Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
This is why democracy fails bigtime, and why our Founders created a republic with appointed Electors, Justices, and Senators.
Racing Past the Constitution
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
The framers gave Congress limited powers and they have abused it, as they are doing now.
Good link. Let's see what we have here.
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,5
…….the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the “general welfare” clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments,……
5 To date no statutes have been struck down as violating these standards, although several statutes have been interpreted so as to conform to the guiding principles. First, the conditions, like the spending itself, must advance the general welfare, but the determination of what constitutes the general welfare rests largely if not wholly with Congress.
I read that as saying Congress will decide what "General Welfare" means. What's your take on it?
They are impossible to remove because the people don't want them removed. If removing them was what the majority wanted there would be politicians jumping all over the opportunity. I can't think of one politician, in any country that currently has universal medicare, who campaigned against it.
As for cutting services it's one thing to cut out free ambulance or temporary use of a free wheelchair when one leaves the hospital compared to free hospitalization and doctor services.
When it comes to struggling to meet demand as long as one highway is under construction or one town is replacing street lights that are working so as to update the look of Main Street there is sufficient money for medicare.
People are fed up paying taxes because they are not getting anything in return unless they're part of a special interest group. Universal medicare is something the government provides, without qualification. It is a service everyone will use at some time and as the population ages either a lot of hospitals/doctors will become extremely wealthy or people will go without proper care. Efficiency alone mandates a central system. As people retire and move electronic medical records will become a necessity.
A retiree from Florida visits a family member in Seattle. If they require medical attention electronic records will enable the doctor in Seattle to know the patient as well as their own family doctor does.
Or young families moving for employment. Their children's records will be available immediately to the next doctor.
Then there's government run prescription drug plans. It's on record if a person goes to one doctor and is prescribed narcotics for pain, then visits another doctor and gets another prescription. Not only does it cut down on prescription drug abuse but, more importantly, it allows doctors to freely prescribe such drugs knowing it is more difficult to abuse them.
Many doctors in the US won't prescribe narcotics because of the potential for abuse. How will the doctor know if the patient didn't just receive another prescription from a different doctor?
In Quebec, Canada, for example, the doctor won't know but the pharmacist will by accessing a central database and they'll contact the doctors in question.
From the Police checking a person to a bank wanting to know a person's credit history our society has reached a point where things have to be centralized.
I think a lot of the opposition to government programs has to do with privacy. The way I see it there are a lot of weird folks out there. We all fit into some group.
The people who get entitlements are not paying for them, so of course they don't want to give them up. The people who have to pay for them and watch their taxes sky rocket as the programs continue to not only fail their original objectives, but suck dollars from other areas want to get rid of them...DUH!
Demwit
uscitizen alternate login
The people who get entitlements are not paying for them, so of course they don't want to give them up. The people who have to pay for them and watch their taxes sky rocket as the programs continue to not only fail their original objectives, but suck dollars from other areas want to get rid of them...DUH!
You mean all those people drawing SSI did not pay anything in?
I could have sworn there is a deduction for Medicare or something on my paycheck.
apple0154
MEOW
The people who get entitlements are not paying for them, so of course they don't want to give them up. The people who have to pay for them and watch their taxes sky rocket as the programs continue to not only fail their original objectives, but suck dollars from other areas want to get rid of them...DUH!
Unless a person never worked at a regular job with payroll deductions they did pay towards the entitlements. As Demwit wrote,
Regarding sucking dollars from other areas are we to expect a person pay taxes for roads while being unable to see a doctor? Or new street lamps when they can't afford to go to a dentist or buy medication?
What makes more sense; a person who can afford a doctor and medication wanting others to contribute to "other things" or a person who can't afford a doctor or medication wanting others to contribute to medicare?
The person who can afford a doctor and medication can still benefit from universal medicare. That's the beauty of "universal". Everyone benefits. Even the person who can afford their own doctor won't have to pay. What could be more fair?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What could be more fair? You pay for your health care needs and I pay for mine. That would be the fairest thing to do. Why can't we do that?
Why do you keep calling socialized medicine, Medicare? We've had Medicare since 1965, the current issue is nationalized health care. Is that so you can criticize those who oppose socialized medicine, as if they also oppose Meidcare? Sounds like a cheap dirty liberal tactic to me, so that's probably it, huh?
For your information, roads and street lights are not paid for by the US taxpayer and not decided on by the US government. These things are handled by state, county, and local representatives, whom we elect to make those decisions, and re-elect based on how well they listen. If the people wanted socialized medicine more than street lights, the councilmen and representatives would have given them exactly that. None of this has beans to do with the federal government, and our US tax dollars.
So now, this "plan" you have, to provide health care for the sick and needy, is extended to every American, regardless of their ability to pay? That's just lovely! I'm still seeing some major flaws with your plan...
Doctors in America are accustomed to living a certain lifestyle, and earning a certain income. Hospital Administrators and CEO's, all the way down to the RN's and LPN's, are accustomed to earning a certain income, for the profession they are in. This is largely funded now, by private interests, investors, and capitalist free-market enterprise, which can generate the revenue needed to pay the bills. You are talking about doing away with all of that, getting rid of "profit" altogether... but who is going to pay the people who do this work now? Your answer is, Government. But, government doesn't have the wealth to fund what is currently being done, so what is the plan? Doctors make less? Nurses make less? Hospitals remove themselves from the Dow and become "wards of the state?" What exactly is your plan for dealing with this problem?
Now look, Apple... I know it's nice and fun to sit on your pimply ass and pontificate about this beautiful Utopian socialist wet-dream you have, about how all sick people will be well, and all poor people will have wealth... I understand, it makes you feel good in your otherwise pathetic little life... but what you have laid out, is not practical, not reasonable, and not sustainable. Not to mention, it is not going to deliver the Utopian wet-dream objective of helping the needy at all. It's going to completely destroy the quality of health care in America, and because of that alone, more people will die.
You can make invalid comparisons to other countries, you can do a little rah-rah cheer for socialist Europe, but when it comes to the reality of life, and what is going to work in the United States, the home of Capitalism, it's another story. You don't really seem to have a clue... I mean, like a 13 year-old doesn't have a clue! About how capitalism works, how the free market works, and why socialism fails in large urban industrialized nations. You live in this fairy-tale world, where money is just sitting in a big endless pile somewhere in Washington, and Nancy, Harry or Uncle Teddy can just go grab a few trillion to do anything you can dream up!
We are currently in debt by a sizable amount. In fact... the largest single domestic spending item in the annual federal budget? ...the interest on our debt. The United States Government currently owes more than the combined wealth of every American citizen. Most of our current debt is held by China, but they are becoming reluctant to assume any more debt based on the American dollar, because Democrats seem to have discovered the printing presses for currency are a good way to stimulate a piss poor economy. But, I digress.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So why would you want to dramatically increase demand on the already over-burdened health systems? This will result in making people less healthy, because supply is limited. There is a severe shortage of nurses right now, and qualified doctors as well. If you want to make people more healthy, you would need to build more hospitals and have some way to make more people want to be doctors and nurses. I'm not an expert, you'd have to talk to the people who build hospitals and invest in that sort of thing, but I think the doctors and nurses would be highly motivated by money. Of course, that would require capitalism....soo...
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
It's true, we have a shortage of qualified doctors and nurses right now due to government interference. Liberals have never been able to see the big picture, which is sad.
apple0154
MEOW
Medicare. Medicade. Universal medical care. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
The same plan as dealing with teachers. Some teachers work for the government in a public school system. Others work for private schools. How does that work? Or accountants. Or janitors. Or mechanics.
Some jobs are government jobs and some are private enterprise. It works with everything else. Why not medicine?
I'll have you know my ass is as smooth as a baby's bum! So there! And as for when it’s percolating it’s been compared to a slightly spicy pot-pourri………..ohhhh, pontificating. Sorry. I thought you were referring to something else.
I understand capitalism and the motivating factor but rest assured there will always be those $5,000/hr, Beverly Hills, plastic surgeon jobs our most esteemed, empathetic doctors can aspire to.
Look at our old pal, Madoff. Now there was a guy who knew how to make a buck. The point is you can’t destroy capitalism. There will always be people seeking ways to lighten your pocket. Your fears are not well grounded.
There can be available money because the average working person has money. Homes, cars, plasma TVs, surround sound systems, pools, vacations……….the list is endless. If countries where incomes are considerably lower and the GDI is a tiny percentage of that of the US can afford a national medical plan then so can the US. In exchange no one will go bankrupt from medical bills. No one. That will be a thing of the past and considering half of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses universal medicare will be a boon to all.
Exactly! Things are not going to get better for a while. People are going to have less money. How do you expect them to pay for medical needs when paying for medical care was a problem when things were going well?
If ever there was a time for universal medicare it’s now. As we struggle through this financial fiasco the last thing we need is to worry about our health and paying medical bills.
If people had listened to Hillary way back in the early 90s universal medical would have been established and running now. The tech bubble could have paid for a good portion of the start-up costs but noooooooooo. Can’t do that. Let’s wait. Let’s talk. Let’s postpone and drag it out, year after year.
Of course, then Bush comes along and universal medical gets put on the shelf. Now people are complaining there’s no money. Well, as Obama said, “We waited long enough.”
We’ll find the money. We’ll cut other programs. We’ll do what has to be done. The debating, the stalling, the obstruction…….the nonsense is over.
apple0154
MEOW
We have a shortage of doctors and nurses because of the obscene cost of education. That's another thing Obama intends to address. We need to make education affordable to all. An educated population results in a prosperous country.
It's all about change and it's long overdue.
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
That's not what the doctors have been telling us. Their main gripe is government interference.
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
And both of those programs are in serious trouble and near bankruptcy. I keep telling you, anything the government touches, it's a sure thing they will mess it up.
Medicare. Medicade. Universal medical care. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
The same plan as dealing with teachers. Some teachers work for the government in a public school system. Others work for private schools. How does that work? Or accountants. Or janitors. Or mechanics.
Some jobs are government jobs and some are private enterprise. It works with everything else. Why not medicine?
I'll have you know my ass is as smooth as a baby's bum! So there! And as for when it’s percolating it’s been compared to a slightly spicy pot-pourri………..ohhhh, pontificating. Sorry. I thought you were referring to something else.
I understand capitalism and the motivating factor but rest assured there will always be those $5,000/hr, Beverly Hills, plastic surgeon jobs our most esteemed, empathetic doctors can aspire to.
Look at our old pal, Madoff. Now there was a guy who knew how to make a buck. The point is you can’t destroy capitalism. There will always be people seeking ways to lighten your pocket. Your fears are not well grounded.
There can be available money because the average working person has money. Homes, cars, plasma TVs, surround sound systems, pools, vacations……….the list is endless. If countries where incomes are considerably lower and the GDI is a tiny percentage of that of the US can afford a national medical plan then so can the US. In exchange no one will go bankrupt from medical bills. No one. That will be a thing of the past and considering half of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses universal medicare will be a boon to all.
Exactly! Things are not going to get better for a while. People are going to have less money. How do you expect them to pay for medical needs when paying for medical care was a problem when things were going well?
If ever there was a time for universal medicare it’s now. As we struggle through this financial fiasco the last thing we need is to worry about our health and paying medical bills.
If people had listened to Hillary way back in the early 90s universal medical would have been established and running now. The tech bubble could have paid for a good portion of the start-up costs but noooooooooo. Can’t do that. Let’s wait. Let’s talk. Let’s postpone and drag it out, year after year.
Of course, then Bush comes along and universal medical gets put on the shelf. Now people are complaining there’s no money. Well, as Obama said, “We waited long enough.”
We’ll find the money. We’ll cut other programs. We’ll do what has to be done. The debating, the stalling, the obstruction…….the nonsense is over.
apple0154
MEOW
Is it government interference or insurance company interference?
When private insurance companies are involved often they have a board of doctors who evaluate procedures recommended by ones own doctor. They review the recommendations of the presiding doctor.
Government insurance, universal insurance, does not operate that way. Ones doctor makes the decision. The government pays. The government does not make any decisions as far as what treatment is necessary which is far superior.
The difference is because profit does not enter into it like it does with HMOs. If my doctor recommends a procedure the government does not question it. If my doctor prescribes medication the government pays a portion of it. The government makes no decision on what medication I require.
If anything, the doctor is more free to practice medicine under a universal plan than if dealing with a private insurance company. Also, doctors are less tempted to suggest unnecessary procedures as they have sufficient patients.
A doctor with a private practice has to "sell" his services just like any other independent business person. If they lack sufficient patients they may be encouraged to offer more costly procedures. That is eliminated under a universal medical plan.
That's why all the countries that have those plans keep them. The worry over medical expenses is removed. Don't let one sensational story tarnish the advantages of millions.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Medicare. Medicade. Universal medical care. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Well, no not really. Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system. It is currently paid for by US payroll taxes, about 3% of your income goes to fund Medicare. Aside from Social Security and Defense, and of course, the interest on the debt, this is the largest expenditure we have, at 16% of the budget. Medicare, in its present form, costs us about $440 billion per year, and will become insolvent (broke) by 2019.
Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government, and is managed by the states. Medicaid funding has become a major budgetary issue for many states over the last few years, with states, on average, spending 16.8% of state general funds on the program. If the federal match expenditure is also counted, the program, on average, takes up 22% of each state's budget.
There is also the CHIP and HIPP programs, which are spawned from Medicaid, as well as the infamous Pill Bill, recently passed by congress and signed into law by President Bush. These programs are largely inefficient and ineffective, and have always been budget busting behemoths, which will eventually go broke, because we can't afford to provide full health care for just the old and poor, much less, every American!
If the government is going to pay for everyone's medical care, there will not be too many people who will opt to go outside the system and pay the cost themselves, it would be foolish to do that. Since there will no longer be a demand for non-government-paid health care, the private sector hospitals and physicians will mostly go out of business. This will cause a dramatic increase in price of private, non-government-funded health care, IF you can find it. So, no, it's not the same as with teachers, accountants, janitors, mechanics, or any other profession.
Also, regardless of the profession, for production and efficiency, I'll put any private sector worker above a government worker, any day of the week. Same for companies and agencies, I'll take the private sector over government, anytime. They are far more productive and efficient, and generally cost less per person in the end.
I don't have fear, I have knowledge. Madoff was a con and a crook, who has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. Beverly Hills plastic surgeons are not worried or afraid of universal medical care, because it will not effect their service. It will continue to be business as usual for them. This discussion is supposed to be about HEALTH CARE, not plastic cosmetic surgery. Stick to the topic.
First of all, as I pointed out above, we already pay a tiny (3%) portion of our paychecks, to fund Medicare. We've even extended this program to include the poor with Medicaid, and the children, with CHIP. We've extended it to now include medicine for old people. All total, we are spending nearly a trillion dollars per year, to provide medical care to those who can't afford it. You want to extend our burden to include ALL, not just those who can't afford it. We can't afford to fund the programs we have now, but you want to add trillions to the bill.
I have already stated that I do not believe half of all bankruptcies are the result of medical bills, you will have to show me some tangible proof to support that, because I think it's liberal propaganda. I've known of several people who had very high medical bills, as the result of extensive hospital stays, or whatever, and in their case, the hospital simply wrote off the bill as bad debt.
I don't know, it's not my problem!! I am smart enough to plan for my future, and I have enough insurance and savings, to cover anything that may come up. I'm not the most responsible person in America, so I doubt I am alone in my planning. You are dodging the issue. We don't have the money to pay for this, and you are using that as a reason for why we must do it anyway! It's beyond INSANE!
Again, you seem to be under the impression that if we turn this over to government to pay for, all our worries are over! As if, government has some magical pot of money that will just fund whatever, and we won't have to worry about it anymore! This is the problem I have with liberal idealists, you are completely incompetent when it comes to issues of money and capitalism. The last thing we need, is to throw another half-trillion dollars a year into a rathole social program we can't afford to sustain!
Again, we live in a representative republic, we elect legislative representatives who vote based on what those who elected them want. If most Americans wanted government to take over medicine, Hillary-care would have passed with flying colors.
This is a concept you should really try to learn to grasp. We live in a democratic society, not a fascist dictatorship. Sometimes, the rest of the people in society, may not want the same shit you do, and that doesn't mean they aren't listening or don't care, it means they simply don't agree with you.
Bush had nothing to do with shelving universal health care, that was CONGRESS! In fact, Bush was instrumental in passing the largest entitlement spending program since Medicare, with the prescription drug bill.
People aren't "complaining" there is no money, there really IS NO MONEY! Whatever you spend on this, will have to be borrowed from China, if China will dare to loan us the money.
We won't cut other programs, we can't even cut the built-in rate of annual increase for most programs, without liberal pinheads screaming "CUTS! --STARVING SCHOOL KIDS--OLD PEOPLE EATING DOG FOOD-- PEOPLE DYING IN THE STREETS! CUTS! CUTS!" Every government program, no matter how big or small, has a lobby in Washington, who will go to bat for their funding.
There is no debate, you refuse to debate honestly, because if you do, you know you'll lose. Stalling and obstruction? How can a minority party do that? republicans can't stop this, hell most of the more prominent ones have already conceded to your side. Nonsense is what you keep spewing, and you don't seem to be interested in reality.
I've already said, you will get some form of universal health care, it's coming. That's why it's interesting to me, that you will spend so much time arguing this here, as if the issue is still undecided and you must convince the fence sitters. You'll get universal medical care, you'll be allowed to completely destroy the quality of medicine in America, and you'll be given a blank check to spend as much money we don't have, as your liberal heart desires. And I predict, when it all falls apart, when we have tens of thousands of health care professionals out of work, and massive shortages of adequate health care facilities, which are costing us trillions each year to maintain, you will find some clever pinhead way to blame that all on conservatives! If nothing else, the story line will be... WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP US?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No shit. My wifes niece imigrated to the US to work here as a nurse. Her entire college education in the Philippines cost less than one semester at your average State U.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I can tell you don't know many doctors. You just simply don't know what you're talking about. The biggest complaints about the health care industry by Doctors is how HMO's and Insurance companies manipulate the system so that there's a complete lack of standardization and an ungodly level of red tape that drives up the cost of health care astronomically. All to often Doctors diagnoses are either contravened by HMO/Insurance providers or just simply denied coverage. The end result is the course of treatment is determined by HMO's/Insurance companies at astronomically inflated prices.
The rational fact is that our current health care system does not function for 40% of the population and provided inadequate basic coverage for 30% more. Health care in our nation is becoming a system of haves and have nots based upon socio economic statis and this is just as stupid as only allowing rich people to get a college education.
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Apple dear, please read what it says about NHC in the massive Obama stimulus bill which no one bothered to read. Thanks
By Bloomberg. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
By Bloomberg. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
christiefan915
Catalyst
It has to do with the fact that the thread comments are about the superiority of the US system over other systems with universal healthcare. It has to do with the fact that the man who had universal healthcare went to another country with universal healthcare after waiting 16 months for treatment, rather than right over the border to our system.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Another big gripe I hear is the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance. My kids' pediatrician has signs in his office advocating universal health care!