Climate change will change thing, not for the better

On Monday, May 5, 2014 1:51:35 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

But most people don't think the United States descended into mob rule in 1934,
notwithstanding.

Hmm. While FDR mused about expanding the Supreme Court in 1937, it actually got expanded from 7 justices to its present 9 back in *1837*, temporarily going to 10, and with a law being passed to keep the number at 9 in 1869.

So he didn't expand it from 7 to 9 to get his bills through; instead, he just waited until justices retired like everyone else.

John Savard

On Monday, May 5, 2014 3:51:35 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:00:07 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

But voters can and do make
foolish decisions, and I wouldn't care much for any system that
prevented them from doing so.

It depends on what kind of decision you're talking about. A system that prevented voters from bringing in laws that discriminated against minority groups seems sensible. One would just have to write equality into the Constitution, and then have something called a "Supreme Court" that can invalidate legislation which is in violation of the authority granted to the branch of government involved by the Constitution.

Having a Constitution that bans taxing the rich for social welfare purposes, allowing taxes only for national defense, and things that benefit everyone but no-one in particular, like lighthouses... is not an impossibility.. FDR had some trouble getting his legislative program through the Supreme Court for just that reason.

But most people don't think the United States descended into mob rule in 1934, notwithstanding.

The mention of a "New Deal" was part of FDR's 1932 platform and voters bought into the idea, Constitution be *****.

0bama mentioned "spreading the wealth around" .... you get the idea.

On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:20:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Then if it makes sense for the individual taxpayer to decide whether or not to buy himself a new car each year, why would it not make sense for the individual taxpayer to decide how much and what kind of health insurance to buy from a private insurer, free of government interference and taxation?

Health insurance doesn't work unless everybody is insured. The system
requires a large pool covering a range of risk. Everybody needs health
insurance during their lives, but removing the healthy from the pool
causes the system to fail.

The bottom line is that private, optional health insurance does not
work. This is evidenced by the U.S. system, which has poor quality
health care at much higher prices than countries that simply pay for
public health out of taxes.

On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

It depends on what kind of decision you're talking about. A system that prevented voters from bringing in laws that discriminated against minority groups seems sensible. One would just have to write equality into the Constitution, and then have something called a "Supreme Court" that can invalidate legislation which is in violation of the authority granted to the branch of government involved by the Constitution.

A well constructed system will make it difficult, but by no means
impossible, for voters to create laws that interfere with or remove
rights from minorities.

What Snell doesn't understand is the difference between a society
charting its own course, and some sort of mob rule. He appears to be
opposed do democratic governments.

On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Any government that allows the rabble to vote to tax the rich and give the money to the poor is clearly mob rule! How can you possibly not see that?

Yeah, got to watch that rabble... especially when it accounts for 99%
of the population! (Definitely a consensus there.)

On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:20:26 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Then if it makes sense for the individual taxpayer to decide whether or not to buy himself a new car each year, why would it not make sense for the individual taxpayer to decide how much and what kind of health insurance to buy from a private insurer, free of government interference and taxation?

Health insurance doesn't work unless everybody is insured.

Incorrect.

The system
requires a large pool covering a range of risk.

Also incorrect. The premiums collected must be related to risk. If you smoke, you pay more.

Everybody needs health
insurance during their lives,

Also incorrect. Some wish to self-insure and some never get seriously ill.

but removing the healthy from the pool
causes the system to fail.

Except that the "healthy" are not "removed" from the system (except of course those who have had policies cancelled due to 0bummercare.) Tens of millions of healthy adults and children are insured privately because their families do not wish to go broke paying for serious/catastrophic illnesses.

(It would help if you understood the concept of insurance, but you don't.)

The bottom line is that private, optional health insurance does not
work.

It works perfectly well for those who participate in the system...by buying insurance BEFORE they ever get sick. Children are/can be covered by state systems, the very poor by Medicaid, the elderly by Medicare. Pre-existing conditions from childhood can be allowed for easily. If there are problems with those programs, fix THOSE programs and leave private health insurance and health care alone.

This is evidenced by the U.S. system, which has poor quality
health care

The health CARE is the best, although some people in the US don't bother to take very good care of themselves. That's ultimately THEIR choice.

at much higher prices than countries that simply pay for
public health out of taxes.

Incorrect. Premiums and deductibles are going way UP due to 0bummercare. And there is no tax that one can fairly levy to pay for health care, except perhaps "sin" taxes.

On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:23:16 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

A well constructed system will make it difficult, but by no means
impossible, for voters to create laws that interfere with or remove
rights from minorities.

Minorities such as the rich, the religious, the conservative, ie., the wise, the just and the responsible?

What Snell doesn't understand is the difference between a society
charting its own course,

On the one hand you talk of a well-constructed system and then you turn around and talk about "society charting its own course"....so, which is it?

On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:24:19 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

wrote:

Any government that allows the rabble to vote to tax the rich and give the money to the poor is clearly mob rule! How can you possibly not see that?

Yeah, got to watch that rabble... especially when it accounts for 99%
of the population! (Definitely a consensus there.)

Oh, so you DO want mob rule!

BTW, you still haven't told us your definition of consensus.

On Mon, 5 May 2014 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On the one hand you talk of a well-constructed system and then you turn around and talk about "society charting its own course"....so, which is it?

They are one and the same.

On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:03:57 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:20:26 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The bottom line is that private, optional health insurance does not

work.



It works perfectly well for those who participate in the system...by buying insurance BEFORE they ever get sick. Children are/can be covered by state systems, the very poor by Medicaid, the elderly by Medicare. Pre-existing conditions from childhood can be allowed for easily. If there are problems with those programs, fix THOSE programs and leave private health insurance and health care alone.



Medicare? Medicare .. mm .. lessee, isn't that Single Payer? Socialism, Government run health care? Works well for the elderly, who consume the majority of health costs, since they are the sickest demographic. Then why would it not work for the younger demographic who you said may not need health care because they are statistically not sick? It kinda leads one to believe that single payer medicare for all might be the answer, instead of a hodge-podge of individual and employer based health insurance.

Actually, in other advanced nations employers are not in the health care providing business, and as a result they have a distinct competitive advantage over US firms. In fact, in Vermont, they will have a single payer medicare system for all, since they have to compete with Quebec right on their northern border who is eating their lunch. Will be interesting how this all plays out.

Right now in the US we have all the world's systems side by side: individual, group health insurance, employer based insurance, government single payer (medicare, medicaid), AND government run health care (V.A. system) where the doctors are public servants like in Great Britain. WoW! makes me dizzy just thinkin' about it all.

One of my younger family members has a rare (treatable) form of cancer that requires a drug that costs $30,000 per month to keep him alive. He cannot work any more, so his employer insurance will be gone after he leaves his position at the corporation. Pre-existing conditions would have doomed him, of course, but happily for him he was a pilot for the Airforce years ago, so he qualifies for the V.A. insurance system. A little bit of government run health care saves the day!!!

Feel free to trash anything I say above, it's a free country and you're on a roll ;^))

Uncadoodles