If we had a conservative nurses forum

dp1200 · Jan 21, 2011

Here is a reference to my statement about our 3rd world healthcare system. The WHO ranked the USA 72nd in healthcare performance between Argentina and Bhutan: http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

Let's apply some critical thinking here rather than just accepting this assertion at face value. This "study" you linked to above is 14 years old, and the "measures" used to compile the ranking are vague and without any explanation of what is being measured and how.

Is there anyone here who can honestly say they would rather live in El Salvador for its health care system rather than in the US? MEXICO is ranked above the US on this list, so why are Mexicans flooding across the border to use our health care system instead of vice-versa?

I am wholely unimpressed and unconvinced by the content of this WHO table.

dp1200 · Jan 21, 2011

One of the six purposes of government as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution is to Promote the General Welfare of the People of the United States. What completely eludes me is how anyone can examine the actions and agenda of the Republican party and logically conclude they are doing it for the General Welfare of the people.[/quote']
"Promote" does not mean "Provide". HUGE difference, although modern liberal politics has conflated the former to imply the later and thus fabricate "rights" which never existed.
I'm sorry, but I do not think I have the RIGHT to expect the Federal Government to confiscate money from your hard-earned paycheck to pay for my health insurance, or to pay for anything else that I need or want. Personally, I do not believe that one person can claim as a right anything which must be involuntarily taken from (or paid for by) someone else in the form of either their labor or the fruits of their labor. How is this really any different than a soft form of slavery?

d'cm · Jan 21, 2011

what you are talking about is better related to us constitution article 1, section 8:

[color=#000060]

"the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the united states; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the united states;"

i.e. you have every right to expect to be taxed and pay for things you need and a lot you don't, just like every other citizen in this and every country in the world - except maybe somalia.

DroogieRN · Jan 21, 2011

Staunch conservative here. I like a friendly discussion on occasion but usually refrain from posting in heated threads on-line. I find it degenerates into making preposterous absolute statements and name-calling much of the time (as a post or two in this thread seem perilously close to doing...). I can't say I have ever seen anyone's mind changed by vitriol. I don't say much -- I read, I study and I vote. If I am asked directly, I will generally give my opinion on a political matter, but usually ascribe to this well-documented philosophy when it comes to arguing: Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. :rolleyes:

dp1200 · Jan 21, 2011

what you are talking about is better related to us constitution article 1 section 8:[/b']

[color=#000060]
"the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the united states; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the united states;"

this is another unfortunate misunderstanding of our constitution. you are making the common mistake of interpreting a1-s8 as a completely unbounded, undefined, blank check for congress to do anything it wants under the guise of "general welfare", which can be construed to mean anything.

this is not the purpose of this clause. this is an introduction to the 17 enumerated powers that follow immediately thereafter, nothing more. why bother enumerating specific powers if "general welfare" is a blank check?

d'cm · Jan 22, 2011

This is another unfortunate misunderstanding of our Constitution. You are making the common mistake of interpreting A1-S8 as a completely unbounded, undefined, blank check for Congress to do anything it wants under the guise of "general welfare", which can be construed to mean anything.
This is not the purpose of this clause. This is an introduction to the 17 enumerated powers that follow immediately thereafter, nothing more. Why bother enumerating specific powers if "general welfare" is a blank check?[/quote
Minds much greater than mine have made the same mistake. The debate on the meaning of A1-S8 goes back to the founders. Your interpretation reflects Thomas Jefferson's but time has shown Hamilton's eventually won out as reflected in the 1936 decision in US vs Butler where the supreme court concluded: "The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. ... It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." This case involved the payment to farmers not to grow crops to stabilize prices. A decision that I would think very relevant to the constitutional challenge to the mandatory insurance clause of the ACA.
So, basically yes it is a blank check for Congress to spend our money any way it wants and efforts to reinterpret the constitution are unproductive. As citizens the best we can do is to elect and influence those elected to tax and spend wisely. I think as a country we have done a pretty poor job of it. This is where I part company with the Republicans who for the past 30 years have consistently rung up huge deficits funding military projects that have not benefited anyone except the military-industrial complex. All the while espousing their conservativeness. President Obama and the Democrats are trying to get a hold on the reins of our run away entitlement programs but the Republicans are fighting them tooth and nail. The ACA could have been funded with letting the tax breaks for the filthy rich expire. The Republicans would have none of it, yet came in raging about deficits. The ACA benefits all nurses, there is funding for scholarships, research and jobs. The true fiscal conservatives are Democrats. The Congressional Republicans espouse social conservativeness because it gets them votes, no other reason. Read: J. David Kuo "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction",

dp1200 · Jan 23, 2011

You are right - my Constitutional philosophy IS aligned with Jefferson and Madison, and Hamilton's opposing view did eventually win out, as shown by our long slow side into socialism. Let's keep in mind who Hamilton was: favorable to the monarchy and Britain, wanted a "President for life" with absolute veto power (King?),and state governors appointed by the Federal government (Lords?), and partial to a loose interpretation of the Constitution granting the federal government implied powers to do just about anything. Hamilton was supportive of a wealthy aristocracy controlling the reigns of federal power - if you claim to be against corporate cronyism in government, well, Hamilton's view is where it came from.

Your invocation of Hamilton only bolsters my point about a rabid central government controlled by moneyed interests.

Contemporary Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of this - I oppose both.

It's a shame that authoritarian socialism has not, does not, and can not ever work as an economic system for more than a few generations, and that people fail to learn this lesson from history. We're witnessing the very collapse of this system all over the world right now.

d'cm · Jan 23, 2011

dp, I may be wrong but I think you are going to have a rough time in nursing. Acceptance and even embracement of the status quo is highly prized in our profession. I am not saying that it a good thing, believe me. Good luck my friend.

VickyRN, MSN, DNP, RN · Jan 23, 2011

You are right - my Constitutional philosophy IS aligned with Jefferson and Madison, and Hamilton's opposing view did eventually win out, as shown by our long slow side into socialism. Let's keep in mind who Hamilton was: favorable to the monarchy and Britain, wanted a "President for life" with absolute veto power (King?),and state governors appointed by the Federal government (Lords?), and partial to a loose interpretation of the Constitution granting the federal government implied powers to do just about anything. Hamilton was supportive of a wealthy aristocracy controlling the reigns of federal power - if you claim to be against corporate cronyism in government, well, Hamilton's view is where it came from.
Your invocation of Hamilton only bolsters my point about a rabid central government controlled by moneyed interests.
Contemporary Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of this - I oppose both.
It's a shame that authoritarian socialism has not, does not, and can not ever work as an economic system for more than a few generations, and that people fail to learn this lesson from history. We're witnessing the very collapse of this system all over the world right now.

Absolutely brilliant post, dp 1200. I wholeheartedly enthusiastically agree and couldn't have said it better. :yeah: Thank you! :up:

dp1200 · Jan 23, 2011

dp I may be wrong but I think you are going to have a rough time in nursing. Acceptance and even embracement of the status quo is highly prized in our profession. I am not saying that it a good thing, believe me. Good luck my friend.[/quote']
Thank you, d'cm. I do already work in health care - I am an EMT in a large city. I love the work, I love helping people, love working with other professionals in the field (including RNs!), and I do well with both patients and other healthcare workers.
Believe me, I am well aware of the "status quo" and know how to function within it, but that does not mean that I will abandon my ability for critical thought in mindless acceptance of the status quo when there is no logic behind it. I do not seek out argument with others, but I will also not shy away from a civil debate over topics of great importance.
Thanks for the lively conversation!

ctnjason · Jan 23, 2011

anything you call or label me is ok....... its been done before BUT heres my 2 cents.

There is no such thing as left wing, right wing, republicrat, tea partier, liberal, whatever. They are all just names.

Our country is ran by a select few powerful people who use, manipulate, control, and decide ways to line their pockets. Obama, Mccain, Palin, Mickey-freakin-mouse all have 1 thing in common...... THEY DO NOT WORK FOR YOU.

They only work for a select group or rich corporations that pay for their campaigns. Google it. I dare you. Google the top 20 campaign contributors of Mccain and Obama in 2008. They are almost IDENTICAL. Does that tell you anything? Hope and Change was supposed to get us out of war.... we are still there. The economy is still in the crapper. Your tax dollars went to bail-out Obama's / Mccain's friends (yes the same thing wouldve happened with Mccain in office) , and yet we all still blindly go about our business as usual. You cant name your state reps but you know who brad pitt and angelina adopted last week.

sharpeimom · Jan 23, 2011

oh come on, you're friends with little old lovable me
steph

yep, i am! i have absolutely no idea:confused: how i ended up being as liberal as i am when i emerged from a family and extended family that wasn't conservative, but conservative. :eek: i think the stork dropped me on the wrong doorstep by mistake. as you might imagine, some family events become very lively when my other couple of (shh!) equally liberal cousins and our spouses, are there too.

the good news is that there haven't been any murders yet.