I Agree With The Founders About Healthcare

[Robo]

Actually I think the founding principles had it right and it's the only actual constitutional way to go related to healthcare.

The founding principle was and is supposed to still be that the several states would act as a laboratory with the end result being the best, better solution for everything by the trial and error system. That's why amendment 10 to our constitution gives most powers to the states and or the people. The founders determined that government closest to the people would be more responsible by definition, i.e. the state government and or local government as opposed to the remote national government'


Thus, healthcare should be the power and determination of every individual state government, local government and the people of the particular state. Thus. the best healthcare will eventually rise to the top and thereby be adopted by every state likely with revisions therewith to accord with particular conditions of each particular state. Folks that didn't like a particular state's healthcare system could simply vote with their feet and move to another state where they would consider themselves better served.


This is what the founders envisioned and delivered constitutionally, "The Several State Laboratory" to establish free market solutions, preserve freedom and incorporate the best/better ideas.

BTW, every state and local government should have the unconditional right and power to negotiate any and all healthcare insurance policies and drug prices with insurance companies and BIG pharmaceutical companies.

Just sayin!

 

[Irish Exit]

Not relying on the scientific prowess of people who leeched and bled each other.

 

[Bourbon]

Founders? = Healthcare? Really dude?

 

[Old Trapper]

Actually I think the founding principles had it right and it's the only actual constitutional way to go related to healthcare.

The founding principle was and is supposed to still be that the several states would act as a laboratory with the end result being the best, better solution for everything by the trial and error system. That's why amendment 10 to our constitution gives most powers to the states and or the people. The founders determined that government closest to the people would be more responsible by definition, i.e. the state government and or local government as opposed to the remote national government'


Thus, healthcare should be the power and determination of every individual state government, local government and the people of the particular state. Thus. the best healthcare will eventually rise to the top and thereby be adopted by every state likely with revisions therewith to accord with particular conditions of each particular state. Folks that didn't like a particular state's healthcare system could simply vote with their feet and move to another state where they would consider themselves better served.


This is what the founders envisioned and delivered constitutionally, "The Several State Laboratory" to establish free market solutions, preserve freedom and incorporate the best/better ideas.

BTW, every state and local government should have the unconditional right and power to negotiate any and all healthcare insurance policies and drug prices with insurance companies and BIG pharmaceutical companies.

Just sayin!

Just saying, the First Congress, and signed by John Adams, first mandated healthcare for sailors, both government employed, and privately employed, in 1798. It should also be noted that the Repugnant Party has attempted to mandate requirements for State medicaid programs to the detriment of the poor.

If left up to the right wing "conservatives" the only ones that would have health insurance would be the top 10-20% of society. Actually, I think it is pretty close to that now.

And then you need to read up on Benjamin Franklin, and healthcare for the poor:

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...in-franklin-have-to-do-with-obamacare/280735/

It is really a sorry state of affairs when one realizes that this so-called "christian nation" lacks the capacity for compassion that a deist like Franklin had:

"First: What were Franklin’s motivations for supporting the project?

In the Philadelphia Gazette on August 8, 1751, and reprinted in Franklin’s own 40-page account of the founding of the hospital (available online through the U.S. National Library of Medicine), Franklin offered one justification for his support: “This branch of charity seems essential to the true spirit of Christianity, and should be extended to all in general, whether deserving or undeserving, as far as our power reaches.”

 

[LV426]

Actually I think the founding principles had it right and it's the only actual constitutional way to go related to healthcare.

The founding principle was and is supposed to still be that the several states would act as a laboratory with the end result being the best, better solution for everything by the trial and error system. That's why amendment 10 to our constitution gives most powers to the states and or the people. The founders determined that government closest to the people would be more responsible by definition, i.e. the state government and or local government as opposed to the remote national government'


Thus, healthcare should be the power and determination of every individual state government, local government and the people of the particular state. Thus. the best healthcare will eventually rise to the top and thereby be adopted by every state likely with revisions therewith to accord with particular conditions of each particular state. Folks that didn't like a particular state's healthcare system could simply vote with their feet and move to another state where they would consider themselves better served.


This is what the founders envisioned and delivered constitutionally, "The Several State Laboratory" to establish free market solutions, preserve freedom and incorporate the best/better ideas.

BTW, every state and local government should have the unconditional right and power to negotiate any and all healthcare insurance policies and drug prices with insurance companies and BIG pharmaceutical companies.

Just sayin!

Health care is not a state issue for the simple fact that a virus or bacteria doesn't recognize state borders, and people in Texas get the same kind of prostate cancer as people in Michigan.

And going the route of letting state and local governments negotiate for health care puts the bargaining power in the hands of the providers and drug companies, who can play the buyers off each other to increase fees.

 

[LV426]

This is what the founders envisioned and delivered constitutionally, "The Several State Laboratory" to establish free market solutions, preserve freedom and incorporate the best/better ideas.

And in 1776, that might have made sense.

But today, we live in a centralized society and an era of fast travel. You don't treat your illnesses with leeches, so why do you apply 18th-century thinking to 21st-century issues? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Nordberg]

In the preamble "promote the public welfare". The founders recognized that the feds should do things which help the all the people in general. They were not states rightists. They were in the process of forming one nation out of 13 colonies.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Actually I think the founding principles had it right and it's the only actual constitutional way to go related to healthcare.

The founding principle was and is supposed to still be that the several states would act as a laboratory with the end result being the best, better solution for everything by the trial and error system. That's why amendment 10 to our constitution gives most powers to the states and or the people. The founders determined that government closest to the people would be more responsible by definition, i.e. the state government and or local government as opposed to the remote national government'


Thus, healthcare should be the power and determination of every individual state government, local government and the people of the particular state. Thus. the best healthcare will eventually rise to the top and thereby be adopted by every state likely with revisions therewith to accord with particular conditions of each particular state. Folks that didn't like a particular state's healthcare system could simply vote with their feet and move to another state where they would consider themselves better served.


This is what the founders envisioned and delivered constitutionally, "The Several State Laboratory" to establish free market solutions, preserve freedom and incorporate the best/better ideas.

BTW, every state and local government should have the unconditional right and power to negotiate any and all healthcare insurance policies and drug prices with insurance companies and BIG pharmaceutical companies.

Just sayin!

I've used this argument to successfully coverts a liberal friend of mine to agree with me on limited federal government. He's originally from California, we were talking about ObamaCare, and I ax'd him, why would you want to force policies that Californians like on Texans? Aren't they completely different people? Aren't Texans different than folks from California, or Massachusetts, in their beliefs and preferences?

It took him about a year to think it over, but then he told me that yeah, I was right (as usual).

 

[Nordberg]

I've used this argument to successfully coverts a liberal friend of mine to agree with me on limited federal government. He's originally from California, we were talking about ObamaCare, and I ax'd him, why would you want to force policies that Californians like on Texans? Aren't they completely different people? Aren't Texans different than folks from California, or Massachusetts, in their beliefs and preferences?

It took him about a year to think it over, but then he told me that yeah, I was right (as usual).

Both of you are wrong. Americans have the ability to travel and move from state to state. It should not differ by state. I believe cancer in Texas is like cancer in Montana. You are wrong as usual.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Both of you are wrong. Americans have the ability to travel and move from state to state. It should not differ by state. I believe cancer in Texas is like cancer in Montana. You are wrong as usual.

So Texas gun policies should be forced on Californians.

 

[CFM]

Actually I think the founding principles had it right and it's the only actual constitutional way to go related to healthcare.

The founding principle was and is supposed to still be that the several states would act as a laboratory with the end result being the best, better solution for everything by the trial and error system. That's why amendment 10 to our constitution gives most powers to the states and or the people. The founders determined that government closest to the people would be more responsible by definition, i.e. the state government and or local government as opposed to the remote national government'


Thus, healthcare should be the power and determination of every individual state government, local government and the people of the particular state. Thus. the best healthcare will eventually rise to the top and thereby be adopted by every state likely with revisions therewith to accord with particular conditions of each particular state. Folks that didn't like a particular state's healthcare system could simply vote with their feet and move to another state where they would consider themselves better served.


This is what the founders envisioned and delivered constitutionally, "The Several State Laboratory" to establish free market solutions, preserve freedom and incorporate the best/better ideas.

BTW, every state and local government should have the unconditional right and power to negotiate any and all healthcare insurance policies and drug prices with insurance companies and BIG pharmaceutical companies.

Just sayin!

What the Constitution says, then doesn't include, supports your statement.

Leftists have a tendency to want to equate Obamacare on the federal level with Romneycare done on the State level. While, without getting into the details of either plan, they primarily have the same concept in mind, the latter is supported as legitimate by the Constitution while the former is not. Don't take that as support for the concept of government run healthcare as it is not. However, whether I agree with the concept I support a State choosing to do such a thing as long as it's solely confined to that State and it doesn't violate any Article, Section, or Clause of the Constitution. I can support a State's Constitutional authority to do such a thing without supporting what is actually being done.

 

[CFM]

Founders? = Healthcare? Really dude?

It's quite clear the founders didn't think things related to healthcare should be done on the federal level.

 

[Nordberg]

So Texas gun policies should be forced on Californians.

Nope, we should have universal healthcare so no matter where you go, you are covered exactly the same. Perhaps California gun laws should be absolutely, crudely and viciously forced on Texans. Or, maybe those are not the same thing.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Nope, we should have universal healthcare so no matter where you go, you are covered exactly the same. Perhaps California gun laws should be absolutely, crudely and viciously forced on Texans. Or, maybe those are not the same thing.

Who made you the decider of choice? Either you want all laws of every state forced upon other states, or you don't.

 

[CFM]

Just saying, the First Congress, and signed by John Adams, first mandated healthcare for sailors, both government employed, and privately employed, in 1798. It should also be noted that the Repugnant Party has attempted to mandate requirements for State medicaid programs to the detriment of the poor.

If left up to the right wing "conservatives" the only ones that would have health insurance would be the top 10-20% of society. Actually, I think it is pretty close to that now.

And then you need to read up on Benjamin Franklin, and healthcare for the poor:

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...in-franklin-have-to-do-with-obamacare/280735/

It is really a sorry state of affairs when one realizes that this so-called "christian nation" lacks the capacity for compassion that a deist like Franklin had:

"First: What were Franklin’s motivations for supporting the project?

In the Philadelphia Gazette on August 8, 1751, and reprinted in Franklin’s own 40-page account of the founding of the hospital (available online through the U.S. National Library of Medicine), Franklin offered one justification for his support: “This branch of charity seems essential to the true spirit of Christianity, and should be extended to all in general, whether deserving or undeserving, as far as our power reaches.”

There you go thinking you can claim compassion by supporting the spending of someone else's money.

I have a suggestion. If you think someone without coverage/care should have it, write a check or STFU. If you think BF believed that to be the case, I suggest you dig him up and get the money from him or STFU.

 

[CFM]

Health care is not a state issue for the simple fact that a virus or bacteria doesn't recognize state borders, and people in Texas get the same kind of prostate cancer as people in Michigan.

And going the route of letting state and local governments negotiate for health care puts the bargaining power in the hands of the providers and drug companies, who can play the buyers off each other to increase fees.

It's a State issue because the Constitution you hate created it as a State issue.

 

[CFM]

And in 1776, that might have made sense.

But today, we live in a centralized society and an era of fast travel. You don't treat your illnesses with leeches, so why do you apply 18th-century thinking to 21st-century issues? Does that make sense to you?

Those same founders gave a method to amend what they wrote if you didn't like that things were still being done the way they were in 1787.

Interesting how your argument centers around you not liking the way it's done.

 

[LV426]

It's a State issue because the Constitution you hate created it as a State issue.

LOL!

No, it's not a state issue and you can't explain how the Constitution says it is.

A virus doesn't give a shit if you're in Texas or Maine. Diabetes is the same in New Hampshire as it is in California.

Health care is a national issue because cancer doesn't recognize state borders.

 

[CFM]

In the preamble "promote the public welfare". The founders recognized that the feds should do things which help the all the people in general. They were not states rightists. They were in the process of forming one nation out of 13 colonies.

I'm not real sure how you claiming compassion by wanting to spend someone else's money is related to the public welfare.

 

[LV426]

Those same founders gave a method to amend what they wrote if you didn't like that things were still being done the way they were in 1787.

So the Constitution is not sacrosanct, then.

Which means your weirdo interpretation of it isn't the baseline either.

In fact, Medicare's entire existence destroys your argument about health care being a state issue.

Do people in Seattle get a different kind of flu than people in Miami?

Interesting how your argument centers around you not liking the way it's done.

You're the one whining about how it's done. You laughably say health care is a state issue while ignoring the federal Medicare program.

Once again, this becomes about an accommodation of your fragility. You need to have your shitty argument accommodated because you think you're entitled to make it. Well, entitlements are earned and you've done abso-fucking-lutely nothing to earn an accommodation.