Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That empowerment is inherent in the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8.)The federal government is not empowered via the constitution to hand out any entitlement... it is an abuse of power that was assumed by those craving power within our government... this power was grabbed without amendment to the constitution
You've shown nothing in this entire thread but your opinion and your personal interpretations.I showed already where it is not.. it is simple goddamn English
I'm not a Constitiutional scholar and I don't think you are, either. But one thing I know is many circumstances which exist in contemporary America were beyond the ability of the Framers to anticipate or envision, including the enormous wealth made possible by the Industrial Revolution, the vast rise in population, and all of the peripheral circumstances those two factors would engender.Many people like to stop after the word welfare and not use the entire phrase.. and also neglect to understand why a semi-colon is used to tie to the list of EXACT powers that are granted to congress in article 1 section 8.. then they also forget that if it is not SPECIFICALLY granted (Art 1 Sec 8 was not made to be a catch all) the power is then held by the state and/or the individuals thanks to the 10th amendment.
The fact is the Framers did foresee the need for government to promote the General Welfare of the population. So for this, as with all unspecified provisions in The Document, the principle of Original Intent must be applied. And considering the consequences of ignoring something as critically important as the health needs of millions of citizens who are simply unable to pay for available medical attention, how does one not infer that something so vital to a healthy society would not be included the the concept of General Welfare?
Again, I'm not a Constitutional scholar and I don't think you are, either.
You are not entitled for me to pay your bill.
.
Except you will if I can't. Doctor's can not turn away someone that needs their help thanks to the Hippocratic Oath. If you show up and can't pay for the help you need, a doctor will still take care of you. Later, when I show up can pay my costs will be inflated to cover the Doctor's costs, which will include the lost revenue from you.
This always gets lost in this debate. YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE HEALTH CARE OF THE POOR. That's how things work when the market determines price and the Hippocratic Oath prevents doctors from turning away patients. I'd much rather bring the fact I'm paying for the care of the poor to the front and provide preventative care so they don't show up in the ER quite so often.
Nobody forces him to bill for his services.
The poverty-stricken patient in the Emergency Room cost write-off scenario accounts for only about $50 billion out of the total $2.5 trillion annually spent on health care.
.
Yes, absolutely. If you are ill or in a car accident, and brought to the hospital, you will be taken care of medically and the bill will be sent later to you.
there is no westernized country in the world that would turn you away if you were sick or hurt, that I am aware of.... it would be Barbaric, Inhuman, and the work of Evil if you were not helped.....for any reason.
How many of you right wingers saying it is not a right are claiming to be Christians? SHAME ON YOU....!!!! You are a disgrace to the values of Christianity and what Christ taught.
Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?
It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.
Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?
It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.
Basic healthcare should be available regardless of one's ability to pay, in the same manner that a basic public education is available.
We need doctors. Why no one bothered to care what kind of strain the ACA would put on our lack of doctors, I'm not sure.
Bottom line, we're very short on doctors now, and we need to work to fix it now, before we are in desperate need 10 years from now.
Universal health care should not be thought of as a "right" but rather as a natural component of any advanced society, as natural as police and fire protection, clean drinking water and disposal of garbage. Inasmuch as almost every other advanced nation in the civilized world has some form of universal health care, why is the United States excluded from this extremely important social necessity? This exclusion is suggestive of plutocracy rather than democracy.Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?
It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.
That is the question the corporatist acolytes need to answer.
Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?
It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.
No, but thanks to the Hippocratic Oath, i.e. the reason you can trust your doctor to act in your best interest, doctors are obligated to provide medical care.
I'm on Medicare. My existing primary care physician probably isn't as good as it gets although she is quite competent. But the average waiting time in her clean but cramped outer office is two hours and sometimes more. If I were rich I would wait no more than ten or fifteen minutes in a cozy room with soft couches and art-covered walls. So the notion that universal health care would exclude choice is mistaken. Anyone who can afford better has options.But if basic, bare bones, no frills, wait forever in lines...WITH limitation in care and a cap on how much will be spent on you is offered... the people who are are asking for that should stop complaining they want MORE of what they are already NOT paying for and getting for free.
Further, there is no question that a significant percentage of the present cost of medical care is attributable to wasteful bureaucracy. One example of this is a situation I've lamented about several times in this forum, which is as follows:
I had an infected finger on a Friday evening too late to visit my GP. So I went to an emergency room where I waited three hours to be interviewed by a clerk who filled out a stack of papers, led me to a bed where I was covered with a sheet and waited for another hour to be "seen" by a tired intern who performed a totally unnecessary minor surgical procedure. The bottom line to this tale is my insurance company at the time was billed over five hundred dollars.
I am prone to finger infections. It happened twice when I was in the military. Both times I walked over to Sick Bay where a Navy Medical Corpsman took a look and gave me a little box of penicillin tablets and a penicillin shot. The whole thing took about fifteen minutes. Next day the infection was gone.
The question I have is why are there not aid stations available and staffed with former military medics, retired EMTs, etc., and located in low income neighborhoods? If the medical attention I received in the Marine Corps was good enough for the military I will assume it is good enough for those who can't afford to be pampered.
I would welcome the availability of such aid stations and would make use of them for any minor medical problem, which probably represents more than 90% of all emergency room visits.
That is common sense reasoning.for example... you are NOT going to that million dollar operation that MAY only extend your life for 6 months.
Do systems exist for people or do people exist for systems?
Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?
It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.
As long as our country can afford it, medical care should be available to everyone, not just the wealthy and elite. Currently we have doctors traveling to other countries to provide free medical care for poor people that they won't provide that same care to those here in this country. Kind of sad.
Of course, right now I don't think our country can afford a safety pin, we are so deep in debt.
I'd rather provide education and health care to all than to spend more on defense than the next dozen countries combined...most of whom are our allies.
Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?
It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.
You are not entitled for me to pay your bill.
.
Except you will if I can't. Doctor's can not turn away someone that needs their help thanks to the Hippocratic Oath. If you show up and can't pay for the help you need, a doctor will still take care of you. Later, when I show up can pay my costs will be inflated to cover the Doctor's costs, which will include the lost revenue from you.
This always gets lost in this debate. YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE HEALTH CARE OF THE POOR. That's how things work when the market determines price and the Hippocratic Oath prevents doctors from turning away patients. I'd much rather bring the fact I'm paying for the care of the poor to the front and provide preventative care so they don't show up in the ER quite so often.