can't expect a private profit motivated business to compete and deliver health care for everyone. Even conservatives here in Canada (largely) get this point. Our health care system frees up business to focus on investment in business, not health benefits for employees, our health care also frees up the individual to be self-employed instead of seeking employers based on what they choose to offer in health benefits. Plus, there is something reassuring about having a health plan where you can go to any doctor without a network limit and have it pre-paid 100%. That to me is true freedom.

Yet to an American many consider it socialism? Just because a risk pool is made to be public and free for the individual does not mean its a bad thing.

This is something I'll never understand about the American mindset. Its kind of weird. I've worked in the US and the health care was terrible, horrific in fact. It was many years ago when I had a temp contract in Pennsylvania, I bought an individual health plan as I was on contract, and I got stomach pains in the middle of the year I was there and went to a doctor. It ended up being something simple, but the tests and everything came to over a thousand bucks and my insurance company denied payment and I had to fight tooth and nail to get them to try and pay a portion.

What Americans deal with is inhumane, and its insane that its allowed. I don't know what has happened with so-called Obamacare, because I was in the states a decade ago for that job, but I'll never be returning other than for vacation. That was an insane experience!

For the record, I'm probably going to vote CONSERVATIVE in our next provincial election. Having these beliefs does not a socialist make. Americans are a bit wacky on this stuff, sorry to say.

Last edited by Patriot08TO; 03-21-2017 at 12:40 AM.
Patriot08TO is offline  
post #8 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 07:04 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Backlighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 198
 
So long as one believes we all are our brothers keepers, the looted earnings of some, for the unearned benefit of another, will continue.
Backlighting is offline  
post #9 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 09:55 PM
Senior Member

 
Ignatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 4,843
  
Garage
Health insurance should be like automobiles. You buy the one you want, need, or can afford. If you can't afford a car, take the bus = Obamacare. We used to have affordable health insurance -- we don't anymore. The rates have risen dramatically since Obamacare. Nor can we choose our own doctor (well, you can, but then you have zero coverage).

Obamacare is nothing like what it should be. If it was as Patriot08TO described, that would be fine. Its when the rates go up and the coverage goes away that people get upset. Whatever you had 10 years ago in the US was probably still far superior to what we have now. Its not hard to find people paying double what they were and still paying the first $10,000. (That would be me).
Ignatz is online now  
post #10 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 10:31 PM
Junior Member
 
sweeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Western Mass
Posts: 26
 
Quote:
Health care experts predict those older adults will end up buying skimpier plans with lower coverage and higher deductibles because that’s all they will be able to afford. The Republican plan replaces the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act, which mostly benefit low- and middle-income earners, with a flat tax credit that does not take into account income or local insurance prices.

On top of that, the GOP plan allows insurers to charge older people five times what they charge younger customers, compared to three times under Obama’s health care law.

The Republican plan is still evolving, and many GOP lawmakers have said they want to see changes that reduce the impact on older consumers before they can support it.

Based on the current plan, an Associated Press analysis of data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows older consumers, defined as those age 55 and older, would be disproportionately affected. They could lose thousands of dollars per year in government subsidies for health insurance.

The AP analysis also found that on average, the counties with the strongest Trump support will see costs for older enrollees rise 50 percent more than the counties that had the least amount of support for Trump.

“A lot of people just won’t be able to afford to pay it. A lot of people are going to drop out of the market altogether,” said Kaiser’s Cynthia Cox.

That includes older voters who helped put Trump into office.
For many older Americans, costs rise under GOP health care plan

I really don't care what you people end up with for HC, I have military TriCare and I feel NOTHING when it comes to costs. Unfortunately (for the dems) Trumpcare will come into affect, there is nothing there.
sweeper is offline  
post #11 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 10:32 PM
Member
 
rush549's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 86
 
Commonwealth and corporatism don't blend. In the USA corporatism always rises to the top
rush549 is offline  
post #12 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 10:51 PM
Member
 
rush549's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 86
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatz View Post
Health insurance should be like automobiles. You buy the one you want, need, or can afford. If you can't afford a car, take the bus = Obamacare. We used to have affordable health insurance -- we don't anymore. The rates have risen dramatically since Obamacare. Nor can we choose our own doctor (well, you can, but then you have zero coverage).

Obamacare is nothing like what it should be. If it was as Patriot08TO described, that would be fine. Its when the rates go up and the coverage goes away that people get upset. Whatever you had 10 years ago in the US was probably still far superior to what we have now. Its not hard to find people paying double what they were and still paying the first $10,000. (That would be me).
The rest of the industrialized word would disagree with your assessment that our health should be a commodity. And I do as well.
Your claim that costs only started to rise after the ACA is false as well. "Obamacare", the ACA, (Affordable Care Act), was a result of out of control costs. Some of us actually lived in this time before President Obama. Healthcare was rising out of control, and it also did a piss poor job covering its patrons. Are things much better? Well yes and no. It covers peoples needs much better. It also allowed a **** ton of people to have insurance that couldn't get it before. But it did very little to stymie costs. I'm not pointing fingers, (Ok, I am pointing fingers), but Republicans demand that profit motive is much more important than peoples well being.

Btw, you can thank Marco Rubio who was responsible for the provision that requires the risk-corridor program in Obamacare to be budget neutral.

Rubio Introduces Bill Preventing Taxpayer-Funded Bailouts Of Insurance Companies Under ObamaCare - Press Releases - U.S. Senator for Florida, Marco Rubio

Rubio says he prevented a $2.5 billion taxpayer bailout for Obamacare | PolitiFact Florida

Last edited by rush549; 03-20-2017 at 10:59 PM.
rush549 is offline  
post #13 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 11:36 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 62
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatz View Post
Health insurance should be like automobiles. You buy the one you want, need, or can afford. If you can't afford a car, take the bus = Obamacare. We used to have affordable health insurance -- we don't anymore. The rates have risen dramatically since Obamacare. Nor can we choose our own doctor (well, you can, but then you have zero coverage).

Obamacare is nothing like what it should be. If it was as Patriot08TO described, that would be fine. Its when the rates go up and the coverage goes away that people get upset. Whatever you had 10 years ago in the US was probably still far superior to what we have now. Its not hard to find people paying double what they were and still paying the first $10,000. (That would be me).
I cannot comment on Obamacare per se, but I did have that experience with a contract in the states pre-Obamacare any years ago. So in my opinion the US system was very well broken before Obamacare/Affordable Care Act.

Instead of discussing health care in the US, I like to discuss how it works here in Canada. I hear shocking statements that aren't true about Canadian care, quite repeatedly, and it is important to get proper information out there. What I hear is kind of disturbing, because truth should matter even if someone disagrees with it.

1) Do we have massive wait lists? The answer is no, there's no central government wait list. Each doctor and/or hospital deals with patient loads independently. Sometimes (not always, sometimes) we have longer waits in Canada for elective, non-emergent care. Why? Because we all have free and fair access and no one is denied care. For example, if you go into a doctor with a pain in your shoulder and they recommend an MRI, yes it might be 1 to 3 weeks before the MRI clinic will scan you (there's no central wait list, each clinic has different patient loads). But that is for general pain that isn't emergent or serious pain. But on the contrary, if you have severe pain and are in a hospital ER with dire symptoms, you'll get an MRI immediately when you're in the ER. That's how it works here, there's not a 'central government wait list' for services and its triaged based on each individual situation. The government doesn't choose, medical professionals make the choices with their patients on a case by case basis. Listening to American media, I hear all kinds of crazy and false stories about waits in Canada.

2) Does the government of Canada choose your doctor for you or ration your care? NO, it is much like the US. You call doctor offices to find out if they have availability, and you have 100% choice. Since we have no network to limit coverage, you can call any doctor office pretty much in the country (although for family doctors you will want to stay in your province since its a provincial health plan) for services. We actually have more doctor choice than Americans do, precisely because laws make doctor networks illegal and government has a role to play. When I was in the USA, I was shocked to learn insurance companies can dictate what doctors you see and what they want to pay. This is an example of where government involvement creates more 'freedom' in health care decision making, and why the government fear card played in the USA is kind of silly.

3) Is our system totally socialised? NO, just the insurance mechanism. And what OHIP doesn't cover, you can buy out of pocket supplemental private insurance to cover extras. There are professional surveys that suggest there are more independent, self-employed private practice family doctors in Canada than in the USA where many doctors have to join group practices as an employee just to deal with the administrative hassles and insurance billing problems. Now if a doctor is part of a hospital or group practice they are probably employees and take a salary, but its the same difference in the USA. A hospital will always have more rules and regulations over doctors than if they enter private, independent practice. Also, numerous services are provided privately. Drugs aren't universal in Canada, and most people have private supplemental plans to help pay for it, but base prices for drugs do start out cheaper here. Many services your doctor request are performed by private enterprise: e.g. lab work, medical supplies, etc. It isn't totally 'government run' and doctors are often self-employed and operate privately.

4) Aren't Canadians drowning in taxes? NO, with the possible exception of Quebec, which is the francophone province that has a lot of duplicate services and taxes because they like to pretend they are their own nation, but the bottom line is that most provinces outside Quebec have very competitive taxes to US states. The general rule of thumb: consumption/sales taxes are higher in most of Canada, property taxes on average are lower than most US localities, and income taxes are about the same in my personal experience. We certainly aren't drowning in taxes, especially since higher paying jobs are easier to get in my experience. I worked in the US and I paid more income/pay cheque taxes than here in Ontario and pay was consistently lower state-side for similar type work. Our health care system in fact is paid out of general taxation, there's not a special separate tax line taken out of your pay cheque for our health plans. Even in the USA, you guys have FICA payroll taxes for taking out for Medicare. We don't even have that! LOL

I hope this clears up some misconceptions people may have. I've personally never experienced excessive waits in my family, among my friends, or with myself regarding health care here in Canada. You can argue Obamacare and the role of government until the end of days as we know it, I don't have to live with your health insurance system, so I'm not inclined to care (I mostly listen to the debates in America for the shock value, #WTFmoments). But I wanted to express some truths about Canadian care. We have a damn good health care system and most of us are proud of it. I don't hear that very often in the states.

Canada has the most pro-business health care system in North America. For all my right leaning political friends, if you are a small or large business, you don't have to pay anything to provide health coverage to your employees. You can be an entrepreneur or contract worker and be self employed, you still have coverage and have to pay nothing out of pocket. Most businesses offer a private drug/dental/vision plan to supplement the health plan, but that's not even a fraction of what a full health plan costs. This alone would make me think the US would want to convert to our system.

My left leaning political friends like the Canadian health system because its equitable to the poor and less well off.

Its literally win-win for everyone. That's why no political party dares to take out the system we have, no matter where they lie on the left-right spectrum.

But despite our similarities, Canada and the US are still different nations. We're not the same, and maybe this is just one of those things the US will never get due to the nature of people in America. This concept that government only exists to fund the military and throw people in prison is quite foreign to a Canadian. And if that's where America is headed, so be it. I'll just keep saying #WTFmoments. LOL

Last edited by Patriot08TO; 03-21-2017 at 11:55 AM.
Patriot08TO is offline  
post #14 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-21-2017, 09:13 AM
Senior Member
 
croat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,351
 
Garage
We did not have affordable health care before RangleCare (the ACA) came into play - what we have now is similar to what we had prior - but now its accessible by more people.

If health insurance was like buying an automobile - the folks that can afford a brand new BMW will still remain in the same good situation as they were in the past and have little to worry about. However those who can only afford a bus ticket ..... will die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatz View Post
Health insurance should be like automobiles. You buy the one you want, need, or can afford. If you can't afford a car, take the bus = Obamacare. We used to have affordable health insurance -- we don't anymore. The rates have risen dramatically since Obamacare. Nor can we choose our own doctor (well, you can, but then you have zero coverage).

Obamacare is nothing like what it should be. If it was as Patriot08TO described, that would be fine. Its when the rates go up and the coverage goes away that people get upset. Whatever you had 10 years ago in the US was probably still far superior to what we have now. Its not hard to find people paying double what they were and still paying the first $10,000. (That would be me).
croat is offline  
post #15 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-21-2017, 12:14 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 62
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by croat View Post
We did not have affordable health care before RangleCare (the ACA) came into play - what we have now is similar to what we had prior - but now its accessible by more people.

If health insurance was like buying an automobile - the folks that can afford a brand new BMW will still remain in the same good situation as they were in the past and have little to worry about. However those who can only afford a bus ticket ..... will die.
This is something as an outside observer I find interesting. One guy says his health care was better pre-ACA and has gotten more expensive, and you're saying its basically the same system just accessible by more people.

I have to admit, if its the same as it was years ago, then its still broken. That sounds like a hard pitch to sell Obamacare in a positive light.

Would it be a fair statement to say Obamacare is a failed solution, but Obamacare likewise didn't create the problems fundamental in the American health system? From what I remember, premiums and deductibles were skyrocketing in the decades before bom bom care, and that law didn't keep it from continuing. Costs have continued to skyrocket in the past decade since the reforms took place.

We get US news up here, I clearly remember the debate and fights where Obama said you can keep your doctor if you want, and costs would be reduced for all parties involved. Those things don't sound true. Democrats did lie to people, and the law they crafted didn't have those goodies in it. Here in Canada we have complete doctor choice, doctor networks are literally illegal. Why didn't the Dems throw that in the law?!? Then people could have kept doctors at the very least.

If this is true, I couldn't defend bom bom care. Likewise, all fingers point to public health insurance being a solution to this.

I think it was Winston Churchill who once said Americans can be counted on to do the right thing, after they've exhausted every other possible bad option. LOL

Last edited by Patriot08TO; 03-21-2017 at 12:27 PM.
Patriot08TO is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Patriot Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome