Quote from: Jman22 on June 30, 2017, 08:47:15 PM
Well, that was an interesting and quick exchange.

Indeed many countries have government entities to successfully help in one way or another to combat price gouging of healthcare services and drugs.  But what happens if that entity itself becomes corrupt or too big and inefficient as many have rightfully argued with regard to the FDA in this thread?  It then becomes part of the problem or perhaps makes it worse.

Plus a few more points, one - because of corporate lobbying initial adoption of such a model would be hard pressed (it's not about what the people want).  Two - even if relative legislation were to be passed, it can be just as quickly and quietly subverted through subsequent individual lobbying influences.

Finally, as I've asked a few times in this thread as opinions are floated - are there any politicians or movements or introduced bills who are advocating such an approach?

So again, to me the focus comes down to limiting lobbying influence to give such proposed changes a chance.

What is everyone's take at doing this at the constitutional level?  For example what is everyone's opinion of the following movement?

https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment

Do you remember what brought about the law in the first place? If memory sereves, it was a court battle over Union influence using dues taken from members, regardless of their political orientation.
Allowing corporate influence and super PACS was designed to level the playing field because, in truth, money is free speech whether it's given by a church, or an individual for radio an/orTV/Print etc ads, it's still giving everyone the Right to lobby Congress as stipulated in the Constitution.
Yes, money is that vehicle for many, just like hiring a lawyer, someone is paid to speak on your behalf.

From your link.

QuoteThe judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

What that site is advocating is not legal under the Constitution when you really think about it.
Eg. I fly drones, as an individual, I have no voice outside of writing a letter re: laws being written that might make it illegal for me to fly here in the forest, so I donate along with thousands of others to hire people to go to DC to speak on mine and others, behalf.

The same applies to all large groups, as individuals we are voiceless, but as a group with money, we can influence with lobbyists.
Maybe it's time to look at gifting to Representatives, not limit the individual of their Right to Address Congress.

Quote from: Solar on July 01, 2017, 06:30:06 AM
Do you remember what brought about the law in the first place? If memory sereves, it was a court battle over Union influence using dues taken from members, regardless of their political orientation.
Allowing corporate influence and super PACS was designed to level the playing field because, in truth, money is free speech whether it's given by a church, or an individual for radio an/orTV/Print etc ads, it's still giving everyone the Right to lobby Congress as stipulated in the Constitution.
Yes, money is that vehicle for many, just like hiring a lawyer, someone is paid to speak on your behalf.

From your link.

What that site is advocating is not legal under the Constitution when you really think about it.
Eg. I fly drones, as an individual, I have no voice outside of writing a letter re: laws being written that might make it illegal for me to fly here in the forest, so I donate along with thousands of others to hire people to go to DC to speak on mine and others, behalf.

The same applies to all large groups, as individuals we are voiceless, but as a group with money, we can influence with lobbyists.
Maybe it's time to look at gifting to Representatives, not limit the individual of their Right to Address Congress.

I see no violation of the proposed amendments by you and thousands of others hiring people to travel to D.C. to protest on your behalf to oppose bill which makes flying drones illegal in forrests.  I would see a violation of proposed amendments if those hired on your behalf donated to a congressman campaign fund to influence his election and/or gift congressman in exchange for a vote against the bill.

The first paragraph of section 2 calls for state and federal measures to limit the influence that a candidate achieved economic status has on their political campaign.  Depending on nature of measures, it hopefully would not even be in his best interest to entertain accepting your groups politcal contributions.  Certainly paying folks to go to D.C. to voice opinion though, I don't see anything wrong with that. 

But if those folks were to pull a congressman aside and say if you vote against this bill then we will gift you x amount and contribute x amount to your party campaign fund of choice, and then congressman agrees.  I do see something wrong with that.

Quote from: Jman22 on July 01, 2017, 10:10:17 PM
I see no violation of the proposed amendments by you and thousands of others hiring people to travel to D.C. to protest on your behalf to oppose bill which makes flying drones illegal in forrests.  I would see a violation of proposed amendments if those hired on your behalf donated to a congressman campaign fund to influence his election and/or gift congressman in exchange for a vote against the bill.

The first paragraph of section 2 calls for state and federal measures to limit the influence that a candidate achieved economic status has on their political campaign.  Depending on nature of measures, it hopefully would not even be in his best interest to entertain accepting your groups politcal contributions.  Certainly paying folks to go to D.C. to voice opinion though, I don't see anything wrong with that. 

But if those folks were to pull a congressman aside and say if you vote against this bill then we will gift you x amount and contribute x amount to your party campaign fund of choice, and then congressman agrees.  I do see something wrong with that.

Read closely.
"Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures"

Then they claim "to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process".

How is that possible, they just placed more restrictions on individuals?

QuoteFederal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

I see no guidelines, all I see is this group giving yet, even more power to govt to regulate money/speech.
The idea is to remove govt, not grow it, not expand its reach with more laws.

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2017, 07:03:37 AM
Read closely.
"Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures"

Then they claim "to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process".

How is that possible, they just placed more restrictions on individuals?
I see no guidelines, all I see is this group giving yet, even more power to govt to regulate money/speech.
The idea is to remove govt, not grow it, not expand its reach with more laws.

I appreciate the responses and thoughts on this subject.  "Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures... to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process".  I don't personally see any conflicts with this statement.  It calls for guidelines to be introduced at the local and federal levels so that all has access to the political process and not allow an economic status to give an advantage in a given campaign.  It will leave the specific guidelines up to federal and local governments to decide to achieve the intended results. 

Because the importance of economic status in today's environment, currently politicians spend more than 50% of their working hours fund raising and not working on behalf of their constituents.  If the importance of economic status is removed, they will not need to entertain receiving the large corporate donations of say big pharma companies and will not be so beholden to them during the next bill voting session.

Now, to your point, will this likely be achieved through more restriction, more oversight, and more laws as a result of this amendment?  Yes, you are correct in that it would.  But, what is the better way?  I have heard and read about an approach via less government.  I agree less government would certainly limit lobbying influence because by nature the government footprint has been reduced and that sounds great.  But we always must elect someone to represent our interests even with less government.  I still would be concerned that my representative is looking out for company xyz's interests and not mine even with less government.

Quote from: Jman22 on July 02, 2017, 05:13:22 PM
I appreciate the responses and thoughts on this subject.  "Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures... to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process".  I don't personally see any conflicts with this statement.  It calls for guidelines to be introduced at the local and federal levels so that all has access to the political process and not allow an economic status to give an advantage in a given campaign.  It will leave the specific guidelines up to federal and local governments to decide to achieve the intended results. 

Because the importance of economic status in today's environment, currently politicians spend more than 50% of their working hours fund raising and not working on behalf of their constituents.  If the importance of economic status is removed, they will not need to entertain receiving the large corporate donations of say big pharma companies and will not be so beholden to them during the next bill voting session.

Now, to your point, will this likely be achieved through more restriction, more oversight, and more laws as a result of this amendment?  Yes, you are correct in that it would.  But, what is the better way?  I have heard and read about an approach via less government.  I agree less government would certainly limit lobbying influence because by nature the government footprint has been reduced and that sounds great.  But we always must elect someone to represent our interests even with less government.  I still would be concerned that my representative is looking out for company xyz's interests and not mine even with less government.

Problem is, they are using the very entity that created the mess in the first place.
What I believe needs to take place is remove the Fed entirely, turn all oversight to the private sector, design it to the point where the pols are forced to account for every cent taken in, and can be audited at any time for any reason.
This oversight committee will also be in charge of pay, travel benefits as well as healthcare. In other words, the Fox will noi longer be allowed to guard the hen house.
All pay and benefits will be paid out in the open, the people will finally be allowed to see just where their money come from. Write a book? The committee will oversee the contract and just who is buying 10 thousand copies at once.

No, it's time to yank the Feds power once and for all, because as long as it in the hands of a bureaucracy, they will always find a creative workaround.

Why not simply go back to the original intent of health insurance and focus on why health care is so expensive?

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2017, 06:42:30 PM
Problem is, they are using the very entity that created the mess in the first place.
What I believe needs to take place is remove the Fed entirely, turn all oversight to the private sector, design it to the point where the pols are forced to account for every cent taken in, and can be audited at any time for any reason.
This oversight committee will also be in charge of pay, travel benefits as well as healthcare. In other words, the Fox will noi longer be allowed to guard the hen house.
All pay and benefits will be paid out in the open, the people will finally be allowed to see just where their money come from. Write a book? The committee will oversee the contract and just who is buying 10 thousand copies at once.

No, it's time to yank the Feds power once and for all, because as long as it in the hands of a bureaucracy, they will always find a creative workaround.

Got it!  I could get behind that approach to a degree as well.  Are you aware of any politicians or groups advocating such an approach? 

I particularly like the oversight committee in charge of pay, travel, etc comment.  Politician can't be bought if it is not allowed.

Quote from: Jman22 on July 03, 2017, 10:21:03 AM
Got it!  I could get behind that approach to a degree as well.  Are you aware of any politicians or groups advocating such an approach? 

I particularly like the oversight committee in charge of pay, travel, etc comment.  Politician can't be bought if it is not allowed.

I have completely given up on the thought of govt fixing anything.

Since 1990 there have been several groups that come to mind, but not one of them could agree on the best approach.
What I mentioned comes from a paper I wrote for one group, an early TEA group, their problem was, it was tied to a church, and they had some really touchy feely moderates that thought they could get Legislation to fix the problem, which brings us full circle on allowing the Fox in the hen house.

After that debacle, I decided to only mention it when the issue arose. It really needs someone like Cruz to put it down in writing to make sure all the "T's" are crossed and the "I's" are dotted, if for no other reason, than to assure it was Constitutional.

Quote from: Solar on July 03, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
I have completely given up on the thought of govt fixing anything.

Since 1990 there have been several groups that come to mind, but not one of them could agree on the best approach.
What I mentioned comes from a paper I wrote for one group, an early TEA group, their problem was, it was tied to a church, and they had some really touchy feely moderates that thought they could get Legislation to fix the problem, which brings us full circle on allowing the Fox in the hen house.

After that debacle, I decided to only mention it when the issue arose. It really needs someone like Cruz to put it down in writing to make sure all the "T's" are crossed and the "I's" are dotted, if for no other reason, than to assure it was Constitutional.

Thanks very much Solar and to all on this topic.  It has been very enlightening.  If you do come across a particular movement advocating this approach, please let me know.  I will probably put my efforts behind movetoamend for now, as I do believe this will give long term healthcare costs reform a better fighting chance, albeit on a judicial and then legislative level only which I certainly understand the concerns regarding, but if anyone is made aware of the mentioned private entity approach, please just post below.