I'd say that's some stellar advice from Dirk
There are a lot of words flying, so let's break this down. First off, I'm just going to drop the 300m people thing- not very relevant here.
Second, when I said I think the military is a needed form of government (in the first part of my last post) I meant that I think military spending and a nationalized military was ok. I was not saying that the military should collect taxes or run the country as you interpreted (my rhetoric was a little fuzzy, admittedly.)
Ok, and now to the money point
- health care.
I think we can split this up into a few segments to make this easier for both of us to follow:
1)
Constitutionality: The commerce clause allows the Fed. gov't to regulate trade between states, but there is nothing about the regulation of the people. Furthermore, the 10th amendment's actual wording tells us that all power not given to the Fed. gov't is left to the states. Whether or not there are other unconstitutional parts of government already is really not relevant- two wrongs don't make a right.
2)
Costs: We can both agree that health care is expensive no matter who pays for it. Whoever takes on the responsibility of paying for it, whether it is government or insurance companies, would surely have massive liabilities. If a massive health crisis were to emerge, the entity responsible for payment would have to pay out on these liabilities. This is why premiums are so high. The insurance companies need to cover their liabilities for a potential disaster scenario because if they didn't, they would go bankrupt in such a scenario. As per basic economics, increased supply leads to lower prices. In the case of insurance companies, why not allow interstate purchase of insurance? That would mean more competition and lower prices as companies might even start subsidizing part of their pool money with profits made from investments. Furthermore, it would mean more choices for consumers. On a side note, you said the rest of the Western world has realized competition is not good for the HC market, yet Germany has a large number of private insurance companies while many American states only have 1.
The problem with this mandate is that it keeps the market power in the hands of the insurance companies and simply tells them that the government will essentially pay you whatever you want. In the end, the people pay for government since the government doesn't produce anything.
This is why the 150k obligation per person created by social security and medicare can not be ignored. Someone will have to pay. Maybe we can sell the debt to China for 10 more years, but what happens when they say no? Future generations will pay for it (the same situation is in place in many other western countries) and personally, I don't think that is right. When that happens they will likely not have health care either because at that point the government won't be able to pay for it either.
3)
Insurance companies denying coverage: They can only deny coverage when it is legally possible. It is only legally possible when they have a contract in their hands, signed by the patient when they bought the policy. For those very worried about pre-existing conditions, why not read the contract and purchase an agreement without those restrictions? Sure it might cost more, but as we can both agree, health care is expensive. Doctors and hospitals will want their money either way.
4)
The responsibility of government: This is probably where we will simply not agree. I do not see it as the responsibility of government to provide health care for the people. Sure health care can save lives, but so can eating organic foods, exercising, and many other things. Is the government going to provide those too?
Furthermore, while you may consent to universal health care, everyone doesn't. When government is involved, everyone is forced either way. Since we are all human and no one knows everything or can see the future, who says the guy who says universal health care is a right or is needed is definitely right and the guy against it isn't?
5)
Altruism: Self-interest is a part of the world. Everyone is self-interested and personally I don't think that makes us evil or we should demonize each other for that. If self-interest was not within us, everyone would do everything for free and we wouldn't even have this discussion. It just isn't how things work. In my opinion the world would not be where it was without self interest and the world certainly wouldn't.
With this idea, I think it is also important to note that while insurance companies have self-interest, so do politicians, governments, doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals. A "universal" health care idea pitched by a politician deserves strict scrutiny.
Now this not mean that people won't help those who need something if they have extra money, etc. There are good people- we see it everyday with volunteers and charities. I believe those people would help fill in the gaps so to speak in a system where costs were lower and people did have more money in their pocket.
