Can Public Option Work?

[jeffrockit]

Everyone of those programs have been successful. However, they have been abused and/or miscalculated. For instance, Social Security would still be very solvent had we not allowed our elected representatives to continually borrow from the funding of that program for the last 30 plus years. .

And what is going to keep govt run healthcare from the same abuses or miscalculations. I will answer...nothing. It is going to wind up just like all of the government entitlement programs, bloated with waste, fraud and abuse. We need to stop thinking that government is the answer to all of our problems and realize that their past performances prove otherwise.
The healthcare system needs a major overhaul, just not from the government.
I can't see why anyone thinks that the politicians care about our healthcare, this is simply another power grab by washington. To think any different is to be very ignorant of politicians and their desires

 

[Chris]

Everyone of those programs have been successful. However, they have been abused and/or miscalculated. For instance, Social Security would still be very solvent had we not allowed our elected representatives to continually borrow from the funding of that program for the last 30 plus years. .

And what is going to keep govt run healthcare from the same abuses or miscalculations. I will answer...nothing. It is going to wind up just like all of the government entitlement programs, bloated with waste, fraud and abuse. We need to stop thinking that government is the answer to all of our problems and realize that their past performances prove otherwise.
The healthcare system needs a major overhaul, just not from the government.
I can't see why anyone thinks that the politicians care about our healthcare, this is simply another power grab by washington. To think any different is to be very ignorant of politicians and their desires

I love it....gubbermint run healthcare.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

 

[MajikMyst]

Problem with Tenncare started when people begin dropping their insurances and signing up with state controlled insurance because of the cost saving. Now, isn't that exactly the intention of federal promoted "public option"?

Today, Tenncare has huge budget problems so TN government simply started dropping people. The same will happen sometimes in the future with federal health care... don't ya think?

the thing with the hr3200 public option americano, is that it is on the public insurance exchange with all other private insurers in your state and no tax dollars goes towards it to sustain it or it's adminitrative costs but the POLICY HOLDERS through premiums pay for it, the ones that choose the plan....so if there is no savings, just switch plans....you or your company are not obligated to stay with any particular insurance plan....they can go right back to a private plan if the premiums go up the following season....is how i understood the plan option, when i read the actual bill....

so, it hurts no one, if they mess up and prices go higher than the other insurers, they just lose customers to the better private plans...

That would mean forcing states to accept public option regardless of how states regulated their health care and that is against tenth Amendment. Also, they opening back door to compete against insurances within the states while that door is staying closed to other insurances. Do you find that right?

You're saying it hurts no one. I say Tenncare is fine example who gets hurt.

Hmmm?? That would mean a law forcing us to buy car insurance is against the 10th amendment to then.. Hmmm.. I don't think so.. You repukes just don't understand the 10th amendment...

 

[Ame®icano]

the thing with the hr3200 public option americano, is that it is on the public insurance exchange with all other private insurers in your state and no tax dollars goes towards it to sustain it or it's adminitrative costs but the POLICY HOLDERS through premiums pay for it, the ones that choose the plan....so if there is no savings, just switch plans....you or your company are not obligated to stay with any particular insurance plan....they can go right back to a private plan if the premiums go up the following season....is how i understood the plan option, when i read the actual bill....

so, it hurts no one, if they mess up and prices go higher than the other insurers, they just lose customers to the better private plans...

That would mean forcing states to accept public option regardless of how states regulated their health care and that is against tenth Amendment. Also, they opening back door to compete against insurances within the states while that door is staying closed to other insurances. Do you find that right?

You're saying it hurts no one. I say Tenncare is fine example who gets hurt.

Hmmm?? That would mean a law forcing us to buy car insurance is against the 10th amendment to then.. Hmmm.. I don't think so.. You repukes just don't understand the 10th amendment...

Let's start with this.

"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."

Since car insurance is required and regulated by the state laws, it's constitutional.

 

[Care4all]

That would mean forcing states to accept public option regardless of how states regulated their health care and that is against tenth Amendment. Also, they opening back door to compete against insurances within the states while that door is staying closed to other insurances. Do you find that right?

You're saying it hurts no one. I say Tenncare is fine example who gets hurt.

Hmmm?? That would mean a law forcing us to buy car insurance is against the 10th amendment to then.. Hmmm.. I don't think so.. You repukes just don't understand the 10th amendment...

Let's start with this.

"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."

Since car insurance is required and regulated by the state laws, it's constitutional.

I'm not certain you or I understand the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of it completely....I personally need to do some reading up on all of this again...

what I had read on it, only puts insurance companies on the same level of ALL other industry with Federal Antitrust Laws...now that does not appear to me as being unconstitutional? Having all industries falling under Federal Antitrust Laws EXCEPT the Insurance industry seems unjust to those companies that don't get this HUGE FAVOR, ya know?


Having the Public Insurance Option on the State Insurance Exchange along with all other Private Insurance options on the State Exchange does not stop the State from Regulating them on equal turf with the private insurance options....

the main issue with the Act I spoke of earlier is to have all insurance companies be subject to all federal anti trust laws as all other industries. Once that is in place then the States can not give favors and keep insurance companies as monopolies within their states, WHICH IS PRECISELY what the state government officials have done because key insurance companies have kept their pockets lined with gold, is my understanding of it....AND this will make capitalism ACTUALLY WORK, with more competition, bringing prices down....MORE COMPETITION makes companies more efficient, and that's a fact.

so, I would not be so quick to shoot this down....it would be considered a GOOD THING imo...

Care

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right wind bags are suggesting the 10th Amendment prohibts health insurance reform?

That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.

They don't get it, they won't get, and it does not matter because they don't matter anymore.

 

[Varth Dader]

That would mean forcing states to accept public option regardless of how states regulated their health care and that is against tenth Amendment. Also, they opening back door to compete against insurances within the states while that door is staying closed to other insurances. Do you find that right?

You're saying it hurts no one. I say Tenncare is fine example who gets hurt.

Hmmm?? That would mean a law forcing us to buy car insurance is against the 10th amendment to then.. Hmmm.. I don't think so.. You repukes just don't understand the 10th amendment...

Let's start with this.

"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."

Since car insurance is required and regulated by the state laws, it's constitutional.

How about registering for Selective Services?

 

[Annie]

Hmmm?? That would mean a law forcing us to buy car insurance is against the 10th amendment to then.. Hmmm.. I don't think so.. You repukes just don't understand the 10th amendment...

Let's start with this.

"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."

Since car insurance is required and regulated by the state laws, it's constitutional.

How about registering for Selective Services?

Article 1, Section 8.

 

[JimH52]

This is my last post in tihs thread.

Welfare and the Constitution.

The major objective of WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION is to argue for a “welfarist” or positive vision of governmental obligation under the U.S. Constitution as articulated by Abraham Lincoln and the authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS. James Madison’s belief that the “real welfare” of the people must be the “supreme object” of constitutional government is the bedrock principle animating this superb work.

Some of you may not understand this. Sorry...

 

[Ame®icano]

This is my last post in tihs thread.

Welfare and the Constitution.

The major objective of WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION is to argue for a “welfarist” or positive vision of governmental obligation under the U.S. Constitution as articulated by Abraham Lincoln and the authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS. James Madison’s belief that the “real welfare” of the people must be the “supreme object” of constitutional government is the bedrock principle animating this superb work.

Some of you may not understand this. Sorry...

If you can't change the constitution, you change the meaning of the words to suit your needs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americano, you are insisting that you are right and by inference the Court rulings that don't support you as wrong. That is . . . just downright silly. But . . . give us law or court rulings that agree with you. Even minority opinions would be helpful. Can you do that?

 

[Ame®icano]

Americano, you are insisting that you are right and by inference the Court rulings that don't support you as wrong. That is . . . just downright silly. But . . . give us law or court rulings that agree with you. Even minority opinions would be helpful. Can you do that?

Before the FDR's "New Deal" or after?

 

[Care4all]

This is my last post in tihs thread.

Welfare and the Constitution.

The major objective of WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION is to argue for a “welfarist” or positive vision of governmental obligation under the U.S. Constitution as articulated by Abraham Lincoln and the authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS. James Madison’s belief that the “real welfare” of the people must be the “supreme object” of constitutional government is the bedrock principle animating this superb work.

Some of you may not understand this. Sorry...

If you can't change the constitution, you change the meaning of the words to suit your needs.

actually, as you mentioned on auto insurance... welfare is handled by the states... the fed may help the state monetarily but no one goes to the fed for welfare, the states administer it, no?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Since when is it sensible to tell people to ask their doctors about some new drug?

are you serious?....if you had a condition and nothing seems to be working,and you heard about a new drug that is getting good results,you would not ask your doctor about it?.....

The drugs that are advertised on television are not new, they are just being heavily promoted by the pharmaceutical companies. Most doctors are quite familiar with those in their field of medicine. We have only had this sort of advertising for the last decade or so, and it has gradually increased to the point of almost all the commercials are for one drug or another. Doctors did fine before this type of amateur diagnostic phenomena entered the fray. "If you have these symptoms, ask your doctor if you can take this for it". Many of the things they are promoting could be done without, if a patient applied a proper diet and exercise routine. It's getting rather silly that the US has become such a drug-driven society.

Judy.....that is not what i asked.....read it again....and remember what you said up above.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Americans overwhelmingly oppose the far right windbag rhetoric. includings Republicans, even to the extent that the windbaggers are threatening mainstream Republican candidates.

Go back and read our respective posts.

they also oppose the far left wing rhetoric....so that brings us to my question.....if the people in the middle from both parties reject both fringes....why the **** are those people still in positions of power and inflence,and why do we allow them to **** with our lives?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I love it....gubbermint run healthcare.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

hey Chris if this thing passes close to the way you want it,and is a disaster....will you say you were wrong or, we just wont see Chris in any threads about this....???

 

[Harry Dresden]

The far right wind bags are suggesting the 10th Amendment prohibts health insurance reform?

That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.

They don't get it, they won't get, and it does not matter because they don't matter anymore.

aint that something....the far left windbags are suggesting the second amendment does not give you the right to bear arms....
That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.
they dont get it either....etc...etc.....just sayin....

 

[Ame®icano]

This is my last post in tihs thread.

Welfare and the Constitution.

The major objective of WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION is to argue for a “welfarist” or positive vision of governmental obligation under the U.S. Constitution as articulated by Abraham Lincoln and the authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS. James Madison’s belief that the “real welfare” of the people must be the “supreme object” of constitutional government is the bedrock principle animating this superb work.

Some of you may not understand this. Sorry...

If you can't change the constitution, you change the meaning of the words to suit your needs.

actually, as you mentioned on auto insurance... welfare is handled by the states... the fed may help the state monetarily but no one goes to the fed for welfare, the states administer it, no?

Correct. It started as federal grant to support state welfare programs back in 30's. Latest chages were made in 1996 Welfare Reform Act where grants to states were limited and with more conditions.

Auto insurances are regulated by the states. Federal enforcement would be unconstitutional, but... fed have their role there. They required states to have auto insurance laws in order to receive certain faderal grants.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right wind bags are suggesting the 10th Amendment prohibts health insurance reform?

That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.

They don't get it, they won't get, and it does not matter because they don't matter anymore.

aint that something....the far left windbags are suggesting the second amendment does not give you the right to bear arms....
That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.
they dont get it either....etc...etc.....just sayin....

Show how the 10th prohibits health insurance reform, when neither the SC, the Congress, or the Pres agree. Because you don't? Yep, you are delusional.

 

[Ame®icano]

The far right wind bags are suggesting the 10th Amendment prohibts health insurance reform?

That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.

They don't get it, they won't get, and it does not matter because they don't matter anymore.

aint that something....the far left windbags are suggesting the second amendment does not give you the right to bear arms....
That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.
they dont get it either....etc...etc.....just sayin....

Show how the 10th prohibits health insurance reform, when neither the SC, the Congress, or the Pres agree. Because you don't? Yep, you are delusional.

The 10th Amendment establishes reserved powers. Anyone with 1st grade reading comprehension can understand the amendment. However, the framers didn't anticipate such overwhelming illogical and idiotic people from inhibiting the country hundreds of years later. You see in Article 1 section 8, there are 18 clauses which grant expressed powers to the Federal Government. Section 9 has the clauses that prohibit certain powers of the Federal Government. Mandated healthcare isn't in either -- hence, the 10th Amendment.