Best Health Care, Huh?

[Luddly Neddite]

sounds more like a bunch of bull to push some buttons......

We have one like that on this board.

And, I've recently written about another one I know.

Lazy RWs want it given to them. They don't want to work for anything. And they sure as hell don't want to work for an education.

Ever notice that it is immigrants that want to come here and work hard for an education for their children?

While those RWs whose descendents came here several generations ago hate the educated lefty elitists and think a fat pay check should be handed to them.

Yep.

 

[initforme]

The simple question is where is the GOP alternative for people to look at as far as health care? Crickets.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The simple question is where is the GOP alternative for people to look at as far as health care? Crickets.

Its exactly like their plan for illegals, gitmo, Iraq, jobs, infrastructure, education, energy ...

 

[Derideo_Te]

The simple question is where is the GOP alternative for people to look at as far as health care? Crickets.

But that happened when Obama was elected. Just months after the election we had Swine flu!

 

[Listening]

The simple question is where is the GOP alternative for people to look at as far as health care? Crickets.

The simple answer has always been the market.

So....the alternative is to get Obama and the state regulators out of the system (except for a few key points), and allow things to settle out.

The left simply can't take this because it forces people to be good consumers. And because some won't become good consumers (or will just sit down, do nothing, and whine), the rest of us are saddled with them.

But the alternative has always been there and it is a good alternative.

Nobody answered my question about the other ten systems.

I am pretty sure that the other ten are UHC systems (although I know several of those countries have large private components too....you know...something you pay for out of your own pocket).

Comparing them to the U.S. is stupid.

We don't have a homogeneous system. I have fantastic health care and always have had in spite of the fact that there have been times where my budget was very tight.

I would also add that pre-existing conditions (which I am torn on) and the ability to drop somone (which I totally disagree with as I see it as a contract violation....how can they take your money for fifteen years and then drop you.....I've never understood that) were allowed under HEAVY GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Kansas has an Insurance Commissioner (which allowed this happen under Sebelius' watch).

Will someone tell me how we needed Obummercare to get this under control when it was happening all over the place (red and blue) ?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The simple question is where is the GOP alternative for people to look at as far as health care? Crickets.

But that happened when Obama was elected. Just months after the election we had Swine flu!

And, since we had never before had swine flu,

ITS OBAMA'S FAULT!!!

 

[alan1]

more at link

Five ways the American health care system is literally the worst - Vox

Categories like the following:

access
efficiency
equity
healthy lives​

don't measure the quality of healthcare. They measure how socialist it is, or they measure cultural issues that affect health.

The article doesn't explain how the other categories:

effective care
safe care
coordinated care
patient centered care​

are measured. Furthermore, the last two sound like bogus measures that don't really measure the quality of the care.

The only thing that really measures the quality of healthcare: ie, how many people who go into the hospital with a health issue come out with a successful resolution. The United States beats every other country by far in that category - the only one that matters to the patient.

In short, your article is bullshit propaganda.

what it measures is ACCESS. if you can't OBTAIN health care, then it doesn't matter how effective, safe, coordinated or patient-centered the care is.

so yes, i'd choose columbia pres/ny hospital cornell over almost anything in the world if i needed a hospital (or mass general or johns hopkins, etc.) but if you earn $100,000 a year and your care is going to cost $300,000 then it doesn't matter how good the doctors are.


as for it meaning how many people who go to a doctor have a successful resolution, what else would you measure health care by some fantasmagircal make believe standard where you chant USA USA?

how about the right stop being defensive about the things we don't do well... and start solving problems?

oh right... that would mean thought, and a desire to solve those problems and actually govern.

never mind.

I have health insurance. My eldest daughter has health insurance. My youngest daughter and her new husband have health insurance.
None of us have ever been denied access to healthcare.

My eldest daughter's boyfriend hasn't had health insurance for the seven years I've known him. He has Crohns disease, which means he requires more healthcare than the other four of us combined. He's never been denied access to healthcare, in spite of the fact that he never pays his healthcare bills. Never denied, never pays.

My sister works as a nurse in California. She says they never deny anybody healthcare. Ever. Even homeless people or drug addicts that they know will not pay the bill are treated.

If the article says that access to healthcare isn't available, it's a lie. Hospitals are not legally allowed to deny healthcare to a person needing healthcare.

The premise of the ACA was that everybody would have insurance, in fact, the law now makes it mandatory to have health insurance. They told us that somewhere between 35-50 million people (depends upon which liberal media source you get info from) were without health insurance, but that the ACA would fix that. The ACA is now claiming success because 8 million people signed up. My math says that 8 million is a heck of a lot less than 35-50 million. Add in the fact that some of those 8 million were forced into the ACA when their current health insurance policies were cancelled. The ACA didn't solve a damn thing.

I have a solution though.

For all you people that think the ACA is such a great thing, lets keep it. But at the same time, let's allow doctors and hospitals to refuse service (medical care) to those that ignore the law requiring them to have health insurance. Let's treat it like auto insurance. If I don't have auto insurance (as required by law) and I get into a wreck, no auto repair shop is forced to fix my car without payment. I say we do the same thing with medical care. If I need medical care, but I don't have medical insurance (as required by law), why should any doctor treat me? Let hospitals and doctors refuse treatment. Put that practice into place and you will find a lot more people willing to purchase health insurance.

I'm sure some will call me a cold hearted bastard for proposing that medical care givers be allowed to refuse treatment to those that cannot pay. But you know what, the law now requires them to carry insurance, if they choose not to do so, that's their choice, screw them, let 'em die. It's their choice and their responsibility and their consequences.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Am I wrong in stating that the other ten countries in the study have Universal Health Care ?

Will need to check that, but they probably do. Germany, GB and France definitely do.

 

[jillian]

Where is this "Welfare of the People" clause? Are you referring to the "General Welfare and Common Defense" language of Article I, Section 8? If so, then you have no idea what you're talking about. That language refers to the Welfare and Defense of the NATION, not its individual citizens AND more importantly, the limitations and description of what that entails is laid out in the 18 specific items listed further on in that Section; none of which refer to medicine, medical care, or health.

No, but my rifle will, along with the rifles of a whole lot of other frustrated people in this country. If things are not straightened out in due course, this may well be an issue that could again cause revolution, like the illegal imposition of Federal laws onto States did in 1861.

Your ignorance of the Constitution is your problem.

As far as your insurrectionist sedition and delusions of resurrecting slavery are concerned you are in the wrong thread. Start your own instead of derailing the OP.

no you're twisting of what the general welfare of people in the constitution mean, is ignorant
sorry but I had to say that
the Federal government was never meant to be our nanny, mommie or daddies

not even a little bit, steffie. there has always been disagreement on these issues... even back when the constitution was ratified.

so i always find it amusing when someone like you says "this is what it says" "this is what it means".

when the reality is there is over 200 years of decisions governing constitutional construction. so to ignore that is kind of incomprehensible.

 

[Meister]

The ACA covers the entire population of the USA.

That has nothing to do with how our FF framed "General Welfare".
No doubt the liberals of today have most of them rolling in their grave.

Since you failed to provide any substantiation for your allegation it is null and void.

I hope this helps substantiate my allegation and give you a needed education.....apparently.
general welfare
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster
The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom
Does the "General Welfare Clause" Of The U.S. Constitution Authorize
Madison on the Meaning of the ?General Welfare,? the ?Purpose? of Enumerated Powers, and the ?Definition? of Constitutional Government
The General Welfare Clause | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

 

[bripat9643]

Your ignorance of the Constitution is your problem.

As far as your insurrectionist sedition and delusions of resurrecting slavery are concerned you are in the wrong thread. Start your own instead of derailing the OP.

no you're twisting of what the general welfare of people in the constitution mean, is ignorant
sorry but I had to say that
the Federal government was never meant to be our nanny, mommie or daddies

Not in the least!

Let's just take a look at the Defense budget in real terms. Not just the amount allocated but also the corporate welfare, the interest on the National Debt for unfunded weapons and wars, the pension obligations to veterans, the whole package.

That equates to roughly 27% of the entire budget. Do you believe that the Founding Fathers ever imagined spending one out of every four dollars on the military? Did they foresee the US having the ability to strike anyone, anywhere on the entire planet?

Of course they didn't!

But you accept that massive spending as though it is was meant to be what was intended for the Federal government. That somehow the FF's were prescient enough to believe that 200+ years into the future that America would be the world's policeman.

If you accept that the Federal government has the right to tax you and your children for a military that far exceeds the actual needs to defend this nation then you are in no position to deny the Federal government the right to provide healthcare.

Both cost money and both are in the Constitution.

There is far less justification for a military budget that is more than the combined total of the next 10 nations spending than there is for healthcare.

Not when there are schools, roads and bridges that are in disrepair.

This is about priorities!

Defense is 18% of the budget, not 27% of the budget, so right off the bat we know you are full of shit. Whenever a libturd posts a figure on this website, it's almost guaranteed to be a lie. You can never take anything a libturd says at face value. You have to operate on the premise that they are nothing by servile lying toadies.

 

[jillian]

no you're twisting of what the general welfare of people in the constitution mean, is ignorant
sorry but I had to say that
the Federal government was never meant to be our nanny, mommie or daddies

Not in the least!

Let's just take a look at the Defense budget in real terms. Not just the amount allocated but also the corporate welfare, the interest on the National Debt for unfunded weapons and wars, the pension obligations to veterans, the whole package.

That equates to roughly 27% of the entire budget. Do you believe that the Founding Fathers ever imagined spending one out of every four dollars on the military? Did they foresee the US having the ability to strike anyone, anywhere on the entire planet?

Of course they didn't!

But you accept that massive spending as though it is was meant to be what was intended for the Federal government. That somehow the FF's were prescient enough to believe that 200+ years into the future that America would be the world's policeman.

If you accept that the Federal government has the right to tax you and your children for a military that far exceeds the actual needs to defend this nation then you are in no position to deny the Federal government the right to provide healthcare.

Both cost money and both are in the Constitution.

There is far less justification for a military budget that is more than the combined total of the next 10 nations spending than there is for healthcare.

Not when there are schools, roads and bridges that are in disrepair.

This is about priorities!

Defense is 18% of the budget, not 27% of the budget, so right off the bat we know you are full of shit. Whenever a libturd posts a figure on this website, it's almost guaranteed to be a lie. You can never take anything a libturd says at face value. You have to operate on the premise that they are nothing by servile lying toadies.

your source for that number?

 

[jillian]

General Welfare was not meant for a certain individual or a certain group of people, it was meant for all....not what you wingnuts morphed it. Just sayin.....

The ACA covers the entire population of the USA.

That has nothing to do with how our FF framed "General Welfare".
No doubt the liberals of today have most of them rolling in their grave.

the founding fathers didn't AGREE on the clause. they had disparate views like today's politicians.

but thanks. i prefer not to have my policy initiatives be based on mores from more than 200 years ago.... especially when our laws don't require that.

 

[Meister]

Your ignorance of the Constitution is your problem.

As far as your insurrectionist sedition and delusions of resurrecting slavery are concerned you are in the wrong thread. Start your own instead of derailing the OP.

no you're twisting of what the general welfare of people in the constitution mean, is ignorant
sorry but I had to say that
the Federal government was never meant to be our nanny, mommie or daddies

not even a little bit, steffie. there has always been disagreement on these issues... even back when the constitution was ratified.

so i always find it amusing when someone like you says "this is what it says" "this is what it means".

when the reality is there is over 200 years of decisions governing constitutional construction. so to ignore that is kind of incomprehensible.

With all due respect...
"Enumerated Powers" from our very wise and intelligent Founding Fathers.


They knew eventually the nuts would come out of the woodwork.

They didn't create the constitution to be a willy nilly piece of paper, and that's why they came up with Enumerated Powers to keep the power of the feds in check.

 

[jillian]

The simple question is where is the GOP alternative for people to look at as far as health care? Crickets.

their alternative is to deregulate everything and divest everyone of the benefits of citizenship so everyone lives like they did in dickensian england... except they want to be firing guns at their neighbors.

 

[Meister]

The ACA covers the entire population of the USA.

That has nothing to do with how our FF framed "General Welfare".
No doubt the liberals of today have most of them rolling in their grave.

the founding fathers didn't AGREE on the clause. they had disparate views like today's politicians.

but thanks. i prefer not to have my policy initiatives be based on mores from more than 200 years ago.... especially when our laws don't require that.

Oh....I'm sure YOU DON'T want YOUR policy initiatives based on the constitution. I have no doubt about that at all.

 

[Peach]

The simple question is where is the GOP alternative for people to look at as far as health care? Crickets.

Its exactly like their plan for illegals, gitmo, Iraq, jobs, infrastructure, education, energy ...

*&$# @$! If you can term that a plan.........................

 

[TemplarKormac]

The simple question is where is the GOP alternative for people to look at as far as health care? Crickets.

their alternative is to deregulate everything and divest everyone of the benefits of citizenship so everyone lives like they did in dickensian england... except they want to be firing guns at their neighbors.

Funny how you two keep forgetting this:

A Serious GOP Alternative to Obamacare | The American Spectator

And these:

Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes

 

[Statistikhengst]

no you're twisting of what the general welfare of people in the constitution mean, is ignorant
sorry but I had to say that
the Federal government was never meant to be our nanny, mommie or daddies

not even a little bit, steffie. there has always been disagreement on these issues... even back when the constitution was ratified.

so i always find it amusing when someone like you says "this is what it says" "this is what it means".

when the reality is there is over 200 years of decisions governing constitutional construction. so to ignore that is kind of incomprehensible.

With all due respect...
"Enumerated Powers" from our very wise and intelligent Founding Fathers.


They knew eventually the nuts would come out of the woodwork.

They didn't create the constitution to be a willy nilly piece of paper, and that's why they came up with Enumerated Powers to keep the power of the feds in check.

Indeed, those same very wise and intelligent Founding Fathers, who also made a way for the Constitution to be amended as needed, realizing that it was not a holy writ.

Yes, those Founding Fathers.

Thanks for your support in this matter, [MENTION=17949]Meister[/MENTION]!

 

[jillian]

not even a little bit, steffie. there has always been disagreement on these issues... even back when the constitution was ratified.

so i always find it amusing when someone like you says "this is what it says" "this is what it means".

when the reality is there is over 200 years of decisions governing constitutional construction. so to ignore that is kind of incomprehensible.

With all due respect...
"Enumerated Powers" from our very wise and intelligent Founding Fathers.


They knew eventually the nuts would come out of the woodwork.

They didn't create the constitution to be a willy nilly piece of paper, and that's why they came up with Enumerated Powers to keep the power of the feds in check.

Indeed, those same very wise and intelligent Founding Fathers, who also made a way for the Constitution to be amended as needed, realizing that it was not a holy writ.

Yes, those Founding Fathers.

Thanks for your support in this matter, [MENTION=17949]Meister[/MENTION]!

more than that... they said the taxing and spending clause is for the general welfare. it isn't that complex.