Definition of "Liberal"

[Bigum1969]

That actually was a point I made, Scutter. The quoting was a little confusing. I agree with you, that's exactly what it does. It's clearly a system broken beyond repair. It's time to abolish it. (How did people survive prior to the onset of a welfare system?)

Blessings,
B

Bill of Rights-

Just a question - do you consider Medicaid a welfare program?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Any hospital may choose not to see a patient, they just have to at the same time give up any Medicare/Medicaid (government supplied, from our taxes) reimbursement.

That is true. Forgive my oversimplification. Most hospitals wouldn’t give up those payments therefore it is a moot point.

Once again, sucking on the gov't sugartit.

It is not the proper job of government to meet all the needs, medical or otherwise, of the citizens.

I never said “meet all needs”. I said provide, at a minimum, basic preventative health care for those who can’t afford it, with the end result being a reduction in costs for everyone.

Today it is unConstitutionally providing health care. Yesterday it was unConstitutionally providing "education" which has led to socialist ideals and a failure to teach history in favor of "multiculturalism".

When local churches (or whatever non-governmental source) provide aid, they quickly realize that Old Tom, who shows up all the time for a free bed and a hot meal, could actually work, but he prefers to sponge off the limited resources the church has. They will quickly put a stop to his freeloading, either by telling him to leave or by putting him to work, earning his keep.

I guess you missed the part where I said that requiring able bodied people to work for their assistance is A-OK with me.

The point is that under a gov't controlled welfare system, it doesn't happen.

When government runs the welfare system, there is no oversight, just "mailbox money".

This needs to, and can, change

How? How will it change when gov't has no incentive to make it do so?

Stop giving money. Give them a catalog. Let them say, "I need meat and cheese this week." They can then come and pick up the meat and cheese at whatever warehouse is used to store it. It's not name brand, and it's not the best in the world, but it provides nourishment to a family. It also does not give extra to be used to buy booze, smokes, lottery tickets, and drugs. People won't like it, but those people can be told that if they better themselves and get off welfare, they can buy whatever meat and cheese they can afford.

I agree completely. I never said we had to give them money. I am all for common sense solutions to the welfare problem.

This was merely one of many suggestions I made to end the welfare problem. (that being people thinking they are entitled to have their every desire paid for by their fellow citizens via gov't extortion.

You make the point that gov't now manages so much land.

Actually I didn’t say the government manages too much land. I said there is no longer any significant amount of public land on which to hunt raise crops to sustain anyone who doesn’t want to live off gov’t handouts.

Same end result. The land belongs to the people, not to the faceless entity we refer to as government.

Graduated, aka "progressive" taxation is not a new idea. It's one part of the Communist Manifesto.

You completely glossed over the point I made that even though there is a progressive income tax system, wealthy people still manage to pay less overall taxes, as a percentage of their income, as the middle class or the poor. Again, as a percentage of their income.

A wealthy person will pay more money under a fair tax that has no loopholes, no shelters, no anything. If I make $30K a year and pay 35% taxes now, that's just over $10.5K. (these are hypothetical numbers) If you make $100K and pay 35%, you're paying $35K in taxes. It's more money. It doesn't have to be a greater percentage of your income. If your position earns you three times my income, why should you have to live on $19.5K a year? (the amount I'd have in this example, after taxes)

Why should the more wealthy not pay a higher percentage of their income?

They don’t

This was a repeat of your question and was intended rhetorically.

Simply, to force them to do so violates the entire goal of the free market; if you work hard, come up with a unique idea, or provide a service few are able to provide, you are highly compensated for any or all of those things. Without this incentive, what is the reason for anyone to do those things? Put another way, if I work hard and earn $100,000, and you do nothing at all and earn nothing, by what right, rhyme, or reason should I have to live on $50,000 and give the other half of my earnings to you, who've done nothing?

I never said that you should give up 50% of your income. You are making an extreme example not based in reality. I make close to what you said & I have never had to give 50% of my pay in taxes. Not even close. It’s more like asking a multi-millionaire to give up buying one more yacht to help 100 people not starve to death.

Even if they did pay a higher percentage (which they don’t), they use more services than poorer people do. You wouldn’t want to use more services & pay less for them would you? I think that is already happening. Doesn’t sound like paying your fair share.

My turn to oversimplify. The point is that if someone works and earns a higher income, he or she should not be forced to give any of it up for someone else who does not work. If he/she chooses to do so, that is his/her choice. Gov't extortion removes that choice.

It's interesting that you bring up "corporate welfare". This is a "pet peeve" of mine. This, like extortion (aka taxation) is exactly what you later denied is happening: Wealth redistribution. If a business cannot survive on it's own, either they are charging too much or there is not enough demand for their product or service.

We agree again.

If we agree, how can you deny that "wealth redistribution" is happening?

In any case roads can be built, police, fire, and medical services can be provided privately, and for that matter, even judges could be available in the free market. We call them road construction companies, security guards, fire protection companies, private ambulances, and "mediation services".

And what of the poor who can’t pay? Do we let them get raped or robbed? Do we let their homes burn? Do we let people with more means steal what little they do have because they can pay off the mediator? Do we not allow them to use the roads until they can fork over the dough?

Under this system, where people are not robbed by their government of huge amounts of their earning potential, there would be fewer "poor". As for paying off the mediator, such a person would quickly find himself before another such mediator on charges of fraud, at a minimum. Besides, you act like no one can pay off a judge in our current system.

Private charities could easily voluntarily collect funding for those in need who did not plan well or who have not had time to do so due to age.

They already do but there is still not enough to go around

Perhaps because people have no disposable income to contribute? It's not like Americans are not a generous people.

Running water, electricity, and basic health care should be provided without cost? Who is going to provide these things without pay? Would you? If so, and that is your full-time job, how do you feed YOUR family?

I never said without cost. That would be communism. I said government subsidized for those who can’t afford it.

No, you didn't specifically say "without cost". You said, "...should be given without regard to who can pay or not." So if someone cannot pay and is given it anyway, that would be "without cost."

You say you believe in all of the Bill of Rights. How, then, do you reconcile your stated opinions and feelings with the Tenth Amendment?

Translated, that says that unless a power is Constitutionally granted to government, government, specifically the federal government, does not have that power. Wherein lies the power to create a nationally funded healthcare system? A tax-funded water utility? A welfare system? Indeed, most things for which our taxes are extorted from us are not government's place to provide.

From the same authority that any other law that is passed by the gov’t. We (the people) say it’s OK by our votes. Also, none of this precludes the idea that the states themselves can perform all of these services, not necessarily the Federal gov’t.

No. If the authority is not in the Constitution, it does not exist. That is clearly spelled out, and is the reason the (improperly ratified) Sixteenth Amendment was added. If the states do it, the responsibility is a little closer to home. Indiana's Constitution forbids property taxes on individual properties, by the way, allowing them only on corporate property.

You asked why a non-citizen should be stripped of life or property- if all that person did was not be a citizen of America, they should not. If, however, they have violated our laws, conspired to or actually injured or killed our people, then they have waived their human rights by virtue of not behaving like human beings.

So do you also think that of our own citizens who break our laws and conspire to injure or kill our people? That flies directly in the face of the Fifth Amendment which again only guarantees a pre-existing right for all mankind not just US citizens. No human being can waive a pre-existing right without due process of law unless of course you don’t really believe in the entire Bill of Rights.

Does not the Miranda warning include the phrase, "Do you wish to give up the right to remain silent?" Cannot a person choose to allow a search of his property without a warrant being required? In any event, if that person has committed a crime, then it's not "without due process of law".

You said that Liberals believe in holding accountable those who have committed crimes. That sounds good, but the reactions you see and hear when a criminal commits a crime are that for whatever reason, it's not his fault... Broken home, oppressed childhood, no father figure, blah blah blah. All kinds of reasons why it's not his fault or why this or that ethnic group is so put upon and jailed more often than another. That's not holding someone accountable for their actions, it's placing blame everywhere but on the person committing the crime.

Just because some people would like to try to find the reasons people commit criminal acts & feel bad about the potential circumstances that may have gotten the person to that point in their life, doesn’t mean they should not be held accountable. No one I know of advocates letting criminals (especially violent ones) walk away free with no punishment.

Many, however, advocate punishing the victim who stops the poor little altar boy who was robbing him by putting two rounds in the little punk's head.

Further, government should not be the unbiased representative of anything. Government should be the biased servant of the people who employ it, and the bias should be for the betterment of (in our case) America, not the lofty but unreachable goal of "the world at large".

I think we are saying the same thing here. We can’t change the world but we try all the time which is why we are in much of the mess we are in the Middle East right now.

No, I mean that rather than care what France or China or Venezuela thinks of us, our gov't needs to be focusing on increasing individual Americans' liberties.

A little help? Sure, I can agree with that, but you don't help people by making them dependant, you help them by giving them a little boost up-a temporary thing, not one to last over generations.

You again are saying that like that’s not also what I said: limits, incentive to improve, responsibility & so on.

This is not the impression I got from your post.

We should always have dreams and goals, and I applaud yours, I just don't think that they're realistic or fit with the American ideals of our Founders.

That, sir, is debatable.

Of course it is. They're not here to ask. But none of them thought we needed a welfare system.

I have one other question. You are not a wealthy person (as I gathered from another post). Why not? Don’t you want to be? Obviously every person in the US has choices & we can all be rich if we just work hard enough, right?

Just to clarify I mean no disrespect to you. I am just making a point.

No disrespect taken. Why am I not a wealthy person? Because I made some bad choices when I was younger. No, nothing criminal, just stupid. I didn't finish college when I first went and instead I went into a field that didn't pay well monetarily, but with which I was very satisfied that I was doing good with my life. That wasn't stupid, but not finishing my degree when I had greater earning potential was. I can't change the past, but I can make the best future possible for myself. That's where I am now-pulling myself up by my bootstraps.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill of Rights-

Just a question - do you consider Medicaid a welfare program?

Yes, I would have to say that I do. I know that there are disabled people (truly disabled, not disabled in the sense of "I have migraines."... there are lots of people who get migraines that work.) who literally cannot get other insurance in our current system. That said, my experience has been those that think of everything as "free" because, "I got th' Medicaid!". These are people that can't afford a thermometer or OTC medicine for their baby's fever, but they always seem to have money for cigarettes, among other "wants". (If you want to smoke, bully for you, but *I* don't believe that should take the place of meeting the needs of your child.)

Will removing that system suck for those people who truly are disabled? Probably, and that is something I'd like to see replaced somehow, preferably without gov't screwing it up.

Blessings,
B

 

[Fletch]

Again, there's no reason to rob Peter to save Paul. If you know (or know of) a disabled person who can't afford their meds, offer to help pay for them. If you don't know such a person, I guarantee there is a church or charity in your area who does.

It seems I meet a lot of so-called "liberals" who care enough about the poor and downtrodden to make them the responsibility of others, but not many who care enough to want the responsibility for themselves.

 

[JetGirl]

Again, there's no reason to rob Peter to save Paul. If you know (or know of) a disabled person who can't afford their meds, offer to help pay for them. If you don't know such a person, I guarantee there is a church or charity in your area who does.

It seems I meet a lot of so-called "liberals" who care enough about the poor and downtrodden to make them the responsibility of others, but not many who care enough to want the responsibility for themselves.

Oh yeahhh!! That's rep'd!!

 

[CarmelHP]

It seems I meet a lot of so-called "liberals" who care enough about the poor and downtrodden to make them the responsibility of others, but not many who care enough to want the responsibility for themselves.

Yes finity, Fletch made a point, you're free to send as much of your income as your want to government or charities. How much extra do you send in?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Again, there's no reason to rob Peter to save Paul. If you know (or know of) a disabled person who can't afford their meds, offer to help pay for them. If you don't know such a person, I guarantee there is a church or charity in your area who does.

It seems I meet a lot of so-called "liberals" who care enough about the poor and downtrodden to make them the responsibility of others, but not many who care enough to want the responsibility for themselves.

Yup. It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.

Anyone remember the story of the widow's mite?

Blessings,
B

 

[finity]

Yes finity, Fletch made a point, you're free to send as much of your income as your want to government or charities. How much extra do you send in?

I pay my taxes & give money to charities. I do as I would hope others would do. I don't like paying taxes but they are a necessary evil.

 

[finity]

It's clearly a system broken beyond repair. It's time to abolish it. (How did people survive prior to the onset of a welfare system?)

Blessings,
B

Sorry for the long delay in replying. I just got back from the NMLRA Rendezvous in Friendship. Boy did they take a beating down there from the winds of Ike.

The system can be fixed. No need for abolishing it. There are certainly people who abuse the system. Punish them, not everyone. I kind of consider it like gun control. Just because there are people who use guns in the commision of a crime, doesn't mean we should ban all guns, does it?

I was thinking of exactly the question you raised above on the drive back from Friendship. What did people do before welfare?

If you think about it, welfare here was enacted when our country was alot younger, there was still alot of unclaimed land (at least by whites, but that's for a completely different, but ironically related, thread). People in the country could still, for the most part, hunt & fish to supply their needs. I'm sure there were destitute people in the cities. Poor houses were a thing of the recent past & maybe still in operation in some areas. Children were given up to orphanages. The Government had the Mothers Pensions & Widows Pensions which were run by the States. Tenements were plentiful with many families living together in a small apartment in squalid conditions. People with families - yeah I know, "the children" would have them all working, as young as 7 or 8, in terrible conditions.

I grant you that people did not want to accept organized charity or government handouts but they were there & used nonetheless. There were poor people that needed cared for then & there are poor people now. The only difference is the route the money takes in getting to them.

There have been state run welfare systems since the time of the ancient Egyptians.

Similarly regarding taxes:

I ask (but I think I know the answer) has there ever been a major society that did not collect a tax from it's citizens for the use of their governments? I can't think of any. Many times those taxes were exhorbitant.

If there were any societies that did not collect taxes they were overwhelmingly Socialist/Communist societies where each person contributed a share & received their necessities from the whole of the group (Native Americans & other tribal cultures).

So I guess you have two options - collect taxes or (gasp!) turn to communism (not the government kind, the economic kind). I guess there is another alternative - anarchy with each man for himself. Ahh...a return to the good old days of the Robber Barons, 16 hour days in unsafe sweat shops for low pay & child labor. Kind of gets you misty eyed doesn't it?

The Founders had no problems with the idea of taxation, they didn't like taxes without representation (among other issues)

 

[Fletch]

The days of the robber barons were the days of mercantilism, and all of the ills you describe are the result of government interference in the market.

The fact of the matter is, the free market provides an opportunity to solve every social problem on the face of the planet, through the ability to create wealth. It is only when people turn to violence, aka government, that things really start to go south. Government has never and will never create wealth. Its only capabilities are destruction and redistribution.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yup. The way government promotes business, industry, and invention is to get the hell out of the way.

I heard a great quote on Bob and Tom the other day. Granted, they're not known for their sage advice but for their humor, but they weren't being funny here-they were being sarcastic, but serious:

"Yeah, because all the small business owners I know are saying, 'That's what I need is a few more forms to fill out, a few more surprise inspections, and another eight month wait for a building permit! If I could have those, I'd be doing great."

(note that this is a paraphrase; I didn't write it down when it was said, but it captures the spirit of the comment)

Government is simply a method by which someone incapable or unwilling to undertake an action has someone else do it for him, i.e.: I want everyone to fund this project so I don't have to do it myself and risk losing everything if it fails, but I can't make everyone pay in-all I can do is ask them and risk being told no. <snap> I know! I'll have Big Brother make everyone pay in and then take the money to use for my pet project! <rationalization> It really is for everyone's good. I can't help it if they can't see that I know what's best and they don't. </rationalization> <elitism>I'll do much more good with their money than they ever would. </elitism>

As for the concept that government is somehow "needed" to do this or that, consider this quote:
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” --William Pitt

Blessings,
B

 

[Bigum1969]

Bill of Rights -- As I've stated before, I do share most of your beliefs. But, I've learned from many first hand experiences that life is not full of absolutes.

You quoted William Pitt at the end of your post. I do believe that government is not needed for a lot of things.

But let me share a personal example of how government might save my father from losing all he owns:

My dad is 75, worked for almost 40 years as an auditor for the Department of Defense. My mom is 70 and worked as a registered nurse for more than 40 years. Both of them were first generation college grads and grew up very poor. My parents were always "savers" and not "spenders".

Five years ago my mom started forgetting things. Then she started losing things and having hallucinations. And soon after that she began to forget who we were.

Within three years, my mom had gone from the woman I knew to someone I hardly recognized. Alzheimer's is a terrible disease.

My dad tried to take care of her until 6 months ago when she became violent and was a danger to herself and others. It was time to find a nursing home for her.

Here's the kicker -- care for a person like my mother runs more than $8,000 per month. My dad has long-term insurance that pays $3,000 per month, but he'll need medicare to help him with the rest. It won't pay all of the $5,000 difference, but it just may enable him to keep his house for his remaining years.

He doesn't have luxuries. He planned and saved. He sent me and my sister to college.

Is this unnecessary?

I can tell you medicaid is a mess. My dad has to spend down most of his assets for my mother's care before medicaid kicks in. He will, in essence, be virtually broke. Medicaid will, however, allow him to stay in his home. My mom could easily live 10+ more years. How would he pay for her care? What are the options without some support?

I agree that government falls short on many things it does. It certainly could use an overhaul.

But I cannot agree that it does not, at times, play a necessary function.

Just my

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill of Rights -- As I've stated before, I do share most of your beliefs. But, I've learned from many first hand experiences that life is not full of absolutes.

You quoted William Pitt at the end of your post. I do believe that government is not needed for a lot of things.

But let me share a personal example of how government might save my father from losing all he owns:

My dad is 75, worked for almost 40 years as an auditor for the Department of Defense. My mom is 70 and worked as a registered nurse for more than 40 years. Both of them were first generation college grads and grew up very poor. My parents were always "savers" and not "spenders".

Five years ago my mom started forgetting things. Then she started losing things and having hallucinations. And soon after that she began to forget who we were.

Within three years, my mom had gone from the woman I knew to someone I hardly recognized. Alzheimer's is a terrible disease.

My dad tried to take care of her until 6 months ago when she became violent and was a danger to herself and others. It was time to find a nursing home for her.

Here's the kicker -- care for a person like my mother runs more than $8,000 per month. My dad has long-term insurance that pays $3,000 per month, but he'll need medicare to help him with the rest. It won't pay all of the $5,000 difference, but it just may enable him to keep his house for his remaining years.

He doesn't have luxuries. He planned and saved. He sent me and my sister to college.

Is this unnecessary?

I can tell you medicaid is a mess. My dad has to spend down most of his assets for my mother's care before medicaid kicks in. He will, in essence, be virtually broke. Medicaid will, however, allow him to stay in his home. My mom could easily live 10+ more years. How would he pay for her care? What are the options without some support?

I agree that government falls short on many things it does. It certainly could use an overhaul.

But I cannot agree that it does not, at times, play a necessary function.

Just my

Bigum,

First, I'm sorry to hear what you and your dad are going through with your mother. I know exactly what you mean about Alzheimers; I lost my father (in body) one year ago this past Monday. I say "in body" because we lost him as the man I knew about thirteen years earlier, the last eight of which he wasn't speaking much if at all. It's a horrible disease.

Next.. You said the costs of your mom's care are so expensive. Yes, they are. Would they be so high if it was not for all the government regulation? Someone told me years ago (and this man was licensed as a nursing home administrator(poss. healthcare administrator, don't recall)) that the only industry in the US more tightly regulated than nursing homes is nuclear power. This is unconscionable. If your mom was in a substandard home, you would quickly remove her to a better one, yes? If everyone did likewise, that substandard home would close down and the next worst would soon take it's place, leaving, eventually, only those that took their responsibility seriously and did so affordably. Keep in mind that with so much less going out to support taxes, people would be able to save even more as well.

You said that with medicaid, he "just might be able to stay in his home in his remaining years". How sad that is that that is even considered to be a good thing. I know that not only will IN Medicaid not allow him to sell his belongings to you or anyone else to appear less wealthy (they go back something like 10 years, if memory serves, to ensure you didn't hide assets) but that the house and such which he scrimped and saved to pay for still won't be his if he doesn't pay his property tax and even if he does, that someone would force him to choose between providing for his lifemate's care or having the home that he worked to buy.

You don't have to agree with anything, let alone everything I say, Bigum. I enjoy the discussions that would not happen if we all agreed. I will not, however, agree that "more government" is ever anything but a wrong answer to how to solve problems or further respect individual liberties--or much of anything else.

Blessings,
B

 

[finity]

The days of the robber barons were the days of mercantilism, and all of the ills you describe are the result of government interference in the market.

The fact of the matter is, the free market provides an opportunity to solve every social problem on the face of the planet, through the ability to create wealth. It is only when people turn to violence, aka government, that things really start to go south. Government has never and will never create wealth. Its only capabilities are destruction and redistribution.

So your actually saying that the government caused every social ill there was (& is)?

Which government acts caused children to be forced to work 10 - 16 hours a day & be beaten if they didn't produce enough?

Which law made women get paid less for the equivalent work as a man?

Which regulation created the mining & logging towns owned by the companies that the people worked for that only provided the bare necessities at elevated prices?

Yep, it was all the governments fault. It had nothing to do with greed.


On the other hand there are examples that show what we could expect if our government took a hands off approach to industrial & corporate regulations. You can look at any third world country & see it. How many environmental regulations do the African countries have? It's everyone for themselves. If you can get away with it, why not? There's no law that says you can't.

 

[finity]

I know exactly what you mean about Alzheimers; I lost my father (in body) one year ago this past Monday. I say "in body" because we lost him as the man I knew about thirteen years earlier, the last eight of which he wasn't speaking much if at all. It's a horrible disease.

First let me start by saying that I'm sorry about your father. The following may sound harsh, so I apologize in advance.

How was he being taken care of in his condition? Was he wealthy so he could take care of himself? If so, great. He's lucky. If not, did he live with his wife, you or a sibling? If not & he had no other choice but to live with you, from past posts it seems you would not have had the money to care for him properly. Then what?

Did he get public assistance (medicare or social security)? If so, then you are a hypocrite. You should have been taking care of him. If you couldn't, tough for you.

Would they be so high if it was not for all the government regulation? ...the only industry in the US more tightly regulated than nursing homes is nuclear power. This is unconscionable.

Why? Should we not want some minimum standards of care without corporate greed getting in the way? If anything, history has shown that without some restraint, corporations will tend to give you the lowest quality product possible at the highest possible price. Whatever the market will bear. Its the way the free market works, isn't it? There is always some story in the news about corporate wrong doing causing harm to consumers. Should we not hold them legally accountable for this?

If your mom was in a substandard home, you would quickly remove her to a better one, yes? If everyone did likewise, that substandard home would close down and the next worst would soon take it's place, leaving, eventually, only those that took their responsibility seriously and did so affordably.

Thats true if everyone had the money to tranfer them to a better one, yes? What about those who couldn't afford to do that? There will always be someone to provide a service at the level of what someone can pay, but that will come at the expense of quality. You get what you pay for, no? I don't think that I've ever heard anyone say that Walmart gives the same quality of goods & services as somewhere that charges significantly more. You get what you pay for.

There are some industries that the quality of goods & services can have a significant impact on the health, safety or financial well-being of the consumer. Those are the ones typically regulated by the government.

You said that with medicaid, he "just might be able to stay in his home in his remaining years". How sad that is that that is even considered to be a good thing. I know that not only will IN Medicaid not allow him to sell his belongings to you or anyone else to appear less wealthy (they go back something like 10 years, if memory serves, to ensure you didn't hide assets) but that the house and such which he scrimped and saved to pay for still won't be his if he doesn't pay his property tax and even if he does, that someone would force him to choose between providing for his lifemate's care or having the home that he worked to buy.

It looks to me like the system is performing exactly as you say you want things to be. His dad has to show a real need to get taxpayer money to help him pay for his wifes care. Actually in your world, need wouldn't matter as there would be nothing provided anyway.

Why should his dad get something for nothing? If he has the means to pay then why shouldn't he? Be that by selling his house or other assets or emptying his bank & stock accounts. It seems that you are promoting illegally hiding assets from the government by implying that he could sell his belongings to his children (I assume that real money would trade hands, not just an excercise in tricky accounting) & that his dad really would not have the benefit of those assets any longer (no house to live in, no car to drive). After all, he did sell them off, didn't he?

Let's assume that unfair (to whom?) government regulation was to account for half of the cost of his moms care. That would leave $4000 per month in costs. Even if you assumed government interference tripled the cost of care, that still leaves $2700 per month. He says his mom could easily live 10 more years, thats 120 months. So $4000 X 120 = $480,000 or $2700 X 120 = $324,000. I seriously doubt that many people have 1/3 to half a million dollars laying around to pay for their spouses medical care, let alone other expenses that are incurred in day to day living for the non-ill person. And those numbers don't take inflation for those 10 years into account. If his assets total less than that, then so what? Its his responsibility, right? He should have worked harder, longer hours or more than one job so that he could plan for this sort of thing.

It sucks, but in your world of absolute personal responsibility you have some tough choices to make.

Now, all of the above is a small glimpse into the world into which you would like to force us all. I don't think I like it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thank you for the condolences. He's in a much better place than he was.
I think you missed my point, though, Jeff. I'm saying that not only would costs be lower for less regulation but people would be demanding the higher pay by "voting with their feet"; that is given two employers in town hiring widget makers, one pays $8/hr and one pays $12/hr, to which will you apply? If the working conditions at #2 are not worth the extra $4/hr, you have a choice to make: Do you choose lower pay and better conditions or the reverse?

I don't know all the finances involved, but I know that he did work hard and plan well and my mother took care of him as long as she could. Note however, that I never said there should be no public assistance, I just said I don't think the government needs to be involved in it. It's not their place to do so, though that's a role our society has sloughed onto it's servant.

Minimum standards of care are one thing. I would agree with punishment of law for those who abuse those incapable of protecting themselves, i.e. the elderly and infirm, just as I agree there should be punishment for those who assault those who can protect themselves, even if they choose not to do so. A crime of violence is still a crime. Do we really need laws such as HIPPA and COBRA and the like, though? Do we really need regulations that say that a violent patient cannot be restrained until someone with a sheepskin on the wall says they can, even if said sheepskin-holder is nowhere within several miles of the patient? Do we really need laws that disallow caregivers from giving oxygen, aspirin, or tylenol to people who need those things? Jesus, mothers give children tylenol every bloody day, and you breathe oxygen your whole life! Why must it be "approved" first?
If there is some wrongdoing that has caused harm, yes, punish that. Who, however, punishes government when IT causes harm to people who can't understand the tax code, the myriad regulations and incomprehensible rules etc.? No one.

You said, "There are some industries that the quality of goods & services can have a significant impact on the health, safety or financial well-being of the consumer. Those are the ones typically regulated by the government." Is this like the "interstate commerce clause" in the Constitution that has been made to apply so that Congress can micromanage and hyper-regulate our lives, because at some point, some piece of a toilet was made in some other state, so Congress now can decide how much water our toilets can flush? And we're paying these jokers!

As for the example Bigum made, I'm not saying he shouldn't use what money is there to cover care for loved ones. I'm just saying the gov't doesn't need to be involved. If he chose to transfer his house and belongings to his son in 2002 and she was not diagnosed until 2004 or 2005, why should he be ineligible for any benefits until 2012 at the earliest? Further, why, if his son owns the house due to a lawful transfer, why could his son not permit him to still live there? That's HIS choice, unless you think some pencil-neck behind a desk better knows how to make that decision than does a member of that family. I know additionally that many have said that they'd rather die than put their families through keeping them alive as long as possible. Bigum, this is not directed at you or your situation at all, but I would ask, if my father had chosen to end his life at a younger age rather than suffer all the indignities he suffered and force his family to watch it all happen, helpless to prevent it, why should gov't prevent him that choice? Because of some moral code that says "thou shalt not"?

There are tough choices in the world we have now, too, Jeff, some of which I don't like any more than you do the ones personal responsibility demands. Given my choice, though, I prefer liberty to make my own decisions rather than the "security" of having them made for me.

Blessings,
Bill

First let me start by saying that I'm sorry about your father. The following may sound harsh, so I apologize in advance.

How was he being taken care of in his condition? Was he wealthy so he could take care of himself? If so, great. He's lucky. If not, did he live with his wife, you or a sibling? If not & he had no other choice but to live with you, from past posts it seems you would not have had the money to care for him properly. Then what?

Did he get public assistance (medicare or social security)? If so, then you are a hypocrite. You should have been taking care of him. If you couldn't, tough for you.



Why? Should we not want some minimum standards of care without corporate greed getting in the way? If anything, history has shown that without some restraint, corporations will tend to give you the lowest quality product possible at the highest possible price. Whatever the market will bear. Its the way the free market works, isn't it? There is always some story in the news about corporate wrong doing causing harm to consumers. Should we not hold them legally accountable for this?



Thats true if everyone had the money to tranfer them to a better one, yes? What about those who couldn't afford to do that? There will always be someone to provide a service at the level of what someone can pay, but that will come at the expense of quality. You get what you pay for, no? I don't think that I've ever heard anyone say that Walmart gives the same quality of goods & services as somewhere that charges significantly more. You get what you pay for.

There are some industries that the quality of goods & services can have a significant impact on the health, safety or financial well-being of the consumer. Those are the ones typically regulated by the government.



It looks to me like the system is performing exactly as you say you want things to be. His dad has to show a real need to get taxpayer money to help him pay for his wifes care. Actually in your world, need wouldn't matter as there would be nothing provided anyway.

Why should his dad get something for nothing? If he has the means to pay then why shouldn't he? Be that by selling his house or other assets or emptying his bank & stock accounts. It seems that you are promoting illegally hiding assets from the government by implying that he could sell his belongings to his children (I assume that real money would trade hands, not just an excercise in tricky accounting) & that his dad really would not have the benefit of those assets any longer (no house to live in, no car to drive). After all, he did sell them off, didn't he?

Let's assume that unfair (to whom?) government regulation was to account for half of the cost of his moms care. That would leave $4000 per month in costs. Even if you assumed government interference tripled the cost of care, that still leaves $2700 per month. He says his mom could easily live 10 more years, thats 120 months. So $4000 X 120 = $480,000 or $2700 X 120 = $324,000. I seriously doubt that many people have 1/3 to half a million dollars laying around to pay for their spouses medical care, let alone other expenses that are incurred in day to day living for the non-ill person. And those numbers don't take inflation for those 10 years into account. If his assets total less than that, then so what? Its his responsibility, right? He should have worked harder, longer hours or more than one job so that he could plan for this sort of thing.

It sucks, but in your world of absolute personal responsibility you have some tough choices to make.

Now, all of the above is a small glimpse into the world into which you would like to force us all. I don't think I like it.

 

[finity]

Do you choose lower pay and better conditions or the reverse?

Are you saying that is not the case now? People already make those choices. What does government regulation have to do with it? If you used a poor example & really meant that people could use a better service provider if they chose to then...no government regulation of health standards or subsidized health insurance still doesn't affect it.

I don't know all the finances involved, but I know that he did work hard and plan well and my mother took care of him as long as she could.

And still he had to have help. There are somethings that we cannot control in our lives. Things happen. Sometimes lots of things happen. Sometimes we need help. If someone got the benefit of bad genetics or bad schooling, they may not have the functional literacy or have the job skills to get &/or keep a job. Some people need more help than others.

Note however, that I never said there should be no public assistance, I just said I don't think the government needs to be involved in it. It's not their place to do so, though that's a role our society has sloughed onto it's servant.

The money still has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? Governments have been in this business since ancient history. We didn't start the idea in the 30's.

Public assistance means "government provided at public expense" the alternative is "private charity"

Minimum standards of care are one thing. I would agree with punishment of law for those who abuse those incapable of protecting themselves, i.e. the elderly and infirm, just as I agree there should be punishment for those who assault those who can protect themselves, even if they choose not to do so. A crime of violence is still a crime.

What law would that be? There will be no publicly funded police force or judges, remember. The elderly or infirm, unless they are well off, may not have the financial resources to pay the fees required to get the protection they deserve.

Do we really need laws such as HIPPA and COBRA and the like, though?

Whats wrong with ensuring the medical privacy of people (major point of HIPPA)? Obviously there were some companies who abused patients privacy or had the potential to so there was a need.

COBRA only made it possible to maintain your existing health care coverage between jobs? You still have to pay the full premiums out of your own pocket. No government benefits there.

Do we really need regulations that say that a violent patient cannot be restrained until someone with a sheepskin on the wall says they can, even if said sheepskin-holder is nowhere within several miles of the patient? Do we really need laws that disallow caregivers from giving oxygen, aspirin, or tylenol to people who need those things? Jesus, mothers give children tylenol every bloody day, and you breathe oxygen your whole life! Why must it be "approved" first?

Are these healthcare organization rules or government laws. Where are the laws controlling this? Unless you are talking about school nurses. I wouldn't feel comfortable with a school nurse making my childs medical decisions without my consent. & if I did they have release forms for that.

Sounds like alot of those regulations are imposed by the HMO's or insurance providers, not the government. Goes right back to corporate greed & minimum standards.

If there is some wrongdoing that has caused harm, yes, punish that. Who, however, punishes government when IT causes harm to people who can't understand the tax code, the myriad regulations and incomprehensible rules etc.? No one.

We do. We vote.

You said, .....typically.....

I am no government apologist, far from it. There are abuses galore. All I'm saying is that there are legitimate functions of government. You can't just throw it all out because of some stupid things.

As for the example Bigum made, I'm not saying he shouldn't use what money is there to cover care for loved ones. I'm just saying the gov't doesn't need to be involved. If he chose to transfer his house and belongings to his son in 2002 and she was not diagnosed until 2004 or 2005, why should he be ineligible for any benefits until 2012 at the earliest?

Why should he be eligible for benefits at all?

Further, why, if his son owns the house due to a lawful transfer, why could his son not permit him to still live there? That's HIS choice, unless you think some pencil-neck behind a desk better knows how to make that decision than does a member of that family.

Because it smells like fraud... I don't agree that he could not live there, it was just an example.

I know additionally that many have said that they'd rather die than put their families through keeping them alive as long as possible. Bigum, this is not directed at you or your situation at all, but I would ask, if my father had chosen to end his life at a younger age rather than suffer all the indignities he suffered and force his family to watch it all happen, helpless to prevent it, why should gov't prevent him that choice? Because of some moral code that says "thou shalt not"?

I think we fully agree on this point. There should be no laws based solely on any "thou shalt not". I really do support all the Amendments, even the First.

There are tough choices in the world we have now, too, Jeff, some of which I don't like any more than you do the ones personal responsibility demands. Given my choice, though, I prefer liberty to make my own decisions rather than the "security" of having them made for me.

Nice paraphrase of the Franklin quote.

You can still make the vast majority of your own decisions & you know it. If you don't want to go to work tomorrow, don't. If you want to drive from here to California & back, go ahead. Your liberties are not being unduly curtailed because of taxation. Its the price we pay for living in civilization.

It has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Every person is responsible for the decisions they make. That is being used to side step the issue. Some people just need more help than others & it should be our responsibility to help them while at the same time trying to minimize the abuse of the system.

The Constitution even says "...(to) establish justice...promote the general welfare". What do these words mean if that the government cannot take on the job of providing a legal system &

"...the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that."

 

[Fletch]

So your actually saying that the government caused every social ill there was (& is)?

I apologize; I wasn't clear. I'm saying that government is violence, and violence is government. And when I say people cause social ills by resorting to violence, I'm speaking of the aggressive rather than defensive use of violence. Maybe now my earlier comment can be better understood.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Are you saying that is not the case now? People already make those choices. What does government regulation have to do with it? If you used a poor example & really meant that people could use a better service provider if they chose to then...no government regulation of health standards or subsidized health insurance still doesn't affect it.

I was saying that the laws that require widget producers to provide X, Y, and Z are unnecessary when these things could well be controlled by employees choosing to work elsewhere or by their choice to speak up and ask for a change of some type (whether in (true) collective bargaining or individually) Take minimum wage, for example. It was $5.15/hr for a long time. Now it's.... what, $6.20 or some such? The exact number is unimportant, but let's, for the example, take that number. For a person working a 40 hr week, that means a whole $42 more. Well, before taxes, anyway, so not figuring taxes in, we're talking about $2K a year. Sounds great, except that now every single business in the country has to raise their wages, which means raising their prices, which means that extra $2K is eaten up and then some over the course of the year. Effectively, the people on minwage lose money. This is an example of government hurting people, ergo, a problem masquerading as it's own solution. The easy similarity is "gun control" laws. They pass a new law. Crime goes up, so that now requires not a removal of the law that made it go up, but instead yet another law for the criminals to disobey: Vicious cycle.

And still he had to have help. There are somethings that we cannot control in our lives. Things happen. Sometimes lots of things happen. Sometimes we need help. If someone got the benefit of bad genetics or bad schooling, they may not have the functional literacy or have the job skills to get &/or keep a job. Some people need more help than others.

We can find single situations to make any point. Making this about my father or Bigum's mother or any single person is only an effort to draw emotion into it so that one or another person will change their opinion based on something other than fact. This is no way to make law.

The money still has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? Governments have been in this business since ancient history. We didn't start the idea in the 30's.

Just because it's been done for a long time does not make it right, just commonplace. I think I said before that it would require a paradigm shift.

Public assistance means "government provided at public expense" the alternative is "private charity"

I know this. My reference was more to the fact than the label we stick on it. The aid is coming from the people, aka the public, just not from all of them, without their consent.

What law would that be? There will be no publicly funded police force or judges, remember. The elderly or infirm, unless they are well off, may not have the financial resources to pay the fees required to get the protection they deserve.

Again, without such enormous chunks of our income going to feed the tax monster (not just income taxes but all of them), we would all have more money available. We would also handle many things ourselves, or help each other as neighbors, not because we have to, but because we choose to.

Whats wrong with ensuring the medical privacy of people (major point of HIPPA)? Obviously there were some companies who abused patients privacy or had the potential to so there was a need.

No. HIPPA was created because some legislator's wife got a phone call from a drug company offering some deal on a med. As a result, millions (maybe more) have been spent to bring computers and records and people into compliance with yet more law. Did you know that in IN, a law that went into effect in July has made veterinary records confidential now, too? What, are we worried that Rover is going to find out Fido's got fleas?
The whole thing (people, again) could have easily been rectified by this woman saying, "No thanks. Please remove me from your call list." and being done with it, but instead, someone decided to strongarm an entire nation. Now, if I want two of my doctors to confer on something, I have to sign forms (plural) for both of them, receive privacy statements, etc.

COBRA only made it possible to maintain your existing health care coverage between jobs? You still have to pay the full premiums out of your own pocket. No government benefits there.

It was an example of another enormous law. Why wouldn't someone be able to continue his/her insurance if he/she paid for it him/herself?

Are these healthcare organization rules or government laws. Where are the laws controlling this? Unless you are talking about school nurses. I wouldn't feel comfortable with a school nurse making my childs medical decisions without my consent. & if I did they have release forms for that.

Sounds like alot of those regulations are imposed by the HMO's or insurance providers, not the government. Goes right back to corporate greed & minimum standards.

It has been my understanding that unless someone is a LEO or authorized by a physician to do so, using restraints to restrict actions of other people (non-consensually) constitutes false imprisonment/false arrest. If someone conversant with the law would clarify this, I would appreciate it. I attempted to do so but evidently my searches were not using the correct terms.

We do. We vote.

My initial sarcastic response is inappropriate. Suffice it to say that voting is ineffective as a control against those that are not elected or cannot be re-elected, i.e lame-ducks.

I am no government apologist, far from it. There are abuses galore. All I'm saying is that there are legitimate functions of government. You can't just throw it all out because of some stupid things.

I don't want to throw out all of gov't. 75%, perhaps, but not all.

Why should he be eligible for benefits at all?

My point was that if he is, why should his actions prior to knowledge of that need be relevant to his eligibility? If I sell a business and am no longer involved with it and the new owner embezzles money or defrauds customers, should I be responsible for that? Alternatively, if Ruger manufactures a pistol that functions correctly and is used in a crime, is Ruger liable for damages?

Because it smells like fraud... I don't agree that he could not live there, it was just an example.

It's not a fraud. He may have been trying to keep his son from having to pay inheritance taxes on it. He takes the risk that his son will then re-sell the house and force him to move out. A small risk, to be sure, in a loving family, but the risk does exist.

I think we fully agree on this point. There should be no laws based solely on any "thou shalt not". I really do support all the Amendments, even the First.

I'm glad to see we agree on SOMEthing!

Nice paraphrase of the Franklin quote.

You can still make the vast majority of your own decisions & you know it. If you don't want to go to work tomorrow, don't. If you want to drive from here to California & back, go ahead. Your liberties are not being unduly curtailed because of taxation. Its the price we pay for living in civilization.

Thank you. Sadly, our liberties are so much more curtailed than we realize. We are supposed to be able to travel without restriction, or so I've heard, but we cannot do so in our own cars without paying taxes, paying licenses, both personal and vehicle, paying taxes on the gas, complying with this, that, and the other laws regarding what we can transport where and how (ie "Peaceable Journey" law). We should be able to use our own property as we see fit, but I can't build a shed or an extension onto my house within my property lines without a permit. I can't open a gun store without business license, state gun dealer license, FFL, insurance, tax ID number, compliance with zoning laws, etc., etc. This is not freedom. I disagree that taxes in the form to which they've mutated and grown are "the price we pay for living in civilization". They're just the price we pay for having far more government than we need.

It has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Every person is responsible for the decisions they make. That is being used to side step the issue. Some people just need more help than others & it should be our responsibility to help them while at the same time trying to minimize the abuse of the system.

No. It should be our choice (and IMO, our pleasure) to help those in need. If we choose to make it our own responsibility, that is up to us-or should be.

The Constitution even says "...(to) establish justice...promote the general welfare". What do these words mean if that the government cannot take on the job of providing a legal system &

"...the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that."

If this is the case, why did not we have a welfare system from the outset? Who provided this so-called necessity in the time of our Founders?

They knew that a strong national government could be the beginning of expansion, industry, and investment, but more likely would be the beginning of tyranny. It is for this reason that the Articles of Confederation were the first form of government, and made a very weak central body. This was deemed insufficient for national defense, so the Constitution took it's place, but let's not forget the very strong Anti-Federalist party that was in existance. Founder George Mason even refused to sign the Constitution because of these fears, and Thomas Jefferson was quoted to say "It is to secure our liberties that we resort to government at all." Not to establish our security, not to provide for those in greater need than ourselves, but to secure our liberties. To me, that's pretty powerful stuff.

I respect that you hold the opinions you do. I also recognize that they will not change any more than mine are likely to change. I am willing to continue discussing this, of course, but I do not know if this is still the place to do so, as little as it has to do with guns, their owners, or Indiana.

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

I agree that most points have been made. I would say that we could agree to disagree but I feel that I would then be accused of admitting to losing the debate as had been suggested in another thread. You know how us liberals can't really hold our own in a logical discussion.

I think most of us want to get to the same place. We just take different routes to get there. Some ideas work, some don't. There are both conservative ideas & liberal ideas that have a place in our society. Both sides have many that don't. There are good laws and bad.

I really do respect your opinion. Believe it or not I do agree with you on a lot of things (dare I say most). I am more middle of the road than left. I am just willing to pay a little more to help those that can't help themselves & provide basic quality of life services or accept more government regulation of businesses to overcome the greed that tends to favor the wealthy & powerful that is inherent in the capitalist sytem.

It does no good to fight & call each other names - not that I'm referring to this thread. There are many others here that meet that criteria. The only way to make things better is to have reasonable discussions, realize where we have common ground & try to meet in the middle.

So with that...