I Agree With The Founders About Healthcare
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Nope. Not what I'm saying at all.
Health care is expensive first and foremost because of the profit motive. Specifically, the profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursements to your provider. Tying a profit motive to that does not materially affect how health care is delivered to you. In fact, it's a part of the process you're not involved with at all. It happens after your doctor treats you. So you're concerning yourself with a part of the process that has literally no effect on your health care.
To do that, the capability to do so would have to be there. It simply isn't.
The profit motive is what provides the incentive to get the very best at what is being done.
Medicare's existence proves that those thinking it should be look at the Constitution in a manner and from a standpoint from which it wasn't written. If you look at the justification that was used to uphold it, it didn't center around making sure people had something related to bettering their health and the general welfare but the government's authority to tax. When those deciding it's legitimacy decided, they used something totally unrelated to better health.
In business, when the government dictates that a provider of any service can only charge a certain amount, although that amount would be higher based on the provider's belief of it's value, are you willing to say the provider is going to do anything but the minimum required? If you do, you're an idiot.
When the government dictates that an ER has to provide the minimal amount of care regardless of the ability to pay, do you really think those without coverage are getting more than the minimal amount required by law? If you do, you're an idiot.
I'm still wondering how the federal government has any money to give anyone else being that they provide no service nor produce a good that brings in revenue.
Robo
Verified User
Read amendment 10! that's where it says it's a state's power and nowhere in the Constitution is such a power authorized to the feds.
Lot's of things are "national issues." That doesn't mean the feds have the constitutional authority to create programs concerning them. The feds have the power of "regulating" the commerce of healthcare and provide for healthcare science. Allof that is covered by Article One Section Eight of the Constitution.
When it comes to identifying what you are, it doesn't involve a lot of thought. It's that obvious what you are, boy.
I'd laugh at the look on his face when he got the answer. It would be like laughing at Chuck Todd on the eve of the 2016 election when it was announced Trump won. He looked like a little kid that had just dropped his ice cream cone.
Robo
Verified User
Medicare and Medicaid have no authority in the Constitution to be delivered and operated by the feds, (see amendment 10)
WRONG.
Single payer doesn't dictate how much a provider can charge, it dictates how much of that charge the single payer will reimburse. A doctor is free to over-charge their patients if they want.
But what does that function have to do with how health care is delivered to you. You realize that health care is paid for after you receive your care, right?
I don't know what you mean by "minimal amount". It seems you used a deliberately vague phrase to give yourself room to wiggle within the parameters of your argument, like your kind typically does.
In a single payer system, a provider can charge whatever the hell they want for a procedure. All the single payer does is reimburse the provider up to a certain amount. Whether the provider wants to add additional cost is on the provider, not the single payer. So again, the profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursement does not materially affect the care you receive because that care is paid for after you get it, not before.
The amount your doctor is reimbursed does not affect the quality of care your provider gives you. And if it does, then your provider is violating the Hippocratic Oath and committing malpractice.
Robo
Verified User
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (James Madison)
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
1. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. (Thomas Jefferson)
Robo
Verified User
If that were true, we'd be buying insurance for 5 bucks a person. The fallacy of that thinking is proven by the fact that the cost of insurance is directly attached to the quality. Single payer insurance is cheaper as the left preaches from the rafters. That's why Canadians come to America for critical operations to keep from dying in Canada on a "waiting list." That's why the UK ships their overload of critical operations off to India so they won't die on the UK's waiting list. And though the UK's single payer is cheaper there's a critical shortage of doctors because the government controls the doctor's fees. Also to be noted is the fact that every single payer country has much higher taxation than the United States and the fact that those countries almost to absolution depend on the United States to provide their National Defense for them. they contribute a fraction of their GDP for their national defense and every single one has cumbersome waiting list. If you believe that's the best healthcare then convince the folks to give it a go in your state, or have the national constitution amended to authorize the feds to do it here constitutionally.
Robo
Verified User
Again, I repeat, "ANY INSURANCE WORTH IT'S PREMIUMS, IS COVERAGE ANYWHERE YOU GO." Are you claiming that your auto insurance is worthless after you leave your state? A healthcare policy that won't cover you in another state should be inexpensive, huh? Say about a dollar a person per year?
THINK MAN! We're not talking here about particular diseases, we're talking about "HEALTH INSURANCE."