Healthcare: There is no good reason why our healthcare dilemma should be political, yet it is...

[usmbguest5318]

​

Say what you will about O-care, Graham-Cassidy, and all the rest of the elements of healthcare in the U.S. The simple fact is that we citizens have allowed to become political what really should not at all be political.

The solution to healthcare should be very simple:

• To health insurers --> Cover everything or don't offer insurance.
• To providers --> Charge prices people can pay or do something else for a living.
• To care recipients --> Let professionals do their jobs and stop looking for ways to find fault when they are doing the best they can to heal your sick ass.

There are some 280M voting age adults in the U.S. and why they have allowed insurance companies to co-opt and control the practice and delivery of healthcare in this country is, frankly, a travesty. If health insurers cannot profitably insure people without all the "strings attached," fine, let them exist the health insurance business. What will happen when they do? Providers will be left with two choices: lower their fees or provide services only to people who can afford the high fees. The latter will mean a lot of health care providers will have to find other forms of employment because there just aren't enough rich folks to sustain the quantity of highly paid medical professionals and medical industry device producers that are currently in existence. Now may sound horrible, but it's really not. The vast majority of those people are multitalented; there are other gainful means of employment they can pursue.

Now why do I say the above? Because it's absurd that we spend so much more than any other nation on Earth and yet our health outcomes aren't any better.

​

 

[Anathema]

Under the US Constitution we recognize health care as a PRIVATE issue, not a Right and definitely not a Governmental issue. If you prefer Government healthcare, I suggest moving to Europe.

As for the private insurance issue- Caveat Emptor.

 

[Eloy]

Health care is political because ethical governments spend public money on providing it. For all its size and wealth, the USA is behind European Union countries because capitalist interests control the Federal Government and the politicians prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility and leave it up to the free market and profit motive to do the job.

 

[TNHarley]

Health care is political because ethical governments spend public money on providing it. For all its size and wealth, the USA is behind European Union countries because capitalist interests control the Federal Government and the politicians prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility and leave it up to the free market and profit motive to do the job.

federal government regulating healthcare is also unconstitutional here. The biggest reason why and you fail to mention it

 

[Cellblock2429]

​

Say what you will about O-care, Graham-Cassidy, and all the rest of the elements of healthcare in the U.S. The simple fact is that we citizens have allowed to become political what really should not at all be political.

The solution to healthcare should be very simple:

• To health insurers --> Cover everything or don't offer insurance.
• To providers --> Charge prices people can pay or do something else for a living.
• To care recipients --> Let professionals do their jobs and stop looking for ways to find fault when they are doing the best they can to heal your sick ass.

There are some 280M voting age adults in the U.S. and why they have allowed insurance companies to co-opt and control the practice and delivery of healthcare in this country is, frankly, a travesty. If health insurers cannot profitably insure people without all the "strings attached," fine, let them exist the health insurance business. What will happen when they do? Providers will be left with two choices: lower their fees or provide services only to people who can afford the high fees. The latter will mean a lot of health care providers will have to find other forms of employment because there just aren't enough rich folks to sustain the quantity of highly paid medical professionals and medical industry device producers that are currently in existence. Now may sound horrible, but it's really not. The vast majority of those people are multitalented; there are other gainful means of employment they can pursue.

Now why do I say the above? Because it's absurd that we spend so much more than any other nation on Earth and yet our health outcomes aren't any better.

​

/----/ When I point out that neither Life, Home owners, Liability or Auto insurance is politicized - the Leftrads line up to spit on my shoes. When you politicize health insurance - you can control people's lives.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Health care is political because ethical governments spend public money on providing it. For all its size and wealth, the USA is behind European Union countries because capitalist interests control the Federal Government and the politicians prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility and leave it up to the free market and profit motive to do the job.

federal government regulating healthcare is also unconstitutional here. The biggest reason why and you fail to mention it

What is and is not constitutional in the U.S. is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. And what has the SCOTUS had to say about healthcare regulation?

• The health care law is constitutional - SCOTUSblog
  
• The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English - SCOTUSblog
  
• The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, and Public Health

 

[Eloy]

​

Say what you will about O-care, Graham-Cassidy, and all the rest of the elements of healthcare in the U.S. The simple fact is that we citizens have allowed to become political what really should not at all be political.

The solution to healthcare should be very simple:

• To health insurers --> Cover everything or don't offer insurance.
• To providers --> Charge prices people can pay or do something else for a living.
• To care recipients --> Let professionals do their jobs and stop looking for ways to find fault when they are doing the best they can to heal your sick ass.

There are some 280M voting age adults in the U.S. and why they have allowed insurance companies to co-opt and control the practice and delivery of healthcare in this country is, frankly, a travesty. If health insurers cannot profitably insure people without all the "strings attached," fine, let them exist the health insurance business. What will happen when they do? Providers will be left with two choices: lower their fees or provide services only to people who can afford the high fees. The latter will mean a lot of health care providers will have to find other forms of employment because there just aren't enough rich folks to sustain the quantity of highly paid medical professionals and medical industry device producers that are currently in existence. Now may sound horrible, but it's really not. The vast majority of those people are multitalented; there are other gainful means of employment they can pursue.

Now why do I say the above? Because it's absurd that we spend so much more than any other nation on Earth and yet our health outcomes aren't any better.

​

/----/ When I point out that neither Life, Home owners, Liability or Auto insurance is politicized - the Leftrads line up to spit on my shoes. When you politicize health insurance - you can control people's lives.

Republicans believe that medical insurance corporations should control people's lives instead.

 

[TNHarley]

Health care is political because ethical governments spend public money on providing it. For all its size and wealth, the USA is behind European Union countries because capitalist interests control the Federal Government and the politicians prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility and leave it up to the free market and profit motive to do the job.

federal government regulating healthcare is also unconstitutional here. The biggest reason why and you fail to mention it

What is and is not constitutional in the U.S. is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. And what has the SCOTUS had to say about healthcare regulation?

• The health care law is constitutional - SCOTUSblog
  
• The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English - SCOTUSblog
  
• The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, and Public Health

yea, i dont give a shit what the SCOTUS says. They have been nothing but political activists for generations. All you have to do is read the damn document
BTW, they had to deem it a TAX for it to be constitutional. Kind of an important detail!
Remember big ears words? "this is not a tax"

 

[Mac1958]

Once any issue becomes politicized, it is automatically dumbed down enough to fit on a bumper sticker or protest sign.

So now, we have SEVEN (7) different health care delivery/payment systems in this country, and few of our "leaders" (ha) appear to give a shit.

The new GOP "plan" (ha) does not address that glaring issue.

The answers are out there, they would require compromise by our "leaders" (ha), but we don't want compromise. We'd rather just attack and accuse.
.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If it's a tax then I'm sending all my health care payments to the IRS and the health care facilities can all file for a refund.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[usmbguest5318]

Health care is political because ethical governments spend public money on providing it. For all its size and wealth, the USA is behind European Union countries because capitalist interests control the Federal Government and the politicians prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility and leave it up to the free market and profit motive to do the job.

federal government regulating healthcare is also unconstitutional here. The biggest reason why and you fail to mention it

What is and is not constitutional in the U.S. is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. And what has the SCOTUS had to say about healthcare regulation?

• The health care law is constitutional - SCOTUSblog
  
• The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English - SCOTUSblog
  
• The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, and Public Health

yea, i dont give a shit what the SCOTUS says. They have been nothing but political activists for generations. All you have to do is read the damn document
BTW, they had to deem it a TAX for it to be constitutional. Kind of an important detail!
Remember big ears words? "this is not a tax"

i dont give a shit what the SCOTUS says.

Well, insofar as I have to take your word for that, you are entirely not credible in your remarks about what is and is not constitutional.

United States Constitution, Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.​

 

[Cellblock2429]

​

Say what you will about O-care, Graham-Cassidy, and all the rest of the elements of healthcare in the U.S. The simple fact is that we citizens have allowed to become political what really should not at all be political.

The solution to healthcare should be very simple:

• To health insurers --> Cover everything or don't offer insurance.
• To providers --> Charge prices people can pay or do something else for a living.
• To care recipients --> Let professionals do their jobs and stop looking for ways to find fault when they are doing the best they can to heal your sick ass.

There are some 280M voting age adults in the U.S. and why they have allowed insurance companies to co-opt and control the practice and delivery of healthcare in this country is, frankly, a travesty. If health insurers cannot profitably insure people without all the "strings attached," fine, let them exist the health insurance business. What will happen when they do? Providers will be left with two choices: lower their fees or provide services only to people who can afford the high fees. The latter will mean a lot of health care providers will have to find other forms of employment because there just aren't enough rich folks to sustain the quantity of highly paid medical professionals and medical industry device producers that are currently in existence. Now may sound horrible, but it's really not. The vast majority of those people are multitalented; there are other gainful means of employment they can pursue.

Now why do I say the above? Because it's absurd that we spend so much more than any other nation on Earth and yet our health outcomes aren't any better.

​

/----/ When I point out that neither Life, Home owners, Liability or Auto insurance is politicized - the Leftrads line up to spit on my shoes. When you politicize health insurance - you can control people's lives.

Republicans believe that medical insurance corporations should control people's lives instead.

/----/ Ahhhh the first Strawman argument of the day. BTW, Republicans believe healthcare insurance is just that. Insurance you buy in case you get sick. The degree of coverage depends on what you are willing to pay. Nothing more, nothing less. It's Liberals who believe that the Government should control people's lives.

 

[Eloy]

​

Say what you will about O-care, Graham-Cassidy, and all the rest of the elements of healthcare in the U.S. The simple fact is that we citizens have allowed to become political what really should not at all be political.

The solution to healthcare should be very simple:

• To health insurers --> Cover everything or don't offer insurance.
• To providers --> Charge prices people can pay or do something else for a living.
• To care recipients --> Let professionals do their jobs and stop looking for ways to find fault when they are doing the best they can to heal your sick ass.

There are some 280M voting age adults in the U.S. and why they have allowed insurance companies to co-opt and control the practice and delivery of healthcare in this country is, frankly, a travesty. If health insurers cannot profitably insure people without all the "strings attached," fine, let them exist the health insurance business. What will happen when they do? Providers will be left with two choices: lower their fees or provide services only to people who can afford the high fees. The latter will mean a lot of health care providers will have to find other forms of employment because there just aren't enough rich folks to sustain the quantity of highly paid medical professionals and medical industry device producers that are currently in existence. Now may sound horrible, but it's really not. The vast majority of those people are multitalented; there are other gainful means of employment they can pursue.

Now why do I say the above? Because it's absurd that we spend so much more than any other nation on Earth and yet our health outcomes aren't any better.

​

/----/ When I point out that neither Life, Home owners, Liability or Auto insurance is politicized - the Leftrads line up to spit on my shoes. When you politicize health insurance - you can control people's lives.

Republicans believe that medical insurance corporations should control people's lives instead.

/----/ Ahhhh the first Strawman argument of the day. BTW, Republicans believe healthcare insurance is just that. Insurance you buy in case you get sick. The degree of coverage depends on what you are willing to pay. Nothing more, nothing less. It's Liberals who believe that the Government should control people's lives.

View attachment 150506

Health care in the USA is the most expensive in the world and unaffordable for the working class.

 

[TNHarley]

Health care is political because ethical governments spend public money on providing it. For all its size and wealth, the USA is behind European Union countries because capitalist interests control the Federal Government and the politicians prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility and leave it up to the free market and profit motive to do the job.

federal government regulating healthcare is also unconstitutional here. The biggest reason why and you fail to mention it

What is and is not constitutional in the U.S. is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. And what has the SCOTUS had to say about healthcare regulation?

• The health care law is constitutional - SCOTUSblog
  
• The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English - SCOTUSblog
  
• The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, and Public Health

yea, i dont give a shit what the SCOTUS says. They have been nothing but political activists for generations. All you have to do is read the damn document
BTW, they had to deem it a TAX for it to be constitutional. Kind of an important detail!
Remember big ears words? "this is not a tax"

i dont give a shit what the SCOTUS says.

Well, insofar as I have to take your word for that, you are entirely not credible in your remarks about what is and is not constitutional.

United States Constitution, Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.​

Ignoring they had to deem it a tax again
I know what the COTUS says about the SC. That doesnt refute what i said.

 

[TNHarley]

​

Say what you will about O-care, Graham-Cassidy, and all the rest of the elements of healthcare in the U.S. The simple fact is that we citizens have allowed to become political what really should not at all be political.

The solution to healthcare should be very simple:

• To health insurers --> Cover everything or don't offer insurance.
• To providers --> Charge prices people can pay or do something else for a living.
• To care recipients --> Let professionals do their jobs and stop looking for ways to find fault when they are doing the best they can to heal your sick ass.

There are some 280M voting age adults in the U.S. and why they have allowed insurance companies to co-opt and control the practice and delivery of healthcare in this country is, frankly, a travesty. If health insurers cannot profitably insure people without all the "strings attached," fine, let them exist the health insurance business. What will happen when they do? Providers will be left with two choices: lower their fees or provide services only to people who can afford the high fees. The latter will mean a lot of health care providers will have to find other forms of employment because there just aren't enough rich folks to sustain the quantity of highly paid medical professionals and medical industry device producers that are currently in existence. Now may sound horrible, but it's really not. The vast majority of those people are multitalented; there are other gainful means of employment they can pursue.

Now why do I say the above? Because it's absurd that we spend so much more than any other nation on Earth and yet our health outcomes aren't any better.

​

/----/ When I point out that neither Life, Home owners, Liability or Auto insurance is politicized - the Leftrads line up to spit on my shoes. When you politicize health insurance - you can control people's lives.

Republicans believe that medical insurance corporations should control people's lives instead.

/----/ Ahhhh the first Strawman argument of the day. BTW, Republicans believe healthcare insurance is just that. Insurance you buy in case you get sick. The degree of coverage depends on what you are willing to pay. Nothing more, nothing less. It's Liberals who believe that the Government should control people's lives.

View attachment 150506

Health care in the USA is the most expensive in the world and unaffordable for the working class.

because govt got involved. That is at least a BIG part of it. Ironic, no?

 

[Anathema]

What is and is not constitutional in the U.S. is whatever the SCOTUS says it is.

Wrong. It's dictated by the language of the Constitution. The fact that the Justices of the SCOTUS can't read basic English disgusts me.

 

[Cellblock2429]

​

Say what you will about O-care, Graham-Cassidy, and all the rest of the elements of healthcare in the U.S. The simple fact is that we citizens have allowed to become political what really should not at all be political.

The solution to healthcare should be very simple:

• To health insurers --> Cover everything or don't offer insurance.
• To providers --> Charge prices people can pay or do something else for a living.
• To care recipients --> Let professionals do their jobs and stop looking for ways to find fault when they are doing the best they can to heal your sick ass.

There are some 280M voting age adults in the U.S. and why they have allowed insurance companies to co-opt and control the practice and delivery of healthcare in this country is, frankly, a travesty. If health insurers cannot profitably insure people without all the "strings attached," fine, let them exist the health insurance business. What will happen when they do? Providers will be left with two choices: lower their fees or provide services only to people who can afford the high fees. The latter will mean a lot of health care providers will have to find other forms of employment because there just aren't enough rich folks to sustain the quantity of highly paid medical professionals and medical industry device producers that are currently in existence. Now may sound horrible, but it's really not. The vast majority of those people are multitalented; there are other gainful means of employment they can pursue.

Now why do I say the above? Because it's absurd that we spend so much more than any other nation on Earth and yet our health outcomes aren't any better.

​

/----/ When I point out that neither Life, Home owners, Liability or Auto insurance is politicized - the Leftrads line up to spit on my shoes. When you politicize health insurance - you can control people's lives.

Republicans believe that medical insurance corporations should control people's lives instead.

/----/ Ahhhh the first Strawman argument of the day. BTW, Republicans believe healthcare insurance is just that. Insurance you buy in case you get sick. The degree of coverage depends on what you are willing to pay. Nothing more, nothing less. It's Liberals who believe that the Government should control people's lives.

View attachment 150506

Health care in the USA is the most expensive in the world and unaffordable for the working class.

/----/ True - but you Libtards ignore the major reasons - mainly Tort reform and Gov't interference.

 

[bripat9643]

Health care is political because ethical governments spend public money on providing it. For all its size and wealth, the USA is behind European Union countries because capitalist interests control the Federal Government and the politicians prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility and leave it up to the free market and profit motive to do the job.

federal government regulating healthcare is also unconstitutional here. The biggest reason why and you fail to mention it

What is and is not constitutional in the U.S. is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. And what has the SCOTUS had to say about healthcare regulation?

• The health care law is constitutional - SCOTUSblog
  
• The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English - SCOTUSblog
  
• The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, and Public Health

Wrong. Your belief that the Constitution is whatever the SC says makes it utterly meaningless. Why even have it if that's the case?

 

[bripat9643]

​

Say what you will about O-care, Graham-Cassidy, and all the rest of the elements of healthcare in the U.S. The simple fact is that we citizens have allowed to become political what really should not at all be political.

The solution to healthcare should be very simple:

• To health insurers --> Cover everything or don't offer insurance.
• To providers --> Charge prices people can pay or do something else for a living.
• To care recipients --> Let professionals do their jobs and stop looking for ways to find fault when they are doing the best they can to heal your sick ass.

There are some 280M voting age adults in the U.S. and why they have allowed insurance companies to co-opt and control the practice and delivery of healthcare in this country is, frankly, a travesty. If health insurers cannot profitably insure people without all the "strings attached," fine, let them exist the health insurance business. What will happen when they do? Providers will be left with two choices: lower their fees or provide services only to people who can afford the high fees. The latter will mean a lot of health care providers will have to find other forms of employment because there just aren't enough rich folks to sustain the quantity of highly paid medical professionals and medical industry device producers that are currently in existence. Now may sound horrible, but it's really not. The vast majority of those people are multitalented; there are other gainful means of employment they can pursue.

Now why do I say the above? Because it's absurd that we spend so much more than any other nation on Earth and yet our health outcomes aren't any better.

​

/----/ When I point out that neither Life, Home owners, Liability or Auto insurance is politicized - the Leftrads line up to spit on my shoes. When you politicize health insurance - you can control people's lives.

Republicans believe that medical insurance corporations should control people's lives instead.

No, but they do believe that you're an idiot.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Health care is political because ethical governments spend public money on providing it. For all its size and wealth, the USA is behind European Union countries because capitalist interests control the Federal Government and the politicians prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility and leave it up to the free market and profit motive to do the job.

federal government regulating healthcare is also unconstitutional here. The biggest reason why and you fail to mention it

What is and is not constitutional in the U.S. is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. And what has the SCOTUS had to say about healthcare regulation?

• The health care law is constitutional - SCOTUSblog
  
• The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English - SCOTUSblog
  
• The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, and Public Health

yea, i dont give a shit what the SCOTUS says. They have been nothing but political activists for generations. All you have to do is read the damn document
BTW, they had to deem it a TAX for it to be constitutional. Kind of an important detail!
Remember big ears words? "this is not a tax"

i dont give a shit what the SCOTUS says.

Well, insofar as I have to take your word for that, you are entirely not credible in your remarks about what is and is not constitutional.

United States Constitution, Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.​

Ignoring they had to deem it a tax again
I know what the COTUS says about the SC. That doesnt refute what i said.

I know what the COTUS says about the SC.

Knowing and giving a damn, and the implications of each are different things.

i dont give a shit what the SCOTUS says.

You averred as shown just above, and my response is that your indifference makes you not credible when you remark about what is and is not constitutional.