I Agree With The Founders About Healthcare
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
We must always remember we are arguing with morons from the left. Morons are too stupid to comprehend anything other than what they are spoon fed by their corrupt leaders who know they can get their votes by promising them something for nothing.
More reasons why you cannot argue with idiots. 
Robo
Verified User
What does that have to do with the federal government's constitutional authority to "promote the progress sciences, or regulate commerce? This thread is about State created and operated healthcare for the citizens of their particular state. That could take any form from single payer to no plan at all.
On the contrary! Each state can and should negotiate rates with insurance co's and BIG phrma. States could, (if they chose), collectively negotiate with other states. State and local government is closer to "THE PEOPLE" and thereby required to be more responsible to the people of their state and far, far more immune to the big insurance and BIG Phrma lobbyist than the single midnight vote of a federal representative and the truckload of money they have to raise to get elected and reelected.
You say deliberately vague and ambiguous things, that you know cannot be verified, and think that simply saying them means you have a credible argument.
You don't have one. And you're a liar.
No. What you have is a boss who pays you a shit wage, and he tells you that he'll pay for your health care . But what he doesn't tell you is that he could decide tomorrow that he wanted to make more money for himself, and thus will stop paying for your health care. Should he do that, who ends up picking up the tab? YOU DO. Which means you don't pay for your health care now, which means screeching about other people paying for health care entirely hypocritical.
Life is Golden
It's Morning in America Again
promote doesn't mean provide
Yes, I should have used the phrase "employment-at-will" as opposed to "right-to-work". Thank you for the clarification and correction.
I disagree with the idea that any government has any place in any "healthcare". Care for health is the responsibility of individuals. Now that government has got their evil fingers into the care for health; it is now the industry of human life management and since men are flawed with the "be like God" sin complex, the damned fight over being endued by the state with the power to manage human life. It is all horror.
Robo
Verified User
Healthcare in 1776 was every bit as important as it is today. The difference is doctors today can't accept two pigs or a basket of eggs for their services and modern medicine is much, much more advanced and "expensive." Thus there's even more need today for credible and common sense solutions to paying the healthcare bills and providing the best system "FOR THE PEOPLE." I don't think BIG central "one size fits all" government is the solution. Not only does BIG government bleep most everything up, BIG government is "force" by definition and "BIG corruption" by nature. Furthermore, there's no constitutional authority for the feds to be involved in creating health insurance. The Constitution expressly authorizes the states as the power broker for such issues and systems.
No, it's your opinion because Medicare exists.
And the entire premise is false because diseases don't recognize state borders. Diabetes affects people in Oregon the same way it affects people in Georgia.
Unless you think that merely driving across a state border means your cancer is cured.
Mr. Robo, state goverments are as big and evil and stupid as federal government.
It's so funny watching Conservatives discover the power of single payer entities.
Tell me something, why would a state want to collectively pool together with another state to negotiate? And why not just have all 50 states collectively negotiate together for rates? You realize this argument you're making is an argument in favor of single payer, right?
Jesus Christ, what a fucking idiot.
Apparently, you've never heard of television and the internet, which brings national problems directly to the individual. So the concept that state and local control is better because it's physicalyl closer proximity to voters is a crock. I can be physically close to someone across the country via Skype. So this argument is garbage.
So before, you said that states could collectively pool together to negotiate. Why would a state do that? Could it be because that would give more bargaining power to the state? So what would be the ultimately impact on the bargaining power if all 50 states collectively pooled together to negotiate? You realize that is what single payer is, right?
Robo
Verified User
The "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution is NOT a blank check for the feds to do whatever they want. If it were, the total Constitution would be wasted paper and ink except for the general welfare clause. Research Jefferson and Madison's definitions on the general welfare. They made that same argument. The general welfare clause is simply a redundant explanation and defining of the authorities and powers of the Congress as "enumerated" by the Constitution.
The only reason it's expensive is because of the profit motive. And the profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursement to your provider doesn't materially affect how your health care is delivered.
Robo
Verified User
Any insurance policy worth its premiums is "coverage wherever you're at." Don't you think? Your argument is absurd in my humble opinion!
There we have it. The typical left wing pussy that cries like a little bitch when someone has a differing opinion. Typical. It's why your ass will never amount to anything.