I Agree With The Founders About Healthcare

[Old Trapper]

The problem is NOT cutting welfare entitlements commensurate to the tax cuts.

Now that makes no sense. Please clarify. It is your party that cut the tax liability, and now ants to pay for it by cutting benefits to the poor, disabled, and elderly.

 

[Old Trapper]

You will understand after you die.

So will you. Not now, but then you will.

 

[Boris The Animal]

Now that makes no sense. Please clarify. It is your party that cut the tax liability, and now ants to pay for it by cutting benefits to the poor, disabled, and elderly.

Because they are unconstitutional and unnecessary.

 

[Robo]

I have news for you, proportionately speaking, there's less fraud in Medicare than in private insurance. That's a fact. It's also a fact that overhead for CMS is just 1% of the budget, whereas for an insurer like Aetna, it's 17%.

Here's the budget for CMS, notice how administrative costs are 1% of the budget.
Here's the shareholder statement from Aetna, notice how administrative costs are 17% of the budget?

So in what world is 17% less than 1%?

Secondly, in a single payer system there wouldn't be lobbyists. There would be no need because the single payer has all the bargaining power and is accountable to taxpayers. Insurance companies are not accountable to you.

And finally, there is no argument to be made that the profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursements does anything to improve or enhance the care delivered to you, before that care is paid.

All we're talking about doing is changing who reimburses your doctor for treatment after your care. It's a part of the process you're not involved with, like, at all. And your doctor doesn't treat you better or worse depending on who reimburses them. And if they do, that's malpractice.

Again, If you're supposing that I'm in any way attempting to defend America's medical insurance business and or America's healthcare system as we know it today, you're barking up the wrong tree. As I've said America's healthcare system sucks. I'm arguing though that it sucks precisely because the feds are and have been unconstitutionally meddling in it. I'm 82 years old and that's old enough to remember when America's healthcare system, (a free market system) was an effective, workable and affordable system that covered virtually everybody.

 

[Robo]

How does the profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursment to your provider after you receive treatment materially affect the treatment you received?

The profit motive assures a generous supply of doctors, medical machinery innovation and innovative drugs and if it weren't for the FDA and it's political BIG Phrma. racketeering it would also guarantee greater competition in pharmaceuticals and thereby lower drug prices.

 

[Robo]

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

So your charge is that state government is more corrupt than the federal government, do I have that right?

 

[Robo]

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.

Simple! If it weren't for our "FEDERAL" corrupted healthcare system, more Canadians would be coming here for care. I do believe if you surf the web you can find some truths about the Canadian system you might be surprised about, like there's a debate going on in Canada about privatizing at least part of their single payer system, to relieve the waiting periods and improve choice and possibly get control over cost to the government and thereby control taxation. Countries like Germany and France have partially privatized systems.

 

[Robo]

You do not however agree with a majority of your fellow citizens. You know that, right? No?

I submit that the vast majority of my fellow citizens haven't researched healthcare as I have nor have they studied the Constitution as I have. A majority of Germans supported Adolph Hitler. A majority of the Jewish crowd chanted "Crucify him." Majorities of humanoids are often uninformed and sometimes uninformed mobs.

 

[Robo]

To the left, general welfare means "if I don't want to earn it, someone I think has more than they need should be forced to pay for it". What they propose is nothing more than claiming that the poorer you are, the more rights you have to someone else's money.

If healthcare is a inalienable right, then every human has an inalienable right to the sweat and toil of every health provider. The concept is communistic.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Simple! If it weren't for our "FEDERAL" corrupted healthcare system, more Canadians would be coming here for care. I do believe if you surf the web you can find some truths about the Canadian system you might be surprised about, like there's a debate going on in Canada about privatizing at least part of their single payer system, to relieve the waiting periods and improve choice and possibly get control over cost to the government and thereby control taxation. Countries like Germany and France have partially privatized systems.

Name one country who wants to change to our broken system?

 

[Mason Michaels]

I submit that the vast majority of my fellow citizens haven't researched healthcare as I have nor have they studied the Constitution as I have. A majority of Germans supported Adolph Hitler. A majority of the Jewish crowd chanted "Crucify him." Majorities of humanoids are often uninformed and sometimes uninformed mobs.

Like Trump supporters

 

[Robo]

Oh come on, you can do better than that, tell us all who the founders really were:

“[A social division exists] between the rich and the poor, the laborious and the idle, the learned and the ignorant. … Nothing, but force, and power and strength can restrain [the latter].” —John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Fweedumb.

John Adams and Alexander Hamilton thought and wanted America's new government to import a British Prince to become King of America. Neither of them had the intellect or vision for a constitutional republic like Madison and Jefferson.

Having said that, now I'll ask you to debunk what Madison and Jefferson said about the general welfare clause. And while you're at it tell us what part of the constitution cannot be trumped/overridden by the general welfare clause and if your answer is none, explain of what value the constitution is if it's really reduced to a single clause.

 

[Robo]

Fuck your constitution, it allowed slavery and genocide.

Thank you for proving your hatred for America's founding principles!

 

[Robo]

They did? So why did they include a clause in the US Constitution giving the Federal Government the specific authority to regulate interstate commerce?

The commerce clause is the authority for the feds to regulate trade and taxes between the states and foreign nations and the American government.

Oh and who were these monolithic founding fathers who were in absolute agreement about everything written in the Constitution who all had the exact same intent? Can you point them all out to me?

Who said they ALL agreed? Your argument is immaterial. Madison and Jefferson simply crushed the fantasy the general welfare clause gave the Congress a power to do whatever they considered in the general welfare simply because such a notion would nullify the rest of the Constitution and as they noted reduce it to a single clause.

 

[Robo]

They're dead. And have been for hundreds of years.

Just curious, do you apply 18th century thinking to the rest of your life,

YES! Whenever it makes more sense than the crap some call "thinking" today. Most of what Jefferson And Madison had to say is irrefutable.

 

[Robo]

General Welfare clause.

Eat shit.

“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]

No, you mean you don't think the Constitution recognizes it. And we've come to find out your opinion carries absolutely no legal weight on the message board. In fact, your entire position in this debate hinges on other people accepting your premise that "General welfare" doesn't include health care. And the argument you make is tenuous as best and for some reason goes to the 10th Amendment which is superseded by the General Welfare clause.

There is nothing that says the Conservative position on "General welfare" is correct. And you trot out half quotes from dead men from 230 years ago, while ignoring all the founder arguments to the opposite position. So you're only presenting half of half of the argument and framing it as the whole argument.

Bitch move.

“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]

General Welfare clause is in Article 1, you phony.

“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)

You have a severe problem friend, You can't supply anything in the Constitution that can't be "superseded" by the general welfare clause. and thereby your absurd argument does exactly what Madison and Jefferson said it would do if it was as you submit, "REDUCE THE CONSTITUTION TO A SINGLE CLAUSE" and thereby make it worth less than toilet paper.

 

[Robo]

It is called "Medical Tourism". Look it up.

how about a link?

 

[Robo]

Clearly, neither do the people or the states. Your "insurance" industry is a yuge part of the orchestrated problem.

The difference is several states doing their own thing creates a laboratory of innovation. That's the founding principal and the greatest likelihood the best system will be discovered. Two corrupt parties and a legion of lobbyist in Washington arguing and bribing each other in the cesspool will only add to the catastrophe wee call healthcare.