Health Care -- To each his own or an entitlement?
Quote: EvenBobI'm going to bring this up yet again. My sister in law is
CANADIAN and the wonderful medical program they
have there would let her DIE rather than pay for her
meds. So she comes to the STATES and its covered
under her husbands insurance.
What don't you understand about substandard care?
Great care for the healthy and kinda sick. Get real
sick and you're screwed. But at least its 'fair'.
And I can bring up my sample size of one, yet again.
We have an American friend who, despite all her family still living in the USA and the 'wonderful medical system' they have, is reluctant to consider moving back there because she believes her long term medical needs (of which she doesn't have need for at the moment, but is obviously thinking about her future) would be better looked after under Australia's universal health care.
Another sample size of one. My partner is in receipt of a treatment that is far too expensive for the regular person to pay for. Though, in reality, we all contribute via our taxes, of which there is a medical component.
The government and the 'not so wonderful' medical program they have here would apparently prefer her to LIVE (I can use block type, too) rather than save some money. So she stays in AUSTRALIA and is covered under our universal health care and has received some of the best care by wonderful caring nurses and medical practitioners who work their arses off with patients, mostly 'victims' of the 'health lottery', not because they have done something wrong in their life or with their lives.
What don't you get about that superb care? Get real sick, whether through your own fault or not, and they save your life rather than allowing you to die so they can save a few bucks. How unfair!!!
Quote: boymimbo
So, while I hear "let her die", it is the same for everyone in Canada.
Its OK because its 'fair', thats what you're saying.
Everybody is in the same shitty boat, thats what
counts. And you wonder why the majority of people
don't support it here.
My wife had a work related MRI last month and
got it 36 hours later. In Canada it would have taken
months. Where do we sign up for 'fairness'..
(I just looked it up and its not unusual for a low
priority scan like my wife's to take a YEAR in Canada.
A priority scan, like for cancer, takes about two
weeks. Thats insane. But fair......)
Quote: EvenBobIts OK because its 'fair', thats what you're saying.
No, Bob, he is saying it's ”ok”, because it is the same exact way it is in the US - the government does not pay for drugs there.
One part of Canadian health care, you keep showing is bad turns out to be the one part, working the same way as in US. Go figure …
"Somewhere there's the worlds worst doctor.
And tomorrow you might have an appointment
with him."
Today an addendum to that joke would be:
"I wonder which socialized medicine country
he's in?"
Quote: weaselmanNo, Bob, he is saying it's �ok�, because it is the same exact way it is in the US - the government does not pay for drugs there.
What good is gov't health care if they don't pay for
the drugs that make up 75% of the health care business?
My insurance pays for my doctor AND 90+% of the the
drug costs. I pay less than $10 a month for drugs that
would cost 10 times that if I had to pay for them.
Quote: EvenBobWhat good is gov't health care if they don't pay for
the drugs that make up 75% of the health care business?
I don't know "what's good" ... Perhaps, paying for everything else?
I am not defending it btw, I think, it should pay for drugs as well. But it is better than not paying for anything.
Quote:My insurance pays for my doctor AND 90+% of the the
drug costs.
Yes, you can get an insurance in Canada that pays for drug costs as well. This aspect of it is the same between here and there, we have already established it. Move on.
Quote: SOOPOOThis thread is driving me crazy!!! Blessedly, I don't write prescriptions like a family doctor or an internist, but I must stand up for them. You are not paying them 'for the prescription', but for the doctor listening to your history, examining you, and coming up with a plan, be it prescription medicines, additional tests, or whatever he recommends.
Someone said something like everything else is getting cheaper but medical costs are rising. I just paid 3 times as much for an international air ticket than I did a decade ago, gas is probably at that multiple, a single top quality golf driver now costs what a set of clubs did a decade ago, etc....
Medicare pays me about the same as it did in 1990. The increasing costs that our federal government is paying is NOT going to doctors.
Sometimes, however, to get a prescription renewed, you must visit your doctor, who will charge you lots of money simply to write a scrip knowing that you've been on the medication for years. That's EASY money.
Heck, my doctors do that to us here. We go for lab tests, they say, "well you have to come in to get your results". You walk in, they tell you your results are normal, and 2 minutes later, your're out the door, knowing full well that they've billed OHIP $38 for the visit.
Quote: SOOPOO
Someone said something like everything else is getting cheaper but medical costs are rising. I just paid 3 times as much for an international air ticket than I did a decade ago
Well, airline tickets are seasonal (and not only seasonal), you might very well be able to get it three times cheaper in a week. So, it is not saying much. However, the airline industry in the US is indeed fucked up about as much as the health care, and for similar reasons: it is old, rigid, resistant to change, and very inflexible (meaning, that if if you have to be somewhere, you will buy the ticket, whatever the price is, kinda like me getting my antibiotic). Also, much like health care, it tries to pretend it is "free market", even though any imbecile knows it would collapse in a day without government's involvement.
Quote:gas is probably at that multiple,
Gas is a commodity, that's different.
Quote:The increasing costs that our federal government is paying is NOT going to doctors.
Oh, I am not saying that it is going to doctors. Again, I am not blaming doctors for this mess at all.
But. If the doctor's salary has to decrease somewhat when a little sanity is introduced into the system, I think, that is healthy - will give them some motive to think about improving efficiency, and reducing costs, like the rest of us have to do. I call that progress.
Latest stats (2007) state that 270 billion was spent on presciption drugs in the United States. A total of 2.26 trillion was spent on health care that year, so more like 13%. Pull stats out of a hat today?
My privately held insurance pays for 90% of my prescriptions less a $25 annual deduction. Prescriptions are cheaper here, and you can get help from the government if you are financially challenged. (Speaking of medical tourism, about 1 million Americans fill their precscription from Canada). If your brother was employed in Canada, your sister in law's drug costs would likely be covered. If both of them were unemployed, that province would have a program that covered your drug costs.
There are ZERO medical bankruptcies in Canada. How many are there in the states? Oh yeah, tens of thousands, every year, and 75-80% of them are insured. Oh well, thems the breaks.
But hey, Bob, you're covered, and as long as your American health care is fine, so is everyone elses. It's just perfect (la la la la la, covering my ears).
Quote: boymimboDrugs make up 75% of the health care business? Where?
Here's the breakdown. 80% of people who see
a doctor have nothing wrong with them. 10%
have something moderately wrong. 10% have
major complaints. Even my doctor agrees with
these figures. Of the 100%, 75% are on meds,
probably more than 75%. The major part of
most doctors jobs is writing scripts.
So the proponents of socialized health care want
us to pay for it thru the nose, then have to
pay SEPARATELY for meds insurance that we're already
getting currently with our insurance. And sign on
to wait months for treatments like MRI's that we
get now in days, not months. All so it will be fair
to Joe Blow. Never gonna happen.
Quote: EvenBob
So the proponents of socialized health care want
us to pay for it thru the nose, then have to
pay SEPARATELY for meds insurance that we're already
getting currently with our insurance. And sign on
to wait months for treatments like MRI's that we
get now in days, not months. All so it will be fair
to Joe Blow. Never gonna happen.
I just got back from a Constitution meeting and the presenter said it as clearly as can be: the government is to "promote" the general welfare, not "provide" it.
Quote: AZDuffmanI just got back from a Constitution meeting and the presenter said it as clearly as can be: the government is to "promote" the general welfare, not "provide" it.
Absolutely. But the naysayers think, erroneously, that
the constitution is a 'living' document, open to interpretation
and change. In fact, its written in stone. It can only be
changed by congress.
Quote: boymimboFeel free to put your money where your mouth is and send your Social Security entitlements to boymimbo, co Tropicana Casino Cage, Atlantic City (Do AC), NJ. Oh, those aren't entitlements. Ok, please feel free not to participate in Medicare when you reach that age. Those who are unemployed, don't bother collecting benefits. Those are just entitlements that as a free wheeling consitutionalist should just turn away. Oh, and your college degree -- feel free to send the government proportion of your education subsidy to the Borgata Casino Cage on my behalf.
I can't speak for EB but I would be happy to take whatever I paid in to SS via a lump sum then keep the 15% of my earnings it eats and put it in an IRA. Ditto the medicare premium I am paying, just please reduce my income tax by a proper amount. I pay UI via tax which is returned to me when unemployed. But maybe that could be worked via insurance as well? I do know when you are unemployed without UI Compensation you find a job A LOT faster.
I repaid 100% of my college loans with interest. I don't think I got $2,000 in grants over 4 years.
Quote: boymimboFeel free to put your money where your mouth is and send your Social Security entitlements to boymimbo, co Tropicana Casino Cage, Atlantic City (Do AC), NJ. Oh, those aren't entitlements. Ok, please feel free not to participate in Medicare when you reach that age. Those who are unemployed, don't bother collecting benefits. Those are just entitlements that as a free wheeling consitutionalist should just turn away. Oh, and your college degree -- feel free to send the government proportion of your education subsidy to the Borgata Casino Cage on my behalf.
Now that's being very naive, boymimbo. When it came to the crunch, not even Ayn Rand did that.
My point is that the government does plenty of things to provide, not promote, its people already. It already provides Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment Benefits, hospital funding, and a number of other items. Health care would be another item that would both promote and provide for its people, in my opinion.
So yeah, if you really feel that the government should not be providing, then feel free not to collect the benefits. Medicare is insurance, so buy into a private plan and pay the excess yourself. Don't collect unemployment. Just work.
And if the government can do it more efficiently and cheaply and provide a excellent level of care, so be it. In fact, I would say that if you put your best and brightest minds to it and stop arguing over a Republican idea vs a Democrat idea, you could do it better and more effectively than any other country. My feeling is that health insurance has failed the United States, due to regulations that allow for monopolies and inefficiencies. The end result is that the US is at the middle of the road when it comes to health (maybe not your personal health, but the health of the nation overall) and pays 50% more, per capita, and in terms of GDP, than every other country. When health costs start costing a country 6% more of its GDP than a competitor, your competitor starts off at an enormous advantage who can provide competitive benefits for much cheaper. So, it's time for change. That change is not ObamaCare, but legislation that promotes its people, in the interests of its people.
Now, government can go on and bicker and ObamaCare will probably be repealed come June, and insurance companies will continue to consolidate, employers will cut back on coverage, and you will just either pay insurance or not. The same level of care will cost more, alot more, and the end result is Americans will make the choice to become sicker because it's too expensive. In my eyes, that just isn't right.
Quote: boymimbo
And if the government can do it more efficiently and cheaply and provide a excellent level of care, so be it. In fact, I would say that if you put your best and brightest minds to it and stop arguing over a Republican idea vs a Democrat idea, you could do it better and more effectively than any other country.
And here is where the problem is. You are worried about "Democrat vs Republican" and "more efficient." I am worried about if it is Constitutional. And I don't care how much "more efficient" you think it is (bad service and no choice is usually cheaper) if it isn't Constitutional we are not supposed to be doing it.
And nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the right to compel commerce.
Quote: boymimboSo yeah, if you really feel that the government should not be providing, then feel free not to collect the benefits.
It seems more reasonable to say, "If you really feel that the government should not be providing, then oppose any such legislation." Once the legislation has been enacted and you are required to pay supporting taxes, then it would probably be foolish to turn down the benefits that you paid for, even if you don't feel the government should be in that business.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd here is where the problem is. You are worried about "Democrat vs Republican" and "more efficient." I am worried about if it is Constitutional.
If the Constitution says "promote", it does not mean that it cannot "provide". In fact, providing, is one of the ways to promote.
If Social Security, USPS, Medicare, public schools, unemployment etc. are Constitutional, then so is universal health coverage. If they are not, then (1) you are a hypocrite if you are using them and (2) "unconstitutional" cannot be an argument against health care, because we are already in violation. When hell freezes over other violations are eliminated, this question can be revisited, until then, it's moot.
Quote: DocOnce the legislation has been enacted and you are required to pay supporting taxes, then it would probably be foolish to turn down the benefits that you paid for, even if you don't feel the government should be in that business.
Well, yes and no ... In a way, you are right, but ... how much are the principles worth?
For example, many people are opposed to public education so much, that they choose to pay for private school for their children, despite having paid taxes that support the public option.
If AZDuffman (or whoever else) feels so strongly about (un)constitutionality of Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits, then it would indeed be hypocritical of him (albeit rational, and economically advantageous) to use those benefits, despite his radical views.
Quote: weaselmanIf the Constitution says "promote", it does not mean that it cannot "provide". In fact, providing, is one of the ways to promote.
If Social Security, USPS, Medicare, public schools, unemployment etc. are Constitutional, then so is universal health coverage. If they are not, then (1) you are a hypocrite if you are using them and (2) "unconstitutional" cannot be an argument against health care, because we are already in violation. When hell freezes over other violations are eliminated, this question can be revisited, until then, it's moot.
Sorry, "promote" does not mean "provide." "Provide" goes beyond "promote" and thus beyond the intent of the writers of the doccument. The Constitution being a contract between the government and the people is supposed to be governed as any other contract, and that means the words are to be interperted as they were meant when they were written. It is not a "living, breathing thing" that you change meanings of over time to suit your needs.
And maybe you need to read the Constitution (just like Obama needs to) because the USPS is specifically defined as a power of the government--"to establish a post office and post roads."
I have no choice in Social Security or Medicare, unconstitutional as they are I would go to prison for failure to pay.
"Public Schools" are for the states and not the feds. Read the 10th Ammenement. Actually, read the whole thing.
"Unconstitutional" is totally an argument against universal health care.. While the Constitution has had many parts shredded since 1865, it is still the law of the land. And universal health care is NOT in it. Nothing like universal health care is in it.
Quote: weaselman... many people are opposed to public education so much, that they choose to pay for private school for their children, despite having paid taxes that support the public option.
I think that in most cases it is not so much that they are opposed to public education as that they are dissatisfied with its quality level -- they know that they must contribute to public education, but they are willing to pay extra so that their children receive what they believe to be a better education in a private school.
Of course, there were times, and this effort may still exist in some areas, where segregationists were so opposed to interracial education that they tried to abolish the entire local public education system.
Quote: AZDuffmanthe words are to be interperted as they were meant when they were written.
The word "men" meant "white males" when it was written.
Quote:I have no choice in Social Security or Medicare, unconstitutional as they are I would go to prison for failure to pay.
Not for failure to collect though.
Quote:"Public Schools" are for the states and not the feds.
Feds subsidising them is unconstitutional then?
Quote:"Unconstitutional" is totally an argument against universal health care.. While the Constitution has had many parts shredded since 1865, it is still the law of the land. And universal health care is NOT in it. Nothing like universal health care is in it.
The law is a kind of a binary thing. You cannot violate it "just a little bit".
If you believe the Constitution is already being violated (and it is quite obvious, that there is no slightest intention to "fix" it), then you have to accept that either you are interpreting it wrong or that it is defunct (indeed, not "living and breathing", but rather "dead and smelling"). Either way, "unconstitutional" cannot be an argument for anything under that assumption.
Quote: weaselmanThe word "men" meant "white males" when it was written.
Incorrect. If there was to be a difference between "free" and "slave" that was clearly spelled out. But it does not matter as the Consitution is about restricting what govenrnment can do, not what "men" can do.
Quote:Not for failure to collect though.
Why would I not collect my own money? Seriously.
Quote:Feds subsidising them is unconstitutional then?
All federal involvement in all education, from the Department of Education to NCLB is unconstitutional.
Quote:The law is a kind of a binary thing. You cannot violate it "just a little bit".
If you believe the Constitution is already being violated (and it is quite obvious, that there is no slightest intention to "fix" it), then you have to accept that either you are interpreting it wrong or that it is defunct (indeed, not "living and breathing", but rather "dead and smelling"). Either way, "unconstitutional" cannot be an argument for anything under that assumption.
I already said plenty of things are unconstitutional. And I repeat Federal involvement in health care, including making me buy insurance I do not want, is one of those things.
Quote: AZDuffmanIncorrect. If there was to be a difference between "free" and "slave" that was clearly spelled out. But it does not matter as the Consitution is about restricting what govenrnment can do, not what "men" can do.
I am just demonstrating to you that words do change meanings. One has to be really really stubborn to insist on taking a 200 years old document literally, to the letter.
Quote:Why would I not collect my own money? Seriously.
It is not your money. It is US government's money, that it uses, as you (incorrectly) claim, unconstitutionally to provide your welfare.
Anyway, I took your advice, and actually read the Constitution. Turns out, as I suspected all along, you just don't know what you are talking about.
Quote: US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
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;
Perhaps, you guys, at your "constitutional meeting", should invest into a copy of the book for yourselves?
Quote: weaselmanI am just demonstrating to you that words do change meanings. One has to be really really stubborn to insist on taking a 200 years old document literally, to the letter.
Stubborn? Hardly. Legal. Yes. A contract is a contract no matter how old it is, until it is changed. The only way to change the Constitution is the Ammendment Process. You cannot change or ignore something because it is "old." Though you do need to do a little more work to understand what it does mean.
Quote:It is not your money. It is US government's money, that it uses, as you (incorrectly) claim, unconstitutionally to provide your welfare.
It is my money, even if stolen.
Quote:Anyway, I took your advice, and actually read the Constitution. Turns out, as I suspected all along, you just don't know what you are talking about.
Quote: US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
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;
Perhaps, you guys, at your "constitutional meeting", should invest into a copy of the book for yourselves?
Thanks for taking the time to copy that. Now lets have some Civics and Constitutional Law 101 for you.
In this case "provide for the welfare of the Unites States" means the country and government. Note that it does not say "Common Defense and General Welfare of the PEOPLE of the Unites States." If it was about the welfare of the people as individuals it would say so. Proof is that when something is reserved for "the people" it is spelled out clearly as such (see Ammendments 2 and 10.)
Secondly, the talk of "debts" and "defense" imply that this is about the welfare of the ability to keep a going government.
Nice try, but you *still* cannot show where the government has either the right or obligation to provide health care for the people nor the right to compel me to purchase a health insurance policy I do not want.
Quote:
It is my money, even if stolen.
No, it isn't. Your money has been spent years ago. This money belongs to kids, paying into SS today.
Either way, the government is allowed to tax you, so it did. They did not steal your money, you paid tax. Now, it is their money.
They want to pay you Social Security, to provide for your general welfare. If you think it is unconstitutional, but still accept the benefits, you are simply a hypocrite.
Quote: AZDuffman
In this case "provide for the welfare of the Unites States" means the country and government.
Really? I thought it was "promote, not provide" ... and supposed to be taken literally.
Now, it is "provide", but it actually means "promote"?
Come on ... It's not even funny any more.
Quote:Nice try, but you *still* cannot show where the government has either the right or obligation to provide health care for the people
I just showed it to you. How you imagine "welfare of a country" separate from the welfare of its citizens is beyond me. I would not want to live in a country, that manages to enjoy its own "welfare" (whatever is meant by that) while watching its own citizens die in poverty from preventable disease. Moral and humanitarian considerations aside, it just won't work, because the population won't be able to sustain itself. I have already explained it to you earlier.
And BTW, there is no mention of "slaves" (or "people" for that matter) in the whole text of the Constitution. Perhaps, you should realy try reading it some day, if you like talking about it so much.
Quote: weaselman
I just showed it to you. How you imagine "welfare of a country" separate from the welfare of its citizens is beyond me. I would not want to live in a country, that manages to enjoy its own "welfare" (whatever is meant by that) while watching its own citizens die in poverty from preventable disease. Moral and humanitarian considerations aside, it just won't work, because the population won't be able to sustain itself. I have already explained it to you earlier.
Easy, "welfare of the country" is about the government being able to function as a going concern to protect and admisister the country. The population has been able to sustain itself for over 220 years under the Constitution so the rest of your point is jibberish.
Quote:And BTW, there is no mention of "slaves" (or "people" for that matter) in the whole text of the Constitution. Perhaps, you should realy try reading it some day, if you like talking about it so much.
Have you read it? Sorry to make you look silly, but "people" is mentioned in the first three words:
"We the people......"
Also in Section 2 of article 1, discussing election of the House of Representatives.
Also in Ammendments 2 and 10. I am not looking up every other instance for you.
"Slavery" (though I admit not "slaves") is mentioned it Ammendment XIII. In their wisdom the Founders used the more broad "other persons" in many parts.
Quote: AZDuffmanEasy, "welfare of the country" is about the government being able to function as a going concern to protect and admisister the country. The population has been able to sustain itself for over 220 years under the Constitution so the rest of your point is jibberish.
No, what's gibberish is your linguistic ramblings about "provide" vs. "promote". According to you, the government is not allowed to promote general welfare, only provide for it.
The population has been able to sustain itself only because, luckily, the government did not share your ridiculously totalitarian views equating the welfare of the country to that of its own.
Quote:Also in Section 2 of article 1, discussing election of the House of Representatives.
Yep, missed it:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States
Back to my earlier question then. Are you sure you want to interpret the word "People" here literally, in its original sense that was meant when it was written?
US Government spending is out of control and needs to shrink substantially in order to balance the budget. I think most of us would agree to that, even liberal me.
Adding two trillion dollars or so to the budget to create government healthcare will never, ever, be passed. You would need to somehow collect an average of $6,500 from every American (and their employers) to make it work. And you would be raising taxes, in some form, to do so.
A US socialized health care bill will never work until the government is well into a surplus and lobbyists are out of Washington, and perhaps neither will ever happen. Far better, I believe, right now, is to enact regulations that open up competition, puts annual caps on insurance premiums at Cost of Living, and disallows the ability to discontinue coverage or reduce coverages for any reason. Those regulations will force providers to become more efficient in the face of actual higher prices and may control the cost of health care in the United States. Employers will still be able to reduce coverages in order to compete, but basic costs of health care insurance should only rise with cost of living.
For those who can't afford insurance right now, there will be no help. Maybe health insurance and medical premiums and payments should be fully tax-deductible instead of excepting your first 7.5% of AGI or having to use HSAs. I dunno.
Quote: boymimbo
Adding two trillion dollars or so to the budget to create government healthcare will never, ever, be passed. You would need to somehow collect an average of $6,500 from every American (and their employers) to make it work. And you would be raising taxes, in some form, to do so.
The Americans and employers are already paying for the healthcare, it is not going to be new additional expense, it will be the old expense, significantly reduced. You just got to spin it right. Nobody wants their taxes raised, but how about actually getting more money on every paycheck?
(1) Lobbies at the AMA, for-profit hospitals, and health insurance companies will prevent any unfriendly legislation from going forward.
(2) The American public on both the republican and democrat side have no penchant for new government programs while the government is running such a huge deficit.
(3) The US government has got to prove efficiency and by the way that they govern Medicare and MedicAid, it isn't. Fraud is a huge problem. The American government will need to show that per capita, the price is much cheaper than what insurance companies provide today. This could be through a pilot program in a small state.
(4) The American people are sharply divided right now on whether welfare should be provided to its people. American society seems to be quite individualistic, and something like national health coverage can be seen as an attack on ones individualism.
Maybe the government should just buy the health insurance arm of Blue Cross Blue Shield and operate it and see what happens.
Quote: boymimbo
A US socialized health care bill will never work until the government is well into a surplus and lobbyists are out of Washington, and perhaps neither will ever happen. Far better, I believe, right now, is to enact regulations that open up competition, puts annual caps on insurance premiums at Cost of Living, and disallows the ability to discontinue coverage or reduce coverages for any reason. Those regulations will force providers to become more efficient in the face of actual higher prices and may control the cost of health care in the United States. Employers will still be able to reduce coverages in order to compete, but basic costs of health care insurance should only rise with cost of living.
Finally some rationality from another side to discuss instead of emotion. Thank you. Anyways........
The "regulations" are part of the problem. If health insurance was about "insurance" you would never file a claim for <$1,000+. I had a plan with a deductible like that, it is great. Lower costs and my employer put the savings to help meet the deductible. It is just a Mastercard with limited places you can swipe. Now, if more people took such a plan there would be less paperwork for docs filing claims for a $75-150 office visit. Less waste. Less, "is it covered?" While comparing a health care claim to a car claim is not perfect because a health "accident" is harder to quantify, this is a start.
Next is quit making people buy Cadillacs when a Chevy will do. Let providers sell across state lines with the home state being the one who's "minimum coverages" matter. We already do this with credit cards and other bank products just fine. Ditto the Deleware Corporation system. Yes, WY/ND/MT/etc will have more bare-bones plans. Good for them. Let me pick what I prefer.
Further along, we need to let plans be all-male or all-female, with different pricing. I have no kids, I want no kids, if I get involved with a nice lady I will make plans to see it stays this way. Why in that case should I have to pay for birth control coverage? Or dependent coverage?
Quote:For those who can't afford insurance right now, there will be no help. Maybe health insurance and medical premiums and payments should be fully tax-deductible instead of excepting your first 7.5% of AGI or having to use HSAs. I dunno.
The former would level the playing field with corporations. Right now more and more people are by need or by choice going "free agent" in their work. I forget where I saw the numbers but for Gen "X" somewhere near 40% are not traditional W-2 employees, chosing freelance or self-employment of one form or another. On the HSA's--YES!
Quote: boymimbo
Maybe the government should just buy the health insurance arm of Blue Cross Blue Shield and operate it and see what happens.
I have a better idea than that. Why not allow (if we don't) people to form "mutual" health insurance co-ops. Here's how it would work:
First the co-op has nothing to do with the government, period. Second, it is not a "not for profit" or any other kind of tax-exempt group. This keeps a level playing field.
Now, the co-op sells insurance policies according to how it is chartered. It can be like a credit union and take people who meet a "common association" standard of employer, community, whatever. Or it can take any and all comers. For the most part, you see no difference in the operation. The policy covers "x" and costs "y" and you pay and file claims and whatever. You do this all year.
Now, at the end of the year or fiscal year the elected board of directors looks at the books. They examine cash on hand, cash needs, etc. At that time the board issues a refund to policyholders of any overage (excess profit) they see fit. I say "excess" not in a marxist sense but in the sense that any operation needs to keep a source of funds to continue as a going concern so that will come into play.
By doing this the people who want a "public option" have one of sorts, many in fact. The government is out of it. Individual responsiobility is preserved. Choice is preserved. Freeedom is preserved.
Quote: weaselmanNo, what's gibberish is your linguistic ramblings about "provide" vs. "promote". According to you, the government is not allowed to promote general welfare, only provide for it.
The population has been able to sustain itself only because, luckily, the government did not share your ridiculously totalitarian views equating the welfare of the country to that of its own.
*sigh* I get it, you hate the Constitution and what it stands for. But you are still incorrect. The "welfare of the country" is about keeping a minimalist govenrment so to keep protecting the people from things such as enemies foreign and domestic. It is not about insuring free health care, free food, or all the other "free stuff" out there. If this was about welfare of the population it would have said, "welfare of the people."
Quote:Yep, missed it:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States
Back to my earlier question then. Are you sure you want to interpret the word "People" here literally, in its original sense that was meant when it was written?
Yes, why would I not?
And before you make yourself look foolish saying "people" means "white males" I would direct you to the 14th and 19th Ammendments.
Quote: boymimboIt'll never happen.
Yes, that's probably right.
Quote: AZDuffman*sigh* I get it, you hate the Constitution and what it stands for.
I hate the Constitution? No, I hate what *you think* (or, at least, what you are saying you think) "it stands for" - a government, existing for its own sake, and caring about it's own welfare, no, thank you, I'll rather leave that to North Koreans.
Mind you, this view has nothing to do with the real Constitution ("government of the people, by the people, for the people"), so, no, that I don't hate.
Quote: weaselmanThe Americans and employers are already paying for the healthcare, it is not going to be new additional expense, it will be the old expense, significantly reduced. You just got to spin it right. Nobody wants their taxes raised, but how about actually getting more money on every paycheck?
Anyone who thinks anything will be cheaper and more efficient with all the money being channeled through Washington, DC is simply delusional.
"IRS seeks 4,000 new agents" That, my friends, is the true cost.
Quote: weaselmanI hate the Constitution? No, I hate what *you think* (or, at least, what you are saying you think) "it stands for" - a government, existing for its own sake, and caring about it's own welfare, no, thank you, I'll rather leave that to North Koreans.
Mind you, this view has nothing to do with the real Constitution, so, no, I don't hate that.
I'm the one who is stating in means what it's words say as they were meant to at time of writing. You are stating that the words somehow are supposed to be read as if they were written yesterday. As well you are inserting some "value" (caring for citizens) into the text to suit your position.
You might like N Korea--they have governmnet provided health care and kill anyone making a "profit."
Quote: AZDuffmanI'm the one who is stating in means what it's words say as they were meant to at time of writing.
No. You were stating that back when you thought it said "promote", and not "provide", and you were making a freaking big deal out of it.
Now, that you found out that it is actually saying "provide", you are stating the opposite - no, you don't want it to mean what the words say. To hell with the words, let them say "provide", but we know that they really mean "promote".
Let them say "the United States", but we know, that what they really mean is just the government.
Quote: weaselman
Let them say "the United States", but we know, that what they really mean is just the government.
It does mean just the government. Look at the context of the rest of the article. It is talking about government operations and how they are to be funded.
Then notice how "people" is used when they mean "people." If they wanted it to apply to "welfare of the people" they clearly would have said "people" or maybe "citizens." They did not, they said "of the United States." "United States" in every case in the doccument is meant to imply the government.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt does mean just the government. Look at the context of the rest of the article. It is talking about government operations and how they are to be funded.
Yes, government operations to provide for the welfare of the United States, not itself.
Quote:Then notice how "people" is used when they mean "people." If they wanted it to apply to "welfare of the people" they clearly would have said "people" or maybe "citizens."
No, they would not. Because welfare of the United States involves more than just welfare of people. It is a broader term.
Quote:They did not, they said "of the United States." "United States" in every case in the doccument is meant to imply the government.
No, it does not. In fact, it usually means not the government.
For example:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
This means that the government is not supposed to assume that the powers, not explicitly granted to United States should belong to it by default, the are still reserved to the State. Note the curious juxtaposition of the two terms, and also the interesting coupling of the terms "States" and "people" on the other hand.
This is but one example. The term "United States" is frequently (and rightfully) used synonymously with "people of ...".
And when it talks about the government, the term used is (not surprisingly) "Government of the United States".
But this is all semantics. If you really believe, that welfare of a country is possible without welfare of its people ... if you even just think, that there is such a thing, then we are not talking about "government for the people" any more. I don't need a government, concerned about its own welfare, thank you very much.
Quote: weaselmanNo, it does not. In fact, it usually means not the government.
For example:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
Are you certain? Because in the amendment you've just quoted, "United States" means specifically the federal government. This was the intention and it is the accepted, undisputed interpretation.
Quote: P90
Are you certain? Because in the amendment you've just quoted, "United States" means specifically the federal government. This was the intention and it is the accepted, undisputed interpretation.
So, in your view, it says that "powers not specifically delegated to federal government are reserved to federal government". Is that your interpretation? Are you sure it is undisputed?
Quote: weaselmanSo, in your view, it says that "powers not specifically delegated to federal government are reserved to federal government". Is that your interpretation? Are you sure it is undisputed?
What?
Check it again.
Original text: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."
United States = federal government of the United States
States = governments of individual States
the people = the citizens of the United States
Expanded text, therefore, is: "The powers not delegated to the federal government of the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the governments of individual States, are reserved to the governments of individual States respectively or to the citizens of the United States."
So, you too then think that the Constitution requires federal government to provide for its own welfare. Is that allso an "undisputed interpretation" among the constitutionalists?
Quote: weaselman
But this is all semantics. If you really believe, that welfare of a country is possible without welfare of its people ... if you even just think, that there is such a thing, then we are not talking about "government for the people" any more. I don't need a government, concerned about its own welfare, thank you very much.
We are a government OF the people not FOR the people.
And you do need a government concerned for its own welfare. Otherwise that government will not be able to perform its primary functions such as protect you from enimies foreign and domestic, run a court system, etc. This is what they are concerned about when they talk about the "welfare of the United States."
Like I said before, you seem to hate the Constitution. You seem to hate it for the same reason Obama hates it, namely that it is a "negative" doccument that implies power of the government is limited to what is there as oppoesd to a "positive" one that spells out each and every thing you have a right to. See the failed joke that was the attempted EU Constitution to see what a mess a "positive" constitution can become.
Quote: weaselmanOk, I guess, you could read it that way too.
So, you too then think that the Constitution requires federal government to provide for its own welfare. Is that allso an "undisputed interpretation" among the constitutionalists?
Yes, because "its own welfare" means its own source of funds to operate.
I would say yes, that is an undisputed and undisputable interpertation among constitutionalists.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: weaselmanOk, I guess, you could read it that way too.
So, you too then think that the Constitution requires federal government to provide for its own welfare. Is that allso an "undisputed interpretation" among the constitutionalists?
Yes, because "its own welfare" means its own source of funds to operate.
I would say yes, that is an undisputed and undisputable interpertation among constitutionalists.
N.B. that "Welfare" is used in two different places in the Constitution, with two different objects. In the preamble, "Welfare" refers to the People; in Art. 8, "Welfare" refers to the United States.
Edit: on the other hand, the Preamble and Art. 8 use similar language:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to ... provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,"
vs
"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;"
So you could argue that these passages refer to the same thing. I'm no Constitutional scholar and I've no idea what they would say about this.
Edit again: It does appear that Congress is granted the power "to ... collect taxes ... to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States." Presumably that means if Congress deems food, shelter, or healthcare to be "for the general Welfare of the United States", it can collect taxes and provide those things. And it may need to before the end of this century, but that's a different thread.
Quote: MathExtremistEdit again: It does appear that Congress is granted the power "to ... collect taxes ... to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States." Presumably that means if Congress deems food, shelter, or healthcare to be "for the general Welfare of the United States", it can collect taxes and provide those things. And it may need to before the end of this century, but that's a different thread.
It can be argued that the "Common defense" and "General Welfare" the Congress has the power to provide for in I.8.1 is not some open-ended, nebulous set of powers, with the actual powers of the Congress instead being explicitly enumerated in the rest of Article I Section 8.
For instance, if the Congress has the general, all-inclusive power to provide for the common defense, why are other clauses included specifically for raising and supporting Armies, providing and maintaining and a Navy, and arming the militia?
If the Congress can provide for the General Welfare, and it is some all-inclusive term encompassing anything and everything the government wants to do, why have specific clauses for post offices and post roads, patents and copyrights, naturalization, and bankruptcies?
