Universal health care in the U.S.

Universal health care for those in the US illegally   70 votes

  1. 1. Should those who are in the US illegally be covered under a universal health care program?

    • Yes, comprehensive coverage should be paid for those in the US illegally at taxpayer expense
      18
    • Yes, but only for visits to an emergency room or free clinic
      26
    • No, those in the US illegally should be required to purchase private health insurance out of their own pocket
      26

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

344 posts in this topic

 

General Consensus would need to be reached on the following:

The period of mandatory service in lesser and menial jobs before moving onto occupation of preference

Hours of work in a day/week

Since consensus has to be reached among 6.6 billion people or so, will you accept a consensus that doesn't resemble what you are looking for?

What are you going to with the people who are only qualified for menial jobs, or don't want to do anything more challenging?

 

 

Individual transport systems would need to be changed and integrated with the mass transport systems

More details on this, please.

 

 

The massively wealthy will experience a slight curtailing in their freedoms as far as they would need to contribute to the actual labour/service side of society, but on the upside of this, billions of people will be raised above the poverty line into a comfortable existence that is based on co-operation as opposed to competition.

 

The only individuals to be disadvantaged would be those who would be unwilling to actually contribute to society. Actually that idea is exactly the same as at present except they would still have the basics required for survival, whilst perhaps not enjoying the finer aspects of life (eg the travel etc).

Pelb, just what do you have in mind for the "massively wealthy" in terms of "contributing to the actual labor/service side of society"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since consensus has to be reached among 6.6 billion people or so, will you accept a consensus that doesn't resemble what you are looking for?

That is what consensus is... When a majority can agree on something workable then you have a consensus. Approximately 5.61 billion of these individuals already work between 35 - 50 hours per week (please do not define work as a job with income-it also includes doing what is needed to survive)... I don't really think it would be that much of a change... As I said it is about the redistribution of resources, so that all can experience life to the fullest.

 

Is it so hard to imagine that something of this nature is possible. If you can't imagine it then it can never become a reality. Don't limit yourself by what you currently believe is possible.

 

 

What are you going to with the people who are only qualified for menial jobs, or don't want to do anything more challenging?

What is done with them now... they stay working menial jobs... they have no desire to become doctors and put in the amount of time required to realise that goal and therefore do not chase it...

 

Every individual has different desires and interests. So why not have those who actually have motivation and interest in their desired field persue it free of these bullshit economic constraints.

 

 

Pleb, just what do you have in mind for the "massively wealthy" in terms of "contributing to the actual labor/service side of society"?

At present their capital works for them... in the system I propose they would have to physically contribute to society because there would be no capital.

 

As far as elaborating on the transport system...

 

It is simply inefficient as far as energy usage is concerned. We have constructed massive passages that lead right to our doorsteps... It is simply that we are using the wrong combination of transport on these passages. We are delayed by the individual response of the driver on a daily basis, that needs to be changed and a significant increase in efficiency would be achieved.

 

Any other questions?

 

Also, I'm still wondering if you are a fan of Milton Friedman... You seem to have bypassed the question completely the last 2 times I have asked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish this poll had other options.

 

Health care for kids from conception to puberty should be free regardless. After that, emergency and life threatening corrective treatment should be provided and be highly subsidized regardless. Both of those things go for any and all people regardless of status and health care coverage.

 

All the extras should be capitalistic packages priced as add-ons to the basic health care needs of the people. There absolutely needs to be a line drawn in the health care sand.

 

I would really like to see an "end of life" package that would make things easier on the way out the door and I would like to see a "catastrophic" package that would take care of the more affluent peeps.

 

That is about it. The toughest decisions will be to draw the line between basic and advanced. Actuarial info should help in that finer detail.

 

The biggest problem will be that that line will need to be redrawn more often than Congress will allow. This is where an exception clause will need to be installed that allows experimental procedures to be quickly classified as something other than experimental. This overlap could be accomplished by funding successful "milestones" in early approval processes and allow the addition of late stage patient entry.

 

I know this shit backwards and forwards. It can be done, but it will take guts on the part of people who have thus far shown none (well, at least for the last seven or so years).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No time right now to comment on the detail.

At the traditional TT Glühwein drinkies there were a whole load of ideas and comments flying around,

about health care for EVERYEONE that lives and works in the USA.

 

has it's faults but.

we all pay, for all of us.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

cinzia. that policy is actually based on a court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, so the Constitution itself would not need to be amended. A lot of people feel the ruling was a flawed interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Conquistador, I can't believe there wouldn't be a Supreme Court battle if Congress passed a law one day, denying anyone born in the United States to non-citizen parents automatic citizenship.

 

Article 1 of the 14th Amendment:

 

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This doesn't seem very vague to me as to whether anyone born on US soil is a citizen. (Of course, the current regime has ripped the hell out of the rest of that article, so why not trash it entirely?)

 

But back to my main point on the topic of changing the law to deny people born in the US automatic citizenship: it's an uphill battle.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cinzia, as people fly into the States to give birth to their child (yes they do this deliberately) I can see a law modifying this part of the Constitution without much fuss. Whether it is a good thing or not, I really don't know. As it stands now, the underage US citizen can't claim much until they are of age.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eurovol, do you think they could change it "without much fuss" because there would be little political opposition to the idea (due to the current anti-immigrant sentiment), or because the law isn't clear? Or for some other reason?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At present their capital works for them... in the system I propose they would have to physically contribute to society because there would be no capital.

No capital? So if individuals cannot have capital does that mean the state owns it all? :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cinzia, I can see the law being changed to say that births to visitors does not bring citizenship.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No capital? So if individuals cannot have capital does that mean the state owns it all?

No the individuals have it all...

 

It is not about who has capital because it doesn't exist...

 

It is simply a redistribution of the resources amongst the entire population...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is simply a redistribution of the resources amongst the entire population...

I remember this idea from my history books. I just can't remember how it turned out. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Conquistador, I can't believe there wouldn't be a Supreme Court battle if Congress passed a law one day, denying anyone born in the United States to non-citizen parents automatic citizenship.

 

Article 1 of the 14th Amendment:

This doesn't seem very vague to me as to whether anyone born on US soil is a citizen. (Of course, the current regime has ripped the hell out of the rest of that article, so why not trash it entirely?)

 

But back to my main point on the topic of changing the law to deny people born in the US automatic citizenship: it's an uphill battle.

cinzia, not everything is law is clear, as any law student, law professor, judge, or practicing attorney will tell you, in no small part because each case is unique. There would be a court challenge, and probably based upon the following case law:

 

United States v.s Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Plyler v.s. Doe (1982)

 

Those disagreeing would argue Elk v.s. Wilkins (1884), the Slaughter House Cases (1873), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Expatriation Act of 1868 as relevant precedent. Notice that these are relevant precedents.

 

A constitutional amendement which allowed citizenship by birth in the US for the children of legal residents as well as citizens, but which specifically excluded the children of those in the US illegally, would stand a very good chance of passing Congress and enough state legislatures. What to do in the case of a child born to one legal resident and one person in the US illegally would be stronger point of contention, and would offer stronger target for court challenges. Besides arguing the above legal precedents, the equal protection clause would also be cited in such a court challenge.

 

It is interesting to note that some children with American fathers but non-American mothers are not US citizens by birth unless the father takes certain actions to ensure the child has US citizenship- this occurs in cases of birth outside of wedlock. This is also something to consider when we look at applying the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause (originally designed for former slaves) to the issue of birthright citizenship.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is what consensus is... When a majority can agree on something workable then you have a consensus. Approximately 5.61 billion of these individuals already work between 35 - 50 hours per week (please do not define work as a job with income-it also includes doing what is needed to survive)... I don't really think it would be that much of a change... As I said it is about the redistribution of resources, so that all can experience life to the fullest.

 

Is it so hard to imagine that something of this nature is possible. If you can't imagine it then it can never become a reality. Don't limit yourself by what you currently believe is possible.

What is done with them now... they stay working menial jobs... they have no desire to become doctors and put in the amount of time required to realise that goal and therefore do not chase it...

 

Every individual has different desires and interests. So why not have those who actually have motivation and interest in their desired field persue it free of these bullshit economic constraints.

At present their capital works for them... in the system I propose they would have to physically contribute to society because there would be no capital.

 

As far as elaborating on the transport system...

 

It is simply inefficient as far as energy usage is concerned. We have constructed massive passages that lead right to our doorsteps... It is simply that we are using the wrong combination of transport on these passages. We are delayed by the individual response of the driver on a daily basis, that needs to be changed and a significant increase in efficiency would be achieved.

 

Any other questions?

 

Also, I'm still wondering if you are a fan of Milton Friedman... You seem to have bypassed the question completely the last 2 times I have asked.

How will you fund this "choose the occupation you desire"? Won't there be a surplus of people who want to go to law and medical school if it is free, and thus resources will be wasted? There are constraints in real life beyond one's immediate desires, and these are not just pecuniary ones, either.

 

As for what you mention with a wase of resources by private transportation, perhaps you have noticed that in many, if not most, countries, there is little or no public transportation in rural and suburban areas. Why? Because it is uneconomical. If you are going to take away people's POVs (a la the Communist Salvador Allende's illegal seizure of trucks in Chile in the early 1970s) you will have to ensure that they have transportation to every place they need to go. It is my understanding that public transportation in your native Australia is almost nonexistent due to suburban sprawl, so it should be crystal clear to you why this would not work- it would in fact waste energy and other resources, create all sorts of inefficiences, and would sharply reduce individual freedom and choice.

 

It seems paradoxical that you want people to have virtually no constraints on choosing a livelihood, yet you want to sharply reduce their ability to travel anywhere and to even get to work or school!

 

As for MF, I have no great admiration for any who theorize- I admire those who invent and innovate, and those who overcome huge odds such as the Chinese refugees fleeing Mao's murderous regime who, despite coming with little more material goods than what they could carry with them (sometimes just the shirt on their back) built successful business empires in countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How will you fund this "choose the occupation you desire"? Won't there be a surplus of people who want to go to law and medical school if it is free, and thus resources will be wasted? There are constraints in real life beyond one's immediate desires, and these are not just pecuniary ones, either.

There will be no funding because there is no need for the money as such. Your thinking is in a completely different place. Money is not needed. It is simply allocation of resources.

 

Why would we have a surplus of individuals wanting to go to law school or medical school. There is no difference in benefits from what a person who cleans floors receives when compared to a doctor. All are required for a functioning society and therefore all receive the things required for survival and access to the finer things in life. It is based on the interest in the field or profession of choice, not on what is to be gained as the result of the study in monetary terms, thus ensuring that individuals with peak interest actually end up in the profession. There will always be checks and balances, as there are now to ensure skill levels and competency.

 

 

As for what you mention with a wase of resources by private transportation, perhaps you have noticed that in many, if not most, countries, there is little or no public transportation in rural and suburban areas. Why? Because it is uneconomical. If you are going to take away people's POVs (a la the Communist Salvador Allende's illegal seizure of trucks in Chile in the early 1970s) you will have to ensure that they have transportation to every place they need to go. It is my understanding that public transportation in your native Australia is almost nonexistent due to suburban sprawl, so it should be crystal clear to you why this would not work- it would in fact waste energy and other resources, create all sorts of inefficiences, and would sharply reduce individual freedom and choice.

 

It seems paradoxical that you want people to have virtually no constraints on choosing a livelihood, yet you want to sharply reduce their ability to travel anywhere and to even get to work or school!

 

As for MF, I have no great admiration for any who theorize- I admire those who invent and innovate, and those who overcome huge odds such as the Chinese refugees fleeing Mao's murderous regime who, despite coming with little more material goods than what they could carry with them (sometimes just the shirt on their back) built successful business empires in countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines.

You are once again making assumptions. The transport system needs to be combination of individual and mass transportation that fits seamlessly together.

 

Envision the idea that all individuals have 1-2 vehicles that are capable of linking to other individual vehicles and forming a common vehicle that allow the individual vehicles to disengage from the common at any point.

 

In no way would i be interested in reducing mobility.

 

Also I am still interested as to whether you are a fan of Milton Friedman. By your evading the question and views expressed to date I would probably have to assume the answer would be a yes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyhoo, someone's "freedom" to dive a car in the inner city easily becomes an infringement on my freedom to be able to move about my local neighbourhood safely.

I hate the other cars in the inner city too. They really get in the way of my driving about safely. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are various methods you can use to provide more intensive public transport in rural areas too but that is another thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There will be no funding because there is no need for the money as such. Your thinking is in a completely different place. Money is not needed. It is simply allocation of resources.

 

Why would we have a surplus of individuals wanting to go to law school or medical school. There is no difference in benefits from what a person who cleans floors receives when compared to a doctor. All are required for a functioning society and therefore all receive the things required for survival and access to the finer things in life. It is based on the interest in the field or profession of choice, not on what is to be gained as the result of the study in monetary terms, thus ensuring that individuals with peak interest actually end up in the profession. There will always be checks and balances, as there are now to ensure skill levels and competency.

You are once again making assumptions. The transport system needs to be combination of individual and mass transportation that fits seamlessly together.

 

Envision the idea that all individuals have 1-2 vehicles that are capable of linking to other individual vehicles and forming a common vehicle that allow the individual vehicles to disengage from the common at any point.

 

In no way would i be interested in reducing mobility.

 

Also I am still interested as to whether you are a fan of Milton Friedman. By your evading the question and views expressed to date I would probably have to assume the answer would be a yes.

Pleb, what you discuss sure sounds like Communism to me, and keep in mind that money is more than just a store of value, it is also a medium of exchange, and any modern society needs some form of monetary exchange. How you will get anyone to fund "the finer things in life" for everyone else in society regardless of the pecuniary contributions of those others is beyond me- people don't like being taken advantage of like that. I also fail to see how reducing people's freedom in transport is going to benefit a society devoted to providing all with "the finer things in life"- imagine coordinating everyone's schedules even if there are no technical or physical barriers. The space-age collectivization you envision is incredibly bizarre, but I have to congratulate you on the rare and hardly beneficial accomplishment of getting far to the left of even MonksTown, who looks like Milton Friedman next to you!

 

Not sure what your hang-up is with Friedman, but I don't suppose you would tell us who you admire in the realm of economics and philosophy?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

there are various methods you can use to provide more intensive public transport in rural areas too but that is another thread.

I am sure that people in rural South Dakota and Siberia are looking forward to having the option of taking a bus at 2 a.m. on Sunday morning- or maybe it will be Transrapid? Wonder what the options will be for the Sahara and Gobi Deserts?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pleb, what you discuss sure sounds like Communism to me, and keep in mind that money is more than just a store of value, it is also a medium of exchange, and any modern society needs some form of monetary exchange. How you will get anyone to fund "the finer things in life" for everyone else in society regardless of the pecuniary contributions of those others is beyond me- people don't like being taken advantage of like that. I also fail to see how reducing people's freedom in transport is going to benefit a society devoted to providing all with "the finer things in life"- imagine coordinating everyone's schedules even if there are no technical or physical barriers. The space-age collectivization you envision is incredibly bizarre, but I have to congratulate you on the rare and hardly beneficial accomplishment of getting far to the left of even MonksTown, who looks like Milton Friedman next to you!

 

Not sure what your hang-up is with Friedman, but I don't suppose you would tell us who you admire in the realm of economics and philosophy?

Once again communism was nothing more than a greedy perversion of some excellent ideas.

 

I fail to see how people would be taken advantage of when they would have all that they need regardless of their duties.

 

You seem to be having trouble getting past the idea that there will not need to be funding because there is no need for a basis for exchange. The basis for exchange is only needed when someone lacks something another has.

 

 

I am sure that people in rural South Dakota and Siberia are looking forward to having the option of taking a bus at 2 a.m. on Sunday morning- or maybe it will be Transrapid? Wonder what the options will be for the Sahara and Gobi Deserts?

And once again your thoughts on a transport system are limited to what is currently available, not what is possible.

 

P.S. - I seem to have inadvertently attempted to derail the topic and will now desist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now