How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Olo401]

Do you have a problem with insurance companies who take regular payments over and over and over, and then they just cancel the policy because they don't want to pay a catastrophic claim?

Do you have a problem with making sure such contracts cover pre-existing chronic conditions?

Do you have a problem with the insurance company dictating to doctors and hospitals what they are going to be paid?

Do you have a problem with insurance companies charging women more than men due to the fact that they can get pregnant?

Oh and here's a good one.. do you have a problem with "death panels", because that's what the insurance companies have in place right now deciding whether or not to cover end-of-life care.

[Not not Mattaru]

You must be confused, since the debate is against government intervention, so everything I said is wholly on topic. If you want me to debate the particulars of this healthcare bill, then like I told kuya and beckwin, I'm not gonna do it. The reason behind it is because neither you, nor I, (nor anyone else at that matter) know exactly what the impact of these regulations and introduction of government insurance will have on the healthcare market. All you have, in essence, is politician's empty promises.




you are sincerely this naive?

If we go back to the original two posts. My first post really dealt with your OP more than anything else, and I called out some fundamental contradictions in your thinking by posting that article (namely the market being inevitable but at the same time easily influenced). You ignored most of that and decided to hone in on insurance companies and taxation. I was under the impression that this meant you wanted to focus on these points...which I did. Now, if you wanted to talk about this in some sort of vacuum without relevance to said bill, but some hypothetical situation I am kind of baffled.

It seems kind of pointless to lay out reasons why you are against healthcare reform, then be confronted with an option that is not in conflict (or at least isn't as extreme as you tend to believe) with those reasons, and then say well we don't know what is in the bill anyway and I'm just being hypothetical. Its simply a way to wiggle out of your burden of proof here.

Yes, all that I have to go on at the moment are politicians' promises, empty or not, most likely a mix of both which is why I am not decided on the bill (that isn't set yet), but I am not against it fundamentally.

I am not being naive, I am trying to show you in the future why it is important to be responsive to an argument. If someone brings up a point and your response doesn't actually provide a clash to the issue at hand than the other person's analysis still stands. If you can't prove it wrong, it doesn't mean its true, but it does mean your reasons for disagreeing are pretty flimsy. I think it is probably more naive to spew something without checking your premises very thoroughly so you can respond intelligently and on-topic. Let me recap for you:

You: Your OP.

Me: I disagree with the OP because it isn't relevant to the present day, Libertarian ideology has contradictions in how it views the "market", and current discussion on healthcare reform isn't radically at odds with the status quo.

You: The government is going to print money and fund the deficit to pay for healthcare reform.

Me: From what I have heard, the person with the final word said he won't sign a bill that isn't deficit neutral.

You: They are going to print money. [You then go on to talk about things that aren't responsive to the way the debate was going, but rather reiterated problems that I brought up in my original response to the OP...they probably should have been in your initial response so we could have an orderly debate and I didn't have to put all the pieces together for you].

Me: You are unresponsive, I already covered that.

You: I'm not talking about the bill this all hypothetical. You [Me] are naive.

[guartz]

Do you have a problem with insurance companies who take regular payments over and over and over, and then they just cancel the policy because they don't want to pay a catastrophic claim?

Do you have a problem with making sure such contracts cover pre-existing chronic conditions?

Do you have a problem with the insurance company dictating to doctors and hospitals what they are going to be paid?

Do you have a problem with insurance companies charging women more than men due to the fact that they can get pregnant?

Oh and here's a good one.. do you have a problem with "death panels", because that's what the insurance companies have in place right now deciding whether or not to cover end-of-life care.

1. Look for policies that have guaranteed renewability. If you sign an agreement that says they can cancel whenever they want, then really, who's at fault? Besides, that particular scenario has been illegal for quite some time. A policy without renewability will just end at its anniversary date following a big claim.

2. You can't ask financial institutions to take guaranteed loss. It's called charity. If I was guaranteed insurance coverage regardless of my condition, I'd only sign up once I got sick. You know, wait until I need 100k worth of surgery, buy a 200 dollar policy, then cancel when the suckers paid for it. It's called Moral Hazard.

3. No? Since when is negotiating rates an ethical dilemma? Unless you are talking about something else?

4. Yea, well, life insurance charges men more, since they die early. The premiums are calculated based on statical probability of risk. Women get pregnant. If you don't want to pay for it, ask for a policy that has no maternity coverage?

5. Hospice insurance and homecare insurance is very cheap, considering you take it early on in life. You know, not when you are about to croak. edit: I forgot to add, most Life insurance policies will pay half or full amount of face policy value if you are dying or about to die.


6. Oh, insurance is voluntary. You don't have to subscribe to their services, you can just, you know, walk up to a doctor and ask for charity, or in your case, look him straight in the eye and demand that he treat you, because you know, it's your right.

[Not not Mattaru]

guartz, there is something very important you need to understand. Governments are also financial institutions. No different from any corporation responsible to its stockholders and consumers. They take your money, put it away, and pay for services with that money when popularly elected legislatures legislate so.

The government is a contract, between you and a political body. It usually says that you will pay X amount for Y amount of time, in turn, the government will pay X amount for very specifics things. Like all contracts, if it is broken, you can revolt, leave, elect new politicians, lobby for reform. In turn, if whatever you are doing is not in the contract, the government doesn't have to do anything.

If you ever picked up and actually read the contract, they are very specific in what they will or will not cover. The good news is that you have a choice between thousands of different people who run for election or (hundreds of) countries, and they are all, different.

Whatever is left out is between you and whoever.

I think I see a pattern, maybe I'm just crazy or maybe its no coincidence classical economics and political theory came from the same time period...the Enlightenment. I will admit the above is not without some oversimplification taken for poetic license with your words...but I've got to work with the material given. Amirite.

Edit: /em wonders what post guartz is editing, although he probably shouldn't. meh.

[guartz]

Your poetic license made Nozick, Locke and Rousseau roll in their graves.

What you call oversimplification is more akin to deep misunderstanding of the subject.


edit: As to your earlier post. You are just upset that I decided to skip the proverbial "beating around the bush" and focused at the center of our disagreement.

editedit: what do the kids say, You mad? amirite?

[Not not Mattaru]

Your poetic license made Nozick, Locke and Rousseau roll in their graves.

What you call oversimplification is more akin to deep misunderstanding of the subject.

Can't speak to Nozick, but my knowledge on Rousseau and Locke is pretty good. Enough to know that they are flawed and products of historical circumstances the same way your oversimplified concept of market economics is.

I suppose I could do a play by play to clear up some issues though.

First paragraph:
The main contention being the government can act like a financial institution. A financial institution often falls into these types of bodies according to wikipedia: bodies capable of taking deposits and making loans, insurance, pensions, brokers, underwriters, and collective investment schemes. The efficacy of this is debatable, but that is a much [more] nuanced debate that if you wanted to do and actually get somewhere requires a lengthy bibliography.

1. Deposits/Loans - It is obvious that governments take part in this, they do it with one another - US and China/Japan, groups like the World Bank and IMF give loans from a mix of foreign governments and private firms.
2. Insurance - Even the US does it in a limited sense, other countries have even more public options with mixed results.
3. Pensions - These too are provided by a variety of governments for more than just government employees.
4. Brokers - Government often works as a broker not only in the process as a legislator which is a way of mediating between interests, but also when those interests have a financial buyer/seller relationship (or in the case of public goods the buyer and seller can be seen as the same agent I suppose). Think government deciding which private firms recieve tax dollars to carry out defense contracting.
5. Underwriters - this one is trickier, I can think of examples but they may seem like a stretch so I will grant 1 of 6 here to avoid nit-picking this point.
6. Collective investment - the big thing that sticks out here is public goods.

Second paragraph:
Although the "social contract" is much broader than simply taxes and paying a certain amount, the point is like a company with shareholders or a legal contract there is a way to seek out accountability in a government. The belief that they run rampant only reifies a collective unwillingness to rely on those accountability mechanisms. If something isn't part of the contract, isn't mentioned etc. then the government or citizen can't make claims against one another about it, unless they are rethinking the contract in general.

Third paragraph:
Basically, if you have grievances, you can voice them.

Last paragraph:
No one is stopping you from talking to people you want to about private options.

-----

Which earlier post. If you mean my initial response to the OP actually the opposite - I am wondering why you ignored my more general critique, focused on something more specific to healthcare and then turned around and said "You must be confused, since the debate is against government intervention, so everything I said is wholly on topic. If you want me to debate the particulars of this healthcare bill, then like I told kuya and beckwin, I'm not gonna do it." But you did it...given a pretty clear choice to not do it.

I figured our center of disagreement maybe our view on government's role. That is fine, I offered that avenue for you to talk about. I can't continue entertain your poor reading comprehension about [how] you went off course then tried to turn that against me...

Ahhhhhhh
You mad
You mad

Edit: fixed some words mistyped, they are on brackets.

[Rhinox]

guartz, are you in favor of the Pay or die system?

[Marootsoobutsu]

Can't speak to Nozick, but my knowledge on Rousseau and Locke is pretty good. Enough to know that they are flawed and products of historical circumstances the same way your oversimplified concept of market economics is.

I normally stay out of political threads; they give me heartburn, as I don't generally let them go, but I have to step in here.

Locke, the man who's ideas Jefferson plagiarized in the founding document of this country; the man ultimately defined what a just government is, and is not, in Western civilization; the man who, more than any other, has shaped our idea of the responsibilities and rights of the individual and of the government... is "flawed and [a product] of historical circumstances?" (as if everything weren't a "product of historical circumstances"

Really? You cannot make a case for national health care without invoking Lockean philosophy-- that the government exists to support the people, not the people to support the government. Dismissing Locke as "flawed" without getting into specifics as to where you disagree, or how X statement is no longer relevant, is rather a disturbing thought. The building has gone up since he was around, but as much as the classical Greek and Roman governments, Locke's ideas and theories are a foundational cornerstone of modern democratic and republican government systems.

I cannot imagine an argument more certain to fail than one that *dismisses* Lockean theory, rather than emphasize the importance of parts of it that others ignore.

This is not to say that Locke was correct about everything he ever wrote, or that he was as entirely comprehensive as a more developed world needs, but the key points he made, the primacy of his arguments are certainly not flawed. And that they address not just a particular government, but have influenced damn-near every government newly created since his writing suggests that his teachings aren't simply limited to historic circumstance: they are, as much as any philosophy can be, universal.

I suggest, without irony or intent to offend, that if you are willing to dismiss him off hand as simply as you've done here, that you are not as well informed as you think you are on that subject, and ought re-examine both his teachings, and the political and social ideas based extensively and exclusively on his teachings, and the teachings of those who expanded upon them.

[Beckwin]

Olo401, there is something very important you need to understand. Insurance companies are financial institutions. No different from car insurance, or home insurance. They take your money, put most of it away, and pay the doctor with that money when you see them.

Health insurance is a contract, between you and a financial institution. It usually says that you will pay X amount for Y amount of time, in turn, the financial institution will pay X amount for very specifics things. Like all contracts, if it is broken, you can sue. In turn, if whatever you are doing is not in the contract, the financial institution doesn't have to pay.

If you ever picked up and actually read the contract, they are very specific in what they will or will not cover. The good news is that you have a choice between thousands of different companies who offer this service, and they are all, different.

Whatever is left out is between you, and the doctor or a hospital. Whom, by the way, will still treat you, regardless if you can pay or not. However, since the doctors like to get paid for their work, they will peruse you for money if you don't pay.

this is a really bad description of the real situation. lemme just make a list of what's wrong:

-Health Insurance companies are different from car/home insurance companies... because they insure something very different and something that you cannot put a monetary value on.

-People are not winning many suits, and they certainly aren't publicized enough when they do. The problem is a lot of the egregious things are protected in all of these contracts... read below.

-You have a choice between thousands of policies... which you may not be able to afford... and which, for the most part, offer the same services for similar prices. The industry acts as an oligopoly, as it stands. If there was indeed competition, prices wouldn't have skyrocketed over the last two decades.

-No, you will not get whatever treatment you need from whatever hospital. If you show up to an ER in need of life-saving care, they will treat you, but you can't show up to the cancer center expecting chemo or an operation or a checkup or a CATscan or anything preventative/routine that would save your life/prevent discomfort.

[Not not Mattaru]

I normally stay out of political threads; they give me heartburn, as I don't generally let them go, but I have to step in here.

Locke, the man who's ideas Jefferson plagiarized in the founding document of this country; the man ultimately defined what a just government is, and is not, in Western civilization; the man who, more than any other, has shaped our idea of the responsibilities and rights of the individual and of the government... is "flawed and [a product] of historical circumstances?" (as if everything weren't a "product of historical circumstances"

Really? You cannot make a case for national health care without invoking Lockean philosophy-- that the government exists to support the people, not the people to support the government. Dismissing Locke as "flawed" without getting into specifics as to where you disagree, or how X statement is no longer relevant, is rather a disturbing thought. The building has gone up since he was around, but as much as the classical Greek and Roman governments, Locke's ideas and theories are a foundational cornerstone of modern democratic and republican government systems.

I cannot imagine an argument more certain to fail than one that *dismisses* Lockean theory, rather than emphasize the importance of parts of it that others ignore.

This is not to say that Locke was correct about everything he ever wrote, or that he was as entirely comprehensive as a more developed world needs, but the key points he made, the primacy of his arguments are certainly not flawed. And that they address not just a particular government, but have influenced damn-near every government newly created since his writing suggests that his teachings aren't simply limited to historic circumstance: they are, as much as any philosophy can be, universal.

I suggest, without irony or intent to offend, that if you are willing to dismiss him off hand as simply as you've done here, that you are not as well informed as you think you are on that subject, and ought re-examine both his teachings, and the political and social ideas based extensively and exclusively on his teachings, and the teachings of those who expanded upon them.

All right! I found a paper I wrote about why you should probably rethink or really retool most of Lockean philosophy - I would say you are better off looking at Mill than Locke to understand how the US looks at rights, and Locke or Jefferson if you want to think more along the lines of the Constitution in specifics. Moreover, its no secret Jeffersonian America never came about (if you read an article in the most current Foreign Policy it may be making a comeback though) so it is pretty irrelevent beyond some of his lasting documents (other than a nice part in our history and its role in expanding American territory).

The problem with Locke is his philosophy is based entirely around property and although now we tend to think of property in a greater sense than Locke did - upper class, white, male, adult, even slave-owner was his ideal property holder. There are still people without property that can be labored on today and even if you extend Locke's most basic principles there is a wide swath of people who simply don't have claims to rights. Better to stick to JS Mill. Stating otherwise is just untrue I'm sorry, I've read this section of Second Treatise of Governments and discussed it with many people in a classroom and outside of a classroom and I don't think I have ever met someone who said Locke's conception of rights does not extend from property.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of this is in regards to Foucault and his relation to Lockean and Kantian philosophy, you can read it if you want to.

I. Introduction

Foucault’s individual in modern society is descriptive, while Locke and Kant present prescriptive accounts that embody their philosophies in historical context. Foucault uses the shift from torture to discipline to discuss the advent of disciplinary society and its mechanisms of power: regimes of knowledge, surveillance, and regimenting time and space. Lastly, this denies equality and individual rights although Kant and Locke state that the exact opposite occurs in modern society.

II. Locke, Kant, and Foucault’s Individual in Modern Society

According to Locke the individual in modern society is rational, labors, and is a property holder. This is derived by Locke’s political philosophy that was created in order to justify devolution of power away from the monarch. Rationality and labor are unique traits of humanity that allow them to manipulate the natural environment and create ownership of it in the form of property. For Locke, this ability leads to the creation of society and governments to secure property. Society and government then revolves entirely around the goal of securing property. At this point the idea of individual rights takes shape as protections for things unable to be secured in the state of nature, beginning with the right to property.

Conversely, the individual that is truly part of modern society is also ‘not-something’. Individuals who embody the opposite of Locke’s qualifiers are people who do not labor, are not rational, and do not hold property – this would include lazy, mad, children, homeless, women, and handicapped. These people are written out of Locke’s vision and are important to show the historically imbedded objective of Locke’s writing. It was not necessarily trying to give greater freedom to people as much as it was making a case to privilege a particular group against the monarch.

Kant’s individual in modern society stresses the primacy of reason. Historically, this removes the locus of power from regal decree and religious faith. Reason is essential to understand and formulate absolute law and moral order via the categorical imperative which requires the use of calculated a priori logic. Moral and legal law exists separate from issues such as utility. Conforming to this universal law allows individuals to cohabit together in relative freedom, versus the state of nature where their freedom is curtailed due to the war-like characteristics of the state of nature.

In summation, Kant and Locke focus on rationality and property as defining factors of being an individual in modern society. This is veiled as an enlightened progression in thought, in reality the categorical imperative and Locke’s placement of property as a paramount right attempt to wrest power from one agent to another using claims of ‘reasoned’ legitimacy.
Foucault’s individual in modern society is much more descriptive rather than prescriptive and focuses on the individual’s place in disciplinary society. To Foucault the individual in modern society is subjected to and subjects others to the modern forms of power and knowledge. Power is expressed in much more subtle ways and attempts to normalize and discipline people to a particular standard. Despite having rights, supposed equality, and possessing faculties of reason, which are integral to Locke and Kant, normalization and the disciplinary society are mechanisms of control of all the above. The exact nuances in difference between Kant and Locke contrasted to Foucault will become more apparent throughout the paper, for the time being Foucault’s modern individual is normalized, disciplined, and lacks freedom and equality.

III. The Advent of Disciplinary Society and it’s Mechanisms of Power

As the term disciplinary society implies, its manifestations and images are widespread, but Foucault chooses to look at a couple of examples to embody disciplinary society: the Panopticon and the quarantined village facing an outbreak of the plague. The key ideas of these examples are visibility/surveillance, spatial compartmentalization, and the ambiguity of the source of power. The quarantined village regulates the movements of its inhabitants in order to prevent spread of contagion; to maintain this there is a network of enforced surveillance put in place. The isolation to a particular plot (in this case the home, or for the guards a block etc.) allows a regimented use of space that helps make surveillance possible (Foucault, 196). If space is not regulated it is much more difficult to make an account of people in a particular area. People therefore have particular roles in a particular space and it is regulated via surveillance.

The Panopticon further explains the disciplinary society by explaining how internal surveillance comes about. The effective part of the Panopticon is the disparity between the knowledge of the prisoner and the central guard gained by surveillance. The prisoner is seen, the guard is unseen. This disparity makes it unknown to the prisoner if they are being observed or not by a seemingly omniscient force. The prisoner must therefore act as though they are being observed all the time, they begin to internalize this surveillance and conform to a standard that is represented by an unseen force – this is “generalized surveillance” (Foucault, 209). Although this relation exists between the guard and the prisoner it is not unique, the guard can too be observed by someone outside the power of their own gaze (Foucault, 204). Power is therefore ambiguous and not concentrated in one agent alone, but because it is ambiguous in origin it becomes internalized by all in society.
The origin of disciplinary society is described by Foucault using the shift from torture to the modern penal system as an example. Originally, torture was employed to punish criminals because of the symbolic nature of the crime vis-à-vis the monarch. The criminal was in effect waging physical violence, or war, against the king. Justice was therefore carried out on the body, physically much like in warfare. Torture of the criminal by an agent representing the king was a logical form of punishment considering the actors involved. But, because of the decreased power of the king and the increased importance of property a different form of punishment became necessary. Especially when considering the individual right to property, crime needed to be punishable in a much more comprehensive way – bringing all of society under its jurisdiction.

Disciplinary society becomes a product of the growing material society and corresponding right to property. Originally under the system employing torture crimes involving property went largely unpunished because it escaped the reach of the monarch to punish effectively (Foucault, 76). In order to punish crimes against property the modern penal system developed (Foucault, 87; 219). The modern penal system attempts to provide certain punishment for the vastly larger amount of crimes against property such as theft. In order to implement this it requires the construction of prisons to house prisoners and a mechanism to detect and judge crimes in a comprehensive way – namely surveillance and a court system. The final mechanism is generalized surveillance or internalized surveillance.
At this point it is important to reevaluate the importance of the main ideas of Kant and Locke starting with property. Property is important to modern society because it represents the atomization of the individual in society spatially in order to facilitate surveillance. Property is also important because its value creates the need to have a disciplinary society to maintain it. Unknowingly, Locke’s critique against the monarch’s power versed in property rights as the locus for social and political construction shifts the nature of power relations in society fundamentally. In this way knowledge becomes linked to power and this connection becomes reified in the same process that is internal surveillance. Ideology becomes surveillance on a grand scale.

Kant’s value of reason and law also become the narrative that people check themselves against. The law (legal and moral) is a compass that guides conduct, and this compass is ascertained through ‘pure reason’ and exists beyond the interests (utility) of individual or groups. This becomes the standard that society turns to in order to internalize monitoring. People are normalized and control by conforming to overarching moral and legal law. While Kant attempts to critique religious and regal authority he too shifts the locus of power.
Contrasting Foucault’s modern individual with Locke or Kant’s is now more fully appreciated. Locke and Kant present the individual as rational, propertied, free and equal because of their critiques against monarchical and religious power. Foucault conceives of the modern individual as one who is being actively disciplined into a particular ideology determined by thinkers such as Kant and Locke. The effect is that people are fundamentally unequal and not free because of the mechanisms of power/control – which will be explained below.
The mechanism of power in modern society is based in three points: regimes of knowledge, surveillance, and control of space/time.

Regimes of knowledge are basically ideologies that are purported in society. It is the ideology that people use to determine values regarding moral, religious, cultural issues etc. Knowledge is therefore an expression of power of an individual or group professing a particular ideology in order to set a baseline of behavior that conforms to that standard. For instance, the writing of history in general is often biased because of the ideological background of an author – whether intentional or unintentional – this shapes knowledge passed down during education and students are normalized by taking subjective knowledge and reifying it as concrete fact which they are subject to. This is the same process carried out by Kant and Locke. Their philosophies are inexorably tied to their historical context, but as a rationalization for particular real world events and of their own accord they are displayed as fact. Fact is a regime of knowledge and society ordered itself to conform to it.

A second mechanism of power is surveillance. Although physical surveillance does increase during the time Foucault speaks of the changing penal system, the most significant forms of surveillance are the subtle ways it becomes a control mechanism (Foucault, 215). Most importantly is the idea of internalized surveillance or generalized surveillance. Internalized surveillance makes it possible for disciplinary society to exist because actual constant surveillance is near impossible (sans a science-fiction type scenario), but it is realized in generalized discipline.

The last mechanism is the regimentation of time/space. By creating a schedule for time and a designated space it makes people’s actions more predictable. If actions are more predictable it is easier to monitor and easier to control. In turn, controlled people are kept away from deviant behavior that is not defined by ‘normalization’. The normal and abnormal form the binary nature of individuals in modern society, such as defined by Locke – the abnormal being in a way ‘outside’.

IV. The Impact of Disciplinary Society in Relation to Equality and Individual Rights

At this point it is evident that according to Foucault an individual in modern society is far from free. Although Locke and Kant present rhetoric of individual rights and extended freedom under the rule of law there is an obvious disparity in reality because of the need of disciplinary society to control people’s ideology and daily lives. Individual rights are the regime of knowledge put in place to keep people from questioning their true freedom, their personal property they have a right to becomes a means of surveillance and control, and the modern lifestyle becomes predictably ordered. Naturally, equality exists only in rhetoric because the presence of deviants that are outside the ‘normalized’ members of society and are not afforded equal treatment as a result.

V. Conclusions
Foucault differs in his evaluation of the individual in modern society because the individual is not free and not equal – they are under control. Control derives from varied forms of surveillance and normalization – mechanisms of power described above. The disciplinary society in general is a means of control; it arose out of a shift in value and power and became the mechanism to maintain that shift. Ironically, the philosophy of Kant and Locke claim to extend freedom and create a world of formal equality, but the reality is that in order to sustain their vision it requires the subjugation of those values discursively and consequently in reality.

[The_Fall_Of_Roy]

guartz, are you in favor of the Pay or die system?

This. Doctors wont even look at you w/o health insurance. That's not right, and its not fair. You dolts arguing against our healthcare because it infringes on "rights" are just covering up for your hatred of the lower class.

[Marootsoobutsu]

This. Doctors wont even look at you w/o health insurance. That's not right, and its not fair. You dolts arguing against our healthcare because it infringes on "rights" are just covering up for your hatred of the lower class.

Considering I am lower class, and this would probably save my family about 60% of our income a year, find absolutely no self-hatred in myself, and am *STILL* against Obama's health-care reform, I'd say you are quite off base. You may be unable to envision the idea that someone could object to something on ethical/moral grounds, even if it might benefit them, but the problem is your imagination, not a hatred of the poor by those who disagree with you.



Not Not Mattaru--

As to your paper...

I've written history papers at the collegiate/university level, too! And for publication, oh boy! If your goal was simply, "I've already talked about this, here it is," then, okay. My responses will matter. If your goal was, "I wrote a paper about this, so I can cite myself as a credible source," then ignore this and I'll just stop the conversation.

Referring to Foucault seems... odd. He certainly has had no where near the universal impact of Locke, and the reality is they are *still* indebted to Locke. Where you are focusing seemingly entirely upon the motivations of the philosopher's in question, that is rather folly. What are the ideas themselves? What are their implications? If a man fires a gun at me, I do not care if his motivation was hatred of me, or curiosity at the mechanisms of the weapon and its impact on a human... I am simply concerned with being shot, or shot at. So what if Locke thought of property owners as white men? In that sense, you are quite right that he was a product of history. But the kernel of the philosophy does not stop with Locke's own limitations; the idea of the rights of property (and especially of the laborer), are the starting point (but certainly not the ending point), of Locke's ideas.

It is interesting to note that, while Jefferson greatly admired Locke, it was *not* for his Second Treatise. In spite plagiarizing it, Jefferson never gave Locke credit there; he was more concerned with Locke's separating the powers of the church from the powers of state. Madison is really more where you'd have to look for the Second Treatise influence directly, though Locke's influence on Madison extended quite beyond that. The *idea* that it is self-evident that all men are created equally is the crux of Locke's argument. Dismissing the importance of property as the fundamental result of that is, well, silly.

If a person does not have the right to own, or the ability to acquire based on, the fruits of their labor, then there's really no step beyond that to which you go. What, exactly, constitutes work or labor worth rewarding may shift by society, and the value that ought be placed on certain jobs shifts as well. Regardless, though, if the worker is simply surviving by the will of the state, there is no chance whatsoever for freedom or liberty. However, to suggest that Locke believed rights went to property-owners only is naive and quite short-sighted. Locke believed in property-ownership as a right-- the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property were his cornerstones. While Jefferson changed the wording to "happiness", the two had roughly the same meaning at the time. ie, happiness, to Jefferson, was not a feeling of euphoria, but of control of one's "class", which functionally corresponded to Locke's definition of property.

Locke goes into great detail regarding *why* property is essential, but his claim is never, anywhere, that only people who *own* property ought have rights; simply that people who have rights must, as part of those rights, have the capacity for ownership. What were his motivations? From an historical perspective, the question is interesting, but in analyzing the merit of his case, and the validity of the observation, the question is irrelevant. If a man fires a gun at me, I don't care about WHY he shot at me (though on a moral level, it certainly matters); I am simply concerned with whether or not he hits the mark. Locke, rather unquestionably, hit... unless you genuinely believe that all people are out for the goodwill of everyone else. In which case, yeah, Foucault might have a point. But basing everything on someone who made his bones studying prisoners, extrapolating that onto school systems, and who quite gleefully expressed that his ideas weren't a search for truth, but an identification of the self, seems awfully shaky ground on which to challenge the most influential political thinker of the last 500 years.

[Rhinox]

Considering I am lower class, and this would probably save my family about 60% of our income a year, find absolutely no self-hatred in myself, and am *STILL* against Obama's health-care reform, I'd say you are quite off base. You may be unable to envision the idea that someone could object to something on ethical/moral grounds, even if it might benefit them, but the problem is your imagination, not a hatred of the poor by those who disagree with you.

as self destructive type line of thinking if I ever saw any. Whats your ethical/moral objection if I might ask?

[Not not Mattaru]

Not Not Mattaru--

As to your paper...

I've written history papers at the collegiate/university level, too! And for publication, oh boy! If your goal was simply, "I've already talked about this, here it is," then, okay. My responses will matter. If your goal was, "I wrote a paper about this, so I can cite myself as a credible source," then ignore this and I'll just stop the conversation.

Referring to Foucault seems... odd. He certainly has had no where near the universal impact of Locke, and the reality is they are *still* indebted to Locke. Where you are focusing seemingly entirely upon the motivations of the philosopher's in question, that is rather folly. What are the ideas themselves? What are their implications? If a man fires a gun at me, I do not care if his motivation was hatred of me, or curiosity at the mechanisms of the weapon and its impact on a human... I am simply concerned with being shot, or shot at. So what if Locke thought of property owners as white men? In that sense, you are quite right that he was a product of history. But the kernel of the philosophy does not stop with Locke's own limitations; the idea of the rights of property (and especially of the laborer), are the starting point (but certainly not the ending point), of Locke's ideas.

It is interesting to note that, while Jefferson greatly admired Locke, it was *not* for his Second Treatise. In spite plagiarizing it, Jefferson never gave Locke credit there; he was more concerned with Locke's separating the powers of the church from the powers of state. Madison is really more where you'd have to look for the Second Treatise influence directly, though Locke's influence on Madison extended quite beyond that. The *idea* that it is self-evident that all men are created equally is the crux of Locke's argument. Dismissing the importance of property as the fundamental result of that is, well, silly.

If a person does not have the right to own, or the ability to acquire based on, the fruits of their labor, then there's really no step beyond that to which you go. What, exactly, constitutes work or labor worth rewarding may shift by society, and the value that ought be placed on certain jobs shifts as well. Regardless, though, if the worker is simply surviving by the will of the state, there is no chance whatsoever for freedom or liberty. However, to suggest that Locke believed rights went to property-owners only is naive and quite short-sighted. Locke believed in property-ownership as a right-- the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property were his cornerstones. While Jefferson changed the wording to "happiness", the two had roughly the same meaning at the time. ie, happiness, to Jefferson, was not a feeling of euphoria, but of control of one's "class", which functionally corresponded to Locke's definition of property.

Locke goes into great detail regarding *why* property is essential, but his claim is never, anywhere, that only people who *own* property ought have rights; simply that people who have rights must, as part of those rights, have the capacity for ownership. What were his motivations? From an historical perspective, the question is interesting, but in analyzing the merit of his case, and the validity of the observation, the question is irrelevant. If a man fires a gun at me, I don't care about WHY he shot at me (though on a moral level, it certainly matters); I am simply concerned with whether or not he hits the mark. Locke, rather unquestionably, hit... unless you genuinely believe that all people are out for the goodwill of everyone else. In which case, yeah, Foucault might have a point. But basing everything on someone who made his bones studying prisoners, extrapolating that onto school systems, and who quite gleefully expressed that his ideas weren't a search for truth, but an identification of the self, seems awfully shaky ground on which to challenge the most influential political thinker of the last 500 years.

The purpose of the paper was an optional read mainly, the point was to show I have some degree of knowledge on the subject. I know enough about Locke to at least pose a cogent critique. As far as your response in general to Foucault, that isn't really the heart of what I was getting at by posting it (I don't want to debate about Foucault as much as I do Locke), but I will say your main points regarding Foucault are ad hom at best (basically saying he isn't as influentual and poking fun at his subjects of research/study).

The major point of conflict I can pick out from your response boils down once again to Locke and rights, and where rights come from - I still maintain my position on it and I will show you how you don't really prove otherwise.


What is obvious is that Locke believes people have a natural right to labour and create property, not that they are endowed with property as a product of their being. Chapter Five of the Second Treatise talks about this a lot. So obviously people must labour to create property ("As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common."), the first problem comes from the "who" who is laboring according to Locke (mind you, you can pick and choose from Locke's philosophy and redefine as you like, but it is therefore different and unreasonable of you to expect me to critique that without being specific in what you like or dislike). I'll pick out some more poignant examples that should get at where I am going.

"Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them"

"The fruit, or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his, i.e. a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his life."


There are more of similar disposition. The first passage looks pretty tepid, but the use of one single word servant is key. Locke, having stake in the agriculture and plantations in America especially, makes sure to point out that if a servant - paid or unpaid, for Locke was no abolitionist - is in fact your labor, not the servants because they are actually your property. A small part, but it shows where Locke's class and standing insert themselves.

The second paragraph is more important (its message is echoed many times). Locke's point is a more 'traditonal' or what-have-you group of people like Indians did not technically labor upon their land. Although once he kills a deer or picks an apple that good is his property because he has used some labor to hunt and gather, but the actual land in this case is not his and open for grabs by anyone who actually changes that environment in a more total sense through labor (or if someone else killed the deer that deer would be their property and so on). Moreover, " An acre of land, that bears here twenty bushels of wheat, and another in America, which, with the same husbandry, would do the like, are, without doubt, of the same natural intrinsic value: but yet the benefit mankind receives from the one in a year, is worth 5l. and from the other possibly not worth a penny, if all the profit an Indian received from it were to be valued, and sold here; at least, I may truly say, not one thousandth." Now land etc. is given in intrinsic value based on its production, so if a particular person lives on a plot of land, hunts, and gathers on a plot of land but does not actually add value to it in a productive sense it too is up for grabs, or only worth the tiniest amount thinkable. Which is what Americans did. They even did it to Indians engaged in agriculture, because obviously they were being wasteful when considering the value settlers could accrue from it.

Couple this with the fact that the equality you assume Locke purports is simply not true. Equality is something extended only to agents capable of reason, one of his examples being children: "Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal." Or even better "The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to: for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too."

One of the reasons children are not equal is because they lack "age and reason", when things like reason are gained they are then considered equal (until then its up for grabs). Now, when I say reason what we tend to think of is probably not what people in the 17th and 18th century think of as reason. You can see it in the traditional Western binary of reason/passion where non-Western people's were often regarded as being wild, savage, slaves to the passions and Western being civilized and rational. Moreover, Locke makes it clear reason is something divested and not intrinsic to people - this leaves enough ambiguous space to question the freedom and rights of peoples seen as lacking reason, rationality, and civilization. Moreover as long as you are estate of another person, forget about liberty and free will. If you look at history and see child labor, colonialism, the "White Man's Burden", and countless of examples where this ambiguous reason is called into question and used to dehumanize huge swaths of the human population. I think it is easy to try and say this was not Locke's intention, but Locke himself calls for the taking of indigenous people's livelihoods, he specifically says children are of the complete estate and are essentially property of the parents until an ambiguous point in time, and he specifically benefits monetarily from slave labor in the colonies. Needless to say many people of his class and social standing engaged in these without second thought until some people like Edmund Burke came along. The philosophy is flawed and people exploited it. Yet, there are people who ignore all of this and swear by Locke or at least his basic principles - which are deeply flawed.

For good measure, another gem from Locke on reason and freedom:
"This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too."


"But the kernel of the philosophy does not stop with Locke's own limitations; the idea of the rights of property (and especially of the laborer), are the starting point (but certainly not the ending point), of Locke's ideas."

Locke's starting point, his basic premises would honestly not say to the contrary if I were to go about doing the below. If I went to the Amazon and found a tribe who practice hunting and gathering Locke would say it is not only ok, but I should go and take over areas they use to hunt and gather, put labor into it to the amount that I was not wasteful (which is massive considering we are talking about a modern economy today). That land is now mine because those people have not actually changed their land from its ambiguous state of nature that honestly is a fantasy in the first place.

Even if you give Locke that he says without contradiction (which he does contradict because actually when we are born we are fundamentally unequal until we are properly civilized) that all people are created equally; that equality is simply trying to say - everyone has the ability to labor and create property, BUT if you do not labor and create property how he defines it you are no longer equal in the way we think of equality today (aka equality under the law vs. equality under the state of nature - two very different things).

"Where you are focusing seemingly entirely upon the motivations of the philosopher's in question, that is rather folly. What are the ideas themselves? What are their implications? If a man fires a gun at me, I do not care if his motivation was hatred of me, or curiosity at the mechanisms of the weapon and its impact on a human... I am simply concerned with being shot, or shot at. So what if Locke thought of property owners as white men?"

So when you say motivations aren't important, you actually cheapen your understanding of a particular philosophy, ideology, policy, history, or most things. That is why when people claim Locke is trying to provide rights of the individual against the state, or is laying the foundation for individual rights it just isn't true. He is trying to protect certain people, who meet certain criteria. If we ignore all the other stuff he writes and does, then just maybe...but then you can look to Foucault anyway. The others aren't of particular concern.

And by the way, if someone is shooting at you the immediate concern is whether they hit you sure, but afterwards any court of law is going to take into account their motivation, state of mind etc. Unless self-defense and first degree murder are the same.

The rest about Madison and Jefferson aren't particularly important because I'm not too worried about influence of whomever.

In summation, Locke states that we have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Property only if you are engaged in a specific forms of labor or put a fence and cows on it, liberty assuming you aren't a child or reasonless savage devoid of Western civilization, and life assuming I don't take your land you survive on and force you to migrate somewhere else. I didn't say it, Locke did.

PS.
"unless you genuinely believe that all people are out for the goodwill of everyone else. In which case, yeah, Foucault might have a point."

Uhhh I'm pretty sure Foucault's point is that power and knowledge were linked and even when people put forth regimes of knowledge claiming to help, fix, or free people they could and were actually just exerting another form of power and oppression. Doesn't sound like he was like "we are all just trying to get along out here".

To Rhinox:
To answer your last question, start with Gramscian hegemony...its on the wiki page for Antonio Gramsci most likely.

[Headspace]

I can't read that post, there's too many words.

Like the healthcare bill.

[Correction]

What the fuck is this 'read my high school essay' shit? I can read multiple consecutive Kuya/Elvis Israel posts but I ain't reading that shit until you cite a source from this century other than yourself.

[Not not Mattaru]

Yeah it took me maybe 5 minutes to read my post.

Essay shit was "you don't know Locke" - "here I understand enough to interpret a critique [EDIT: ok....I should probably say turns or reinterprets Locke to be more true to Foucault] by Foucault on Locke" [He is more 20th century so sorry not this century I know] - "hey I can write an essay too" - "I'm sure you can."

Last time I checked people write essays to make arguments in an organized fashion?

I guess Ms. Johnson was lying to all of us in 9th grade.

[guartz]

Mattaru, almost exclusively in all cases, the state hires out either former employees of private financial enterprises or directly contracts with private enterprises. U.S postal services comes as a good reminder for a historical lesson, perhaps even the railroads and the robber barons, when, the government does not employ those tactics. That being said, what are you suggesting?

As to your second paragraph, I'll contend that a social contract that is geographical and implicit is leaps and bounds compared to, say, a private contract between individuals or corporations. Furthermore, the state must maintain that the it is the highest agency of justice within its borders, claiming the social contract as the justification.

Just imagine, for a moment, if say, AT&T operated under these parameters. You'd get a call from the company, claiming that you are now within the borders of it's business operations and you are under a binding contract. You now have a choice between a 120 dollar service package or a 250 dollar service package. Furthermore the one chosen by the majority of your neighbors will be assigned to you. If you have an issue with this, you can contact your local AT&T service representative and petition the complaint, lead an armed uprising or leave our service area.

this is a really bad description of the real situation. lemme just make a list of what's wrong:

-Health Insurance companies are different from car/home insurance companies... because they insure something very different and something that you cannot put a monetary value on.

-People are not winning many suits, and they certainly aren't publicized enough when they do. The problem is a lot of the egregious things are protected in all of these contracts... read below.

-You have a choice between thousands of policies... which you may not be able to afford... and which, for the most part, offer the same services for similar prices. The industry acts as an oligopoly, as it stands. If there was indeed competition, prices wouldn't have skyrocketed over the last two decades.

-No, you will not get whatever treatment you need from whatever hospital. If you show up to an ER in need of life-saving care, they will treat you, but you can't show up to the cancer center expecting chemo or an operation or a checkup or a CATscan or anything preventative/routine that would save your life/prevent discomfort.

-How can you not put a monetary value on labor and equipment? They don't actually insure your health, you know. They are not doctors, they are not hospitals, they don't dictate the action of doctors and hospitals and they didn't take oaths to preserve life.

Is there some asshat CEO that might arbitrarily select and deny a bunch of claims just so his stock looks good that day? Yea. But I also know a good lawyer if you need one.

Is it fucked up that the CEO and the shareholders bank off that sort of practice? Yea.
Why not go after them? Why can't people sue CEOs directly? Why is this widely known yet nothing is done about it? You know the answer to that.

-Majority of people settle, but still, in fact they are losing most cases.

-Even if you removed all profits from the insurance premiums, most people still couldn't afford the good ones.

-And this is insurance industries fault? Because they hiked the prices doctors charge? Right? Come on beckwin!

My intention here is to point out the logical fallacy behind blaming the insurance industry, where in reality their faults are rather minor compared to the problem at large.

[Marootsoobutsu]

In summation, Locke states that we have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Property only if you are engaged in a specific forms of labor or put a fence and cows on it, liberty assuming you aren't a child or reasonless savage devoid of Western civilization, and life assuming I don't take your land you survive on and force you to migrate somewhere else. I didn't say it, Locke did.

You have the right to property for which you work; you do not have the right to property for which you do not work. Sounds agreeable and reasonable. No one has the right to take property which you earned. Again, reasonable.

You have the right to liberty; you are born to it, and no one can take it from you. There is a temporary suspension of this liberty at birth, but Locke always defines such a thing as temporary. You cannot even *GIVE* your liberty away; you can only forfeit it by declaring war on an individual or a society. In fact, the only people who are forever subject to the will of another, are lunatics and idiots, as they do not have the capacity to contribute to society. Not the savage, not the person who doesn't come to his conclusion...

And you *ALWAYS* have the right to life; you cannot give it up, unless you attack the liberty, property, or life of another-- and insodoing, subject yourself to the laws of warfare, ie, that I may resist you to the point of killing you if that is what is necessary.

I didn't say it, Locke did. Your summary of his view points is staggeringly off-base.

As for motivations in philosophy, no, it really doesn't matter *why* someone said something; if they were *right*, they were *right*. I don't care if someone is testifying on my behalf because they get something out of it, or because they hate the other person in question, or because they like me, or simply because they are honest... as long as it's true. (of course, they have more motivation to lie for any of those first three cases, but if it's true, it's true regardless) And yes, a court of law will examine the motivations of the person firing a gun at me, and the punishment might be different (or even waived), based on those motivations... but the act itself-- that I was shot at-- happened, and particularly if I'm shot, *why* he shot me doesn't really make the bullet behave differently. WHY Locke said what he said? Who cares. Did Locke even apply what he said perfectly in his own life? Certainly not. But then, no one has ever even lived up to their own standards, so I'm not sure how that nullifies the legitimacy of his points.

The reason to care about those who followed Locke, and built up this country, is that they leaned upon him. If that foundation is flawed, the entire structure is flawed. If the foundation is solid, the building can still be crap, but it at least has a chance of being sound. The fact that what you argue, insofar as American politic is concerned, must refer back to the Constitution, the heavy reliance upon Locke's ideas in its foundation have to be accounted for. To simply dismiss Locke because you don't like some of what he says, and yet not acknowledge the importance of those he influenced, is disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst.

It was not an ad homenim attack against Foucault; it was a statement that the subject of his study (those who were primarily lawless), is a poor example of general society on which to make further claims.



Rhinox--

The simple answer is, it is my responsibility to help those who are less fortunate than me; it is not my responsibility, nor my right, to either compel others to similarly help those less fortunate than me, nor to compel those more fortunate to assist me. Charity, as a virtue, is only a virtue when voluntary, not when compulsory. There is, to some extent, a necessity to fund that which a nation requires for its survival; I do not believe health insurance falls under that purview. Of course, most who support it do, and tht is probably the crux of our disagreement.

I find it unethical for a federal government to impose that which ought be-- at most-- a states issue. There is no direct mandate for such an action in the Constitution, and while the federal government has quite happily done MANY things not mandated within their power, further compounding the error doesn't make this any more right. There is, within the law, a mechanism for changing the law, and for something of this scale and this impact, an amendment to the Constitution seems in order. If it is established that the Federal Government, by the will of the states submitting that power, provide for the health-care of the populace, or at least ensure that provision, then it becomes their concern. And *IF* the Constitution were amended in such a way as to mandate that the federal government has, amongst its responsibilities, the providing of medical care to its citizens, then I would certainly say it is necessary for them to work toward that goal.

Last, I have serious doubts that the federal government is *capable* of instituting so massive and sweeping a program. In the US, we're not talking anything comparable to France or England; it is MUCH closer to comparing it to the EU-- the simple vastness of economic, cultural, historic, and political differences necessitate different care structures. Particularly in the US, a state-by-state medical plan makes more sense, in that each draws more directly from those receiving aid, is held far more immediately accountable (the lack of citizen involvements in most states notwithstanding; abdicating responsibility does not absolve one from those responsibilities), at a state level than on a Federal. I don't simply say this because it's a liberal idea and I'm a conservative... the Federal Government already screws things to hell in areas it *must* have control... most obviously the military. Speaking as a former Marine, the military is a cluster-screw of political motivations and ideas, and could probably be run just as efficiently, if not more so, and provide just as much national safety on about a quarter of the budget it has now, and *still* indefinitely provide international supremacy that we enjoy today. A national front to show the world is necessary, though, so the federal military is, as well. However, a national health care policy is not the politicians goal because it's practical; it's because it's political, and political motivations with trillions of dollars in question is one that will not end without massive corruption.


Want public health care? Fine. Push it at the state, county, township, and city levels, where people have progressively more in common with one another (and so have progressively more common needs), with progressively more immediate power over the decisions. I can support that, and probably would. But at the federal level, on a nation the size of the United States, inefficiency, corruption, and incompetence are assured to waste billions more than it even is now.

[Rhinox]

Rhinox--

The simple answer is, it is my responsibility to help those who are less fortunate than me; it is not my responsibility, nor my right, to either compel others to similarly help those less fortunate than me, nor to compel those more fortunate to assist me. Charity, as a virtue, is only a virtue when voluntary, not when compulsory. There is, to some extent, a necessity to fund that which a nation requires for its survival; I do not believe health insurance falls under that purview. Of course, most who support it do, and tht is probably the crux of our disagreement.

I find it unethical for a federal government to impose that which ought be-- at most-- a states issue. There is no direct mandate for such an action in the Constitution, and while the federal government has quite happily done MANY things not mandated within their power, further compounding the error doesn't make this any more right. There is, within the law, a mechanism for changing the law, and for something of this scale and this impact, an amendment to the Constitution seems in order. If it is established that the Federal Government, by the will of the states submitting that power, provide for the health-care of the populace, or at least ensure that provision, then it becomes their concern. And *IF* the Constitution were amended in such a way as to mandate that the federal government has, amongst its responsibilities, the providing of medical care to its citizens, then I would certainly say it is necessary for them to work toward that goal.

Last, I have serious doubts that the federal government is *capable* of instituting so massive and sweeping a program. In the US, we're not talking anything comparable to France or England; it is MUCH closer to comparing it to the EU-- the simple vastness of economic, cultural, historic, and political differences necessitate different care structures. Particularly in the US, a state-by-state medical plan makes more sense, in that each draws more directly from those receiving aid, is held far more immediately accountable (the lack of citizen involvements in most states notwithstanding; abdicating responsibility does not absolve one from those responsibilities), at a state level than on a Federal. I don't simply say this because it's a liberal idea and I'm a conservative... the Federal Government already screws things to hell in areas it *must* have control... most obviously the military. Speaking as a former Marine, the military is a cluster-screw of political motivations and ideas, and could probably be run just as efficiently, if not more so, and provide just as much national safety on about a quarter of the budget it has now, and *still* indefinitely provide international supremacy that we enjoy today. A national front to show the world is necessary, though, so the federal military is, as well. However, a national health care policy is not the politicians goal because it's practical; it's because it's political, and political motivations with trillions of dollars in question is one that will not end without massive corruption.


Want public health care? Fine. Push it at the state, county, township, and city levels, where people have progressively more in common with one another (and so have progressively more common needs), with progressively more immediate power over the decisions. I can support that, and probably would. But at the federal level, on a nation the size of the United States, inefficiency, corruption, and incompetence are assured to waste billions more than it even is now.

Just so I can follow what you're saying. We should live and pray we are in the good graces of the rich so they can bless us with their charity? It really didn't work when reagan proposed it as we are finding out now. and it not gonna work this time. what you're suggesting is we live in a pseudo-neo feudalism where they provide the benefits, the wages, and as long as we keep making them money and keep our lords happy they will protect us with health care benefits.

Also the state by state thing would not work because quite frankly that would not solve the problem of the millions of uninsured. Also please do not tell me you're proposing as some idiot did that the federal government provide for the poor and homeless to move into states with a public option.

Lets be real here. Say your proposal did pass and it was up to the states. how is that fair? you're essentially setting up the public option to fail because if their is a exodus of sorts into these states they wouldn't be able to deal with said patients and it becomes everything what the conservatives nutjobs claim it would.