Obama was wrong - 14,000 people do not lose Health Insurance every day

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

It says PROMOTE not PROVIDE or INSURE or ESTABLISH or SECURE....Promote .

So under the very passage you qoute it can be argued that the govt can lobby for, advance in importance the issue of, or help bring into being health insurance but you can't claim, by that passage, that the govt is required to provide health care.

 

[johnrocks]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

It says PROMOTE not PROVIDE or INSURE or ESTABLISH or SECURE....Promote .

So under the very passage you qoute it can be argued that the govt can lobby for, advance in importance the issue of, or help bring into being health insurance but you can't claim, by that passage, that the govt is required to provide health care.

And the word "welfare" wasn't defined the same way in the 1700's as it is now.

 

[Navy1960]

further..

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.


This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. Roe V. Wade

So unless all you healthcare advocates are now saying we overturn Roe and there is no such thing under the constitution and the Govt. be it a state or the Feds. have the right to mandate healthcare.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Here comes the character attacks on us now guys.

Presenting logical fact based arguments like we are is a sure way to get us called names in an effort to skirt the truth.

You watch...its coming.

 

[Navy1960]

Experience made the fact known to the people of the United States that they required a national government for national purposes. The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the articles of confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States. For this reason, the people of the United States, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" to themselves and their posterity (Const. Preamble), ordained and established the government of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution, which they adopted as its fundamental law, and made its rule of action.
The government thus established and defined is to some extent a government of the States in their political capacity. It is also, for certain purposes, a government of the people. Its powers are limited in number, but not in degree. Within the scope of its powers, as enumerated and defined, it is supreme and above the States; but beyond, it has no existence. It was erected for special purposes, and endowed with all the powers necessary for its own preservation and the accomplishment of the ends its people had in view. It can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.
The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.


The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE
Slaughterhouse Cases

 

[Oddball]

That statement made me laugh. What about this?



We suddenly don't have these things Soaring?

Wow.......Just wow.

You have a right to peruse it....Not force others to give it to you.

You have a right to life. Without adequate healthcare, many lose that right. It doesn't say you have a right to pursue life; it says you have a right to life. Had advanced healthcare been existent in their time, do you think they would have suggested that society has no obligation at all to the health of its citizens?

You don't have the right to make me pay for the externalities and exigencies of your life.

"Rights", properly defined, cannot impose an obligation by force on someone else to perform.

 

[Angel Heart]

I have one question to these numbers that I have yet to be addressed... How many gain health insurance every day?

 

[mskafka]

Actually, the number of people who lose Health Insurance a day is on average 15,238 a day.

PolitiFact | Obama claims 14,000 lose health insurance every day

Holahan and his co-author, using a baseline of 4.6 percent unemployment in 2007, calculated that 2.6 million people would lose coverage if the unemployment rate climbed to 7 percent; 3.7 million if it went to to 8 percent; 4.8 million at 9 percent; and 5.8 million at 10 percent. The estimates took into account people who lost their jobs but then switched to a spouse’s plan or extended their coverage through COBRA, the federal law that guarantees people who lose their job can still get continued health coverage.

Applying Holahan's calculations to the actual rise in unemployment from November 2008 to June 2009, we came up with 3.2 million people losing health coverage, or an average of 15,238 per day, so it is close to the 14,000 Obama cited.

Sorry Republicans for bringing up your hopes, and dashing them.

Hahaha. So if only 13,999 people don't have insurance....well....that's okay.

 

[mskafka]

COBRA makes a limited kind of sens for those who've made enough to pay for it while unemployed.

Not a clue what percentage of workers losing their jobs pay for COBRA, but I'm betting its a very small percentage of all those who lose their jobs.

Health care saving plans?

Are you serious?

Who the fuck makes enough money to save for that heart attack or major health problem that sooner or later we all experience?

Maybe pne out of a thousand people?

Very few people can pay for homes, cars, and education out-of-pocket either...So what??

Will you please enlighten all of us as to who will finance a triple bypass or cancer treatment?

Don't you know??? The wealthy can. To hell with everyone else. They don't matter!

 

[Oddball]

Very few people can pay for homes, cars, and education out-of-pocket either...So what??

Will you please enlighten all of us as to who will finance a triple bypass or cancer treatment?

Don't you know??? The wealthy can. To hell with everyone else. They don't matter!

Patently ridiculous.

Doctors and hospitals set up cash payment plans all the time, and there are plenty of private and state run programs for the indigent.

Go fish for another red herring.

 

[KittenKoder]

The really odd thing, if 14,000 lose it every day, then they are somehow getting it back or the entire US would be uninsured by now.

 

[DiveCon]

COBRA makes a limited kind of sens for those who've made enough to pay for it while unemployed.

Not a clue what percentage of workers losing their jobs pay for COBRA, but I'm betting its a very small percentage of all those who lose their jobs.

Health care saving plans?

Are you serious?

Who the fuck makes enough money to save for that heart attack or major health problem that sooner or later we all experience?

Maybe pne out of a thousand people?

Very few people can pay for homes, cars, and education out-of-pocket either...So what??

Will you please enlighten all of us as to who will finance a triple bypass or cancer treatment?

do you understand that the type of reforms the dude advocates would have allowed you to carry your health insurance from one state to another?
and not have put you in the situation you are currently in?

 

[DiveCon]

robert, you have left the original premise
not that the program does a valid job, but that it costs more to run than it was projected to

A car costs much more than it was projected to cost fifty years ago. So does a house. So does just about everything in society. Oh, and healthcare? Who would have thought it would ever cost this much? Looks like the private sector has come in way over budget too. What about a college education? What about he cost of elementary education? Damn, everything costs more today than it did twenty or fifty years ago. I just don't understand it.

Yes, I do realize, government creates a great deal of waste in many programs. Many of these could be cleaned up but it would take voters to really have an impact. Having the government run more programs isn't the answer. Making government bigger isn't the answer. But denying that government should set standards that actually promote the general welfare of its citizens is as wrong as wrong can be.

What I hear from too many of you is that we don't even need the government, that the private market will determine everything. Yea, right. And tell me where that has ever worked?

you went off premise the same as robert did

 

[DiveCon]

The really odd thing, if 14,000 lose it every day, then they are somehow getting it back or the entire US would be uninsured by now.

well, considering the number cited in the 1990's was 47 million uninsured, and it is the same today, one would have to conclude that the numbers that lose it daily would be equal to those that gain it

 

[auditor0007]

The really odd thing, if 14,000 lose it every day, then they are somehow getting it back or the entire US would be uninsured by now.

A mathematician you are not. That rate is based on the number of people who have lost their job since the beginning of the economic downturn. But don't fear, as costs continue to escalate, we'll get there, to the point where less than half of Americans are insured. Then you'll get the complete socialist state you want so much.

 

[KittenKoder]

The really odd thing, if 14,000 lose it every day, then they are somehow getting it back or the entire US would be uninsured by now.

A mathematician you are not. That rate is based on the number of people who have lost their job since the beginning of the economic downturn. But don't fear, as costs continue to escalate, we'll get there, to the point where less than half of Americans are insured. Then you'll get the complete socialist state you want so much.

Sorry, but DiveCon understood it a lot better than you did.

 

[auditor0007]

Very few people can pay for homes, cars, and education out-of-pocket either...So what??

Will you please enlighten all of us as to who will finance a triple bypass or cancer treatment?

do you understand that the type of reforms the dude advocates would have allowed you to carry your health insurance from one state to another?
and not have put you in the situation you are currently in?

This may be true, and if Republicans and Conservatives had actually given a shit about the problems we face in healthcare over the last ten years, maybe we wouldn't be in a situation where the Dems feel the need and right to allow government to take over our healthcare. But the fact is that people like me are in a situation where the system has forced us out by discriminating against us because of the inaction of those like you who never address problems until they actually have an effect on you.

Now tell me something; now that I am in this situation, what hope is there for me to ever be insured again? Anything catastrophic happens to me medically, and I will lose everything I may earn the rest of my life. Why do you think so many people are forced into bankruptcy over medical bills?

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....It's all the fault of republicans.....again.

The dems could've introduced legislation to make medical insurance a field of interstate commerce, too...But all thye've done is bitch and scheme to have Big Brother run the whole show.

 

[DiveCon]

Will you please enlighten all of us as to who will finance a triple bypass or cancer treatment?

do you understand that the type of reforms the dude advocates would have allowed you to carry your health insurance from one state to another?
and not have put you in the situation you are currently in?

This may be true, and if Republicans and Conservatives had actually given a shit about the problems we face in healthcare over the last ten years, maybe we wouldn't be in a situation where the Dems feel the need and right to allow government to take over our healthcare. But the fact is that people like me are in a situation where the system has forced us out by discriminating against us because of the inaction of those like you who never address problems until they actually have an effect on you.

Now tell me something; now that I am in this situation, what hope is there for me to ever be insured again? Anything catastrophic happens to me medically, and I will lose everything I may earn the rest of my life. Why do you think so many people are forced into bankruptcy over medical bills?

i do believe that was part of the reforms the GOP was trying to get in 2005
the dems blocked it
but dont worry, the GOP cant block what the dems are doing
not sure you will like what you get

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The really odd thing, if 14,000 lose it every day, then they are somehow getting it back or the entire US would be uninsured by now.

excellent point.