Legality of Healthcare

Quote from PiggyBank:

Income taxes are covered in the Constituition. Congress also has the right to raise a militia, I assume that can mean a draft is legal. SS is different, but essentially a tax, especially since most of us are never going to get a penny back from it. Also SS is a colossal failure, why would u want another federal program after witnessing the existing program's fail? Perhaps SS is on shaky Constitutional grounds?

States rights = BS... really? They are included in the Constitution because the founders framed everything based on checks and balances, in this case specifically to prevent the federal govt from assuming to much centralized power. Your willingness to pick and choose what YOU think is "right' out of the Constitution doesn't change the FACT that it is the supreme law in the USA.

However forcing people to "buy" the federal coverage or be fined or imprisoned is fucking wrong, oppressive, and apparently unconstitutional. There are also many other issues with this proposed bill, and universal health care in general, namely COST.
More...

In regards to SS: anybody who lives to the age of 70 and collects 3 years of benefits will have already collected far more than they paid. SS also provides disability insurance for a family when a parent dies: many families have been saved from destitution thru SS. Finally, SS is NOT a mess or a failure: not one single person has failed to receive a SS check that was due them. In 2009 there were 47.5 million SS beneficiaries. For 90% of Americans, SS is the absolute BEST investment they ever make.

In regards to the COST of universal health care, I suggest that you, (and the poster who earlier challenged my economic sense), read up on the concept of economies of scale. A single-payer system paid for by a very small tax increase on everybody would result in far cheaper health costs and universal coverage. The amount of money saved by ridding the system of duplicate accounting offices, CEO and middle management staff, the elimination of all sales & marketing costs, and countless number of buildings, in short, shit that doesn't supply one single person with even an aspirin would save our country TRILLIONS.

But, go ahead, pimp for the health insurance companies, demean your gov't and bury your head in the sand. It is not a question of IF, it is a question of WHEN you, your spouse, your child, brother, sister, and parents need medical care. Trust your care to a for-profit company whose only goal is to DENY medical benefits.
 
Quote from RangeBar:

In regards to SS: anybody who lives to the age of 70 and collects 3 years of benefits will have already collected far more than they paid. SS also provides disability insurance for a family when a parent dies: many families have been saved from destitution thru SS. Finally, SS is NOT a mess or a failure: not one single person has failed to receive a SS check that was due them. In 2009 there were 47.5 million SS beneficiaries. For 90% of Americans, SS is the absolute BEST investment they ever make.

In regards to the COST of universal health care, I suggest that you, (and the poster who earlier challenged my economic sense), read up on the concept of economies of scale. A single-payer system paid for by a very small tax increase on everybody would result in far cheaper health costs and universal coverage. The amount of money saved by ridding the system of duplicate accounting offices, CEO and middle management staff, the elimination of all sales & marketing costs, and countless number of buildings, in short, shit that doesn't supply one single person with even an aspirin would save our country TRILLIONS.

But, go ahead, pimp for the health insurance companies, demean your gov't and bury your head in the sand. It is not a question of IF, it is a question of WHEN you, your spouse, your child, brother, sister, and parents need medical care. Trust your care to a for-profit company whose only goal is to DENY medical benefits.
More...

SS is going to fail, no one denies this (look at the CBO and SSA projections). It is just basic math, SS payments will not be made in full at some point in the future because SS taxes can't keep up. In order to make those payments in full SS taxes either have to go up, or the age at which you can recieve them must go up (or both). The alternative is u recieve less in SS payments. The point is SS cannot do what it was designed to do.

As far as cost for universal health care, just think about this: You lose the tax revenue from the health insurance industry, and add the cost of the service they provide to the federal budget. Universal health care will cost more when compared to the private insurance industry, regardless of "economies of scale". Even if the govt could restrain itself and run efficiently it would still COST, while the private health insurance industry finances itself AND provides tax revenue.

My head is buried in the sand, yet you don't seem to accept that the private sector funds the govt. Every govt job/program is a drain on the economy, so if the private sector can provide a good or service then it should not be interfered with or hijacked by the govt.

I not opposed to the idea of "universal pools", but I think they could be operated by private insurers, maybe in exchange for being allowed to do business interstate. It is logical that there are many less intrusive and certainly more profitable ways to approach the problem.

This is simply a political bid for power, a takeover of a PRIVATE SECTOR. How can the companies that created the industry be held accountable for choosing how to run their business?
 
BTW, did I mention that Dental care, so important to general health, also be included in a nationalized medical system.

We can do without the measly 'tax revenue' provided by insurance companies. I almost think you mean that as a joke.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand how a single pool of 350 million citizens, (80% of whom won't even go to a doctor in any given year), being supported by a SINGLE back-office infrastructure then I don't know what else to explain.

Keep believing that 1000's of organizations, designed to make profits, is better for you than the gov't (which certainly depends on your support).

If you are a Medicare or Veteren, I assume that you will back up your beliefs by leaving the 'socialized' system and turn to the PRIVATE SECTOR for your care.
 
The solution to the healthcare crisis is to promote more competition between insurers, promote transparent pricing of hospital services, and to reduce the impact of lawyers on the industry. Proponents of the current bill claim that it aids these areas, but I don't see it. Start from scratch and come up with something that will target costs instead of passing some piece of crap legislation that will inevitably make things worse for everyone.
 
Quote from RangeBar:

[B
I'm sorry, but if you don't understand how a single pool of 350 million citizens, (80% of whom won't even go to a doctor in any given year), being supported by a SINGLE back-office infrastructure then I don't know what else to explain.
[/B]
More...


Over 200 million people go to the doctor each year, or approximately 60% of the US population.

http://healthcare411.ahrq.gov/transcript.aspx?id=14


There's no question that a single payer system is the best way to keep down costs. But it also results in rationing. I've lived in Canada, Greece and Spain and there's a wait for many procedures. In Canada, there's now an 18 month wait for hip replacement surgeries. If you're in pain, 18 months is a long time and that's why many people pay out of their own pockets and come to the US for the procedure. There's also been a steady decline in R&D spending in most of these countries.

What we need is an honest discussion about healthcare. There's a tradeoff to be made between costs, advances in medical treatments and rationing. If we want to treat the greatest number of people for the lowest costs, a single-payer system is the way to go. But there's a price to be paid for going that route.

I think there are logical arguments on both sides of the issue. It's unfortunate that our politicians won't speak honestly about all sides and give people clear choices.
 
Quote from tomdavis:

Over 200 million people go to the doctor each year, or approximately 60% of the US population.

http://healthcare411.ahrq.gov/transcript.aspx?id=14


There's no question that a single payer system is the best way to keep down costs. But it also results in rationing. I've lived in Canada, Greece and Spain and there's a wait for many procedures. In Canada, there's now an 18 month wait for hip replacement surgeries. If you're in pain, 18 months is a long time and that's why many people pay out of their own pockets and come to the US for the procedure. There's also been a steady decline in R&D spending in most of these countries.

What we need is an honest discussion about healthcare. There's a tradeoff to be made between costs, advances in medical treatments and rationing. If we want to treat the greatest number of people for the lowest costs, a single-payer system is the way to go. But there's a price to be paid for going that route.

I think there are logical arguments on both sides of the issue. It's unfortunate that our politicians won't speak honestly about all sides and give people clear choices.
More...

I agree completely: we aren't going to give 70 year old people heart transplants. I don't think we do so under the current system. A single-payer gov't universal system should also NOT pay for cosmetic surgery, Viagra, artifical insemination, and other spurious stuff. The details of that need to always be looked at and adjusted.

Waiting 18 months for a hip replacement: make lemonade out of lemons and enjoy the pain pills they give you.

You certainly have it right in recognizing the costs/benefits of a single-payer system. Obviously we would put out large rewards for people outing fraud. We could also design systems to reward innovation. All-in-all though, the largest amount of services for the largest number of people is certainly what we should strive for: moral people strive for at least.

As far as 'medical malpractice lawsuits' go: 90% of all such cases are found in favor of the doctor. It is a redherring used by the Republicans to STOP ALL medical provider issues.
 
Quote from RangeBar:


As far as 'medical malpractice lawsuits' go: 90% of all such cases are found in favor of the doctor. It is a redherring used by the Republicans to STOP ALL medical provider issues.
More...

Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't been honest either -- outright vote buying in the Senate, back-room deals with unions, etc. I think most American's have a bad taste in their mouths right now because they think they're being screwed by both parties. Tragically, they're right.
 
Quote from tomdavis:

Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't been honest either -- outright vote buying in the Senate, back-room deals with unions, etc. I think most American's have a bad taste in their mouths right now because they think they're being screwed by both parties. Tragically, they're right.
More...

I agree 100%: Democrats ruin the very best of all Progressive and Liberal ideas. What can we do? They're the only game on town.

Health care refrom should have been a very easy sell: morally and economically.

Ben Nelson should be turned out and I don't care which party the replacement comes from (unless it's the Nazi Party).

Pretty much ANY southern Democrat House or Senate member can go and the country won't lose a whole lot of morality or talent.
 
Quote from RangeBar:

BTW, did I mention that Dental care, so important to general health, also be included in a nationalized medical system.

We can do without the measly 'tax revenue' provided by insurance companies. I almost think you mean that as a joke.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand how a single pool of 350 million citizens, (80% of whom won't even go to a doctor in any given year), being supported by a SINGLE back-office infrastructure then I don't know what else to explain.

Keep believing that 1000's of organizations, designed to make profits, is better for you than the gov't (which certainly depends on your support).

If you are a Medicare or Veteren, I assume that you will back up your beliefs by leaving the 'socialized' system and turn to the PRIVATE SECTOR for your care.
More...

I understand that if u have a single payer for everyone, then all of the middle men, excessive CEO pay, and most of the admin costs etc. will be eliminated. But think of the things that can go wrong. Suppose the govt "borrows" funds from the system like they do with SS, and at some point down the road, some of our health care benefits have to be cut? Suppose the program becomes another bloated beaurocracy, there goes the economy of scale arguement.

Also the private sector won't survive, they are in it to make money and there is no way they can compete with the govt. This is some fucked up hypocrisy, the govt is creating a monopoly, obviously illegal in the private sector, but fine for the govt because there are 30 mil uninsured Americans? Are you really ok with EVERYONE being FORCED onto the govt plan because 10% of the pop is uninsured? This idea abandons most of the principles that made us an economic superpower in the first place. "Progressive" ideas (socialism) are old, they don't fit in a FREE society, and the countries that embrace them worse off than we are. Why do u emulate LESS SUCCESSFUL nations?

Most importantly, this thread is titled Legality of Healthare, you know where I stand. I do think that a single payer health care system is unconstitutional, and I hope it goes to the Supreme Court.
 
This is the wrong question. It is not a matter of "legality".

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

Healthcare in the USA is controlled and manipulated by a criminal syndicate: doctors, nurses, drug makers, hospitals, insurance companies.

If our "good" government can spend our money IN EVERY PLACE ON EARTH; how come our citizens aren't taken care of??

Answers: A. Corruption B. Greed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top