I Agree With The Founders About Healthcare

[Nordberg]

Well friend, actually, as I was referring to "closer" I was referring to the fact that state government and it's state representatives was "CLOSER" to the people of their State relative to STATE laws and regulations and programs and by that very fact more responsible to the people of their particular state FOR BEING ELECTED AND REELECTED IN ELECTIONS IN STATE GOVERNMENT POSITIONS IN STATE GOVERNMENT. Folks know more about what's going on in their state and who doing it. Folks know less about what's going on in Washington and who's doing it.



Because that's not what the federal government does. The feds don't give a flying bleep about the collective of all 50 states. Half or more of the people in all 50 states could be opposed to, let's say, single payer. It wouldn't matter one twit if their Washington representatives wanted single payer, they could pass it and shove it down the people in those states throats. If more than half the people in a particular state was opposed to single payer for that state, they likely wouldn't elect politicians that were for it and they likely wouldn't reelect them if they passed it and had to deal with the taxes and other issues connected to it. Politicians in Washington are much less responsible to the folks of their state because they can hide behind the majority in the Congress and blame everything on them knowing most folks in their state will never check to see how they voted.

Fact is state rights results in the lowest common denominator winning. When a couple states removed their banking laws like usury , all the financial institutions opened branches there. That is why all credit card interest rates went up simultaneously. That is also why the limits on banking fees were eliminated. All industries love it when states are in charge. They can always promise jobs to some governor who will open the corruption flood gates .https://www.forbes.com/sites/claire...-credit-cards-are-from-delaware/#40f56d0d1119

 

[Mason Michaels]

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.

How come Canadians aren't begging for our system?
I have heard that a few Canadians with the money come here bullshit on Fox.
Reality the Canadian masses don't want a thing to do with our broken system.

 

[CFM]

Medicare is Constitutional. It's been around for 53 years.

Do you know the pretzel like justification the Court used to twist itself into upholding it? It's not the argument you use for trying to equate general welfare with healthcare. That means it wasn't decided because of health related reasons in any way, shape, or form.

 

[CFM]

Right, which falls within Congress' powers. And the taxation issue was related to Social Security in the 1938 SCOTUS case. Medicare is an amendment to the Social Security Act.

What that means is the justification had nothing to do with general welfare as you've argued. The reason for which it was upheld invalidates your argument that it centers around health.

What's sad with Obamacare is that the justification to uphold it was exactly what Obama said it wasn't when he was arguing in favor of it. If he is such an honorable person, why didn't he say the Court was wrong in their reasoning?

 

[Nordberg]

I have relatives who are Canadians. I joke about them wanting our healthcare system and they laugh at the absurdity. Tommy Douglas, who created it in Saskatchewan and it was seen as a great idea, is always voted the most popular politician of all time. Canadians laugh at our shitty system.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

If you have a county hospital, and you pay your Real Estate taxes and local sales taxes, you are already paying for someone's healthcare.

I looked at my taxes for just last year, and my local taxes are all broken down for where the money actually goes, and the tax letter indicated that $1800 of my $4100 tax bill for 2017 was for a hospital tax.

You may want to look at yours.

So don't think just because you want to end Obamacare, you won't be paying for someone else's healthcare.

 

[CFM]

Is this a sentence? What are you trying to say here? Paying for health care isn't related to health care? Then why are you so adamantly defending health insurance companies, whose sole function it is to reimburse doctors for care?

Not my fault you can't read.

The two are directly related. We don't have health insurance companies in the true sense of the word. We have heavy government regulated money changers. If we had insurance in the true sense, those companies would be able to deny providing a policy to someone that is a high risk. When regulation says you can't deny someone that has a very good chance of costing you more than you bring in, that's not insurance. If you're a high risk, no one should be required to take on that risk.

When it comes to Medicare, more and more doctors are opting out of taking Medicare patients because the government, not the market, dictates how much that doctor gets reimbursed. As that continues to happen, the best of the best won't be treating people and Medicare patients will have to see what's left.

 

[CFM]

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?

Play semantics if you want, boy. Doesn't change you're jealous of what other people have that you don't and you can't stop whining about it.

Why are so many doctors opting out of Medicare if it's as good of a system as you claim?

 

[LV426]

Do you know the pretzel like justification the Court used to twist itself into upholding it? It's not the argument you use for trying to equate general welfare with healthcare. That means it wasn't decided because of health related reasons in any way, shape, or form.

Has anyone ever challenged Medicare's Constitutionality in court? If so, this whole discussion is moot. How about you do that research and see. That way, if it has been challenged, you can shut the fuck up forever.

 

[LV426]

What that means is the justification had nothing to do with general welfare as you've argued.

It doesn't matter whatever way you want to look at it. Congress has the power to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare. If health care isn't general welfare, what is?

 

[LV426]

The reason for which it was upheld invalidates your argument that it centers around health.

Wait...so...you're saying it's Constitutional.

So why are you saying it isn't?

I think you're just being contrarian.

 

[LV426]

What's sad with Obamacare is that the justification to uphold it was exactly what Obama said it wasn't when he was arguing in favor of it. If he is such an honorable person, why didn't he say the Court was wrong in their reasoning?

Obamacare is more popular than your Russia Tax Cut.

 

[CFM]

It doesn't matter whatever way you want to look at it. Congress has the power to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare. If health care isn't general welfare, what is?

A commodity.

Your argument has centered around it being a national issue solely related to HEALTH reasons. When you start arguing taxes, you invalidate your justification about being health related.

 

[Flash]

Fact is state rights results in the lowest common denominator winning. When a couple states removed their banking laws like usury , all the financial institutions opened branches there. That is why all credit card interest rates went up simultaneously. That is also why the limits on banking fees were eliminated. All industries love it when states are in charge. They can always promise jobs to some governor who will open the corruption flood gates .https://www.forbes.com/sites/claire...-credit-cards-are-from-delaware/#40f56d0d1119

Many times industries lobbied for national rather than state standards so they don't have to lobby 50 different states and have different policies in every state. Also, you end up with tougher laws in some states than federal standards (like CA car emission standards)

 

[CFM]

Obamacare is more popular than your Russia Tax Cut.

I'll take good before popular any day. You'll continue to kiss Obama's black ass. Pucker up.

As far as what's more popular, depends on who you ask. It's just an educated guess but I'd say those benefiting from the tax cut would find it more popular and those benefiting from the Obamacare subsidies would find it more popular. If the latter number is higher, all that says is those getting the subsidy don't pay the taxes that fund it.

 

[LV426]

The two are directly related

This should be interesting...can't wait to see how you tie the administration of reimbursement to care that's already happened.

We don't have health insurance companies in the true sense of the word. We have heavy government regulated money changers. If we had insurance in the true sense, those companies would be able to deny providing a policy to someone that is a high risk.

So...let me get this straight...you want people who have genetic conditions they had no part in getting, to pay more for health care than someone who hasn't yet had a pre-existing condition? Why?

When regulation says you can't deny someone that has a very good chance of costing you more than you bring in, that's not insurance. If you're a high risk, no one should be required to take on that risk.

See, the thing is that this is within the context of profits for insurance companies. Because the amount the insurance company pays for your care is directly related to how much profit they make. So it's in their interests to deny you care so they can make more of a profit.

How does an insurance company profiting more materially affect your health care, other than what I stated above? You seem to think that a doctor treats you with lower quality depending on who reimburses them afterward, and that is a crock of shit. The quality of health care your doctor gives you is the same quality regardless of your insurance. Anything less is malpractice.

You don't seem to have any understanding of this subject at all.

 

[LV426]

When it comes to Medicare, more and more doctors are opting out of taking Medicare patients because the government, not the market, dictates how much that doctor gets reimbursed. As that continues to happen, the best of the best won't be treating people and Medicare patients will have to see what's left.

Lies, of course.

 

[LV426]

When it comes to Medicare, more and more doctors are opting out of taking Medicare patients because the government, not the market, dictates how much that doctor gets reimbursed.

So rather than a patient determining this, you think an insurance company should and that leads to better care for you, how?

Don't you want the ability to negotiate for cheaper fees?

You're a terrible negotiator.

 

[CFM]

Wait...so...you're saying it's Constitutional.

So why are you saying it isn't?

I think you're just being contrarian.

I said the justification used claimed it was. Nowhere did I say that it was a correct interpretation.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ruled separate but equal was OK. If that was Constitutional, why did people argue against it and push to change it?

 

[CFM]

[/B]

So rather than a patient determining this, you think an insurance company should and that leads to better care for you, how?

The end user doesn't get to tell the provider how much the provider can charge. You don't go into a grocery store and if something costs $.69 tell the manager he/she can only charge you $.49.