First, let me say that I appreciate your response Navy!
-Health care costs are too expensive FOR EVERYONE, that is not considered wealthy, not just for those with preexisting conditions.
-Coops taking on all the people with preexisting conditions while leaving the healthy for only the Insurance companies or the majority of the healthy for only insurance companies to benefit, will NOT help those people with preexisting conditions because the price of the coop policy of this sort will be TOO COSTLY.
-If only those with preexisting medical conditions get thrown on to a government run program like medicare, it will be too costly as well.
Why shouldn't ALL insurance companies cover those with medical conditions at a reasonable price? Why have the insurance companies, been able to throw out the very people that need the insurance in the first place just so they can be MORE profitable? The Insurance companies did this with every senior out there...denied them coverage, because the seniors actually needed medical care, after their 20-40 years of paying insurance and being healthy and making the insurance companies rich.
The insurance companies FORCED congress to institute our social program of MEDICARE and they would be doing the same thing now to push off those who need coverage because of preexisting conditions off on to the gvt or the coop....WHICH IS what is going to bankrupt our government.
it is my understanding that coops or gvt plans are needed in states with rural areas that do not have multiple insurer coverage, where there is no competition to keep prices down?
How are these coops going to be instantaneously formed? Do the patients really know enough to form and run and negotiate with hospitals and doctors, a Coop for themselves?
I agree that more has to be done, to allow insurance companies to operate from state to state, but i am not certain how the federal government should do this without usurping the Rights of the States?
-Why do states only allow certain insurance companies to operate in their states? What is it that they felt was important to their citizens that certain insurance companies REFUSE to do, which makes them inelligible to operate in the State?
What protections would the State citizens be giving up in order to give the federal government power in this kind of regulating?
The insurance companies have said they can reduce the cost of ALL health care policies by about 20-25% if they cover ALL people with insurance, that do not have insurance now. I believe this is part of the deal with Obama?
This means, they have used their actuaries and calculated the risks with costs and they figured that another 20-30 million people that are fairly healthy (because the elderly are being covered by medicare and for the most part, many younger, healthier people are uninsured) with an insurance policy would still make them more profitable than they are now, even with reducing the price of everyones health care insurance policy by 20-25%. This is the guts of Obama's plan....get everyone covered, then there will not be the huge emergency room costs put back on to the government or put on to the Hospital who puts the costs on to the health care insurance policies of those that have them....at least that is the simple explanation...
I agree, and this has been a problem for a while....and it is not that the patents protect the drug companies for a while, which they should, but the problem is that these companies file for EXTENSIONS of their patents and extend their patends for 5 to 20 years through these extensions as well. This is something that could have been addressed the past decade but the drug companies are huge campaign donors to congressmen.
Yes, some sort of tort reform needs to take place, but the true root of the problem are the handful of doctors that have committed multiple medical malpractices while continuing to be licenced by the AMA, which brings the price of all medical malpractice insurance on to all the good doctors to an unreasonable cost. Get rid of the BAD, REPEATEDLY DEFICIENT, doctors who continually commit malpractice and isurance prices would go down as well.
A small investment of our government in paying for a portion of the medical school costs for more students to become Doctors would do a great deal for reducing medical costs as well.... we do not have enough doctors to service the baby boomers that are coming in to their sickly years let alone the rest of society so this is giving a SHORTAGE on SUPPLY compared to the demand...thus higher prices for everything.
there is a cost to covering the health care of illegals, but we will not deny them this health care if they are sick...because that would be INHUMANE...so the problem with the illegal's health care costs can only be solved by not having illegals.
I agree. I think there is a rush for a solution to one of the biggest problems we have....
I don't like it one bit...it's too bad that the republicans and dems don't take their time and really think and analyze this through to the end results, with actuaries for the numbers and those with insight on the possible scenarios that could come from every change they want to make.
What EXACTLY do you suggest doing about the healthcare of illegals? Not provide any? How is having them pay for the gvt option or for a health insurance policy, going to hurt things?
If the INSURANCE companies had not lobbied congress to develop medicare so that they did not have to cover people when they got old and sick is where the problem began, and now we are stuck with it.....if the gvt were carrying the healthcare of ALL citizens then it would have a larger pool of HEALTHY and sick and this would make things cheaper for the government and all of us overall...but NONE of you want this and want the insurance companies to take their cut of profits....while putting the sole burden of the UNhealthy on to the gvt, us tax payers...
I don't want to see the quality of our health care reduced which is happening as we speak as well, and there certainly are ways to keep this from happening, if the time and will, are put in to it, like increasing the number of doctors and nurses so that we are not so short, in a time where we really need them.
Well what the heck has TAKEN SO LONG to do these reforms if they are so necessary Navy, where the heck were the Republicans the 12 years they were in control of congress? Where the heck were these INSURANCE companies the past decade or two, why couldn't they reform themselves with the public's interest in mind? Huh?
Why would it steer us to an insurance policy instead of it being like a Medicare plan?
Then we don't have a constitutional RIGHT to medicare or Social security or a permanent standing Army either, according to our constitution right?
I think people should have the ability to buy a Health Insurance policy they can AFFORD, but this simply is not the case....and more and more people, million or more each year, get their health insurance policy cancelled because their employers can no longer afford to pay their portion of these outrageous costs for it....
by the way, did you support Senator Kerry's health care proposal? Because you are advocating HIS PLAN....just an fyi for ya!
Care
First, let me say that I appreciate your response Navy!
-Health care costs are too expensive FOR EVERYONE, that is not considered wealthy, not just for those with preexisting conditions.
-Coops taking on all the people with preexisting conditions while leaving the healthy for only the Insurance companies or the majority of the healthy for only insurance companies to benefit, will NOT help those people with preexisting conditions because the price of the coop policy of this sort will be TOO COSTLY.
-If only those with preexisting medical conditions get thrown on to a government run program like medicare, it will be too costly as well.
Why shouldn't ALL insurance companies cover those with medical conditions at a reasonable price? Why have the insurance companies, been able to throw out the very people that need the insurance in the first place just so they can be MORE profitable? The Insurance companies did this with every senior out there...denied them coverage, because the seniors actually needed medical care, after their 20-40 years of paying insurance and being healthy and making the insurance companies rich.
The insurance companies FORCED congress to institute our social program of MEDICARE and they would be doing the same thing now to push off those who need coverage because of preexisting conditions off on to the gvt or the coop....WHICH IS what is going to bankrupt our government.
it is my understanding that coops or gvt plans are needed in states with rural areas that do not have multiple insurer coverage, where there is no competition to keep prices down?
How are these coops going to be instantaneously formed? Do the patients really know enough to form and run and negotiate with hospitals and doctors, a Coop for themselves?
I agree that more has to be done, to allow insurance companies to operate from state to state, but i am not certain how the federal government should do this without usurping the Rights of the States?
-Why do states only allow certain insurance companies to operate in their states? What is it that they felt was important to their citizens that certain insurance companies REFUSE to do, which makes them inelligible to operate in the State?
What protections would the State citizens be giving up in order to give the federal government power in this kind of regulating?
The insurance companies have said they can reduce the cost of ALL health care policies by about 20-25% if they cover ALL people with insurance, that do not have insurance now. I believe this is part of the deal with Obama?
This means, they have used their actuaries and calculated the risks with costs and they figured that another 20-30 million people that are fairly healthy (because the elderly are being covered by medicare and for the most part, many younger, healthier people are uninsured) with an insurance policy would still make them more profitable than they are now, even with reducing the price of everyones health care insurance policy by 20-25%. This is the guts of Obama's plan....get everyone covered, then there will not be the huge emergency room costs put back on to the government or put on to the Hospital who puts the costs on to the health care insurance policies of those that have them....at least that is the simple explanation...
I agree, and this has been a problem for a while....and it is not that the patents protect the drug companies for a while, which they should, but the problem is that these companies file for EXTENSIONS of their patents and extend their patends for 5 to 20 years through these extensions as well. This is something that could have been addressed the past decade but the drug companies are huge campaign donors to congressmen.
Yes, some sort of tort reform needs to take place, but the true root of the problem are the handful of doctors that have committed multiple medical malpractices while continuing to be licenced by the AMA, which brings the price of all medical malpractice insurance on to all the good doctors to an unreasonable cost. Get rid of the BAD, REPEATEDLY DEFICIENT, doctors who continually commit malpractice and isurance prices would go down as well.
A small investment of our government in paying for a portion of the medical school costs for more students to become Doctors would do a great deal for reducing medical costs as well.... we do not have enough doctors to service the baby boomers that are coming in to their sickly years let alone the rest of society so this is giving a SHORTAGE on SUPPLY compared to the demand...thus higher prices for everything.
there is a cost to covering the health care of illegals, but we will not deny them this health care if they are sick...because that would be INHUMANE...so the problem with the illegal's health care costs can only be solved by not having illegals.
I agree. I think there is a rush for a solution to one of the biggest problems we have....
I don't like it one bit...it's too bad that the republicans and dems don't take their time and really think and analyze this through to the end results, with actuaries for the numbers and those with insight on the possible scenarios that could come from every change they want to make.
What EXACTLY do you suggest doing about the healthcare of illegals? Not provide any? How is having them pay for the gvt option or for a health insurance policy, going to hurt things?
If the INSURANCE companies had not lobbied congress to develop medicare so that they did not have to cover people when they got old and sick is where the problem began, and now we are stuck with it.....if the gvt were carrying the healthcare of ALL citizens then it would have a larger pool of HEALTHY and sick and this would make things cheaper for the government and all of us overall...but NONE of you want this and want the insurance companies to take their cut of profits....while putting the sole burden of the UNhealthy on to the gvt, us tax payers...
I don't want to see the quality of our health care reduced which is happening as we speak as well, and there certainly are ways to keep this from happening, if the time and will, are put in to it, like increasing the number of doctors and nurses so that we are not so short, in a time where we really need them.
Well what the heck has TAKEN SO LONG to do these reforms if they are so necessary Navy, where the heck were the Republicans the 12 years they were in control of congress? Where the heck were these INSURANCE companies the past decade or two, why couldn't they reform themselves with the public's interest in mind? Huh?
Why would it steer us to an insurance policy instead of it being like a Medicare plan?
Then we don't have a constitutional RIGHT to medicare or Social security or a permanent standing Army either, according to our constitution right?
I think people should have the ability to buy a Health Insurance policy they can AFFORD, but this simply is not the case....and more and more people, million or more each year, get their health insurance policy cancelled because their employers can no longer afford to pay their portion of these outrageous costs for it....
by the way, did you support Senator Kerry's health care proposal? Because you are advocating HIS PLAN....just an fyi for ya!
Care
Where to start with all that. *laughs* well first let's start from the bottom, no you don't have a "right" in the constitution to healthcare and in fact social security and medicare are not constitutional. What makes them able to skirt by it is the fact that they are seen as forms of "taxes" to promote the general welfare. You know and I know Care that an Army is expressed in the constitution and healthcare is not. In fact the only people entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners.
The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the “reserve clause” of the Constitution powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government (Social Security Online – History, [online] SSA; available from Social Security Online)
Prison officials are obligated under the Eighth Amendment to provide prisoners with adequate medical care.1 This principle applies regardless of whether the medical care is provided by governmental employees or by private medical staff under contract with the government.2
In order to prevail on a constitutional claim of inadequate medical care, prisoners must show that prison officials treated them with "deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file690_25743.pdf
As for your assertions regarding co-ops, leading to Higher costs only for those with pre-existing conditions , that is pre-supposing that everyone in the co-op has a pre-existing condition which would be completely untrue. In fact co-ops would be no different than a company that has 1000 employee's in it for example, in that the base of people in the co-op is made up of many different people and the risk is spread out among those in the co-op. Along with proper oversight and regulation costs can be brought down and these co-ops would florish , in fact I suggest in rural area's especially it would be a boom for some welcome change for others. You wish to promote competetion, imagine the sheer volume of people in rural communities forming these co-ops and the numberof companies comming to meet that demand. I assure you when there is a demand there are companies that will come to meet it. That's competetion, and thats what leads to lower costs.
Group Health has been heralded as an example of health care reform in Washington, D.C., and with the national media in recent weeks.
The sudden attention is attributed to an acclaimed article by Dr. Atul Gawande in The New Yorker magazine about McAllen, Texas, as one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. The attention grew as U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad mentioned the Group Health example when proposing cooperatives as a solution to health care reform.
Group Health in National Spotlight
As for immigration reform, of course I'm not suggesting that you just abandon people on the streets. However, you cannot ignore the fact that illegal immgrants cost this nation 80 Billion dollars a year in healthcare and that is a contributing factor to the high costs of health. What I was pointing out is this, if there are no reforms in place. for example, providing those individuals with a path to citizenship and those that are criminals deport them and secure the border. Over the 10 year cost cycle of the healthcare program your talking close to 800 billion dollars in costs that will offset any savings you make in any public plan. So unless these reforms are not in place, putting in a public plan, be it single payer , or whatever you wish to call it will simply not lead to lower cost, it will lead to less care.
As for the 12 years of republicans not doing anything, I'm not going to engage in a partisan debate over who's party didn't do what for the Americna people only because in this debate it serves no useful purpose. I do find it somewhat amusing though that democrats seem to forget they have been in charge of congress since the 06 election cycle so I could ask you the same thing. In fact, over the year's I could ask that question of dems. many many times.
You do understand Care that when a Govt. enters into the business of providing healthcare insurance for an entire nation and will lead to several things. One is that employers will simply drop healthcare coverage for their employee's unless the Govt. makes it mandatory then you run into that constitutional issue, and send those employee's to the Govt. plan as well as many private insurers simply being unable to compete and many people just moving to a Govt. plan. In fact the Lewin Group hardly a bastion of conservative thinking estimates that 120 million people will eventually switch to a Govt. backed plan. In that environment many will have no choice but to switch , so the very idea , "you can keep your own insurance is a farce".
While I have made it very clear I do think that the whole cost structure of medical needs to be reformed, I do think that it can be done in such a way as to make insurance available for those that need it and want it and without stepping on the liberties of the American people. The fact is Care no matter how badly you or someone else may wish cheap affordable insurance , there are millions of people that do not wish to have insurance and do not wish to be forced into paying for it for your desires. While that may sound cruel to some, in fact this nation is not a nation where anyones desires are any more important than those of their fellow citizens or shouldn't be. It's the main reason why I said that you and people that wish to have a "single payer" or "universal coverage" should really consider a constitutional amendment and bury this thing once and for all.
Another thing I have suggested in other threads is to send it to a state level and let the citizens of those states decide whats best for them and let the Federal Govt. provide incentives through tax rebates whatever to those states that reduce the costs of healthcare through programs. Take Mass for example, they have Universal healthcare and it's the law in that state. I think an issue here too is people seem to think that the Federal Govt. will not tell them what they can and cannot do when it comes to their medical decisions between them and their Doctor and that is the reason why many are so ready to dump insurance companies for the warm and waiting arms of the Federal Govt. What they don't realize is that they will end up right back in the hands of an insurance company because the Federal Govt. is not capable of running an inurance business. You think the Federal Govt. actually runs medicare? If you do your sadly mistaken.
As for John Kerry's Plan I have not taken the time to read it Care and if it is as you say and my suggestions are like his, then I say well sounds like John Kerry is a smart man when it comes to healthcare then..
First, let me say that I appreciate your response Navy!
-Health care costs are too expensive FOR EVERYONE, that is not considered wealthy, not just for those with preexisting conditions.
-Coops taking on all the people with preexisting conditions while leaving the healthy for only the Insurance companies or the majority of the healthy for only insurance companies to benefit, will NOT help those people with preexisting conditions because the price of the coop policy of this sort will be TOO COSTLY.
-If only those with preexisting medical conditions get thrown on to a government run program like medicare, it will be too costly as well.
Why shouldn't ALL insurance companies cover those with medical conditions at a reasonable price? Why have the insurance companies, been able to throw out the very people that need the insurance in the first place just so they can be MORE profitable? The Insurance companies did this with every senior out there...denied them coverage, because the seniors actually needed medical care, after their 20-40 years of paying insurance and being healthy and making the insurance companies rich.
The insurance companies FORCED congress to institute our social program of MEDICARE and they would be doing the same thing now to push off those who need coverage because of preexisting conditions off on to the gvt or the coop....WHICH IS what is going to bankrupt our government.
it is my understanding that coops or gvt plans are needed in states with rural areas that do not have multiple insurer coverage, where there is no competition to keep prices down?
How are these coops going to be instantaneously formed? Do the patients really know enough to form and run and negotiate with hospitals and doctors, a Coop for themselves?
I agree that more has to be done, to allow insurance companies to operate from state to state, but i am not certain how the federal government should do this without usurping the Rights of the States?
-Why do states only allow certain insurance companies to operate in their states? What is it that they felt was important to their citizens that certain insurance companies REFUSE to do, which makes them inelligible to operate in the State?
What protections would the State citizens be giving up in order to give the federal government power in this kind of regulating?
The insurance companies have said they can reduce the cost of ALL health care policies by about 20-25% if they cover ALL people with insurance, that do not have insurance now. I believe this is part of the deal with Obama?
This means, they have used their actuaries and calculated the risks with costs and they figured that another 20-30 million people that are fairly healthy (because the elderly are being covered by medicare and for the most part, many younger, healthier people are uninsured) with an insurance policy would still make them more profitable than they are now, even with reducing the price of everyones health care insurance policy by 20-25%. This is the guts of Obama's plan....get everyone covered, then there will not be the huge emergency room costs put back on to the government or put on to the Hospital who puts the costs on to the health care insurance policies of those that have them....at least that is the simple explanation...
I agree, and this has been a problem for a while....and it is not that the patents protect the drug companies for a while, which they should, but the problem is that these companies file for EXTENSIONS of their patents and extend their patends for 5 to 20 years through these extensions as well. This is something that could have been addressed the past decade but the drug companies are huge campaign donors to congressmen.
Yes, some sort of tort reform needs to take place, but the true root of the problem are the handful of doctors that have committed multiple medical malpractices while continuing to be licenced by the AMA, which brings the price of all medical malpractice insurance on to all the good doctors to an unreasonable cost. Get rid of the BAD, REPEATEDLY DEFICIENT, doctors who continually commit malpractice and isurance prices would go down as well.
A small investment of our government in paying for a portion of the medical school costs for more students to become Doctors would do a great deal for reducing medical costs as well.... we do not have enough doctors to service the baby boomers that are coming in to their sickly years let alone the rest of society so this is giving a SHORTAGE on SUPPLY compared to the demand...thus higher prices for everything.
there is a cost to covering the health care of illegals, but we will not deny them this health care if they are sick...because that would be INHUMANE...so the problem with the illegal's health care costs can only be solved by not having illegals.
I agree. I think there is a rush for a solution to one of the biggest problems we have....
I don't like it one bit...it's too bad that the republicans and dems don't take their time and really think and analyze this through to the end results, with actuaries for the numbers and those with insight on the possible scenarios that could come from every change they want to make.
What EXACTLY do you suggest doing about the healthcare of illegals? Not provide any? How is having them pay for the gvt option or for a health insurance policy, going to hurt things?
If the INSURANCE companies had not lobbied congress to develop medicare so that they did not have to cover people when they got old and sick is where the problem began, and now we are stuck with it.....if the gvt were carrying the healthcare of ALL citizens then it would have a larger pool of HEALTHY and sick and this would make things cheaper for the government and all of us overall...but NONE of you want this and want the insurance companies to take their cut of profits....while putting the sole burden of the UNhealthy on to the gvt, us tax payers...
I don't want to see the quality of our health care reduced which is happening as we speak as well, and there certainly are ways to keep this from happening, if the time and will, are put in to it, like increasing the number of doctors and nurses so that we are not so short, in a time where we really need them.
Well what the heck has TAKEN SO LONG to do these reforms if they are so necessary Navy, where the heck were the Republicans the 12 years they were in control of congress? Where the heck were these INSURANCE companies the past decade or two, why couldn't they reform themselves with the public's interest in mind? Huh?
Why would it steer us to an insurance policy instead of it being like a Medicare plan?
Then we don't have a constitutional RIGHT to medicare or Social security or a permanent standing Army either, according to our constitution right?
I think people should have the ability to buy a Health Insurance policy they can AFFORD, but this simply is not the case....and more and more people, million or more each year, get their health insurance policy cancelled because their employers can no longer afford to pay their portion of these outrageous costs for it....
by the way, did you support Senator Kerry's health care proposal? Because you are advocating HIS PLAN....just an fyi for ya!
Care
Where to start with all that. *laughs* well first let's start from the bottom, no you don't have a "right" in the constitution to healthcare and in fact social security and medicare are not constitutional. What makes them able to skirt by it is the fact that they are seen as forms of "taxes" to promote the general welfare. You know and I know Care that an Army is expressed in the constitution and healthcare is not. In fact the only people entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners.
The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the “reserve clause” of the Constitution powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government (Social Security Online – History, [online] SSA; available from Social Security Online)
Prison officials are obligated under the Eighth Amendment to provide prisoners with adequate medical care.1 This principle applies regardless of whether the medical care is provided by governmental employees or by private medical staff under contract with the government.2
In order to prevail on a constitutional claim of inadequate medical care, prisoners must show that prison officials treated them with "deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file690_25743.pdf
As for your assertions regarding co-ops, leading to Higher costs only for those with pre-existing conditions , that is pre-supposing that everyone in the co-op has a pre-existing condition which would be completely untrue. In fact co-ops would be no different than a company that has 1000 employee's in it for example, in that the base of people in the co-op is made up of many different people and the risk is spread out among those in the co-op. Along with proper oversight and regulation costs can be brought down and these co-ops would florish , in fact I suggest in rural area's especially it would be a boom for some welcome change for others. You wish to promote competetion, imagine the sheer volume of people in rural communities forming these co-ops and the numberof companies comming to meet that demand. I assure you when there is a demand there are companies that will come to meet it. That's competetion, and thats what leads to lower costs.
Group Health has been heralded as an example of health care reform in Washington, D.C., and with the national media in recent weeks.
The sudden attention is attributed to an acclaimed article by Dr. Atul Gawande in The New Yorker magazine about McAllen, Texas, as one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. The attention grew as U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad mentioned the Group Health example when proposing cooperatives as a solution to health care reform.
Group Health in National Spotlight
As for immigration reform, of course I'm not suggesting that you just abandon people on the streets. However, you cannot ignore the fact that illegal immgrants cost this nation 80 Billion dollars a year in healthcare and that is a contributing factor to the high costs of health. What I was pointing out is this, if there are no reforms in place. for example, providing those individuals with a path to citizenship and those that are criminals deport them and secure the border. Over the 10 year cost cycle of the healthcare program your talking close to 800 billion dollars in costs that will offset any savings you make in any public plan. So unless these reforms are not in place, putting in a public plan, be it single payer , or whatever you wish to call it will simply not lead to lower cost, it will lead to less care.
As for the 12 years of republicans not doing anything, I'm not going to engage in a partisan debate over who's party didn't do what for the Americna people only because in this debate it serves no useful purpose. I do find it somewhat amusing though that democrats seem to forget they have been in charge of congress since the 06 election cycle so I could ask you the same thing. In fact, over the year's I could ask that question of dems. many many times.
You do understand Care that when a Govt. enters into the business of providing healthcare insurance for an entire nation and will lead to several things. One is that employers will simply drop healthcare coverage for their employee's unless the Govt. makes it mandatory then you run into that constitutional issue, and send those employee's to the Govt. plan as well as many private insurers simply being unable to compete and many people just moving to a Govt. plan. In fact the Lewin Group hardly a bastion of conservative thinking estimates that 120 million people will eventually switch to a Govt. backed plan. In that environment many will have no choice but to switch , so the very idea , "you can keep your own insurance is a farce".
While I have made it very clear I do think that the whole cost structure of medical needs to be reformed, I do think that it can be done in such a way as to make insurance available for those that need it and want it and without stepping on the liberties of the American people. The fact is Care no matter how badly you or someone else may wish cheap affordable insurance , there are millions of people that do not wish to have insurance and do not wish to be forced into paying for it for your desires. While that may sound cruel to some, in fact this nation is not a nation where anyones desires are any more important than those of their fellow citizens or shouldn't be. It's the main reason why I said that you and people that wish to have a "single payer" or "universal coverage" should really consider a constitutional amendment and bury this thing once and for all.
Another thing I have suggested in other threads is to send it to a state level and let the citizens of those states decide whats best for them and let the Federal Govt. provide incentives through tax rebates whatever to those states that reduce the costs of healthcare through programs. Take Mass for example, they have Universal healthcare and it's the law in that state. I think an issue here too is people seem to think that the Federal Govt. will not tell them what they can and cannot do when it comes to their medical decisions between them and their Doctor and that is the reason why many are so ready to dump insurance companies for the warm and waiting arms of the Federal Govt. What they don't realize is that they will end up right back in the hands of an insurance company because the Federal Govt. is not capable of running an inurance business. You think the Federal Govt. actually runs medicare? If you do your sadly mistaken.
As for John Kerry's Plan I have not taken the time to read it Care and if it is as you say and my suggestions are like his, then I say well sounds like John Kerry is a smart man when it comes to healthcare then..
Tis true that I don't have ANY MORE SAY than you do....but everyone does have a say, not only you and those who agree with you, no?
care
navy,
What was the constitutional reasons for prisoners having this right? Would it relate to other citizens as well?
regardless, I am not arguing that there is a 'right' to any of these reforms, guaranteed by the constitution and I see this as a strawman on your part...
revised...
what does the 8th amendment say? need to look it up....
navy,
What was the constitutional reasons for prisoners having this right? Would it relate to other citizens as well?
regardless, I am not arguing that there is a 'right' to any of these reforms, guaranteed by the constitution and I see this as a strawman on your part...
revised...
what does the 8th amendment say? need to look it up....
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
429 U.S. 97
Estelle v. Gamble
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 75-929 Argued: October 5, 1976 --- Decided: November 30, 1976
Respondent state inmate brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioners, the state corrections department medical director (Gray) and two correctional officials, claiming that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment for inadequate treatment of a back injury assertedly sustained while he was engaged in prison work. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals held that the alleged insufficiency of the medical treatment required reinstatement of the complaint.
Held: Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment. Here, however, respondent's claims against Gray do not suggest such indifference, the allegations revealing that Gray and other medical personnel saw respondent on 17 occasions during a 3-month span and treated his injury and other problems. The failure to perform an X-ray or to use additional diagnostic techniques does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, but is, at most, medical malpractice cognizable in the state courts. The question whether respondent has stated a constitutional claim against the other petitioners, the Director of the Department of Corrections and the warden of the prison, was not separately evaluated by the Court of Appeals, and should be considered on remand. Pp. 101-108.
516 F.2d 937, reversed and remanded.
Estelle v. Gamble - Wikisource
It's a valid argument Care, in that you as a citizen do not a specific right to "healthcare" spelled out in the constitution. Those rights not spelled out in the constitution are reserved for the "PEOPLE" or the "STATES" thats you and me and thats in the 10th Amendment. So given that fact, the Federal Govt. is NOT responsible to provide you with that right. Unless, you as a citizen AMEND the constitution for it to say otherwise,.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;
Are you unclear on what that means Care? it means that the money cannot be used for a term longer than than two years. Thus the reason why the DoD has a budget that must be approved by congress each year...
