Health Reform Legistlation

[muir]

A nurse with a long career in the British National Health Service once told me that the reason that the NHS was created was that the government was so appalled at the health of the members of public when it was recruiting them into the army during the two world wars, that it felt that something needed to be done

Did these influencial people feel that they wanted to improve the nations health because:

1) they cared and like the warm fuzzy feeling they get inside when they help people?

2) they wanted to ensure a fit and healthy supply of soldiers in case of future conflict?

3) they worried about the productivity of their workforce due to ill health?

4) they felt they needed to throw the public a bone after all the fighting and dying in the war and all....better keep them happy or maybe they will fight their own government instead?

5) the cost on the economy of an unhealthy work force if action wasn't taken?

Smoking was banned in public places in Britain in recent years. Did the politicians do this because:

1) they stay up all night worrying about the health of the public because they really really love the public and just want to give them all a big big hug?

2) the cost on the economy due to the ill health of the public was beginning to outweigh the tax revenue that they were getting from the sale of cigarettes and tobacco?

The costs would come from many things including: the cost of treating people with smoking related illnesses in the NHS, sick days taken by people due to illnesses related to smoking, the welfare paid to people whose health suffered due to smoking related poor health, lowering in productivity of the workforce due to ill health

3) venture capitalists who had wealth invested in the tobacco industry had been given ample time to take their investments out of the tobacco industry in order to invest in new areas, therefore no longer stood to make large losses if the tobacco industry suffered from loss of revenue?

 

[muir]

Here's a possible explanation:

The bourgeoisie are big business, industry and finance (owners of the means of production)

The public are the workers who work for the bourgeoisie (wage slaves)

The government are the 'executive committee of the bourgeoisie'

That is to say that the government work for the bourgeoisie

This would mean that the idea that the public have that the government work for them is false.

It would mean that the government are part of the bourgeoisie.

Even politicians who began life as members of the public (workers) become members of the bourgeoise by becoming politicians. In fact many who seek a career in politics already know that the bourgeoisie control the means of production and by entering politics they can become a member of the bourgeoisie

So what are the implications of this possible scenario?

The implications would be that when politicians do things that don't seem to benefit the public it is because they are not actually working for the public....they are working for the bourgeoisie

So what about when politicians do something that does benefit the public?

Firstly the bourgeoisie must stop the public becoming too unhappy because if the public become too unhappy they may decide to take the means of production off the bourgeoisie.

Secondly the public must never become aware that they are slaves

Thirdly the slave workforce must be kept reasonably healthy and able because they are needed to work

The facilities for the public/slaves are never too good though because this would cost the bourgeoisie too much money, so the public schools, hospitals, housing, transport etc are never very good.

This is not a problem for the bourgeoisie though because they have created another tier of 'private' facilities which only they can afford to use. They can have the very best of healthcare, education, transport, accomodation; they are also well protected by the police force

In fact everywhere you look you will see a two tier society where the rich live under very different circumstances to everyone else

Often i hear people say 'why are the politicians doing that?' It is all very simple....once it is understood that the government are the executive committee of the bourgeoisie then everything that happens makes perfect sense

Some people are still clinging to the illusion that the government work for them. This is not true and for as long as this belief is held then politics will seem confusing

The bourgeoisie are now not investing their wealth. The government must claw money back from the public through taxes and cuts. The money is constantly moving from public hands to private hands (slaves to bourgeoisie).

The unions understand this game and they are making a stand against the bourgeoisie....that is why we are seeing more strike action and why there will be more strike action to come

 

[Nik]

Apostelytizer: Sorry about the delay; I

 

[Stu]

Hand Washing

Understanding and accepting the "Germ Theory of Disease" Has had a far greater impact on American political thinking than most of us realize. In the late 1700's most of the European and American intellectual elite had a very limited understanding of the profound changes the nascent field of microbiology was soon to produce. In the 1840's a cholera epidemic in London was scientifically proven to be cause by a source of water rather then noxious marsh fumes. As the understanding and acceptance of the theory became wide spread it became clear that the most effective means of protecting people from unsanitary conditions was through government taxation and civic sanitation projects. The Founders had no concept of government on this level.

 

[Nik]

The Founders had no concept of government on this level.

I respectfully (and strongly) disagree with this conclusion. That the founders could not conceive of particular details or imagine future technological advances doesn't alter the aims of republican government. What makes the founders' experiment so unique is that the American regime is founded on the idea that a just government's premier goal is the preservation of its people's liberties and safety; therefore, no matter what new occurrences arise, these sacred things ought always to be protected.

Today we see the word "safety" or "general welfare" and assume that the federal government is entitled to extend its authority to all aspects of human life that come under one threat or another; which is why I've made the comment here before that the progressives' true aim is the elimination of hardship in toto. Because all hardship represents a threat to a life of absolute peace.

But contrary to your conclusion, Madison, for example, was very aware of the potential for massive federal interference. Indeed in his Republican Manifesto he lectures those who would use the terms "common defense" and "general welfare" to extend the federal government's authority beyond its constitutional bounds:

Now, whether the phrases in question be construed to authorize every measure relating to the common defence and general welfare, as contended by some, or every measure only in which there might be an application of money, as suggested by the caution of others,--the effect must substantially be the same, in destroying the import and force of the particular enumeration of powers which follows these general phrases in the Constitution; for it is evident that there is not a single power whatever which may not have some reference to the common defence or the general welfare; nor a power of any magnitude which, in its exercise, does not involve, or admit, an application of money. The government, therefore, which possesses power in either one or other of these extends, is a government without limitations formed by a particular enumeration of powers; and, consequently, the meaning and effect of this particular enumeration is destroyed by the exposition given to these general phrases.

MADISON
The Republican Manifesto

In other words, What is the point of enumerating powers to a government of limited authority when we take the phrases "general welfare" and "common defense" to be a grant to unrestrained government interference?

 

[Stu]

Would Madison see protection against Cholera as promoting "general welfare" or providing for "the common defense"? I see diseases and environmental deterioration as enemies of the people. Ones that we may not be able to combat entirely but where we can we should. In the instance of Health Insurance, it has been made clear to me that an under funded system, morally obliged to provide care for the masses is untenable. Before Medicare, retirees who could not afford medical attention got it pro-bono or went without. Dr.s felt morally obliged to assist them without payment. In our present (pre reform) situation, hospitals have a moral (and legal) obligation to provide treatment to the injured and ill that present themselves, often without payment. How is this tenable? Taxing those who refuse to carry carry medical insurance is a concept that Madison, in his day, would not be able to appreciate.

 

[just me]

This all is happening as states are falling way below their acceptable level of tax accumulation. Already there is talk in at least one state of removing tax exempt status from its hospitals.

Shortfalls are causing attacks on hospitals because of the economy, something most are being asked to look away from presently.

Bankrupting states with even more cuts is in no way going to help do anything but further weaken state sovereignty and strengthen federal dependency.

Can we trust a federal government that takes funds from other programs and refuses to pay them back?

How are they going to deal with the average fifteen percent price increases of insurance per year? What may sound acceptable today to today's youth will(I'll say may) become too expensive to keep when they need it the most in their later years.

Just a lot to look at here.

 

[Satya]

Satya: I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the founders’ intent. They were interested in preserving the people’s right to property and they explicitly objected to the institution of an oligarchy. Also, I don’t think it’s at all correct to say that they could not anticipate the existence of global businesses. The United States had a long trade history with the British East India Company. You baffle me, sir!

And I disagree right back at ya. What the founders said publicly and what their true motivations may have been are two entirely different things. All we have to judge is a Constitutional Republic which favors corporate interests over individual interests. Furthermore, international trade is not the same as global trade. I cannot imagine the founders ever imagined that the United States would be operating under an extraordinary trade deficit, as such a thing would have been unmanageable in their time. However, that is the reality in our current global economy.

 

[Satya]

In other words, What is the point of enumerating powers to a government of limited authority when we take the phrases "general welfare" and "common defense" to be a grant to unrestrained government interference?

Nonsense. Elected officials have to make a strong case and risk their political careers to expand the criteria under which general welfare and common defense are meant to protect. In fact, by modern definition, the founders would be considered terrorists.

 

[just me]

In fact, by modern definition, the founders would be considered terrorists.

Then, by your "modern definition" theory, all that followed them would be considered the same?

 

[Satya]

Then, by your "modern definition" theory, all that followed them would be considered the same?

Muslim terrorists seek to establish Islamic states. Merchant terrorists seek to establish a merchant state.

 

[just me]

Are you calling the founding fathers of America and all that followed them merchant terrorists?

 

[Satya]

Are you calling the founding fathers of America and all that followed them merchant terrorists?

Terrorism: The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.

 

[Barnabas]

Nonsense. Elected officials have to make a strong case and risk their political careers to expand the criteria under which general welfare and common defense are meant to protect. In fact, by modern definition, the founders would be considered terrorists.

Not neccessarly, as most of us know electio are practicly popularity contests. You don't have to prove anything, you just have to get people to dislike your opponent enough to vote for you, make yourself the lesser of two evils if you will.

I would also disagree with your definition of terrorist, striking fear into an opposing army is valid tactic in war, however a terrorist does not strike an army they strike out at the people whom are defenseless on their own.

to my knowledge the war for independence had no such acts of terror and no acts as we would see as terrorism in a post 9/11 sense.

 

[Satya]

I would also disagree with your definition of terrorist, striking fear into an opposing army is valid tactic in war, however a terrorist does not strike an army they strike out at the people whom are defenseless on their own.

Such as the Native American women and children massacred by the US government time and time again? The United States has had its share of terrorism and genocide.

to my knowledge the war for independence had no such acts of terror and no acts as we would see as terrorism in a post 9/11 sense.

Tarring and feathering tax collectors perhaps.

 

[just me]

Terrorism: The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.

Killing scores of innocent civilians fits the description better to me.

 

[Barnabas]

Such as the Native American women and children massacred by the US government time and time again? The United States has had its share of terrorism and genocide.



Tarring and feathering tax collectors perhaps.

Tarrinf and feathering, realy.

Hmmm.... never heard of that happening, it seem so inefficient. Sorry I but I have hard time accepting that.

As for genocide, Jackson wasn't a Founding Father and he was practicly impeached. And I specified the War for Independnce, which the trail of tears is squarley out of.

And you either sidesteped the election statement or you reconsidered it.

But I will give you a touche' on the treatment of Native Americans, it's big ugly stain that not even a tide pen can get out.

 

[Satya]

Killing scores of innocent civilians fits the description better to me.

Like the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Or more like the carpet bombing of Europe during WWII?

General Sherman and Andrew Jacksons brilliant treatment of Native Americans?

How much American history are we looking into terrorism?

 

[Satya]

Tarrinf and feathering, realy.

Hmmm.... never heard of that happening, it seem so inefficient. Sorry I but I have hard time accepting that.

As for genocide, Jackson wasn't a Founding Father and he was practicly impeached. And I specified the War for Independnce, which the trail of tears is squarley out of.

And you either sidesteped the election statement or you reconsidered it.

But I will give you a touche' on the treatment of Native Americans, it's big ugly stain that not even a tide pen can get out.

If you are going to restrict the definition of terrorism to the killing of civilians, then its hard to apply it to the founders since they raised a Continental army to do their fighting for them and they were kindof several thousand miles away from Britain so they couldn't exactly go slaughtering civilians.

 

[Barnabas]

Like the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Or more like the carpet bombing of Europe during WWII?

General Sherman and Andrew Jacksons brilliant treatment of Native Americans?

How much American history are we looking into terrorism?

Hiroshima and Nagaski were given fair warning before the bombing, Japan refused to give so Truman droped the bomb. Infact as hard as it is to believe he probably saved lives by doing so.

The rediculous amoun of casulties that would have come from a full scale invaison of Japan would have been absurd

we lost nearly 7,000 men just taking Iwo Jima, we've at this point lost just over 4,000 casulties in Iraq.

And this is just from the U.S. prospective, think of how many Japanese soldiers died in that battle.

Can you even comprehend the scale of death a fullscale invasion would have caused, I for hell sure can't.

Same goes for carpet bombing in Europe, in the long run these strategies save lives even if it they seem horrific. Because we know that the best way to save lives is to end the war as quickly as possible.