Is socialized healthcare the answer?

[KittenKoder]

The first is Unconstitutional the second is not. The Constitution grants to the Government the ability, the power and the right to create Military and Government employees and the right to those programs.

That you do not grasp this is telling indeed. That you support the illegal take over of ALL medical related services in this country by our Government is also telling.

Ooookay .... this just proves that you only want to argue so no sense in pointing out how little you know of the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security system.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ooookay .... this just proves that you only want to argue so no sense in pointing out how little you know of the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security system.

I know lots about them, READ the Constitution, YOU seem unaware of the fact those three programs have no authority from said Constitution. The Congress and the Supreme Court are wrong.

The Constitution DOES give power to the Government to hire and care for employees of said Government as well as the authority to create, man and provide for a military.

 

[Care4all]

The first is Unconstitutional the second is not. The Constitution grants to the Government the ability, the power and the right to create Military and Government employees and the right to those programs.

That you do not grasp this is telling indeed. That you support the illegal take over of ALL medical related services in this country by our Government is also telling.

Actually retgysgt,

I was just listening to what you were saying, and responding to it....with inquisitive thoughts that came to mind, IF what you were saying was true....kinda sharp shooting it,

but not for any malicious reason, just to better understand it myself and where you were coming from....merely that, ok? So, if something is "telling", it should be what i just explained.

I am not truly up to date on this and have not read any of the SC rulings that has justified SS, and Medicare, and Medicaid but my gut reading of this is that it would fall under "the Providing General Welfare" dictate in the constitution as one of the duties of Congress, in each of these programs, especially when they were initiated.

As example, when Social Security was initiated, we were in the Great Depression, 25-30% unemployment rates, jobs were limited, vagabonds became rampant....men leaving their families traveling where ever they could get a job, even if it was for a month only, moving from spot to spot....just to hopefully be able to send enough money home to feed their wives and their many children....

(remember, there was no birth control back then, the more kids the better because they needed them to "work" their own farm homestead, so kids were abundant!)

Any way, I had read that because jobs were so limited, (and none of them giving pensions of any sort for their dedicated for decades employees, that is... if they managed to stay in business... is part of the underlying back ground as well), so, our gvt rushed this program of SS through, essentially sending all of the senior citizens out there looking for work as well, HOME...paying them to retire, so that all of the middle aged and younger folks out there, with wives and children to feed, could get hired for the scarce jobs that were out there hiring.

So, basically this could have been overall, to protect and help all of the General welfare, our country on the WHOLE.

Now this is not to say that there wasn't some Political Fiasco being spun around it as well because, we know what politicians are like, now and back then, nothing changes with them....

but overall, putting history behind it, I believe SS could be constitutional, just for the reasons i listed above....

but gysgt, I could be wrong....I'm not set on all of this soooooooooo, don't be treating me like some scumbag because I am trying to debate this thing with YOU!!!

And getting back on topic, I got another History story regarding Medicare for seniors and the underlying background of that which was interesting as well...

I do realize, that there is an argument that this is NOT the general welfare that was spoken of in the Constitution, but please recognize there is also an argument that it is under this general welfare dictate, as well.

ok, now as far as the Military and all government employees being provided for...

1. and what you encompass in that "provided for",

2. as well as it even being constitutional AT ALL to provide for a "Standing army" longer than 2 years at a time....according to the Constitution...

On 1, if you can stretch the constitution's ''providing for the Military and government'' in to covering all of their and their immediate families medical care for the rest of their lives on earth... then CERTAINLY you can accept that providing such for all other tax paying citizens in the united states can be justified by the Constitution as well.

And quite frankly, you can't have one being okay and NOT the other, PERIOD.

In reality, and in my humble opinion....neither are probably constitutional, but as mentioned earlier when i took the other position to argue, it showed that there IS AN Argument for it...

And on number 2, Save it for another Debate/Thread....unless you feel like getting in to it?


Care

 

[editec]

The delusion that the Constitution prevents the government from dealing with the HC issue is just that...a delusion.

Your laymen's interpretation of the Consitution, while interesting, has nothing to do with the law.

And, if the constitution says that we must ignore a problem that is cuasing this nation enormous difficulty, then the Constitution be damned.

Yeah, that's right, I do not think the founding Fathers were the end all and be all of problem solving, and no I do not think the Constitution was writ with a firey finger from the hand of GOD, either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The delusion that the Constitution prevents the government from dealing with the HC issue is just that...a delusion.

Your laymen's interpretation of the Consitution, while interesting, has nothing to do with the law.

All righty, Clarence Darrow. Then how's about you give us the Constitutional expert's version of how the Constitution allows the government to take over the healthcare industry and play Momma for every one of the 300,000,000+ people who live in the United States.

And, if the constitution says that we must ignore a problem that is cuasing this nation enormous difficulty, then the Constitution be damned.

Oh, good. "Fuck the law if it doesn't allow me to do what I want to do." Speaking of delusions . . .

Yeah, that's right, I do not think the founding Fathers were the end all and be all of problem solving, and no I do not think the Constitution was writ with a firey finger from the hand of GOD, either.

It doesn't have to have been writ by the hand of God. It's the law. It exists precisely to protect those of us who are sane from Chicken Little lunatics like you who take a wild hair up your asses about something, run around screaming that the sky is falling - but have absolutely no ability to explain HOW it's falling, or even WHY you THINK it's falling - and want to destroy our lives to prevent whatever frigging crisis du jour you're fudging your drawers about at the moment.

And it's extremely noticeable, by the way, that you STILL have done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that there even IS a problem, much less what it actually is. All you ever do is state unequivocally that it exists, that everyone knows it exists, and just assume we're all going to start from the premise of believing that you have any idea what you're talking about.

So one more time. What is the "correct" percentage of the GDP that a country "should" spend on healthcare? How was that "correct" percentage determined? What kind of healthcare spending, specifically, are you talking about? Gross national spending on all healthcare-related items, federal dollars spent on providing healthcare, money spent by insurance companies for covered expenses, money spent on insurance premiums? Exactly what components are your "doomsday" totals made up of?

Let's have some hard facts before you start expecting us all to stampede for the exits with you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have been over this before, the supposed Welfare clause is NOT a statement granting power to the Government. If it were there would be no need to have then gone on to LIST any powers at all. Since all the Government would need to do is make the nebulous statement " it is for the welfare of the Country, people, what ever".

 

[RodISHI]

2008 BY A STUDENT. The high cost of being poor

2003 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Charging the poor more. Extensive study and charts.

Managed health care for poor saves taxpayer money, report says Pilot program cuts emergency room visits, increases preventive care

Who's uninsured in 2007? It's more than just the poor An extensive article that details peoples lives and why these do not have insurance.


The Uninsured Overwhelm Emergency Rooms

 

[Care4all]

Why should those citizens without health care PAY for a good portion of the health care cost for those that do have health care?

Our collective taxes, go to pay for the health care of all in the army, air force, marines etc, and those at the post office, and every government office and all of the senators and congressmen health care?

Our collective taxes also pays for at least 1/3 of the cost of the health care insurance YOU GET from your employer by giving these businesses a TAX WRITE OFF for it...so even if you have health care from your own employer, it is the TAX PAYER that foots a big chunk of it....and YES, those tax payers that do not have health care insurance offered to them by their employers are still PAYING FOR YOU to have it....

Is this Just? Is this "equality"?

I don't think so.....

if our taxes will not fund health care for everyone that pays taxes, then our taxes should not be used to pay for anyone's health care.... fair is fair, no?

 

[tigerbob]

Why should those citizens without health care PAY for a good portion of the health care cost for those that do have health care?

Our collective taxes, go to pay for the health care of all in the army, air force, marines etc, and those at the post office, and every government office and all of the senators and congressmen health care?

Our collective taxes also pays for at least 1/3 of the cost of the health care insurance YOU GET from your employer by giving these businesses a TAX WRITE OFF for it...so even if you have health care from your own employer, it is the TAX PAYER that foots a big chunk of it....and YES, those tax payers that do not have health care insurance offered to them by their employers are still PAYING FOR YOU to have it....

Is this Just? Is this "equality"?

I don't think so.....

if our taxes will not fund health care for everyone that pays taxes, then our taxes should not be used to pay for anyone's health care.... fair is fair, no?

In general, yes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why should those citizens without health care PAY for a good portion of the health care cost for those that do have health care?

Our collective taxes, go to pay for the health care of all in the army, air force, marines etc, and those at the post office, and every government office and all of the senators and congressmen health care?

Our collective taxes also pays for at least 1/3 of the cost of the health care insurance YOU GET from your employer by giving these businesses a TAX WRITE OFF for it...so even if you have health care from your own employer, it is the TAX PAYER that foots a big chunk of it....and YES, those tax payers that do not have health care insurance offered to them by their employers are still PAYING FOR YOU to have it....

Is this Just? Is this "equality"?

I don't think so.....

if our taxes will not fund health care for everyone that pays taxes, then our taxes should not be used to pay for anyone's health care.... fair is fair, no?

Moronic statement. The Government has the power, the authority and the responsibility to provide for the people they employ, especially the military. Using your logic it is not fair that some people have jobs with the Government while others do not, after all, it is tax payer money and fair is fair, right?

 

[Care4all]

Moronic statement. The Government has the power, the authority and the responsibility to provide for the people they employ, especially the military. Using your logic it is not fair that some people have jobs with the Government while others do not, after all, it is tax payer money and fair is fair, right?

but isn't getting paid for a job you performed and providing for your and your wife's health care for the rest of your life, even when you are not working for them, something different?

And IF it is not something different, then why doesn't EVERY EMPLOYER in America pay for their employee's health care, for their entire lives, since this is just "providing" for them....according to you???

(Please note, i am playing devil's advocate here, but imo, with valid questions and comparisons)

Care

 

[editec]

Cracks me up when we laymen think we can decide what is constitutional.

Taxes? unconstitutional.

Welfare? Unconsitutional.

Bailouts? Unconsitutional.

These learned findings all according to our armchair constitutional scholars.

According to their learned legal interetations of our constitution, the USA must retain a government designed for the late 18th century.

The constitution is a living document, folks.

It was designed to answer questions that are not specifically outlined in its original charter precisely because the FF knew perfectly well they could not cobble together all the laws that this nation might need in the future.

Your so called strict interpretations of it are merely your wish lists of things you'd prefer NOT to see our government involved with.

Your delusional scholarship has been refuted over and over again by the Supreme Court.

Your legal opinions regarding what is or is not constitutional aren't worth the paper they aren't written on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

but isn't getting paid for a job you performed and providing for your and your wife's health care for the rest of your life, even when you are not working for them, something different?

And IF it is not something different, then why doesn't EVERY EMPLOYER in America pay for their employee's health care, for their entire lives, since this is just "providing" for them....according to you???

(Please note, i am playing devil's advocate here, but imo, with valid questions and comparisons)

Care

Ohh so now every employer must do the same? The Government provides benefits it beliefs are necassary for it's work force. Just as other employers do the same. If anyone deserves benefits it sure as hell are people that willingly place their life on the line every day they are employed, that willingly agree to fight and die for their employer, that are disabled in large numbers due to the job conditions long before retirement.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cracks me up when we laymen think we can decide what is constitutional.

Taxes? unconstitutional.

Welfare? Unconsitutional.

Bailouts? Unconsitutional.

These learned findings all according to our armchair constitutional scholars.

According to their learned legal interetations of our constitution, the USA must retain a government designed for the late 18th century.

The constitution is a living document, folks.

It was designed to answer questions that are not specifically outlined in its original charter precisely because the FF knew perfectly well they could not cobble together all the laws that this nation might need in the future.

Your so called strict interpretations of it are merely your wish lists of things you'd prefer NOT to see our government involved with.

Your delusional scholarship has been refuted over and over again by the Supreme Court.

Your legal opinions regarding what is or is not constitutional aren't worth the paper they aren't written on.

It was designed to LIMIT Government and to REQUIRE the Government to seek the peoples approval before gaining or losing any powers. The Constitution is not written in stone, it is amendable. THAT is what is SUPPOSED to happen. Not the Government just creating from whole cloth new powers.

 

[Care4all]

Cracks me up when we laymen think we can decide what is constitutional.

Taxes? unconstitutional.

Welfare? Unconsitutional.

Bailouts? Unconsitutional.

These learned findings all according to our armchair constitutional scholars.

According to their learned legal interetations of our constitution, the USA must retain a government designed for the late 18th century.

The constitution is a living document, folks.

It was designed to answer questions that are not specifically outlined in its original charter precisely because the FF knew perfectly well they could not cobble together all the laws that this nation might need in the future.

Your so called strict interpretations of it are merely your wish lists of things you'd prefer NOT to see our government involved with.

Your delusional scholarship has been refuted over and over again by the Supreme Court.

Your legal opinions regarding what is or is not constitutional aren't worth the paper they aren't written on.

Essentially YES. The Constitution is vague in listing the duties of our government. I mean... they cover the general but not the finite, other than saying that it is the duty of congress to rule their own houses and things like that...

Like to appoint an SC judge, it does say the president picks them, but the person does not get the appointment, without the Advise and Consent of the Senate.

this leaves a GREAT DEAL opened for interpretation.

But the final decision comes from the other part of the Constitution which says that the Senate itself will write its own Rules....

So, in this case, the bottom line is that the Senate rules dictates how the Senate advises and consents of the nominee. It does not mean a vote even has to be taken, it can be filibustered since filibustering is in the Rules of the Senate....

The constitution does NOT SAY a vote must be taken by the Senate, it says consent must be given by the Senate, but if the nominee never gets to the point of a vote on the floor, all WITHIN the Rules of the Senate, then he does not get a vote, he is NOT consented to, in this case...

Is my opinion of how the constitution reads.

HOWEVER, those on the other side on this issue CLAIM that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to not bring these nominees to a vote on the floor by using the filibuster. I disagree on the grounds I wrote above...

I guess what I am trying to say is that the constitution may seem vague, as I mentioned, but it is NOT as vague as you might think....it does have the limited rules and regs the government can put on to us, and it does have the general rules of how our government can be chosen and rule us...but it leaves opened on how our congress, chooses to do such within their rules.

so, it is fixed on its general limits of the Federal government, but it is opened on how the Senate and House determine to Rule themselves, within the Halls of the Senate and the House and all other things really, that those in the Congress decide to do, outside of what they are limited imo.

 

[tigerbob]

.....that are disabled in large numbers due to the job conditions long before retirement.

Well, that certainly includes members of congress.

 

[Care4all]

Ohh so now every employer must do the same? The Government provides benefits it beliefs are necassary for it's work force. Just as other employers do the same. If anyone deserves benefits it sure as hell are people that willingly place their life on the line every day they are employed, that willingly agree to fight and die for their employer, that are disabled in large numbers due to the job conditions long before retirement.

I don't disagree with you, my father served 22 years in the Air Force and then another 20 Years with the FAA, he also served a year in Viet Nam....we moved near every year of our lives due to his job and my mom deserves every penny that is paid for him and her, in health care benefits, imo.

And my husband served as well and is a disabled vet, drawing 30% disability for injuries he got while he served in the military and he gets his veteran benefit of the VA paid for due to such, though he does not use it much because we PAY for a portion of the private health care insurance provided by his employer.

But at the SAME TIME, I do not see it as FAIR that we pay for all government employees health care, all the military's health care, and give boocoos in tax credit or deductions for the employers that provide the health care, and cover near all children's health care and cover all senior citizen's health care, while leaving THE REST, LEFT BEHIND....even though they pay taxes that are used to cover the rest of us?

Care

 

[editec]

We can already see how not having a nationalized system for providing health care is screwing us.

Looks what its done to our Auto industry.

We will solve this problem one way or the other.

We will probably go with a single payer universal health care system that will make the medical establishment even richer without actually helping the people all that much.

Then when market forces breaks the bank because market forces will continue making the cost of HC go up in relation to all other things, we will start thinking about limiting the costs of health care by more fully socializing the system.

That the inevitable path we will take, I think.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We can already see how not having a nationalized system for providing health care is screwing us.

Looks what its done to our Auto industry.

We will solve this problem one way or the other.

We will probably go with a single payer universal health care system that will make the medical establishment even richer without actually helping the people all that much.

Then when market forces breaks the bank because market forces will continue making the cost of HC go up in relation to all other things, we will start thinking about limiting the costs of health care by more fully socializing the system.

That the inevitable path we will take, I think.

Ah, more vague statements of "this is how it is, simply because I say it is, no I can't actually prove it or even explain it, why do you ask?"

Very telling that you have YET to substantiate any of the premises you expect us all to simply base the debate on. The more you talk, the more convinced I become that you KNOW what you're saying is bullshit.

 

[editec]

Ah, more vague statements of "this is how it is, simply because I say it is, no I can't actually prove it or even explain it, why do you ask?"

Yes, speculation about the future is rather hard to prove, isn't it?

Hence my inclusion of such tip off phrase about the fact that I was speculating like ending my speculation with the words: "I think".

Very telling that you have YET to substantiate any of the premises you expect us all to simply base the debate on. The more you talk, the more convinced I become that you KNOW what you're saying is bullshit.

What premises would you like me to substantiate?

The rising cost of medicine in comparison to other things?

Do I really need to prove that to you?

Because that is basically the premise I actually thought was a given.

And the only reason I thought that was a given is because it is so easy to prove.

Do I need to prove to you that the cost of HC (in relation to the GDP) has risen dramtically since 1966?

And if I do prove that to you, will you grovel and apologise for your rude response to my post?