Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why can't we legislate an state level opt-out for S.S., medicade, and this healthcare program? People in states that do want these programs can elect to have them but people in states that don't want to participate in them can opt-out.
From my latest Social Security statement of last summer, through 2008 I've paid an estimated $107,247 in Social Securities taxes and another $25,838 in taxes for Medicare. Additionally, my employers have matched that amount of dough and placed it into the system. Thus I'm not all that comfortable with any opt-out proposal that's on the basis of state. I would favor an opt-out choice by individual.
Who is going to pay for your Social Security when you start to draw on it? That $214,000 will be gone in seven to ten years. If people "opt out" ther will be nothing for you
Murph - I didn't say it was acceptable. I said it SUCKS. And the previous level of health insurance regulation wasn't enough to protect subscribers from abuses. Hence the need for reform.
Why can't we legislate an state level opt-out for S.S., medicade, and this healthcare program? People in states that do want these programs can elect to have them but people in states that don't want to participate in them can opt-out.
Opt out and then not pay and later move to a state that has not opted out and go on the draw?
There is NO ENUMERATED POWER for Congress to manage the healthcare needs of American citizens.
Sure there is
- Congress is empowered to regulate comerce and Insurance companies are comerce
- Congress is empowered to act to benefit the General Welfare of its citizens
Bullshit. The regulation of commerce among the Several States was designed to allow free trade among them and disallow one state from putting tariffs on another. We didn't ALL just fall off the turnip truck. Congress has been ABUSING this clause for many years now to the point where Nancy Pelosi believes that her power to regulate healthcare is "essentially unlimited"
Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to Do Everything|Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Further, we've already been back and forth about the General Welfare Clause. It hasn't been used in YEARS and the only way Barack Obama is going to get it to stand is if he coerces the Supreme Court like FDR did in his court-packing scheme to get Social Security through. Personally, I don't think that in the age of instant information, he'll have nearly as much luck.
In fact, he'll be lucky if he doesn't end up with SS and Medicare/Medicaid being overturned.
From my latest Social Security statement of last summer, through 2008 I've paid an estimated $107,247 in Social Securities taxes and another $25,838 in taxes for Medicare. Additionally, my employers have matched that amount of dough and placed it into the system. Thus I'm not all that comfortable with any opt-out proposal that's on the basis of state. I would favor an opt-out choice by individual.
The tenth amendment actually gives you an opt-out since all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the state and the PEOPLE.
No it doesn't....it hasn't for over 70 years but in ihopehefails dream world, I guess it does
Well, by all means let the insurance companies, car manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. run rampant without any regulation. Jeez....we have regulation BECAUSE of the past behaviors of for-profit companies.
And by the way, I work for a local government and I see horse-trading going on all the time, on both sides of the aisle. It's the way government is run and it SUCKS.
Republicanism is not against all regulation. We do recognize the need from some regulatory control. But it should be minimal, only enough to get the job done. You don't need a Sherman Tank if a flyswatter will do. Every legislation will invariably present both intended and UN-intended consequences. Less is more.
And to your point about "horse-trading", here's some unsolicited advice... if you're not sickened by the lack of integrity in what amounts to raw bribery with taxpayer dollars... maybe it's time to do a little soul-searching. Just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Sure there is
- Congress is empowered to regulate comerce and Insurance companies are comerce
- Congress is empowered to act to benefit the General Welfare of its citizens
Bullshit. The regulation of commerce among the Several States was designed to allow free trade among them and disallow one state from putting tariffs on another. We didn't ALL just fall off the turnip truck. Congress has been ABUSING this clause for many years now to the point where Nancy Pelosi believes that her power to regulate healthcare is "essentially unlimited"
Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to Do Everything|Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Further, we've already been back and forth about the General Welfare Clause. It hasn't been used in YEARS and the only way Barack Obama is going to get it to stand is if he coerces the Supreme Court like FDR did in his court-packing scheme to get Social Security through. Personally, I don't think that in the age of instant information, he'll have nearly as much luck.
In fact, he'll be lucky if he doesn't end up with SS and Medicare/Medicaid being overturned.
Gee Murph...
If you feel so strongly, maybe you should take it up with the courts. Seems they have been ruling against you for over a hundred years. Social Security and Medicare overturned? Hasn't worked in 70 and 40 years respectively. But....you can always dream
Good luck with your lawsuit
Well, by all means let the insurance companies, car manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. run rampant without any regulation. Jeez....we have regulation BECAUSE of the past behaviors of for-profit companies.
And by the way, I work for a local government and I see horse-trading going on all the time, on both sides of the aisle. It's the way government is run and it SUCKS.
Republicanism is not against all regulation. We do recognize the need from some regulatory control. But it should be minimal, only enough to get the job done. You don't need a Sherman Tank if a flyswatter will do. Every legislation will invariably present both intended and UN-intended consequences. Less is more.
And to your point about "horse-trading", here's some unsolicited advice... if you're not sickened by the lack of integrity in what amounts to raw bribery with taxpayer dollars... maybe it's time to do a little soul-searching. Just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Yep, minimal enough that you can bankrupt the middle class and buy their assets for pennies on the dollar.
Yep, minimal enough that you can bankrupt the middle class and buy their assets for pennies on the dollar.
Murph - I didn't say it was acceptable. I said it SUCKS. And the previous level of health insurance regulation wasn't enough to protect subscribers from abuses. Hence the need for reform.
Then live where you stand, Kitty. If it's not okay... then don't support people who engage in it. That's all I'm saying.
We didn't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater on health insurance reform. And what was done, doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't deal with the reality of the costs of medical treatment. It doesn't deal in the economic realities of supply and demand. We needed MORE doctors, more hospitals, more prescription drugs, more insurance choices... more, more, more of everything but government bureaucracy. When supply is plentiful, costs come down.
But that's not what we got. What we got was another 16,500 IRS agents and 159 new bureaucracies.
Check out this article from the Telegraph UK. That's our future. A future where party politicians have maxed out the welfare system and make their cuts behind the backs of citizens so as to keep them in the dark until AFTER they're reelected.
Hospital wards to shut in secret NHS cuts - Telegraph
It is LONG PAST the time when Americans need to lay down their ears and say "No more" to the deceit, to the pandering, to the propagandizing of our elected "representatives". 'Cause they're NOT representing us. That's not who we are.
Bullshit. The regulation of commerce among the Several States was designed to allow free trade among them and disallow one state from putting tariffs on another. We didn't ALL just fall off the turnip truck. Congress has been ABUSING this clause for many years now to the point where Nancy Pelosi believes that her power to regulate healthcare is "essentially unlimited"
Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to Do Everything|Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Further, we've already been back and forth about the General Welfare Clause. It hasn't been used in YEARS and the only way Barack Obama is going to get it to stand is if he coerces the Supreme Court like FDR did in his court-packing scheme to get Social Security through. Personally, I don't think that in the age of instant information, he'll have nearly as much luck.
In fact, he'll be lucky if he doesn't end up with SS and Medicare/Medicaid being overturned.
Gee Murph...
If you feel so strongly, maybe you should take it up with the courts. Seems they have been ruling against you for over a hundred years. Social Security and Medicare overturned? Hasn't worked in 70 and 40 years respectively. But....you can always dream
Good luck with your lawsuit
We know its a longshot with the courts but there is nothing to stop us from putting up politicians who support an opt-out for theses programs.
Why can't I opt out for paying for schools? My kids are grown
Why can't I opt out of Police and Fire protection? I never use them
Why can't I opt out of paying for troops in Iraq? I never supported that war
We live in a society. As part of a society, money is collected and used for the greater good. People elect Mayors, governors, congressmen and presidents to determine what the greater good is.
That is what happened last week
There is no such thing as the greater good. It might sound like a really good religious concept but in reality the total good is equal to sum of all individual goods and that can't be greater than the sum of its parts. It is simple math.
I agree that the bill doesn't solve the basic problem, which is the cost of health care. And I really believe that the for-profit insurance companies are the main reason for increasing costs over the last 30 years.
Doctors have to hire full-time administrative persons to deal with multiple insurance plans, all with different costs and rules. (One of my doctors has two full-time persons for just this purpose.) This cost gets added to the cost of health care. Insurance companies represent another profit layer between us and the doctors, not to mention their administrative costs. Who pays for all of this? We do, in the costs of our premiums.
This bill doesn't address any of that.
What it does address is the needs of the under- and un-insured, which is arguably a more immediate need.
The reimbursement policy comes from an impulse to control costs by controlling prices. This shows the inevitable result of such policies. When price controls get used, they do nothing to reduce actual costs for providers. The drugs cost Walgreens the same amount to buy for Medicaid patients as they do for everyone else. Instead of lowering the actual cost, it pushes Walgreens to either hike prices for everyone else or to remove themselves from the marketplace, causing scarcities in the provider chain. Either Walgreens and Bartell have to make their other customers subsidize their losses, or they have to stop conducting money-losing business.
Hot Air Blog Archive Walgreens says no to new WA Medicaid customers
I agree that the bill doesn't solve the basic problem, which is the cost of health care. And I really believe that the for-profit insurance companies are the main reason for increasing costs over the last 30 years.
Doctors have to hire full-time administrative persons to deal with multiple insurance plans, all with different costs and rules. (One of my doctors has two full-time persons for just this purpose.) This cost gets added to the cost of health care. Insurance companies represent another profit layer between us and the doctors, not to mention their administrative costs. Who pays for all of this? We do, in the costs of our premiums.
This bill doesn't address any of that.
What it does address is the needs of the under- and un-insured, which is arguably a more immediate need.
Not to minimalize the administrative costs, Kitty, but the biggest problems in the cost of care, is the cost of treatment itself. Insurance companies are only averaging about 3-4% in profits. What drives the policies up the most is the cost of state regulatory laws that mandate certain levels of coverage and which make it damn near impossible to trade across state lines. Can you imagine what your car insurance would cost if you were limited to only a handful of options within your own state?
We don't negotiate the costs of treatment like we negotiate the costs of everything else we purchase because there's a third payer involved. And despite what many folks would have you believe, what we're looking at is NOT a free market failure, because we don't have a free market system. Already, the government is approaching the 50% mark in provider coverage for American citizens.
And because the government underpays those plans, prices bump up to cover the losses.
Here's a great example, a little thumbnail sketch that's easier to understand because it reduces the scope:
The reimbursement policy comes from an impulse to control costs by controlling prices. This shows the inevitable result of such policies. When price controls get used, they do nothing to reduce actual costs for providers. The drugs cost Walgreens the same amount to buy for Medicaid patients as they do for everyone else. Instead of lowering the actual cost, it pushes Walgreens to either hike prices for everyone else or to remove themselves from the marketplace, causing scarcities in the provider chain. Either Walgreens and Bartell have to make their other customers subsidize their losses, or they have to stop conducting money-losing business.
Hot Air Blog Archive Walgreens says no to new WA Medicaid customers
There are soooooo many things we can do that will reduce the actual costs of treatment. This plan that has been installed doesn't address the real problems. An army of data entry clerks and computer security specialists is NOT cheaper than pen and ink. And there's no reason why doctors should have to be in the business of insurance claims at all. Why shouldn't the patient deal with his insurance company? Why should young folks, who are in good health, pay two or three hundred dollars a month when their actual medical needs likely won't involve more than two office visits per year at an average about $200 per visit including medication? A simple, cheap, catastrophic policy is all they need.
It's the bureaucracy itself which causes the confusion, expense, and difficulty. Think about the FDA, for example. Why does it take 10-20 years to bring a new medication to market and less than half that time before the ambulance chasers are out filing class action lawsuits on it? Why'd we pay the FDA for all that time if, in the end, the medication wasn't safe? How much less would it cost entrepreneurs, like say, Consumer Reports, to give us an opinion when an opinion was all we were going to get anyway. Particularly if we imagine that Consumer Reports will naturally have competitors hoping to beat them out of the market?
All in all. We don't KNOW what a free market solution looks like, Kitty. We haven't seen one in action in DECADES.
I posted on another thread about the "good old days," when mom and dad paid for things out of pocket and had major medical for catastrophic illnesses. Everything was much more affordable back then.
I agree with everything you said, Murf. Everything's pretty much f-ed up.
Why can't I opt out for paying for schools? My kids are grown
Why can't I opt out of Police and Fire protection? I never use them
Why can't I opt out of paying for troops in Iraq? I never supported that war
We live in a society. As part of a society, money is collected and used for the greater good. People elect Mayors, governors, congressmen and presidents to determine what the greater good is.
That is what happened last week
Why can't I opt out for paying for schools? My kids are grown
Why can't I opt out of Police and Fire protection? I never use them
Why can't I opt out of paying for troops in Iraq? I never supported that war
We live in a society. As part of a society, money is collected and used for the greater good. People elect Mayors, governors, congressmen and presidents to determine what the greater good is.
That is what happened last week
But if I have no kids should I pay the same or more in taxes to support schools than the guy with a gaggle of rug rats. Now I will concede that an educated populace is good for all but shouldn't those who use government education the most pay the most?
If you want to make the education argument more like the health care ask if the government can penalize you via taxes for not going to a private school.
Why should a person who has said gaggle of kids get tax deductions for simply having those kids and the person with no kids who obviously uses less government services has the privilege of paying a higher percentage of his income to the fucking government?
The fire and police protection are a red herring. Comparing health insurance to fire and police departments is not valid.
And the Constitution specifically states that the government can collect taxes to support the defense of the country. How the idiot politicians use the military is not specified.
Why can't I opt out for paying for schools? My kids are grown
Why can't I opt out of Police and Fire protection? I never use them
Why can't I opt out of paying for troops in Iraq? I never supported that war
We live in a society. As part of a society, money is collected and used for the greater good. People elect Mayors, governors, congressmen and presidents to determine what the greater good is.
That is what happened last week
But if I have no kids should I pay the same or more in taxes to support schools than the guy with a gaggle of rug rats. Now I will concede that an educated populace is good for all but shouldn't those who use government education the most pay the most?
If you want to make the education argument more like the health care ask if the government can penalize you via taxes for not going to a private school.
Why should a person who has said gaggle of kids get tax deductions for simply having those kids and the person with no kids who obviously uses less government services has the privilege of paying a higher percentage of his income to the fucking government?
The fire and police protection are a red herring. Comparing health insurance to fire and police departments is not valid.
And the Constitution specifically states that the government can collect taxes to support the defense of the country. How the idiot politicians use the military is not specified.
Right on!
Public school education is SOCIALISM. Why should my kids have to got to the same schools as some impoverished waif? I pay more....my kids should get more.
I pay more for Police and Fire Protection than I get. I NEVER see a police car ride through my neighborhood. Let the people in high crime areas pay for their own police
The point that you missed was why do people with many rug rats pay a lesser portion of their income for government services when they obviously use more government services than one with no kids who just because he has no kids has the privilege of having the government confiscate a larger percentage of his income?
