US Health Care Reform

[Totenkopf]

Seems pretty clearly stated there, although I'm sure someone will claim it's vague. Even though it's not.

 

Define the difference between "promote" and "provide for" and you have your answer. Frankly, you appear to believe the govt should provide for rather than merely promote on "general welfare" (ie healthcare, education, social services, etc...). Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line on what the govt is supposed to provide you with? A mansion? A free "cadillac health plan"? Free college tuition w/no strings attached? How much are you willing to give the govt in return?

 

Since it is extremely difficult to actual admen the Constitution, having a law or bill stuck down as unconstitutional is pretty much a death sentence for that particular law or bill. For a document of this age and importance to only be amended 27 times either speaks to it perfection or the difficulty in the process to change it. Personally I do believe it speaks more to the difficulty designed into amending the document. Thankfully so, or there would have been many more boondoggles, such as the 18th amendment.

 

However, in practicality saying something is unconstitutional has no real merit. Only the Supreme Court can decide what is truly unconstitutional and then that too can be overturned with an amendment or by a similar case going before the Supreme Court and that court making a different decision.

 

Practically speaking ( ), I concur.

[Jae Onasi]

Enough of the BS calling out people on grammar and spelling errors, please. It's so petty, and I'm starting to view that as a snarky comment. This isn't freaking English class, for heaven's sake. If the error has a dramatic effect on the meaning of a post, simply and politely ask the writer to clarify instead. Otherwise, just ignore the minor errors.

 

I agree with Sithy on the Constitutional issue--"promote the general welfare" seems to me like it could easily be used as reasoning for national health care. Curbing the exploding costs of health care will help not only the national economy but each individual, not to mention that keeping our population more healthy is a benefit to our country as a whole.

[El Sitherino]

Define the difference between "promote" and "provide for" and you have your answer. Frankly, you appear to believe the govt should provide for rather than merely promote on "general welfare" (ie healthcare, education, social services, etc...). Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line on what the govt is supposed to provide you with? A mansion? A free "cadillac health plan"? Free college tuition w/no strings attached? How much are you willing to give the govt in return?

 

This isn't really an argument and contains nothing with reason or logic. Clearly you're grasping for straws to argue.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by Preamble of the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Seems pretty clearly stated there, although I'm sure someone will claim it's vague. Even though it's not.

 

This is nothing clear at all about your contention, unless you're in the habit of making words mean whatever you want them too. Not remotely logical on your part. It's in no way clear in the context of the language that the US govt is supposed to become increasing involved in people's lives. Very Obama like.....the argument there is no clause clearly defining what the govt SHOULD do for everyone. Actually, based on many of your past comments, it's fairly spot on as to how you've represented yourself. So, define the difference between "provide for" and "promote". I'd say it's pretty clear that you tend to conflate the two, even though they aren't the same.

 

This isn't really an argument and contains nothing with reason or logic. Clearly you're grasping for straws to argue.

 

*meow* a lot, do you?

[Ten-96]

I knew that the "general welfare" argument would come up sooner or later in this thread. General Welfare is listed only twice in the Constitution. It' mentioned in the preamble but notice that there is nothing specific outlined in the preamble. The next time "general welfare" is mentioned is here:

 

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

 

Notice it says general welfare of the United States. It means the general welfare of the country itself; not each of it's citizens. Hence the reason it's mentioned with provide for the common defense. Does that mean the common defense of each and every citizen? I'm sure it means the common defense of the country. Based on that, I assumed that providing for the general welfare of the United States doesn't mean providing heath insurance to each and every citizen.

 

The Constitution wasn't written to tell the government what it could do. It was written to limit the powers of the government over the citizens of the United States. I see a lot written about lowering the cost of health insurance in this thread. How exactly does that happen with these bills when there are numerous taxes, fines and fees associated? Lastly, if this reform is so desperately needed and things will improve; why do the democrats refuse to allow an amendment that mandates that all members of Congress, The Supreme Court, the President and Vice President to be enrolled in it first? If this is such an important piece of legislation, you can keep your doctor, etc...; why don't the members of Congress want to be subject to their own decisions?

[El Sitherino]

This is nothing clear at all about your contention, unless you're in the habit of making words mean whatever you want them too.

You seem to be the one with this habit, there's nothing unclear about the preamble.

It's in no way clear in the context of the language that the US govt is supposed to become increasing involved in people's lives.

You have yet to provide evidence that anything in health care reform or a public option will be placing the government within the lives of private citizens. In fact most arguments are complaints that it infringes on private insurance, so you're going to have to first decide amongst your many arguments which one you believe.

 

Very Obama like.....the argument there is no clause clearly defining what the govt SHOULD do for everyone.

I'm pretty sure it states that we the people of the United States must do what is required to ensure the benefit of our posterity, part of that includes healthcare.

Actually, based on many of your past comments, it's fairly spot on as to how you've represented yourself. So, define the difference between "provide for" and "promote". I'd say it's pretty clear that you tend to conflate the two, even though they aren't the same.

I don't think I ever tried to make any such argument, as well you seemed to pull your complaints about my post out of your ass as I never mentioned anything about providing people with a mansion. In fact I don't recall ever saying we need to just give things away, considering I believe in taxes and we've actually had many disagreements about that topic in which you declared your dislike of paying taxes.

 

 

*meow* a lot, do you?

Cute, so I'm a whiner and you're an underdog e-hero?

 

 

I knew that the "general welfare" argument would come up sooner or later in this thread. General Welfare is listed only twice in the Constitution. It' mentioned in the preamble but notice that there is nothing specific outlined in the preamble. The next time "general welfare" is mentioned is here:

 

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

 

Notice it says general welfare of the United States. It means the general welfare of the country itself; not each of it's citizens.

The citizens are the country, as without the citizenry there is no people of the United States to effectively dictate the government power. We cannot have a democratic republic without people to vote for their representation. Clearly you need to return to your high school government class. Not to mention when it mentions the posterity, it implies the people, of course you and totenkopf will argue this as you do not find it compatible with your argument to appropriately read the constitution as it was written.

 

 

The Constitution wasn't written to tell the government what it could do. It was written to limit the powers of the government over the citizens of the United States.

Wrong, it was written to address the glaring mistakes of the Articles of Confederation which essentially left all power to the states and did not in any way ensure a solid union. The constitution was created to unite the states under a federal law system that made it so the bottom line standards are set for all states and it left further detailing of these standards up to the states to further enforce the idea of these standards or allow them to simply meet the bottom line.

 

I see a lot written about lowering the cost of health insurance in this thread. How exactly does that happen with these bills when there are numerous taxes, fines and fees associated?

The taxes will lower as time goes on, however you must pay attention to the fact that many of these additional fees and bull**** were made as concessions to the conservatives (both blue and red) so that a pass could be made. I personally dislike the new bill and find it to be like repairing a bad plumbing system with budget pipes instead of spending the good load of money on quality long-term pipes. Which is what I honestly like to compare this issue to, as it seems people don't want to spend the good money for the good pipes, they want to spend as little as possible to simply hide the problem from sight. Like when a fat lady wears spanx instead of actually losing weight.

 

Lastly, if this reform is so desperately needed and things will improve; why do the democrats refuse to allow an amendment that mandates that all members of Congress, The Supreme Court, the President and Vice President to be enrolled in it first? If this is such an important piece of legislation, you can keep your doctor, etc...; why don't the members of Congress want to be subject to their own decisions?

 

Technically they already get the healthcare that is trying to be delivered to the uncovered, it would be redundant. As well, why not just put them on the medicare plan if that's where we're all going? The answers to these questions are found in the conflict placed forward by conservatives, though to be honest about that they aren't really conservatives if they are opposed to the standards being proposed. This whole thing started out as a rather simple argument, but thanks to all the rhetoric on all sides this whole thing has become a confusing mess and it only makes sense that the largely ignorant masses will hide behind the misinformation of people like Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh. And in counter to these people we have other jackasses on networks like MSNBC and CNN trying to make spitefully sarcastic jokes about idiotic ideas by then only stirring flames.

 

Anyway, the burden of proof is upon you gentlemen as you have yet to a) provide a better idea or b) explain with facts why a public option will not help the union, either it's citizens or it's establishment.

[Ten-96]

Also in Article 1 Section 8: To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

I take that to mean that our government can borrow money for the government with the expressed purposed and obligation to repay. I always assumed that United States in this case meant the government and not the citizens of the United States. The preamble also mentions "securing the blessings of liberty." This bill forces, by threat of fines and imprisonment, that everyone must purchase health insurance. How is that securing our liberties?

 

 

I guess I should go back to my "high school government class" as you suggest. I was under the impression that Articles 1, 2 and 3 defined the powers, scope and terms of all three branches of our government.

 

The taxes, fines and fees were not made as a concession to the conservatives. All of the taxes, fines and fees were placed there by the liberals who wrote the bill. Conservatives were left out of the process for HR 3962. Congressional Republicans offered this Alternative.

 

Congressional health care benefits are in no way similar to the plan outlined as the "public option." Congress' health care plan is run by a very small bureaucracy that, unlike Medicare's, does not try to set prices for doctors and hospitals.

 

Helping the union? Imposing fines and imprisonment for compliance is helping people? The non-partisan CBO scored HR 3962 at a cost of $1.2 trillion. You asked if Conservatives had a better idea. I posted in the link above. I don't believe that health insurance is a right. We already have Medicaid, which could be expanded to cover minors.

[Totenkopf]

Anyway, the burden of proof is upon you gentlemen as you have yet to a) provide a better idea or b) explain with facts why a public option will not help the union, either it's citizens or it's establishment.

 

Actually, you've got it backward. You have to prove it will.......and you haven't. The burden is not upon us. However, I'd also note that beyond you're general unwillingness to consider arguments you don't like, there have been a number of suggestions laced throughout the thread. Go back and read them if you really want to know. Frankly, what is unreasonable is your contention that govt can (and should) do it b/c IF people would just be better it'd be doable. We've seen far too many examples of how govt can't do things properly to just go.....oh, well, maybe we should give 'em one more chance.

[mimartin]

Friendly reminder:

 

Either debate health care reform in this thread or don’t debate health care reform. If you want to debate burden of proof, then take it to another thread.

 

Also a reminder, all forum and Kavar rules apply to this thread.

5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.[/Quote]

[Jae Onasi]

Notice it says general welfare of the United States.

Out-of-control health care costs are affecting the economy of the US in an unprecedented fashion, and the costs are increasing far out of proportion with inflation. While we will pay more in taxes, we will as average citizens pay less in the taxes with comprehensive reform than we would pay as an average private citizen for our own insurance and the extra costs passed on to all of us by the uninsured not paying their bills. I would say that reining in the exploding health care costs and the negative impact not only on the average citizen, but the economy as a whole, counts as promoting the 'general welfare of the US'.

[Ten-96]

Out-of-control health care costs are affecting the economy of the US in an unprecedented fashion, and the costs are increasing far out of proportion with inflation. While we will pay more in taxes, we will as average citizens pay less in the taxes with comprehensive reform than we would pay as an average private citizen for our own insurance and the extra costs passed on to all of us by the uninsured not paying their bills. I would say that reining in the exploding health care costs and the negative impact not only on the average citizen, but the economy as a whole, counts as promoting the 'general welfare of the US'.

 

I disagree, Jae. I just don't understand how imposing new and higher taxes on our health insurance is going to lower the cost of health insurance. Kaiser Permanente has a calculator on their website that predicts the costs associated with this "reform" as it pertains to families. If this bill becomes law, my wife and I will be paying an additional $15,000 per year in taxes. That doesn't help us - it hurts us.

 

While there is a problem with those who are uninsured, the solution isn't to make those of us who are insured pay more. I've given the reasons before and the things that really would lower the costs of health insurance. Government intervention is only going the make the problem worse, in my opinion.

 

With a current fiscal deficit year of over $1.4 Trillion, Congress and the President need to get a handle on their spending. As of this post, every man, woman and child in the U.S. is in debt to the amount of just under $39,000. They are spending us into an even worse financial crisis yet people are focusing on health insurance costs. This "reform" gives the government the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance. If you don't buy health insurance, you will be fined and may go to jail.

[Web Rider]

I disagree, Jae. I just don't understand how imposing new and higher taxes on our health insurance is going to lower the cost of health insurance. Kaiser Permanente has a calculator on their website that predicts the costs associated with this "reform" as it pertains to families. If this bill becomes law, my wife and I will be paying an additional $15,000 per year in taxes. That doesn't help us - it hurts us.

 

I suppose this should be obvious, but Kaiser is a private healthcare corporation. National healthcare cuts into their bottom line, so the idea that they are going to tell you ANYTHING besides: "Don't do it, it'll cost you more!" is pretty laughable. Their job is not to heal people, not to care for the sick, but to make money, and they will do whatever it takes to do so.

[Totenkopf]

I suppose this should be obvious, but Kaiser is a private healthcare corporation. National healthcare cuts into their bottom line, so the idea that they are going to tell you ANYTHING besides: "Don't do it, it'll cost you more!" is pretty laughable. Their job is not to heal people, not to care for the sick, but to make money, and they will do whatever it takes to do so.

 

 

Versus Congress with its insatiable appetite for greater control of our money and lives?

[Ten-96]

I suppose this should be obvious, but Kaiser is a private healthcare corporation. National healthcare cuts into their bottom line, so the idea that they are going to tell you ANYTHING besides: "Don't do it, it'll cost you more!" is pretty laughable. Their job is not to heal people, not to care for the sick, but to make money, and they will do whatever it takes to do so.

 

Be that as it may, it was one tool we used when we looked at this "reform" offered by Congress. We also did our own research and calculations based on our income, the type of health insurance we carry and the number of members in our family. This bill is going to cost us more; regardless of which company says it.

[Web Rider]

Versus Congress with its insatiable appetite for greater control of our money and lives?

 

Government's want to control you, corporations want to control you. Everyone with power in the history of forever has demanded some level of control, generally, in greater amounts the longer they held on to it. The fact that it is Congress and Kaiser fighting over control of your life still means that you're not the one in charge. But hey, you gotta give it to the Prussians, they figured out that if you make people pay for what their government is doing, they'll start caring about what the government is doing. When was the last time this many people weighed in on well, anything?

 

 

For the record, I do oppose this current version of the national healthcare bill.

[Totenkopf]

Government's want to control you, corporations want to control you. Everyone with power in the history of forever has demanded some level of control, generally, in greater amounts the longer they held on to it. The fact that it is Congress and Kaiser fighting over control of your life still means that you're not the one in charge. But hey, you gotta give it to the Prussians, they figured out that if you make people pay for what their government is doing, they'll start caring about what the government is doing. When was the last time this many people weighed in on well, anything?

 

For the record, I do oppose this current version of the national healthcare bill.

 

You're correct that corporations want to make themselves indespensable to the public, it's their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to get as profitable as possible. And, when things operate correctly, the govt is supposed to keep them in check. What we have instead is a form of crony capitalism where certain companies/entities (be they "evil" corps or equally "evil" groups....like big labor, etc..) buy their politicians of choice and enshrine their advantages over the public through govt policies and laws. Single payer (which is what the "govt option" is the precursor for) is bad b/c it puts the fox in charge of the henhouse. You can turn to the govt, in theory at least, when companies try to screw you. Who do you turn to when the govt does it? You won't always be able to vote them out...just look at incumbency rates in this country regardless of public opinion polls about their popularity and performance.

[Web Rider]

Who do you turn to when the govt does it? You won't always be able to vote them out...just look at incumbency rates in this country regardless of public opinion polls about their popularity and performance.

 

You're not always supposed to be able to vote them out. Just because some person doesn't like a certain politician, doesn't mean they gain some magical right to vote them out. All they get is one vote, like everyone else, and the right to try to convince people to agree with them.

 

Popularity rates are, IMO, a bad thing to judge by. We elect politicians who we agree with, not ones who do what they're told, and even if that was the case, we only need a bare minimum of 51% to get them in office.

[Totenkopf]

Wasn't speaking of the singular you. The point still stands. What does a population do when its reps tune them out? Violent revolution? Face it, the reasons most people get reelected are b/c it's almost always a case of "my guy is ok......it's the rest that suck" and $$. Since polling is one of the most effective ways for politicians to get feedback on their jobs, it's a bellweather. It's one thing if 49-51% of the people favor or oppose something. Something else when 2/3+ say "not so fast there, bub" and the pols tell you to take a flying leap.

[machievelli]

Using Europe as a meter is dead wrong if you look at when the plans went into effect. Every European medical plan began right at the end of WWII, when the governments were bankrupt. They survived by making the middle class pay the lion share of the taxes necessary to support it, and allowed anyone who wished to bow out, then allowed private practice doctors to charge what they wanted.

 

On the 'public' side, doctors could schedule you for say a pair of glasses, and give you a date maybe a year in the future. It is great for emergencies, because no one whines about your insurance card, but a lot of doctors from Europe relocated here because they could make more money.

 

And do you think any politician is going to win against the insurance companies, a group that has entire law firms on retainer? The Auto insurance bill (119) passed 20 odd years ago in California is still tied up in court because it would cut their profits by 50% or more.

 

Remember Gerald Ford 'I don't think the government could brew beer for less than $50 a six pack

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

yeah but they have to factor in the costs of maintaining puppet governments or funding coups or paying off warlords into their brewing costs

[Ten-96]

yeah but they have to factor in the costs of maintaining puppet governments or funding coups or paying off warlords into their brewing costs

 

Government Beer?

 

(Shudders frenetically)

[Bimmerman]

Government Beer?

 

(Shudders frenetically)

 

Coors and Budweiser are already horrid enough!

 

As for health care....there is a massive misconception between health insurance reform and health care reform. What is being reformed is the insurance industry; health care itself is not changing at all. To be effective, neither can change without the other, so this and all current bills are total crap.

[Tommycat]

Ugh.... Soo they passed it through the senate. 60-39. Not a single Republican voted for it. And certain senators voted for it only if their state was excluded.

 

What irritates me is that we are now required to have insurance. If we don't we face fines and even jail time. That's rediculous. Never before have we been forced to buy a product as a condition of living in the US. It's not like car insurance. If you don't want to pay car insurance you have the choice. You can give up the privelage of driving. What do you do if you don't want to pay for health insurance? Not live?

 

Don't get me wrong, SOME things in the bill are a good thing. The oft overused "pre-existing condition" is now no longer grounds to refuse payment. But on the whole the bill is such crap.

[mimartin]

Try living in Texas without access to a motor vehicle then tell me that auto/motorcycle insurance is not mandatory.

 

What is ridiculous is the current system where the uninsured get medical care free, while those that are insured and/or tax payers foot the bill.

[Web Rider]

What irritates me is that we are now required to have insurance. If we don't we face fines and even jail time. That's rediculous. Never before have we been forced to buy a product as a condition of living in the US. It's not like car insurance. If you don't want to pay car insurance you have the choice. You can give up the privelage of driving. What do you do if you don't want to pay for health insurance? Not live?.

 

Most states require home insurance to own a home, some require rental insurance to rent, others require car insurance to drive(not that everyone does, but still). Yes I think it's a fat load that you HAVE to buy it now, or at least be covered by it, ie: I can get it through my mom and that counts. Still it's better than the payers covering the unpaying.