response 270 of 526:

Mar 2 18:33 UTC 2006

For years and years I have posted about how I thought national, 
government-sponsored health care would ensure that no one could get 
good health coverage.  I've posted about how I think it would reduce 
the level of health care for those who currently have health insurance, 
but not increase it a whole lot for anyone currently outside the system.

I've had great misgivings about how the government is going to take 
control, pay for it all for everyone, ensure good care, control costs, 
ensure continued medical research, and do it in a fair manner.  
Currently, at least some can hope to buy coverage or get it from their 
employer.  It seems to me even *that* chance would end if the 
government takes over.  We would instead wind up with an irreversible 
problem resembling Social Security.

Instead of economic favoritism where some get better medical service 
than others, we would instead be subject to political favoritism.  I 
don't see that as being an improvement.

I voted against Bill Clinton because of his national health plan, and 
when he won his first election, I was surprised and massively gratified 
to see his plan fall apart.

It's not that I've ever seen our current system as being good.   It has 
a lot of faults.  It leaves a lot of people outside of getting medical 
attention.  My wife didn't have any coverage before I married her, and 
her kids were on Medicaid.  I'm pretty aware of what that was like for 
her.

It still seems better than what I'd expect would come of any of the 
plans that have been put forward to replace it with a government 
initiative.  I envision a national version of Medicaid, covering 
everyone.  Medicaid is *awful*.

response 272 of 526:

Mar 2 18:44 UTC 2006

I'm assuming the first part of 268 was referring to 265, and not 267? :)

> I can't speak for how other countries with nationalised healthcare 
> work, but in the UK there's no such thing as "governmental immunity" 
> for doctors.

It really depends on how we are going to implement it. It would be one 
thing if the government just foot the bill, but that is likely not to 
happen. You see, the United States already has a national healthcare 
system, but it is for former military personnel. Tod mentioned it in 
266, its called the VA. It is highly bureaucratic, and gets often gets 
drawn into politics.

I don't think the US could afford to build a system like the VA that 
could treat everybody. So what then? Do we claim eminent domain and 
yank public hospitals into a Federal health system? That'll go over 
real well. 

IMHO, the best thing the government can do right now is (1) make health 
care more affordable by putting an end to frivolous malpractice 
lawsuits/extortion, (2) provide a high-deductible health insurance plan 
for everyone, and (3) maintain a medicare/medicaid system for poor 
people.

response 274 of 526:

Mar 2 18:52 UTC 2006

I'm assuming the first part of 268 was referring to 265, and not 267? :)

Correct. My mistake.

if the government just foot the bill, 

I'm curious: How do you tax-haters think the government would pay for things
if there were no taxes?

 You see, the United States already has a national healthcare
 system, but it is for former military personnel. Tod mentioned it in
 266, its called the VA. It is highly bureaucratic, and gets often gets
 drawn into politics.

I'm yet to be convinced that the market works well enough to render the
alternative of bureaucracy undesirable. It certainly doesn't work well enough
when it's weighted in favour of big enterprise rather than market forces, as
it is in the US and UK.

I don't think the US could afford to build a system like the VA that
 could treat everybody. So what then? Do we claim eminent domain and
 yank public hospitals into a Federal health system? That'll go over
 real well.

Why not? The UK can afford it.

IMHO, the best thing the government can do right now is (1) make health
 care more affordable by putting an end to frivolous malpractice
 lawsuits/extortion, (2) provide a high-deductible health insurance plan
 for everyone, and (3) maintain a medicare/medicaid system for poor
 people.

One of the things the US and UK governments have historically been worst at
is making sure free markets work properly; see my comments in paragraph 2.

response 276 of 526:

Mar 2 19:34 UTC 2006

Thursday, March 2, 2006; Posted: 11:36 a.m. EST (16:36 GMT) 
NAPLES, Florida (AP) -- If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his
way, a new town being built in Florida will be governed according to strict
Roman Catholic principles, with no place to get an abortion, pornography or
birth control.

The pizza magnate is bankrolling the project with at least $250 million and
calls it "God's will."

Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and are threatening to
sue.

The town of Ave Maria is being constructed around Ave Maria University, the
first Catholic university to be built in the United States in about 40 years.
Both are set to open next year about 25 miles east of Naples in southwestern
Florida.

The town and the university, developed in partnership with the Barron Collier
Co., an agricultural and real estate business, will be set on 5,000 acres with
a European-inspired town center, a massive church and what planners call the
largest crucifix in the nation, at nearly 65 feet tall. Monaghan envisions
11,000 homes and 20,000 residents.

During a speech last year at a Catholic men's gathering in Boston, Monaghan
said that in his community, stores will not sell pornographic magazines,
pharmacies will not carry condoms or birth control pills, and cable television
will have no X-rated channels.

Homebuyers in Ave Maria will own their property outright. But Monaghan and
Barron Collier will control all commercial real estate in the town, meaning
they could insert provisions in leases to restrict the sale of certain items.

"I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I
don't want to be on the sidelines," Monaghan, who sold Domino's Pizza in 1998
to devote himself to doing good works, said in a recent Newsweek interview.

Robert Falls, a spokesman for the project, said Tuesday that attorneys are
still reviewing the legal issues and that Monaghan had no comment in the
meantime.

"If they attempt to do what he apparently wants to do, the people of Naples
and Collier County, Florida, are in for a whole series of legal and
constitutional problems and a lot of litigation indefinitely into the future,"
warned Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union
of Florida.

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist said it will be up to the courts to
decide the legalities of the plan. "The community has the right to provide
a wholesome environment," he said. "If someone disagrees, they have the right
to go to court and present facts before a judge."

Gov. Jeb Bush, at the site's groundbreaking earlier this month, lauded the
development as a new kind of town where faith and freedom will merge to create
a community of like-minded citizens. Bush, a convert to Catholicism, did not
speak specifically to the proposed restrictions.

"While the governor does not personally believe in abortion or pornography,
the town, and any restrictions they may place on businesses choosing to locate
there, must comply with the laws and constitution of the state and federal
governments," Russell Schweiss, a spokesman for the governor, said Tuesday.

Frances Kissling, president of the liberal Washington-based Catholics for a
Free Choice, likened Monaghan's concept to Islamic fundamentalism.

"This is un-American," Kissling said. "I don't think in a democratic society
you can have a legally organized township that will seek to have any kind of
public service whatsoever and try to restrict the constitutional rights of
citizens."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/02/catholic.town.ap

response 278 of 526:

Mar 2 19:52 UTC 2006

protestant fundies?  they already have their own homeland.

response 280 of 526:

Mar 2 20:02 UTC 2006

Why not? It wouldn't be the first town to be religiously owned in Florida.

see http://scientology.fso.org/

response 282 of 526:

Mar 2 20:04 UTC 2006

re #280 because you can't violate the united states constitution and bill of
rights no matter where you live in this country, even if you own a whole town.
Monagahan does not get to not obey the bill of rights just by building a town.
Not when that town is in the United States.

Let him go build his town on an island somewhere

response 284 of 526:

Mar 2 20:10 UTC 2006

re #281
 and they should ban the 65-foot crucifix
It wouldn't be the first.  Cell phone companies hire stealth technology
companies all the time to help them "hide" their cell towers with things like
big tall crucifixes and church bell towers.

re #282
 because you can't violate the united states constitution and bill of
 rights no matter where you live in this country, even if you own a whole
 town.
Then why is the 2nd Amendment banned in Washington, D.C.?

response 286 of 526:

Mar 2 20:12 UTC 2006

Are we talking about what basically ammounts to a supersized private 
property community that is based on religion? Its quite surprising that 
Richard is willing to use the government to deny these people their 
right to free exercise of their religion.

response 288 of 526:

Mar 2 20:16 UTC 2006

Richard never heard of Wisconsin vs. Yoder, apparently.

response 290 of 526:

Mar 2 20:20 UTC 2006

Not exactly Jeff. The state establishment is religion is forbidden. A 
private entity is free to establish religion, and has a right to 
exercise it.

response 292 of 526:

Mar 2 20:22 UTC 2006

(I know; i was just playing on the "Yoder", bit. Maybe you have to speak a
non-rhotic accent to get it.)