Just a new after thought :

In France in 1791 after the Revolution and the end of Monarchy we had 150 years of political instability (consulate, convention, terror, restauration, empire, democracy).
At the begining the State was limited to the Regalian prerogatives because it was based upon Enlightenements tenets (more Rousseau than Locke but at the end of the day its close enough with America).

There were only 6 ministeries (taxation, foreign affairs, war, homeland security..)
Step by step, with the main moments being 1936, 1945 and 1981 the governement got more and more powers in different realms (education in 1871 for exemple, which hugely contributed to the stabilization of democracy as a form of governement, which was never questionned after except during the dark hours of 1940-1944).

In 1945 was set up the Sécurité Sociale (= universal healthcare + retirement plans) which was a governement planned programm but still dealt with by labour unions and entrepreneurs unions.
Even though it immensely contributed to the abbysal budget hole we have atm and it was debated in many instances, I cant think of one personn except some ultra Sarkozyst who question universal healthcare, even though its costly.

My point being that our social contract evolved, an historian called this the way from the Leviathan to the Providence governement. Even if we do not take a position about whether it is good or not that governement cares about other things than going to war / policing society and avoiding crime, well it is easy to acknowledge - without hiding behind juridical positivism - that the social contract (aka the underpinnings of society and what people expect from the "living together" thing) evolved and that it now includes giving up a part of one's own ressources to make sure that if one day we are hit by misfortune/sickness we will not be left alone by society.
In my opinion that is what's happening in America today, and then again, without judging whether it is not or good, such changes obviously entail turmoil within the society but should never be looked had from stricly positivist / economic standpoints, because they are much more than this, they are a whole change of Political Philosophy and of the social intercourses. Taking this back to a debate to whether the governement is lawfully able to have an intervention in this realm is just overlooking the social considerations, as in what people TRULY expect from their commitment to society.

sorry for the tl,dr

Borloo - there does not appear to be the popular consensus within the American electorate for this change.
So if you leave aside - the merits or otherwise, the legality or otherwise.
One would expect that within the social contract of a democracy - a measure of consent is necessary for a fundamental reform like Obama is proposing.
Of course it is true that leadership is sometimes necessary for unpopular but necssary change - it however becomes increasingly illegitimate if the merits of the choice are unclear or legality questionable as well as being unpopular.

The comparative discussion between the American Republic and the French Republique - has to have at the forefront the fundamental difference. America is basically a diffuse union which has through time been more and more centralised. Whereas France provincial power centres have always been dwarfed by the power of central government.

If you bear that in mind - then you can easily see that the 'sentiment' of Anti-washington, anti socialised medicine - contextualises another unpopular step towards centralisation of the American Republic.

Sure I agree with that there is nothing to be compared between the French Jacobinist republic and the American Federal State in terms of political culture/expectations.
I just took an exemple I know well to illustrate the fact that well things/social contract change, and that legalism/positivism is a very poor analysis tool to account for this.

It stems from the theoretical starting point. In many European countries, the state grants rights to the people. America started with the premise that the people granted the state rights.

One thing to consider for Europeans who don't understand the debate in the US is that the US Federal government is not the equivalent of France, Britain, Germany, etc. The original 13 states as well as California and Texas were independent countries prior to joining the US. They did not give up complete rights as an independent state when they joined. The correct analogy is that the Federal government = EU.

If you consider the reaction in France if the EU decided to admit Turkey to the EU, you might begin to understand reaction in the US.

Not an unreasonable comparison.

You missed my point, what Im saying is that analysing Obama care in strictly constitutional/legal terms is wrong.
It does not matter if one thinks the government should or should not take care of its citizens health. In my opinion it should, but I understand people saying it shouldn't. Its a matter of political opinion.

My point is that those huge changes (because they are) cannot be analysed in terms lawfulness/constitutionnality (or however its spelt). Mpethy seems to reify the constitution, and I what Im saying is that Law is embodied in a much broader context of social intercourses, balance of powers. When there is a civil right act in 64 its not just because "oh lol it'd be fun", it crowns a social struggle of 20 years, which includes as little thing as woman refusing to stand in a bus or a sportman raising his fist on a podium. It acknowledges the new balance of power within society.

To speak about something I know better, when France set up universal medical care in 45 the context was the following :
- country destroyed and humiliated by WW2
- immense prestige of communist party and labour unions, for USSR saved our arses in Stalingrad + both where immensely involved in the resistance to Nazis whithin the boundaries of occupied France.
- lost of credibility of right wing
- labour unions and communist party are HEAVILY armed because of the resistance

So what does De Gaulle do when he sets it up after 150 years of non interventionism : he clearly avoids a revolution.
Then again, this law cannot be understood without analysing the changes withing society and the evolution of social intercourses/balance of power. You just cannot reify the constitution or whatever, it is just the reflection of the relations of power within society at a given moment in time, and it is subject to changes

Dear friends, I have to say that I have been gone for way too long. The conversation has turned from:

"Wassup yo?"

and

"FFFFFUUUUUUUU"

Into a high heated political debates with proper quotations, references and everything that follows. Cant say that I dont like the change, the only downfall is that I now have to re-read the past 30 pages or so in order to understand this transformation.

Also, when it comes to politics, Estonian politics are killing me lately. Not only did they ban all non-estonian poker rooms (The clients still work, but the websites dont) but they are planning to change language laws under which we will have to Estonionize company names, brands and product names. Yet, honestly your conversation seems to be a lot more interesting, so I am going to start reading those pages.

Afraid not.

If ya think Bush jr. screwed this country, Obama will surpass that starting with with his supreme court nominee.

I think that this depends on what aspect of the legislation you're looking at. I also think that this is changing as we speak.

I think that you'll be hard-pressed to get a lot of people to say that they think that US citizens are not entitled to reasonable/affordable health care, that they want those with pre-existing conditions to be denied reasonable coverage, that they want young adults to go without health insurance, etc. I think that you'll have more success when you start to bring up (valid) concerns like a) possible rationing, and b) funding this when there's a trillion dollar hole being eaten in the US budget by two military operations in the Middle East.

My honest concern is that I'm not confident that the US gov't can run something on such a massive scale without royally screwing it up.

I do agree with Borloo that the Constitution (in my mind) is a living thing, and as such it is subject to change with the times. The founding fathers did a good job of laying the foundation, but there is no way that they could have foreseen every conceivable scenario that was to occur a couple of hundred years later.

I will say this: People railed against the New Deal, the civil rights movement, the creation of Medicare/Medicaid, the womens rights movement, Social Security - all of which are now generally accepted by those on both sides of the aisle. People are still railing against gay rights.

The simple truth of the matter (in one man's opinion) is that people are afraid of change and the unknown.

The healthcare systems in France, Japan, etc. are hardly perfect, and the cost is always going to be an issue, but I for one am glad to see that the US is moving towards having a little more compassion for the sick. I have valid concerns (as I'm sure that most US citizens do) but I honestly feel that this is a step in the right direction - and the right thing to do.

excuse me but how the h3ll does forcing everyone to pay for health insurance OR face severe fines compassionate?

I disagree, mpethy can add his opinion, but out of the three branches of the federal government, the supreme court has been the most self balancing of all the branches. So while it may seem we are putting, x or y types in, they all tend to evolve to be balanced.

Disallowing Insurance companies from offering affordable health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions and offering subsidies to help low income families pay for it is compassionate.

GJ totally side-stepping and ignoring my point which is the main crux of this BS the liberals rammed down the majority who didn't want it.

I agree with your last point. The Constitution is the "basic assumption" of U.S. political philosophy, and people do not spend enough time examining it.

(Stare decisis is a judicial doctrine that judges use to keep judicial interpretations of the law somewhat conservative--it has never been used to constrain a court from overturning a prior decision the current court agrees was wrongly decided. In other words, it is no big deal, at all. It just means that judges faced with an old decision they don't like cleverly argue around it to the extent that they can, and, only if they can't, do they say, "ok, **** it, x v. y was wrongly decided and we are overturning it.")

I don't view the founders' opinions with religious awe. But their opinions are demonstrably superior to those that are in vogue today. Moreover, their views are the supreme law of the land, have never been overturned, and should be enforced.



I pretty much disagree that what you have stated was the fundamental social contract of our country.

Our philosophy is not premised on the fact that people give up some of their liberty to government so that government will protect them. Our philosophy is that I was never at liberty to take another person's property or life, and that government was instituted, in part, to keep people from acting as if they were at liberty to take people's life or liberty or property.

Also, government here does not have a monopoly on violence. This is our recognition of the fact that when you own a guard dog, you have to have the means and ability to put it down if it becomes dangerous to you, not just to burglars.

So, I don't really know how to respond, because I don't think you have accurately described our founding philosophy.

Well said.

The lack of consensus regarding health care doesn't bother me that much, simply because it is generally over-generalized. Commentators like Glenn Beck are fond of quoting opinion polls that said things like 72% of Americans wanted the bill scrapped and started over. But they failed to acknowledge that a significant percentage of those wanted the bill scrapped because it did not include a public option, while others wanted it scrapped because it was too much like a public option, or a step in that direction.

So there is not even a consensus among Americans on what is wrong with this bill (except for the corrupt deals).

Basically, we got a compromise bill with which almost no one is really happy. That's a pretty American outcome.

I have a lot of problems with the bill, but the lack of consensus doesn't bother me all that much.

In the United States, analyzing Obama care in strictly legal/constitutional terms is not only correct, it is literally the only lawful way to analyze it. Our government is theoretically powerless to do things the constitution does not authorize it to do. This is true because we recognize government as having only such power as the people give it. In a system where government is the ultimate sovereign, then maybe you can have a government with unlimited power. But that is not the U.S. In the U.S., the people hold all sovereign power, and hand bits and pieces of it to government while government is on good behavior, and we can take it back, by force of arms, if necessary, when government exceeds its constitutional authority.

I will unhesitatingly say this. People are not entitled to health care any more than they are entitled to a car, or a cheeseburger from Burger King, or a smart CPA to do their taxes for them.

I mean, jesus ****ing christ, how can you be entitled to something that you have to get from another people. Don't any of you people care that when you say that you are entitled to health care you are saying that you have a right to the labor of the doctors, nurses and x-ray technicians that will provide it to you.

[/quote]
I do agree with Borloo that the Constitution (in my mind) is a living thing, and as such it is subject to change with the times. The founding fathers did a good job of laying the foundation, but there is no way that they could have foreseen every conceivable scenario that was to occur a couple of hundred years later.

I will say this: People railed against the New Deal, the civil rights movement, the creation of Medicare/Medicaid, the womens rights movement, Social Security - all of which are now generally accepted by those on both sides of the aisle. People are still railing against gay rights.

The simple truth of the matter (in one man's opinion) is that people are afraid of change and the unknown.
[/QUOTE]

I don't blame you for thinking that the constitution is a "living document." This is what the schools have been teaching for 50+ years. But it is wrong. There is no justification for this view in the constitution.

Moreover, if you put any thought into the saying at all, you realize that a constitution that is a "living document," is not a constitution at all. The living document idea transforms the constitution into a worthless scrap of vellum that can be ignored at will whenever we run across a scenario we can say the founders didn't contemplate. This, of course, is the goal of the "living document," fallacy--to allow government to operate without regard to the constraints imposed on it by the constitution.

not too long for me. thx.

If the change is really this unpopular then the repubs will sweep into power next election and repeal the act, right?

IMO, it is not that unpopular -- the balance is fairly even. And when some those people who believed outrageous lies like "death panels" see what BS that was they will come around. Sure, there will still be a lot of tinfoil hat anti-Obama birthers who believe in the non-existent death panels.

I am with mpethy on this, by saying that everyone should get healthcare, you are saying everyone has a right to someone(doctors, nurses) serving them. If thats the case, a clean house would surely keep us a little healthier, so why don't we have the right to maids (funded by the government if you can't afford it). The same with healthy food/chefs, exercise/personal trainers. If we had some kind of automated healthcare cyborgs, then I could get behind everyone having a right to it.

Now that I think of it, maybe we should be working on creating automated healthcare cyborgs. . . .

The main problem, as Mpethybridge already pointed out, is that everybody who walks into an ER already receives emergent care and unfortunately routine care delivered in the most inefficient way possible.

It does seem like we should spend money a bit more sensibly. Here in AZ, people on Access (government plan for poor people) have no out of pocket cost to see the doctor, plus over the counter meds are covered!!! Seriously WTF!? I suppose the idea is that they need the help. Yet they bring their kid in specifically for Tylenol. So figure at least $80 bucks for the visit at an urgent care, several hundred minimum at an emergency room to provide somebody with Tylenol. Not to mention they often have a nice manicure, cigarettes, nice purse, nice phone etc. It's not like most literally could not buy Tylenol. We are paying for peoples lack of priorities.

When I got to stare decisis I knew there was going to be some epic Mpethybridge ownage ITT.

I was not disappointed. H/T good sir!

I think that we're going to agree to disagree here.

I obviously wouldn't go as far as to start giving people butlers, maids, cars, etc. but I don't feel that things like gov't-subsidized housing, food stamps, and basic health care should be off the table. It's beyond me to say that somebody doesn't have the right to see a doctor, the right to a meal, or the right to have an affordable roof over their head.

I've worked hard to get to where I am in life, and I'm grateful that I have not personally required any of these gov't-subsidized programs. That's not to say that everybody that I know can say the same, though. I cannot say in good faith that these programs are without usefulness or value to those who need them to get by.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that these systems that we currently have in place are perfect (because they aren't - people shouldn't be rewarded for having more children to better leech off the system, etc. - and they need to be reformed as well, but that's another issue entirely) but I am saying that I feel that, as one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we have an obligation to help our own citizens that happen to be less fortunate than the rest of us when it comes to these basic life necessities.

If that's simply because of my world views as an (admittedly) left-center Democrat, then so be it.

I acknowledge and respect the opinions of those who differ from mine, and I will defend to the end your right to express them. The discourse is hopefully what ends up eventually getting all of the kinks ironed out.

Forgive me, though, if I don't agree with them.

I'll jump into this one for a few minutes . . .

To give Mpethy his due, I do have some real problems with this bill from a constitutional standpoint. I really don't think it's legal to force a citizen to pay a private entity for anything, and I think in that case the bill overreaches the authority of government that we sort of agreed on a long time ago. The decision to approach the problem the way this bill does is based on a lot of other considerations, many of which I don't agree with but which I do understand.

The question has been asked several times, how can we not go broke doing this? It's fairly simple, really. We cover about 2/3 of the population now with private insurance and Medicaid/Medicare. About 30% of the total cost of health care is absorbed by insurance company profits and the efforts of hospitals to get paid for services by those insurance companies, whose main motive is to pay out as little as possible for what it charges in premiums. I know these things because I work in the health care industry, and have for 30 years. If we went to a fully not-for-profit system, based either in a government plan or a highly-regulated private approach, we would easily save enough money to cover everyone for basically what we spend now. We might even do it more cheaply than we do now, because more preventative care would save a huge amount of money in the care of people who develop devastating chronic illnesses for lack of said preventative care. These numbers are easily verified and there should really be no argument between reasonable people about them.

The reasons why we haven't done this are more based on the decisions we have made about our money than real practical considerations. The US right now is a money-losing operation. We spend more on what we import than we produce in exports. What we've been doing to make up for this is selling paper . . . stocks and mortgages . . . to the countries we ship dollars to for real goods. Insurance stocks are a big part of this paper, and with good reason; as we saw above, health insurance company profits are high and consistent. If we went to a single-payer system, as there is in several countries, the value of those insurance stocks would drop to near zero almost immediately for those companies whose only business is health insurance, and our foreign creditors would be left holding the bag. This would make them somewhat less likely to buy T-Bills at the next auction, and put the squeeze on us to print money and experience some real inflation. Things being as they are, the response of the Fed to real inflation would be to raise interest rates, clubbing the economy over the head and sending us into a further depression. This is something they are trying to prevent.

In doing this, IMHO, we are simply delaying the day of reckoning. We have to make some changes, but there is a lot of disagreement about what those changes should be. Make no mistake though, there is nothing 'liberal' about this bill. It is near identical to Republican plans from the past, before the party went truly insane. In fact, it is quite close to what Romney implemented in his home state. Gonna make it sorta tough for him to run next time when his plan is the one our Republican friends are so steamed about.

The maids comparison is pretty weak. You are seriously comparing people not being able to get reasonable health care to living in a dirty house? A dirty house someone can clean themselves, they can't treat them selves for a heart attack or cancer, that argument is very weak and a poor analogy. I get that you are trying to say that dirty living conditions are bad for one's health but again, cleaning up after one's self and treating one's self for a disease are two different things. Healthy food and personal trainers are luxuries beyond basic health care also. Yes there are things wrong with the bill that not everyone will agree with but trying to compare luxuries such as maid service, personal trainer and chefs to receiving health care at a reasonable cost or at all is ridiculous.



You can't blame the people who can't afford health care or can not get it for the horrible health infrastructure currently put in place. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that a big part of the bill also, to make it more efficient and help cut out some of the bs???

Obviously people will abuse the system. People will always abuse the system and this is where amendments will assuredly come down the road. People will, hopefully, realize and adapt as they see holes in the bill. Alot of what you are talking about is also people being uneducated on the proper way to do things. Again, that goes back on the health care system itself not always the people asking for the help/treatment.

Many of the problems people argue against the bill, I view as the bill taking steps in the right direction to fix. There has to be a starting point to fix things somewhere.


+1 My views appear to be right on par with your anonymous.


I see your side of things Mpethy and I get your stance on them. I think most people view Health care as a necessity and a right today however. Maybe it isn't correct but I think we as a society view receiving health care coverage as a basic American right in today's society. I don't really agree that we can't provide something as basic and humane as health care just because our Declaration didn't mention it a few hundred years ago.

Not to make it too personal but I'm willing to bet that everyone against universal health care either has their own health care plan through work or is still on their parents plan and has no idea what it's like to live without health insurance or be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And to those that say well you can still get help from the free clinics etc.......go to a free clinic if you believe this to be true. There is a reason why health care costs so much. It's not a simple an answer as people abuse the system, insurance providers jack up rates etc, its an emulsion of reasons and something had to be done. Whether or not that is Obama Care is a matter or opinion and point of view but something still had to be done. I view this as merely the starting point of a long process towards rectifying health care problem in this country. When I say problem I don't just mean covering the uninsured either. Certainly those of you who have coverage can not be happy with the seemingly outrageous prices that health care providers are charging.

To be honest I think more blame should be placed on the health care system itself, rather than those people who abuse it in some fashion. If you have ever had a major injury or claim you know what I'm talking about. You go into the hospital for something, then they send the bill to your insurance provider. The hospital will undoubtedly charge an exorbitant amount for the services rendered. The insurance company will counter saying no, this is the average rate that we pay out for "X" pills/surgery etc in this area. Notice if you don't have health insurance this is another area you get hurt by because you don't have a 3rd party negotiating proper costs for things on your behalf. Then the hospital responds with ok, we will charge "X" amount then, almost always lowering it to what the health insurance company wants to pay but who knows if that amount is a fair amount??

For those that think I am conspiracy thinking or anything of the sort is wrong. Again I worked in the insurance field for a little over a year and dealt with this situation countless times. I have seen outrageous prices for things such as Tylenol, bottles of water, can's of juice, food etc. Bottom line is that the health care system needs to be re done no matter your view point in politics on the matter.

So what is the difference between a maid and a doctor? To you, it is apparently that you value the doctor's service more highly than the maid's. In fact, the market agrees with you--the doctor's labor IS usually viewed as more valuable than the maid's.

So your position, and the position of everybody else who favors publicly funded health care, seems to be this: if your labor is sufficiently valuable, I have a right to compel you to give it to me.

Your second statement I quoted outrages me, because it is true. Most Americans think it is just and proper for them to force another person to work for them.

Somebody up thread made a second point about the bill that grates on me--this is the first time in the history of the U.S. that the government has claimed the right to tell me what services and products I HAVE TO buy.

You lose (the bet) since I don't have health insurance, and I am strongly opposed to universal healthcare. I know exactly what it's like to live without health insurance, I've been doing it for 25+ years! Plus I currently need an operation that will cost around 10 grand. I line up firmly in the Mpethy camp on this.

Garon

The difference between a maid and a doctor are pretty obvious to anyone. I can do what a maid can do. I can not, however do what a doctor can do. I get what you are saying that the doctor's labor is usually more valuable but how does that make it wrong? Anyone in their right mind would value a doctor's service over a maid's. I get that you are trying to say that they are both premiums/extras and since they are should be viewed similarly.

It's not a "I have a right to compel you to give me your services". That is not how I think about it at all. It is just the basic necessity of health care in general. I am not trying to force doctors to do anything outside of their will. I guess I just view it more as a whole than individually. While I agree that the schooling as well as the skill set that it takes to be a doctor would require more pay for services rendered but do we really know what the proper prices are for such services when then health care and insurance companies seem to be into bed together? Fwiw, I am in no way saying doctors don't deserve the money that they make, they do. I am merely saying that it's hard to put a proper market value on something when the people who run, provide and charge also control that market.

Fwiw, they have told you you have to buy car insurance for quite some time now. The main derivative there being that it helps society if everyone has car insurance. When I was studying for my licenses for the insurance job, I read about how the country was outraged that they were forced to buy car insurance. Seems pretty similar to the health care situation but not as complicated and it is a choice, yet basically a necessity for anyone to have a car today.