I have some very interesting stuff that I've been researching and will unleash soon but for now... Back to the topic of the day (there is an uppety french way to say that but I refuse to speak the language of the coward!)
I have made it abundently clear and proven beyond any reasonable doubt that health care is NOT a right. I have also shown plenty of reasoning why the left is wrong on their entire perspective of health care (among other things. Now that that nonsense is out of the way I feel I must clarify my position on the whole thing.
First, the "general welfare" thing. It was made very clear that the framers of the constitution were opposed to anything that the government might do to favor one group over the other. Jefferson said that the majority must always prevail, unless it is at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the minority.
To take money from the "wealthy" in order to strictly provide for the poor is absolutly against the fundimental rights of the wealthy! Therefore it is, by definition, unconstitutional. It is tant amount to the majority (who is not rich) voting the money away from the minority (who is rich). This is the entirety of the, so called, health care reform movement.
The real problem is that we are often forced, by threat of violence, through our government, to pay into the health insurance system. It is the only way that those around us can be sure that if they can find a reason to file suit then there will be enough money to make it profitable for them to do so.
I believe that we should have a "public option". I think that we should be able to BORROW money from a public trust and then be held responsible to pay it back. We should have the choice of whether to pay insurance, pay cash for service or pay on a low interest loan from the public. That public option should be very strict, in that, if you choose to take the loan you will be required to make every effort to make timely payments. If you fail to pay then you should be treated just as if you had failed to pay your taxes. First garnish your wages and then if all else fails, go to prison.
This creates a fair competition for insurance companies while allowing them to make all of the profits and take all of the expensive trips that they would like! It disgusts me to hear the radical left complain about "all of the money" the CEOs of big insurance are making and all of the extravigent trips that they take "on the backs of sick people".
It's called profit, jackass! It's why they offered you the safety net of health insurance to begin with. Without them (and before them) you would have had to pay all medical expenses up front and there would have been no money left over for all of the great research that has led to todays unfathomable medical advances. So, stop whining about other people getting rich because they had a better idea than you...MORON!
My plan also creates a safety net for the poor, who already get far too much free stuff on the backs of those who are considered evil simply because they succeeded.On top of that, it reopens the route for charity. If there are no "free plans" for the rich to be taxed for then they will have the fredom to pick and choose, directly, who they help by "sponsering" an individual.
This is much more "fair" to the rich than just forcing them to pay into a pot from which people of all morality (and lack there of) can dip into. I guess the scumbags wont get much help. but then, they can still just work for it like everyone else does.
I know that there will be a certain amount of cost assotiated with the implimentation and enforcement of my plan, but, it will likely be relativly unpopular (because it requires people to pay back) so it will not require near the workforce as would the "free" plan that is being thrown around.
The purpose of the interest is to allow for those who "expire" before paying back their share. Basically, it will be a Bank. One that lends money without respect to credit but it will have the "Teeth" to get a return on its investment. I know it needs work, but it's a start... One that does not punish people for their success!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"To take money from the "wealthy" in order to strictly provide for the poor is absolutly against the fundimental rights of the wealthy! Therefore it is, by definition, unconstitutional."
Another example of talking through points really quickly to sound like you know what you are talking about.
Any tax can be deemed unfair to someone. A "use" tax like a toll on a bridge is not fair to to those crossing the bridge because they are paying and those not crossing are not. After the bridge is paid off - the non users can start using the bridge for free - No Fair! Any tax is not fair to someone. Get over it.
Yet Congress has the right in the constitution to raise taxes as it sees fit and started doing so right away, and from the late 1790's on, there have always been groups claiming this or that tax is unfair. There have been tax protests, and courts cases from the start.
You are furthering the conservative myth the recent taxation is somehow suddenly unconstitutional. Or the more wacky myth that any taxation is unconstitutional. If Congress wanted to tax only people in yellow shirts, it would be constitutional but I would hope those clowns would be be voted out! They could choose to tax only white men, which they actually did in the beginning. That was constitutional in the late 1790s. And unfair taxation continues to this day. It is the nature of the beast.
That being said, I think that the current administration is running up my future taxes in an alarming way. But we all need to work locally to enable 3rd parties that are more responsible than the current DNC-RNC clubhouse.
The DNC and RNC are the clowns running up taxes, not one single president or special group.
BTW - I didn't say - I kinda like your balanced budget approach to a public option. It actually makes sense.
I cannot compare to Obama's plan because he hasn't really made his clear yet.
So let's try yours while Washington DC is fiddling around.
Will no one comment?
Most peoplr are afraid to comment, that's why I'm glad you came along. I am able to track my numbers and see where people are looking from (by city) and I get over a hundred hits from around the world on any given month so our debate is definatly being watched.
By the time Jefferson reached his second term he was bragging that the only Federal taxes were on imports and that it was more than enough to pay for the "business" of running a free country. He felt that the only fair way to tax the "rich" was through taxing only the things that they could afford, that is, the lavish lifestyle that is supported by imported goods.
I'm not suggesting that we should do that now, but maybe we should at least do the math and see if it would work.
Even Madison (who actually penned the famous "general welfare" clause) wrote in letters to the other founders that they should find another way to word it because he was sure that it would be "abused" as an outlet for unjust taxation.
My problem (on the constitutionality side of the debate) is this... Every time the free market develops a great product, one which alters the lifestyle of everyone, the majority finds a way to create legislation that takes it from those who've developed it and makes it public property, while taking the profits from citizens in order to pay for it.
This has happened with cars, energy, banks and soon insurance. None of those things are "needs", meaning that life will go on without them as it had before their creation, but people have grown to feel entitled.. so now they use their misconception of how our government works to redistribute them.
In America, this is absolutly wrong. The product of someones labor (no matter how convenient or seemingingly necessary) is not up for a vote. It is up to the free market to decide what to do about it, not Washington. You will find that, prior to the mass German immigration of the late 1800s, most Americans agreed with this principle, but that is another story.
If the argument is that "everyone else does it, so get used to it" then we (as a nation) are in very deep trouble.
So even if you could convince me that it is the right of the government to deal with health care (which is highly unlikely), you'd be equally hard pressed to convince me that the federal government could begin to do it right. Keep in mind that I practically live at the VA and see how that works from day to day.
By the way, I have no respect for either Party, I voted for the other black guy. We had several choices on the ballot but the two majors told us that a vote for someone else would be a vote for the other major party and that we'd be "throwing away our vote", sadly, people bought it.
Post a Comment