Republicans can't deal with medical care:

[Teflon Don]

Teflon Don, prior to D-day, families' wealth and contributions to tax revenues were not factors of consideration for determining which individuals would be among the earliest and riskiest waves of troops landing on the beaches. We hope that all contribute what they can for the benefit of our nation.

You're contending a nation which requires both the poor and the wealthy to risk and possibly pay with their lives should deny the benefits of medical technology to those unable to afford them. Dependent upon individuals' medical condition, medical care is more or less a necessity, but it is a necessity of life?
Respectfully, Supposn

Necessity? Maybe

Right? No

With love,

ILA

 

[Gonzomin]

Not a power or authority. The Court does NOT have authority to change or nullify the Constitution.

Not what they do. They interpret the constitution and find the public welfare clause real and operative. The constitution is a blueprint. It does not cover all problem or all contingencies.

 

[Althea]

Into the Night, you're correct, we all currently pay for catastrophic medical expenditures that occur in the USA.

To the extent those catastrophic costs are covered by insurance, they're passed on to those purchasing the insurance which increases prices to consumers, and/or employers, and/or unions, and/or non-profit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
To the extent those price increases don't recover the additional cost, the deficiency remains with the insurers, that are profit or nonprofit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
Who or whatever entities eventually pay those catastrophic costs are taxpayers or government agencies funded by taxpayers. Catastrophic medical costs consequentially reduce governments tax revenues or are direct costs to governments.

It would be to insurers benefit to insist their clients to avail themselves at no additional costs to themselves for reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to their conditions at no cost to the insured patient, or be charged additional increased fees because they're failing to prevent medical and financial risks. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.

The additional fees would be passed on to the government and thus absolving the insurer of any responsibility due to the patients refusing preventive diagnostic and preventive services.

Respectfully, Supposn

You just described ACA...the plan Republicans want to kill, and replace with insurance that covers nothing.

 

[Althea]

Healthcare is not a right. Nor should it be

It is a scarce finite resource and responds to the law of supply and demand like all other resources.

That people think others should pay for their healthcare does not mitigate this important truth

Says the guy who more than likely, gets insurance from his employer

 

[Gonzomin]

The concept of any insurance is you get a lot of people involved and few will need it. The ones who get in car accidents are financed by those who do not. Those who get in accidents or get ill are financed by those who do not. Insurance requires many people paying premiums and not using it. Insurance companies extract profits from that pool of money. Eliminate the profit motive and insurance is cheaper and less adversarial.It becomes much cheaper. The concept does not change.

 

[Into the Night]

Ask them to show you (fill in the blank) in the Constitution and they'll use "welfare clause". It's interesting how that one phrase can be used to spell so many different words.

Heh. All those words mean the same thing: justify the destruction of the Constitution. Justify the fascism by oligarchy.

 

[Into the Night]

Then why do most people get their insurance at their employer's expense? Which is then extended to the taxpayer to fund?

An employer volunteers to pay for it. It is not required. At least...that's how it used to be. It was not extended to taxpayers.

 

[Into the Night]

The overwhelming issue with any Republican plan, is that they don't care about actual healthcare. They fought to kill ACA not because it didn't work. (of course, it never worked as planned as Congressional Republicans de funded key aspects of the program in year 2) They fought to de fund it because they didn't feel that billionaires should be paying a 3.8% cap gains tax on anything over $250k/year in investment income.

They never did, and never will care about healthcare. Why do you think they pushed the killing of ACA before they came up with their giant tax giveaway to billionaires/corporations?

Bigotry and false equivalencies.

ACA is not healthcare. It is nationalized healthcare insurance. Implementing it resulted in the loss of healthcare insurance for millions and higher costs for everyone else. It is collapsing, and good riddance.

I myself care about healthcare. I produce instruments that make new treatments possible, and make old treatments less expensive. I am improving healthcare. Unthankful gits like you benefit from them.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night, you're correct, we all currently pay for catastrophic medical expenditures that occur in the USA.

To the extent those catastrophic costs are covered by insurance, they're passed on to those purchasing the insurance which increases prices to consumers, and/or employers, and/or unions, and/or non-profit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
To the extent those price increases don't recover the additional cost, the deficiency remains with the insurers, that are profit or nonprofit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
Who or whatever entities eventually pay those catastrophic costs are taxpayers or government agencies funded by taxpayers. Catastrophic medical costs consequentially reduce governments tax revenues or are direct costs to governments.

It would be to insurers benefit to insist their clients avail themselves at no additional costs to themselves, for reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to their conditions. If their clients do not comply, they may be charged additional increased fees because they're failing to prevent medical and financial risks. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.

The additional fees would be passed on to the government and thus absolve the insurers of any responsibility due in such cases to the patients refusing preventive diagnostic and preventive services.

Respectfully, Supposn

You don't get it. Government money isn't free money. YOU pay for it, one way or the other. Government is inefficiency. You not only pay for the insurance anyway, but you pay MORE for it because you are lining the pockets of hundreds if not thousands of bureaucrats that have no profit motive to do it.

Price controls never work. ACA is an example of such price controls. It is failing. It is collapsing. It forced millions of people off of healthcare insurance. They couldn't pay for it anymore. The rest wound up paying much higher prices for the same insurance.

EVERY benefit costs something. Zero deductible costs something. You can't just ignore that cost.

 

[Into the Night]

But it does not. Only Into The Night imply that courts make law. No one else does; SCOTUS interprets the Constitution.

They do not have the authority to. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

Scalia's material is clear enough that Into The Night's argument is a fallacy of the stone, fallacy of argument, and a fallacy fallacy that the Welfare Clause is not a power of authority.

Ignoring your word salad and buzzwords, the welfare clause is NOT a power or authority. It is a directive for the powers and authority the federal government is given. You cannot use the welfare clause to destroy the rest of the Constitution. Scalia does not have authority to change the constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Teflon Don, prior to D-day, families' wealth and contributions to tax revenues were not factors of consideration for determining which individuals would be among the earliest and riskiest waves of troops landing on the beaches. We hope that all contribute what they can for the benefit of our nation.

You're contending a nation which requires both the poor and the wealthy to risk and possibly pay with their lives should deny the benefits of medical technology to those unable to afford them. Dependent upon individuals' medical condition, medical care is more or less a necessity, but it is a necessity of life?
Respectfully, Supposn

You have to the right to obtain health care. No one is stopping you. You do NOT have the right to make someone else pay for it.

 

[Into the Night]

CFM, Within the U.S. Constitution’s preamble:
“promote the general welfare”.

Within article 1, section 8:
“The Congress shall have power to … provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; … To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; … fix the standard of weights and measures; … To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof”.

The Federal courts, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court have thus far upheld this against opposition to federal acts, laws, or regulations such as Social Security retirement, minimum wage rate, mandated individual purchasing of medical insurance, and child labor laws.

Respectfully, Supposn

You are simply using the welfare clause to justify ignoring the rest of the constitution. It is not a power or authority. You are using it to justify fascism by oligarchy.

 

[Into the Night]

Not what they do. They interpret the constitution and find the public welfare clause real and operative. The constitution is a blueprint. It does not cover all problem or all contingencies.

The Supreme Court does NOT have the authority to interpret the Constitution either. See Article III.

 

[Into the Night]

You just described ACA...the plan Republicans want to kill, and replace with insurance that covers nothing.

They do not want to replace it with any insurance.

Insurance is something best handled by private companies. If they fail to cover anything, why would anyone buy it? Since people DO buy it, they must be covering something, aren't they?

 

[jimmymccready]

Into The Night is a weak-kneed libertarian who lives by fallacy.

His kind will never govern America. God will not permit it.

 

[Teflon Don]

Says the guy who more than likely, gets insurance from his employer

You are right. I do. I am self employed. I pay my own.

 

[Teflon Don]

The concept of any insurance is you get a lot of people involved and few will need it. The ones who get in car accidents are financed by those who do not. Those who get in accidents or get ill are financed by those who do not. Insurance requires many people paying premiums and not using it. Insurance companies extract profits from that pool of money. Eliminate the profit motive and insurance is cheaper and less adversarial.It becomes much cheaper. The concept does not change.

That is not the concept of insurance. You don’t understand the concept of insurance

 

[Gonzomin]

That is not the concept of insurance. You don’t understand the concept of insurance

Of course, it is. That is why the ACA was pushing hard to get young people to join. They re a demographic which would use it the least. However, even young people can get sick and get in accidents. You can argue it is a good idea to buy it. But overall, they would be paying to help the masses.
Statistics are showing a drop in heart disease in America since the ACA. It helped America become healthier,

 

[Into the Night]

Into The Night is a weak-kneed libertarian

Insult fallacy.

who lives by fallacy.

Redefinition fallacy (logic -> void).

His kind will never govern America. God will not permit it.

I don't govern America. Neither do you. The United States is governed by constitutions.

 

[Teflon Don]

Of course, it is. That is why the ACA was pushing hard to get young people to join. They re a demographic which would use it the least. However, even young people can get sick and get in accidents. You can argue it is a good idea to buy it. But overall, they would be paying to help the masses.
Statistics are showing a drop in heart disease in America since the ACA. It helped America become healthier,

You don’t understand the true concept of insurance

Also your last statement can’t be proven.