Doug:
We, the people, can do some amazing things through our government when we work together. But it seems that the Tea Party would like to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps we can find some points of agreement on the role of the government.
David:
It seems the only tea party supporters you have ever seen are in liberal comics. The tea party has always been about making government fiscally accountable and responsible, not to eliminate the federal government. We want to see the federal government stay within the bounds outlined for it by the Constitution, the rule-book for government. It appears liberals, or socialists like Bernie Sanders, want to toss out all of the rules, and offer ever-increasing programs under the guise of "helping people", despite what the Constitution allows, or what the cost.
Doug:
The Constitution is indeed where we can start, but that isn't all that we have. We have some amendments, called the Bill of Rights, additional amendments, and a series of laws and court rulings at the federal, state, and local levels that make up the rules of the government. If you aren't including all of our rules, then you aren't really talking about our government. "It isn't in the Constitution" isn't a valid argument, because we are governed by so much more.
David:
The Bill of Rights, and all other amendments to the Constitution are parts of the Constitution. They are part of the rule book. Court rulings are interpretations of the rules, and can become rules we play by, but they are not part of the Constitution. The Dred Scott Decision found that slaves remained "property" even when they were in an abolitionist state. In other words, runaway slaves could not be considered free if they reached a free state. They were still the property of the original owners. This interpretation of the law was wrong and was subsequently overturned. Laws can be found to be "unconstitutional". The Constitution trumps these laws, and the federal government must abide by the Constitution.
Doug:
What some might call "government overreach" is common sense and saves lives and money. I'm thinking about the rules that government puts in place for many things, including wearing seat belts and motorcycle helmets.
David:
What you consider common sense, and what is considered constitutional are not necessarily the same thing. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to save us from ourselves. If you are going to make an argument for motorcycle helmets to save lives, why not mandate that everyone can only have 3,000 calories of food each day? Why not ban alcohol? Oh wait, they did that, and it didn't work out so well.
Doug:
Are you saying that you are against mandatory use of motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts? I don't mind those types of laws, but not because I think that they are designed to "save lives." I am for them because they help me save money.
David:
Yes, I am against the federal government granting itself authority over our lives that it doesn't have.
I see a great many people every day who have been involved in auto accidents. Very few are "idiots", (which is how you described people who get into car accidents, before you apparently edited it out) and many were able to afford their premiums before Obamacare put them out of their reach. but, that's a tale for another blog.
Doug:
If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you are an idiot. And many more people have health care now than before. Millions more people have heath care. The uninsured rate is at an alltime low. More people have health care (as a raw number and as a percentage) than have ever had health care before. Ever. And that makes it so I don't have to pay for other people's health care.
David:
I agree that you should wear a seatbelt. But, the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force Americans to wear a seatbelt, in my opinion. That's the difference. I believe you should have the freedom to be an idiot. Even a nobel idea, if it is not allowed by the Constitution, is not allowed for the federal government to enact. The states may enact that idea (if their state constitution allows for it), but not the federal government.
Regarding healthcare, you are mixing and matching your apples and oranges. People always had access to health care. Everyone. It's health insurance that the federal government decide it had the authority to mandate that you purchase. The Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 majority that the government could tax you if you don't buy a product (insurance) they want you to buy. If someone else brings up a legal case (and there are currently dozens of court cases against various parts of Obamacare), The SCOTUS may rule differently. Obamacare is not part of the Constitution, and therefore, parts, or all of it, can be ruled unconstitutional.
Doug:
Obamacare was already ruled Constitutional.
David:
So far, based on the cases that have been presented to it, the SCOTUS has found those aspects to be within the guidelines of the Constitution. That may not always be the case. Parts of laws can be constitutional, while other parts of massive, 15,000 page laws may not be.
Doug:
Of course. Anything can be found unconstitutional by a future court. Banning individual gun ownership may be found constitutional by a future court. This just shows that the interpretation of the constitution is part of the process.
David:
Based on the precedent of Obamacare, the federal government could tax you (penalize you) for not owning a gun, if a different Congress passed a law that requires you to purchase one. That would be wrong, in the same way it's wrong for the federal government to force you to purchase anything else from a private vendor.
Doug:
Perhaps those most basic rights, such as the right to be able to live, and not to have to pay for other people's health care are self-evident? Maybe they don't even need to be mentioned in the Constitution because they are so obvious? In fact, that is exactly what the founding fathers said in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." They are self-evident. Not needing to be explained. Obvious.
David:
Glad to see you acknowledged the Creator as providing our rights.
Doug:
I'm glad you finally believe in evolution, our Great Creator!
David: There is nothing that says you can't get sick. You have a right to not be killed, but you have no right not to die. We all die sometime. Perhaps we should include within this discussion the fact the government requires me, as an ER doctor, to evaluate and treat everyone who walks through the door without even being able to ask them if they have a way to pay. That sounds a lot like indentured servitude to me. "You must provide services without compensation". That seems to violate my right to liberty. Seems obvious. You might also want to share your "right to be able to live" argument with the pro-abortion crowd, Mr. Obvious.
Doug:
It is called "pro-choice" and it is the Constitutional law, stamped with approval from the Supreme Court. But once you are really alive, we must do everything we can to keep people that way, even if they have no health care. Are you claiming that it is your Constitutional right to let people die if they have no way to pay?
David:
Euphemisms don't change reality.
Doug:
That is correct. But why do you consider your term reality, and my term a "euphemism"? Abortion is legal, and is about a woman's choice. That is reality. And letting someone die because they don't have health insurance is not legal. We have to pay to keep them alive.
David:
And you can see now how issues of Constitutionality are not black and white. Can the government force an individual to work for free? Can the government force you to purchase a product from a private vendor, if the government determines it is for the "greater good"? Who determines what is the "greater good"? Can the government silence free speech if it feels that speech is offensive or inappropriate?
Doug:
Yes. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater. Yelling "Liar!" can be slander.
David:
No physician is going to let anyone die, if they can help it. But there is still the issue of payment after the fact. You're purposefully confusing that fact.
Doug:
What is confusing? If they don't pay, then we all have to pay. You can't use "we're going to let you die" as pressure to make them pay.
David:
So, this is how the government works around the Constitution. They come up with ideas to "help" people. They mandate and regulate businesses, instead of letting the market forces work. And all of these interventions limit freedom. Often, the very "solutions" that big-government politicians enact make those problems worse.
Doug:
The mandate for having car insurance also seems to make sense. So, shouldn't a mandate for health insurance also make sense? Certainly we want to make sure that everyone receives appropriate care in the hospital, even if a person can't pay for it. So, who does pay when an injured person can't? A mandated health insurance seems like a responsible, even conservative, perspective.
David:
There is no national or federal mandate for car insurance. That is a state-by-state decision, and should be. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to require car insurance, and it certainly doesn't allow for mandated health insurance. The founders specifically limited the power of the federal government, and insisted all other powers reside with the states, or with the people themselves. We've seen a steady erosion of our own freedom and responsibility.
Doug:
Mandates force responsibility. Which used to be a Republican talking point, until they moved further Right.
David:
Not bailing people out when they make poor or irresponsible decisions also forces responsibility. The government should have very limited power to mandate that we do anything.
Who pays when an injured person can't? The individual must take responsibility for themselves.
Doug:
And there it is. "Not bailing people out" means letting them die. You are saying that if a person needs medical attention, but does not have any money, or health care, then they must die. Otherwise, someone must step in to save them.
David:
No. We save them, because that's what we do. But the question is who pays the bills afterwards. Who pays when your car runs out of gas? Who buys you a new tire when you get a flat? Individuals pay for all of these things, without crying for a government program to save them. Is healthcare expensive? Yes. Is it too expensive? Yes. Should you buy insurance? Yes. Should the federal government force you to buy it? No! Claiming that the government must pay for something because it is expensive is not a Constitutional ideal, and it's nowhere in the Constitution.
Doug:
Death is not just an inconvenience, like having to walk to a gas station. If they have no money, they can't pay. So everyone else has to pay. If we require everyone to pay, then it is better for us all. Again, I like car insurance for everyone to keep my costs down. This seems to be a fine idea in exchange for the government making sure that you have basic support in health.
David:
And there it is: You think it's a fine idea for the government, not the individual, to make sure they have basic health support. Not Constitutional, by any measure. Another key difference you continue to overlook: car insurance is not paid for by everyone, only by those who own and drive a car. Health insurance is now mandated for everyone, even if you choose not to use the healthcare system.
Doug:
I think it is. It is self-evident. The money put into public K-12 education is certainly not enough by everyone's estimate. Teachers often have to bring their own materials (paper, crayons, legos, etc.) for classroom activities. Shouldn't we do more to support education?
David:
Again, are you talking federal government, or state government? There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to insert itself into education. The Department of Education was initially created to manage the school-lunch program. Since then, it's become a bloated, political machine that continues to expand and use up tax dollars. All of that money would serve better if just left to the states. For every dollar states like Pennsylvania or Indiana send to the Department of Education, they get about ten cents back. You're right, we should be making quality spending on education a priority. Involving the federal government does not accomplish that goal. And, I'd disagree that "everyone" equates more spending with better educational outcomes. Some of the worst-performing districts spend the most per student.
Doug:
Public schools are run by the government. I don't know any school that believes that it has enough money to teach the students. I don't know any research that shows a negative correlation between money spent and student outcome. We put too much money into prisons, and not enough into education.
David:
Public schools are run by state governments. States could do a better job if they had all of the money being squandered by the federal Department of Education.
There is also no study showing a positive correlation between money spent and educational outcome. That means there is no correlation.
Doug:
That is crazy. You are saying that a school that gets no money can do as well as a school that has infinite money.
David:
You are crazy if you believe that's what I said. I said school performance does not reflect the amount of money schools spend. Some excellent schools get by with a fraction of the money some other schools are spending, and some of the costliest schools perform poorest in the measures that matter most: the education of students.
Doug:
You said that they weren't correlated, so it shouldn't matter how much you spend. Teaching kids well takes money for teachers and materials. That, too, should be self-evident.
David:
What is "self-evident" to you is not to self-evident to others. Many home-schooled kids are educated better than public-school educated kids, with a fraction of the resources.
Doug:
If you count the teacher's time, the cost of the home, the food, then home schooling costs much, much, much more than public education. The fact that we don't actually pay teacher/parent doesn't mean that it doesn't cost a lot. It uses many more resources. If they are better educated, then that proves my point: there is a direct correlation between money spent and quality of education.
David:
So, do you claim all of that money you make teaching things to your kids on your taxes as income? Of course not, because it doesn't work that way. Here in Indiana, the Republican legislature passed a law enabling parents who homeschool to apply for tax refunds to help cover expenses. The Democrats and the Teacher's Union were vehemently opposed, arguing it would take money from failing public schools. I'm glad to see that you place some value on homeschooling. And since parents don't get paid for their time, your argument is amusing, but holds no water.
Doug:
What happened to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? These self-evident Rights get trumped by your narrow view of how to run a prosperous country. In your imagined world where no one paid any taxes for these services, what would our country look like? No safety regulations? No mandatory insurances? No licenses? No consumer protection? It seems like we do have a very adaptive government that tries to balance freedom with social responsibility.
David:
Again, you're missing a rather big point. There is a distinction between state governments and the federal government. States are free to require permits, licenses, certifications, etc. for various needs. The federal government is not.
There are certainly some jobs that are allowed by the Constitution for the federal government to control and execute.
I'm not saying we shouldn't pay taxes. The federal government can't function without collecting taxes. Taxes are allowed within the Constitution. What the federal government does with the taxes is what I often find to be wrong. Whenever the federal government grants itself a new power or duty (usually in the name of "helping"), it is invariably individual freedom and liberty that suffers.
Doug:
I see: millions of people getting healthcare (and living) is actually liberty suffering. The Civil Rights Act, allowing millions of people to just live their lives without being discriminated against, is actual causing their liberty to suffer. Now I understand your view of the Role of Government.
David:
No, you obviously do not understand at all. Civil rights are certainly listed in the Constitution in several places, most notably in the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment. It looks like you're just throwing all kinds of arguments at the wall, hoping something will stick. Or perhaps it's just your bias leaking into the discussion that all tea-party conservatives are racists.
And once again, health care and health insurance are different things.
Millions who are signing up for expanded Medicaid, which is a majority of the numbers used to promote Obamacare as a success, are getting "free" insurance. But you and I are paying for that. So, it seems that you are still paying for idiots (your words), if they have Medicaid.
Doug:
Idiots don't wear seatbelts, whether or not they have healthcare is another issue. They may be poor, but they can still wear seatbelts.
David:
You mean health insurance....
All of the rest of us are not getting anything. We are being forced to purchase insurance to cover the costs for everyone else. So, you're still paying for idiots (your term) who have accidents.
Doug:
Health insurance gets you health care. When most people have health insurance, then there are fewer people that need the taxpayer to cover their costs.
David:
Except for the millions who have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. We cover those costs. Whether that's right or wrong for the government to provide, it's still a huge driver of the costs you wrongly claim it is decreasing.
Real liberty allows each of us to make our own decisions. We should be able to purchase insurance that fits our needs. Young people should be able to purchase catastrophic care at a huge discount, because they don't need much healthcare. Instead, they are paying some of the highest rates, to cover the pool of elderly and sick, as mandated by the government.
Doug:
Everyone needs healthcare. Everyone dies. But we should not let people die because they can't afford insurance.
David:
You continue to spout nonsense. No one dies in America because they can't afford health insurance. They go to the ER, where doctors and nurses care for them the same as they would Bill Gates. Surgeons and other specialist will treat their emergency regardless of their ability to pay. I've personally treated thousands of people and children who didn't pay me a cent. One of the Catholic hospitals I worked at eventually closed, because it offered too much free care.
Doug:
Taking care of all people is the way that it should be. The point is, that costs money. The more money we can get out of each individual for healthcare, the better for all of us. Which is why the mandate is constitutional.
David:
The SCOTUS never ruled that a mandate was constitutional. They ruled the penalty was actually a tax, and the government has the power to tax citizens. Justice Roberts skirted the issue, so you can't actually claim that mandates are constitutional, although they remain a constitutional issue.
You can choose to refuse care. At least for now, until the government mandates you must use the system, even if you just want to be left alone. We agree that everyone eventually dies. And Obamacare is actually limiting treatments that it finds too expensive, that might help even more people live. And I find it amusing you still think there will be people out dying in the streets if the federal government doesn't step in to prevent it. I find it self-evident that this is not true.
Doug:
The government has stepped in to make sure that people get treated. If you want to make sure that Obamacare does not limit the treatment based on cost, I'm right there with you. Just remember, when they can't pay, everyone else must do so. And that makes it a constitutional issue.
David:
Show me where the Constitution says that everyone has to pay when someone cannot. The US Constitution doesn't. Maybe you have a defective copy...
At the end of the day (or blog, as it may be), big-government expansion not only infringes on liberty and freedom, it just makes me sick.
Doug:
It makes me proud that we have fewer people dying, more people covered with insurance, and less taxpayer money spent on it. Life, liberty, and happiness. But the greatest of these is life. This should be self-evident.
We, the people, can do some amazing things through our government when we work together. But it seems that the Tea Party would like to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps we can find some points of agreement on the role of the government.
David:
It seems the only tea party supporters you have ever seen are in liberal comics. The tea party has always been about making government fiscally accountable and responsible, not to eliminate the federal government. We want to see the federal government stay within the bounds outlined for it by the Constitution, the rule-book for government. It appears liberals, or socialists like Bernie Sanders, want to toss out all of the rules, and offer ever-increasing programs under the guise of "helping people", despite what the Constitution allows, or what the cost.
Doug:
The Constitution is indeed where we can start, but that isn't all that we have. We have some amendments, called the Bill of Rights, additional amendments, and a series of laws and court rulings at the federal, state, and local levels that make up the rules of the government. If you aren't including all of our rules, then you aren't really talking about our government. "It isn't in the Constitution" isn't a valid argument, because we are governed by so much more.
David:
The Bill of Rights, and all other amendments to the Constitution are parts of the Constitution. They are part of the rule book. Court rulings are interpretations of the rules, and can become rules we play by, but they are not part of the Constitution. The Dred Scott Decision found that slaves remained "property" even when they were in an abolitionist state. In other words, runaway slaves could not be considered free if they reached a free state. They were still the property of the original owners. This interpretation of the law was wrong and was subsequently overturned. Laws can be found to be "unconstitutional". The Constitution trumps these laws, and the federal government must abide by the Constitution.
Doug:
What some might call "government overreach" is common sense and saves lives and money. I'm thinking about the rules that government puts in place for many things, including wearing seat belts and motorcycle helmets.
David:
What you consider common sense, and what is considered constitutional are not necessarily the same thing. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to save us from ourselves. If you are going to make an argument for motorcycle helmets to save lives, why not mandate that everyone can only have 3,000 calories of food each day? Why not ban alcohol? Oh wait, they did that, and it didn't work out so well.
Doug:
Are you saying that you are against mandatory use of motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts? I don't mind those types of laws, but not because I think that they are designed to "save lives." I am for them because they help me save money.
David:
Yes, I am against the federal government granting itself authority over our lives that it doesn't have.
I see a great many people every day who have been involved in auto accidents. Very few are "idiots", (which is how you described people who get into car accidents, before you apparently edited it out) and many were able to afford their premiums before Obamacare put them out of their reach. but, that's a tale for another blog.
Doug:
If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you are an idiot. And many more people have health care now than before. Millions more people have heath care. The uninsured rate is at an alltime low. More people have health care (as a raw number and as a percentage) than have ever had health care before. Ever. And that makes it so I don't have to pay for other people's health care.
David:
I agree that you should wear a seatbelt. But, the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force Americans to wear a seatbelt, in my opinion. That's the difference. I believe you should have the freedom to be an idiot. Even a nobel idea, if it is not allowed by the Constitution, is not allowed for the federal government to enact. The states may enact that idea (if their state constitution allows for it), but not the federal government.
Regarding healthcare, you are mixing and matching your apples and oranges. People always had access to health care. Everyone. It's health insurance that the federal government decide it had the authority to mandate that you purchase. The Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 majority that the government could tax you if you don't buy a product (insurance) they want you to buy. If someone else brings up a legal case (and there are currently dozens of court cases against various parts of Obamacare), The SCOTUS may rule differently. Obamacare is not part of the Constitution, and therefore, parts, or all of it, can be ruled unconstitutional.
Doug:
Obamacare was already ruled Constitutional.
David:
So far, based on the cases that have been presented to it, the SCOTUS has found those aspects to be within the guidelines of the Constitution. That may not always be the case. Parts of laws can be constitutional, while other parts of massive, 15,000 page laws may not be.
Doug:
Of course. Anything can be found unconstitutional by a future court. Banning individual gun ownership may be found constitutional by a future court. This just shows that the interpretation of the constitution is part of the process.
David:
Based on the precedent of Obamacare, the federal government could tax you (penalize you) for not owning a gun, if a different Congress passed a law that requires you to purchase one. That would be wrong, in the same way it's wrong for the federal government to force you to purchase anything else from a private vendor.
Doug:
Perhaps those most basic rights, such as the right to be able to live, and not to have to pay for other people's health care are self-evident? Maybe they don't even need to be mentioned in the Constitution because they are so obvious? In fact, that is exactly what the founding fathers said in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." They are self-evident. Not needing to be explained. Obvious.
David:
Glad to see you acknowledged the Creator as providing our rights.
Doug:
I'm glad you finally believe in evolution, our Great Creator!
David: There is nothing that says you can't get sick. You have a right to not be killed, but you have no right not to die. We all die sometime. Perhaps we should include within this discussion the fact the government requires me, as an ER doctor, to evaluate and treat everyone who walks through the door without even being able to ask them if they have a way to pay. That sounds a lot like indentured servitude to me. "You must provide services without compensation". That seems to violate my right to liberty. Seems obvious. You might also want to share your "right to be able to live" argument with the pro-abortion crowd, Mr. Obvious.
Doug:
It is called "pro-choice" and it is the Constitutional law, stamped with approval from the Supreme Court. But once you are really alive, we must do everything we can to keep people that way, even if they have no health care. Are you claiming that it is your Constitutional right to let people die if they have no way to pay?
David:
Euphemisms don't change reality.
Doug:
That is correct. But why do you consider your term reality, and my term a "euphemism"? Abortion is legal, and is about a woman's choice. That is reality. And letting someone die because they don't have health insurance is not legal. We have to pay to keep them alive.
David:
And you can see now how issues of Constitutionality are not black and white. Can the government force an individual to work for free? Can the government force you to purchase a product from a private vendor, if the government determines it is for the "greater good"? Who determines what is the "greater good"? Can the government silence free speech if it feels that speech is offensive or inappropriate?
Doug:
Yes. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater. Yelling "Liar!" can be slander.
David:
No physician is going to let anyone die, if they can help it. But there is still the issue of payment after the fact. You're purposefully confusing that fact.
Doug:
What is confusing? If they don't pay, then we all have to pay. You can't use "we're going to let you die" as pressure to make them pay.
David:
So, this is how the government works around the Constitution. They come up with ideas to "help" people. They mandate and regulate businesses, instead of letting the market forces work. And all of these interventions limit freedom. Often, the very "solutions" that big-government politicians enact make those problems worse.
Doug:
The mandate for having car insurance also seems to make sense. So, shouldn't a mandate for health insurance also make sense? Certainly we want to make sure that everyone receives appropriate care in the hospital, even if a person can't pay for it. So, who does pay when an injured person can't? A mandated health insurance seems like a responsible, even conservative, perspective.
David:
There is no national or federal mandate for car insurance. That is a state-by-state decision, and should be. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to require car insurance, and it certainly doesn't allow for mandated health insurance. The founders specifically limited the power of the federal government, and insisted all other powers reside with the states, or with the people themselves. We've seen a steady erosion of our own freedom and responsibility.
Doug:
Mandates force responsibility. Which used to be a Republican talking point, until they moved further Right.
David:
Not bailing people out when they make poor or irresponsible decisions also forces responsibility. The government should have very limited power to mandate that we do anything.
Who pays when an injured person can't? The individual must take responsibility for themselves.
Doug:
And there it is. "Not bailing people out" means letting them die. You are saying that if a person needs medical attention, but does not have any money, or health care, then they must die. Otherwise, someone must step in to save them.
David:
No. We save them, because that's what we do. But the question is who pays the bills afterwards. Who pays when your car runs out of gas? Who buys you a new tire when you get a flat? Individuals pay for all of these things, without crying for a government program to save them. Is healthcare expensive? Yes. Is it too expensive? Yes. Should you buy insurance? Yes. Should the federal government force you to buy it? No! Claiming that the government must pay for something because it is expensive is not a Constitutional ideal, and it's nowhere in the Constitution.
Doug:
Death is not just an inconvenience, like having to walk to a gas station. If they have no money, they can't pay. So everyone else has to pay. If we require everyone to pay, then it is better for us all. Again, I like car insurance for everyone to keep my costs down. This seems to be a fine idea in exchange for the government making sure that you have basic support in health.
David:
And there it is: You think it's a fine idea for the government, not the individual, to make sure they have basic health support. Not Constitutional, by any measure. Another key difference you continue to overlook: car insurance is not paid for by everyone, only by those who own and drive a car. Health insurance is now mandated for everyone, even if you choose not to use the healthcare system.
Doug:
I think it is. It is self-evident. The money put into public K-12 education is certainly not enough by everyone's estimate. Teachers often have to bring their own materials (paper, crayons, legos, etc.) for classroom activities. Shouldn't we do more to support education?
David:
Again, are you talking federal government, or state government? There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to insert itself into education. The Department of Education was initially created to manage the school-lunch program. Since then, it's become a bloated, political machine that continues to expand and use up tax dollars. All of that money would serve better if just left to the states. For every dollar states like Pennsylvania or Indiana send to the Department of Education, they get about ten cents back. You're right, we should be making quality spending on education a priority. Involving the federal government does not accomplish that goal. And, I'd disagree that "everyone" equates more spending with better educational outcomes. Some of the worst-performing districts spend the most per student.
Doug:
Public schools are run by the government. I don't know any school that believes that it has enough money to teach the students. I don't know any research that shows a negative correlation between money spent and student outcome. We put too much money into prisons, and not enough into education.
David:
Public schools are run by state governments. States could do a better job if they had all of the money being squandered by the federal Department of Education.
There is also no study showing a positive correlation between money spent and educational outcome. That means there is no correlation.
Doug:
That is crazy. You are saying that a school that gets no money can do as well as a school that has infinite money.
David:
You are crazy if you believe that's what I said. I said school performance does not reflect the amount of money schools spend. Some excellent schools get by with a fraction of the money some other schools are spending, and some of the costliest schools perform poorest in the measures that matter most: the education of students.
Doug:
You said that they weren't correlated, so it shouldn't matter how much you spend. Teaching kids well takes money for teachers and materials. That, too, should be self-evident.
David:
What is "self-evident" to you is not to self-evident to others. Many home-schooled kids are educated better than public-school educated kids, with a fraction of the resources.
Doug:
If you count the teacher's time, the cost of the home, the food, then home schooling costs much, much, much more than public education. The fact that we don't actually pay teacher/parent doesn't mean that it doesn't cost a lot. It uses many more resources. If they are better educated, then that proves my point: there is a direct correlation between money spent and quality of education.
David:
So, do you claim all of that money you make teaching things to your kids on your taxes as income? Of course not, because it doesn't work that way. Here in Indiana, the Republican legislature passed a law enabling parents who homeschool to apply for tax refunds to help cover expenses. The Democrats and the Teacher's Union were vehemently opposed, arguing it would take money from failing public schools. I'm glad to see that you place some value on homeschooling. And since parents don't get paid for their time, your argument is amusing, but holds no water.
Doug:
What happened to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? These self-evident Rights get trumped by your narrow view of how to run a prosperous country. In your imagined world where no one paid any taxes for these services, what would our country look like? No safety regulations? No mandatory insurances? No licenses? No consumer protection? It seems like we do have a very adaptive government that tries to balance freedom with social responsibility.
David:
Again, you're missing a rather big point. There is a distinction between state governments and the federal government. States are free to require permits, licenses, certifications, etc. for various needs. The federal government is not.
There are certainly some jobs that are allowed by the Constitution for the federal government to control and execute.
I'm not saying we shouldn't pay taxes. The federal government can't function without collecting taxes. Taxes are allowed within the Constitution. What the federal government does with the taxes is what I often find to be wrong. Whenever the federal government grants itself a new power or duty (usually in the name of "helping"), it is invariably individual freedom and liberty that suffers.
Doug:
I see: millions of people getting healthcare (and living) is actually liberty suffering. The Civil Rights Act, allowing millions of people to just live their lives without being discriminated against, is actual causing their liberty to suffer. Now I understand your view of the Role of Government.
David:
No, you obviously do not understand at all. Civil rights are certainly listed in the Constitution in several places, most notably in the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment. It looks like you're just throwing all kinds of arguments at the wall, hoping something will stick. Or perhaps it's just your bias leaking into the discussion that all tea-party conservatives are racists.
And once again, health care and health insurance are different things.
Millions who are signing up for expanded Medicaid, which is a majority of the numbers used to promote Obamacare as a success, are getting "free" insurance. But you and I are paying for that. So, it seems that you are still paying for idiots (your words), if they have Medicaid.
Doug:
Idiots don't wear seatbelts, whether or not they have healthcare is another issue. They may be poor, but they can still wear seatbelts.
David:
You mean health insurance....
All of the rest of us are not getting anything. We are being forced to purchase insurance to cover the costs for everyone else. So, you're still paying for idiots (your term) who have accidents.
Doug:
Health insurance gets you health care. When most people have health insurance, then there are fewer people that need the taxpayer to cover their costs.
David:
Except for the millions who have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. We cover those costs. Whether that's right or wrong for the government to provide, it's still a huge driver of the costs you wrongly claim it is decreasing.
Real liberty allows each of us to make our own decisions. We should be able to purchase insurance that fits our needs. Young people should be able to purchase catastrophic care at a huge discount, because they don't need much healthcare. Instead, they are paying some of the highest rates, to cover the pool of elderly and sick, as mandated by the government.
Doug:
Everyone needs healthcare. Everyone dies. But we should not let people die because they can't afford insurance.
David:
You continue to spout nonsense. No one dies in America because they can't afford health insurance. They go to the ER, where doctors and nurses care for them the same as they would Bill Gates. Surgeons and other specialist will treat their emergency regardless of their ability to pay. I've personally treated thousands of people and children who didn't pay me a cent. One of the Catholic hospitals I worked at eventually closed, because it offered too much free care.
Doug:
Taking care of all people is the way that it should be. The point is, that costs money. The more money we can get out of each individual for healthcare, the better for all of us. Which is why the mandate is constitutional.
David:
The SCOTUS never ruled that a mandate was constitutional. They ruled the penalty was actually a tax, and the government has the power to tax citizens. Justice Roberts skirted the issue, so you can't actually claim that mandates are constitutional, although they remain a constitutional issue.
You can choose to refuse care. At least for now, until the government mandates you must use the system, even if you just want to be left alone. We agree that everyone eventually dies. And Obamacare is actually limiting treatments that it finds too expensive, that might help even more people live. And I find it amusing you still think there will be people out dying in the streets if the federal government doesn't step in to prevent it. I find it self-evident that this is not true.
Doug:
The government has stepped in to make sure that people get treated. If you want to make sure that Obamacare does not limit the treatment based on cost, I'm right there with you. Just remember, when they can't pay, everyone else must do so. And that makes it a constitutional issue.
David:
Show me where the Constitution says that everyone has to pay when someone cannot. The US Constitution doesn't. Maybe you have a defective copy...
At the end of the day (or blog, as it may be), big-government expansion not only infringes on liberty and freedom, it just makes me sick.
Doug:
It makes me proud that we have fewer people dying, more people covered with insurance, and less taxpayer money spent on it. Life, liberty, and happiness. But the greatest of these is life. This should be self-evident.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!