States are the best place for healthcare!!

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Navy1960, Jun 23, 2009.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 10th Amendment

    Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
    that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
    codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
    to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
    pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
    excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
    further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
    http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

    As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.

    In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

    MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING

    So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?
     
  2. oreo
    Offline

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,481
    Thanks Received:
    1,961
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,165
    I agree 100%. I believe each state should be mandated to fix the health care problems & ever rising costs that Americans face.

    Mitt Romney did it in the state of MASS--by MANDATING that everyone is covered in his state. They did a study in his state & found that over 50% of the unisured in his state made over 70K per year, could have easily afforded it, but chose not to get it. After he mandated coverage--premiums were dramatically lowered for all. Everyone had to pay for their medical insurance. The poor were still covered by Commonwealth health insurance program.

    As your article states:
    In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

    NOW--it would be very interesting to find out how much a MASS citizen pays for coverage--as compared to the national average.

    ANYONE OUT THERE THAT LIVES IN MASS?
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2009
  3. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    There would be nothing wrong with mandating that each state deal with health insurance in this manner. The bottom line is that in order to reduce healthcare costs for everyone, everyone must be covered and must also pay something into the system, regardless who is running that system.
     
  4. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    That I think auditor is the main stopping point here, I do believe that most people would agree that reducing costs in the healthcare industry would be a good thing and having access too affordable healthcare is another good thing. However, where it tends to go off track is who is best at doing that, and as I have indicated, it's my opinion that the states and the people that live in them are better at doing that as well as the private entities in the states. Now what the Fed. can do is provide a path for that to happen. It would seem to me that the best place for me to get healthcare and those better equipped to make healthcare decisions for me are those that live and work where I live and this same principle should apply across the nation.
     
  5. toomuchtime_
    Online

    toomuchtime_ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,588
    Thanks Received:
    712
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Ratings:
    +2,002
    None of the health insurance "reforms" being proposed in Congress would lower health care costs. On the contrary, every one of them would raise health care costs and that increase in costs would be paid for with hirer taxes or larger deficits. When Obama tries to sell his health insurance proposals by saying they will lower health care costs or slow the rate of increase he is clearly lying.
     
  6. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    toomuchtime, I think if issues such as Illegal Immigration healthcare costs are not addressed, and drug costs, along with several other factors. The result of all of this will be exactly what you have said, higher costs, lower quality care, and higher taxes. That is why I have said that its best that the individual states decide for themselves what is best for them. As whats best for Ca. is not whats best for Az.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,758
    Thanks Received:
    3,200
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,220
    When all other arguments fail, this is the GOP's fallback argument.

    Here is the answer. American citizens have the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. LIFE baby!!!

    And our government breaks up monopolies.

    And we already have medicare and social security. Are those unconstitutional too?

    If they are, then you have lost this argument a long time ago.

    Now go vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2009
  8. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,758
    Thanks Received:
    3,200
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,220
    I apologize to Navy for being vulgar to him. He asked me not to and I think he has earned the right to ask for respect. My bad.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    sealy, first of all you have no such rights in the constitution..

    We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    thats in the Declaration of Independence not! the constitution, and medicare , as well as social security were passed as tax measures bascially ..

    AAPS WAS ORGANIZED to maintain the highest ethical integrity of the medical profession, to protect the responsibility, independence, and freedom of patients and doctors, particularly from encroachment upon their liberty by government...It does not seek any subsidy of any kind from the federal government. All we want is to be left alone to exercise our best judgment and skill for the benefit of our patients.

    Mr. Roosevelt knew that the Federal Government did not have Constitutional authority to interfere in social welfare problems and said so quite effectively before becoming President of the United States. The Founders clearly did not intend to grant such authority to the Federal Government, as shown in the Federalist papers and other writings.

    Social Security legislation, including Medicare, violates Constitutional principles. In a speech to the employees of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, on October 23, 1962 (U.S.D.H.E.W. 17, US Govt Printing Office: 1963, O-685-624), Frances Perkins explained how the Social Security Act was used to subvert the Constitution:

    ``Before I was appointed, I had a little conversation with Roosevelt in which I said perhaps he didn't want me to be the Secretary of Labor because if I were, I should want to do this, and this, and this. Among the things I wanted to do was find a way of getting unemployment insurance, old-age insurance and health insurance. I remember he looked so startled, and he said, `Well, do you think it can be done?' I said, `I don't know.' He said, ``Well, there are Constitutional problems aren't there?'

    Medicare

    So yes, it is unconstitutional for the Federal Govt. to provide healthcare to all it's citizens as it violates the 10th Amendment. It's exactly why I said, in order to get healthcare to states that want them, then allow those states to proceed with voting for it on their own.
     
  10. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    apology is accepted sealy and thank you , I understand and admire your passion for the issues and know that you mean well for your country and just the mere fact that you would be here as an advocate for your cause shows that. In this thread you can see that people are no so far apart on issues sometimes as you may think. They may disagree on forms , but in the end, I think that lowering the cost of healthcare is a damn good thing, it's how we get there is whats at issue, I really do believe that in your state for example, a program like the one they have in Mass. would be a good thing and would pass in over whelming numbers. In my state however, as most people I know at least have some form of insurance, the oppisite might be true. see what I mean?
     

Share This Page