[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am a Republican. I am not in favor of delay for the sake of delay or (as I believe you have intimated elsewhere) for retaining wealth out of greed. I am interested in gaining and retaining wealth so that (in part) I can obtain high quality care for my wife and children. While willing to make sacrifices to my personal lifestyle so that others may receive basic needs, I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family other than outright luxuries (of which I provide few) unless it is required to address the dire, life threatening needs of those who cannot help themselves. I do not believe this position to be "selfish" - you may disagree.

Oh jeez Joe, this whole post would be one big rant/whine fest if it weren't for the last few paragraphs. You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I. This is the reality of our world and the nature of man. We are a "me, myself and I" creatures. There's nothing particularly wrong with being selfish and voting with your interest in mind. You're free to make decisions that are best for your family and I expect others to do the same. This is what is meant by selfish not the colloquial sense of the word.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

While I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy, I agree that, similar to defense spending, a universal health care system can "protect" the entire society. The difference, IMO, being that spending on the armed forces bears a much more direct relationship to the constitutional requirement that the Federal government "provide for the common defense" than the funding of a UHC bears to the constitutional requirement that the Feds "promote the general welfare". I say that b/c w/out a national armed force there simply is no "common defense" whereas it is debatable that a federally funded UHC will actually improve in any signicant way the "general welfare" of society. [Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC.]

Your opinion and discursiveness of "promote the general welfare" is duly noted. Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If a federally created UHC directly increases the welfare of ~5 - 10% of the population by providing HC coverage for those who desire it but cannot afford it BUT decreases the welfare of ~50% by increasing their costs and decreasing their quality of coverage, does it actually "promote the general welfare"?? [the 50% is a number pulled from my ass to represent people like me who can afford good coverage and pay for it but any cost increase, even minimal, will require me to choose between less good coverage or changes to my most assuredly not luxurious lifestyle]??

I don't deal in hypotheticals and I am well trained in the art of seeing right through fallacious arguments presenting fictitious numbers. You're at the grown up table Joe, don't swing your dangling legs - it's impolite. I will grant you that wait time will increase and I have suggested that this is a problem we'll faces with or without UHC. Note to all "you folks," the above quoted text is a perfect example of an ignorable argument each and every time.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Clearly, you say yes it does promote the general welfare. Many others say it does not. I would suggest each has a valid, reasonable argument.

Implicitly implying that the subject of general welfare is debatable but common defense is not? Perhaps you also think it's reasonable to argue against common defense?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Contrary to your continual "you folk" references, I would also assert that those who disagree with your position are not necessarily acting out of personal selfishness or even direct self-interest. As one example: "It is better for society, as a whole, if the vast majority have very good health coverage even if a some 'fall between the cracks', then to lower the quality of care for all but a small minority." I don't personally ascribe to this reasoning but I understand it and can accept it as a view held by reasonable people.

When you say "I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family" you're acting selfishly. Selfish is not limited to the realm of what you do for yourself. In action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet. Hearing this constant false choice and deference given to the current system is so tiresome and ignorable.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

[BTW -Your constant insinuation that those who don't agree with your guiding principles are all fools, acting out of selfishness, or are driven by something less than your morally pure motives is incredible (and unwarranted) intellectual and moral arrogance. To me, it appears that you have no capability for real spiritual or moral self-doubt and thus no capacity for real self-examination (Yes - on a rare occasion, you will acknowledge differing intellectual proofs or admit factaul errors. Not quite the same thing, though, as questioning your beliefs). It is why I believe you to be one of the most insufferably self-righteous individuals with whom I have ever dealt. -- Rant Over]

Sticks and stones may break an ordinary man's bones but I'm Superman, Robin Hood, and Genghis Khan all rolled into a single Superforce. Calaacal na ga dhaaf.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Further, when determining if UHC is an impovement of the general welfare, I would also suggest many many of all but the "truly uninsured" would say it really depends on what the actual facts are as to the numbers: Is the number of "true" uninsured 5% of the population or 10%? What impact, if any, will cost increases have on lifestyle -- (What real sacrifices will I have to make? Can I still provide for my kids supplemental education/ recreation needs? Will I have to take a long weekend at the beach instead a full week rental for my annual vacation? Can I take a vacationat all? etc.)? Is a decrease in quality of care inevitable? If inevitable, how much of decline? What will the relationship between increased costs, decreases in quality of care be and the amount of "true" uninsured be -- High cost with significant decrease in care with an extension of coverage to a small population of "true uninsureds"? OR Low cost, minimal affect to care, and an extension of coverage to a large population of "true uninsureds".

Simply put - a lot of people are willing to make sacrifices to provide for others, but, before they do, they want to make sure it is a sacrifice they can bear and that the sacrifice required bears some rationale relationship to the good being provided. Again, IMHO, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

And just so we are clear, I absolutely agree with you on one point: Ifwe are going to provide UHC within the current multiple insurer framework, then mandatory participation is a must. The only way to even begin to offset the cost of insuring the "truly uninsured" is by making the "uninsured by choice" pay for the societal benefit they reap from insuring the "truly uninsured" (To me, the market benefits to having no uninsureds are similar and analogous to those resulting from the alleviation of mass poverty. A healthy society is a productive society thus benefitting all).

Nice recovery. All great questions requiring answers. Of course these same questions are not limited to UHC. I'm not for single payer, I'm for covering the uninsured not by any means necessary as you make it sound but by reasonable means. There are many factors that aught to be considered but unlike you there are "many folks" who just don't care to explore the subject to begin with. I don't care for these people at all.


p.s. "You folks" membership is an open membership. You're free to join or leave as you please. You're not required to play ping-pong, swim, or box if you don't wish to do so.