no health care...real story of suckage in america

[doeton]

Standing in the misty rain yesterday evening, Mike Cook surveyed his backyard, dotted with empty flower beds he’s not sure he’ll be able to plant.

"Every time I bend over, my nose starts bleeding," Cook said, adding that he had been counting on his backyard gardens to lift him out of the winter doldrums and add color back into his life. "They took that from me. This has stopped my life in its tracks."

Early yesterday, Cook and three co-workers were robbed at gunpoint while assembling copies of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for their morning distribution routes. One of the gunmen kicked Cook in the face, and he suffered nerve and retina damage in addition to a broken nose, cheekbone and eye socket.

This morning, Cook, 43, met with a surgeon to decide whether it would be better to heal without intervention and run the risk of permanent double vision in his left eye or to surgically implant a metal plate in his cheek to hold his eye in place.

The few scrapes and minor bruising on Cook’s face belie his severe internal damage, just as the robbery resulted in Cook’s loss of only $1 and coins but has shaken him to the core.

Police have no suspects.

Interviewed in his living room, Cook said his immediate future rests on what surgeons tell him today.

He lacks health insurance, which only adds to his angst. "The ER doctor said, ‘You can be a burden to society if you go on disability and don’t get these things taken care of because you will have visual problems if you do not heal properly. Or, we can take care of this and worry about how we’ll pay for it down the road.’ "

Cook said he hopes the Missouri Crime Victims’ Compensation Program will help offset his costs.

source:

http://www.showmenews.com/2008/May/20080508News006.asp

 

[rayboyusmc]

That is one problem with our current system. He apparently has a job, but no coverage. Operations like these are extremely expensive and can put you in bankruptcy. About 50% of those facing bankruptcy are the result of catastrofic medical costs.

I still think we need some kind of universal heatlhcare siminlar to what we do now with Medicare/caid. You still pay for your insurance. The doctors are not employees of the government. It will provide care for more people at a lower total cost than what we are paying which is the highest per person of any industrialized nation with a 37% overall rating for quality.

Right, now I am advocating socialized medicine like all those socialist commie countries.

 

[Diuretic]

Wait a minute. Isn't there worker's compensation in Missouri? The US?

Apart from that, yes, every country needs universal health care for its population. It's just sensible.

Now wait for the usual crap from the ideologues

 

[jillian]

Wait a minute. Isn't there worker's compensation in Missouri? The US?

Apart from that, yes, every country needs universal health care for its population. It's just sensible.

Now wait for the usual crap from the ideologues

But.... but...... then the world is less Darwinian!!!

oh wait... they don't believe in Darwin either.

 

[TopGunna]

I'll bite. I, like most Americans, oppose a government-led universal health care insurance system.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...alth_insurance_overseen_by_federal_government

29% favor such a system, 39% oppose it (31% unsure).
46% believe such a system would result in a decrease in the quality of care, and 16% believe quality would increase.
42% would expect prices to rise, 25% would expect prices to decrease.

Not to suggest that the consensus view is necessarily the right view, but it will mean that we'd be implementing a system most Americans do not want.

Personally, I'm of the belief that the problem with American health care isn't the 40 million Americans who don't have health insurance - it's the 250 million that do have it. Huge insulation between the buyer and seller usually discourages the buyer from shopping around. Why should one shop around for health care? There's no real incentive in a system where someone else is paying the bill. So given that consumers are going to accept whatever price is offered, what incentive do providers have to worry about productivity or cost control?

During WWII, the government imposed wage controls, effectively prohibiting employers from extending cash raises to employees. How did those employers continue to attract workers? By offering non-cash benefits, like health insurance. Competition among these companies pushed each of them to offer increasingly attractive policies - first-dollar coverage for routine ailments like ear infections and colds, and coverage for things that are not even illnesses, like pregnancy. People came to expect insurance to cover everything. Furthermore, tax breaks allow employers to purchase health insurance at favorable rates - so even if employees preferred less coverage, it made sense to buy increased coverage at a lower price.

Let me pose a theoretical question: what if automobile insurance covered all expenses associated with keeping your vehicle running? If it paid for your gas usage, you wouldn't care about how much you use, or how much it costs per gallon. If your insurance covered oil changes, mechanics could charge $100 and you wouldn't care, as long as the insurance covered it. Prices would skyrocket.

And unfortunately, that is why health insurance costs are as steep as they are right now. People have no incentive to get a good price for care, only to ensure that insurance will cover that price.

How will government reduce those costs? I don't have much confidence in the government as a prudent buyer ($800 hammers, anyone?). While I suspect there will be some savings in reduced paperwork costs, the real savings will come from the government deciding which procedures it will and won't cover. Once in charge of health care choices, the government can simply start denying procedures and care ("rationing"). This is in fact how costs are managed in most socialist medical systems. Worse yet, as the government will now be paying for your health care, they have incentives to tax or outlaw "unhealthy" behavior.

I personally believe the solution lies in eliminating incentive to purchase group coverage and allowing folks to buy levels of coverage in accordance with their needs. For me, that would be a high-deductable plan where I would pay out-of-pocket for most doctor visits. For others with greater needs, a lower deductable plan might make more sense. What doesn't make sense is forcing all Americans to purchase uniform coverage as selected by a few know-it-alls.

 

[Diuretic]

Personally I believe the solution lies in not making health care a commodity in an open market. You Americans, well those of you who don't believe in universal health care, have really been sucked in. Still, as your numbers show, that's how you want it, so that's how it will be I suppose.

 

[Gungnir]

There is plenty of health care in the United States. There is quite a bit of Socialist provided health care in the United States (ie Medicare). There is no Socialist run Health Care System in the United States.

Another problem is that Insurance Companies can bully doctors into providing certain treatments or running their business in a certain manner, this can be too costly and too confused for some doctors thus they opt to not work for any insurance companies.

In everyone's rush to abandon religion they have left behind a powerful community support system, the individual church. I wouldn't expect Europeans to understand this, perhaps no nation other than America would be able to as it was an instrumental part of our developement. In addition to the beneficent church there are organizations such as the Free Masons, Lions, and Shriners which love to help people. I also find it ludicrous that there are no charities, endowements, or other functions that are unwilling to donate money or services for necessary medical needs of genuinely poor people.

The Constitution for these United States does not grant the Federal Government the right or privelege to be involved in any Socialist Health Care scheme. This is a State issue without an appropriate Constiutional Amendment and supporting legislation.

 

[Dogger]

The Constitution for these United States does not grant the Federal Government the right or privelege to be involved in any Socialist Health Care scheme.

That is simply not true. Call your college and ask for a refund.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . .

 

[Gungnir]

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . .

That is like taking Clause 3 of the same section^1 and saying it gives the Federal Government the right to set the price of corn being sold in the same state it was farmed in. Your view of the "general Welfare" may even allow price regulation.

Had the clause read "...and general Welfare of the people..." I might agree with you but it speaks of the Union, the country. The welfare of a country is a different matter than the welfare of a person.

The country, the several states, and the people are seperately identified entities in that document.

You are wrong.


^1 Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

[Dogger]

You are wrong.

The US Supreme Court says your are wrong, as I explained here. This matter is so settled that no one even raises the point anymore.

 

[Gungnir]

"In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., however, the Court had invoked the 'great power of taxation to be exercised for the common defence and general welfare' to sustain the right of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State for use as a national park.

"Finally, in United States v. Butler, the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton's views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: ''Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.''

Does not contradict

The country, the several states, and the people are seperately identified entities in that document.

Though it is in serious disagreement with Amendment X.

For convenience's sake (assuming you are more learned than I) I ask you:
1.) Were the Federalist Papers written after the Bill of Rights were approved?
2.) Was the Bill of Rights written by the authors of the Federalist Papers?

 

[Dogger]

Do your own research. You are trying to avoid the subject.

You said the Constitution did not allow the Congress to enact national health care legislation. The General Welfare Clause has been interpreted more broadly than you like, but it does permit Congress to do precisley that. If your theory had any validity, Medicare would have been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Gungnir]

to Dogger;

The quote you referred to had nothing to do with the general Welfare being applied to persons rather than the country.

I have no idea why Medicare hasn't been ruled uncostitutional but the SCOTUS is a joke; willing to redefine whatever it pleases, observe foreign law, and even reverse its own rulings. I'm reading straight from the Constitution & Amendments, the documents which exactly grant the specific powers of the Federal Government.

If popular opinion does not agree with what is written, the opinion is no less wrong.

The powers to provide for the General Welfare are listed in Section 8 just as the powers to provide for the common Defence are.

Simple English:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The Powers not delegated to the Untied States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The first set of underlined text is what the Congress has the right to do for the raising of funds to pay for the second set of underlined text.^1 The second set of underlined text is clarified in the rest of Section 8 and in Clause 1 of Article VI. The preceeding sections are procedural while Section 9 specifically prohibits the Congress from certain things as Section 10 prohibits the States from certain things..

The Constitution is the material; from it, specifically and solely, cite where the Congress is not limited to the things they are granted there in. You have claimed the Congress has powers not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.


^1) Clause 6 of Section 8 of Article I also says that the United States has the right to issue Securities.

Do your own research. You are trying to avoid the subject.

It was incidental and a polite request. I replied relevantly.

 

[Dogger]

It was incidental and a polite request. I replied relevantly.

Sorry for being so testy. We just finished beating this subject to death in the McCain Health Care Bash Thread . I'm not in the mood to plow that field again, but you should read it.

You also might consider this post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is simply not true. Call your college and ask for a refund.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . .

Jillian believes this nonsense too. The Framers and creators of the Constitution were VERY clear. The document LIMITS power, it does not GRANT unlimited power. The section you mention does NOT mean what you claim. It is a preamble to the limits imposed on Congress and the Government. It does not GRANT power to do what ever the hell the Government wants.

When the issue of a Bill of Rights came up, the argument made against it by those that wrote the Constitution was that the Constitution only gave specific powers, no "general" powers and that as a document it was easier to list powers granted then to list those NOT granted. They argued no Bill of Rights was needed because the Constitution did not in fact grant far reaching unlimited powers.

Further the Federal Government has NO power to do anything for PEOPLE, it is a compact between States, leaving the States to handle people matters within the confines of the Constitution.

 

[jillian]

You might want to do some thinking here for a second... if the real attorneys on the site "believe" it (or know that's how the Constitution has been interpreted), then what does that tell you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You might want to do some thinking here for a second... if the real attorneys on the site "believe" it (or know that's how the Constitution has been interpreted), then what does that tell you?

That YOU need to go back to school and learn the facts. Start by reading WHAT the Constitution means, not what you liberal turds want it to mean.

It is simple. You want Government healthcare? PASS an Amendment for it. You want Social Security to be legal, pass an amendment FOR it.

Thats how it works. Not pretending the Constitution says what you want it to cause your afraid you won't get those amendments passed the people.

The Government has violated the Constitution for YEARS now and it is time it STOPS.

Further, if this WERE as you claim, why is no one EVER cites that passage to justify their new powers? The clause they cite is almost always the Commerce clause. I mean come on, how much easier would it be to just claim " General" welfare?

MORONS.

 

[jillian]

No...what it should tell you is that while you may have certain *knowledge* that you've gained from right wing punditocracy, you have no grasp on the concept of constitutional construction.

We're not talking about some fundies' version of the bible here. The constitution is a combination of the written document and caselaw. These are issues that have been struggled with for two hundred years and you and the other wanna be's think that *you* have the answers that the wisest of justices struggle for?

Try again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No...what it should tell you is that while you may have certain *knowledge* that you've gained from right wing punditocracy, you have no grasp on the concept of constitutional construction.

We're not talking about some fundies' version of the bible here. The constitution is a combination of the written document and caselaw. These are issues that have been struggled with for two hundred years and you and the other wanna be's think that *you* have the answers that the wisest of justices struggle for?

Try again.

Just admit you fascists know that you can not get your agenda past the American people so instead lie about what the Constitution says and means. "General Welfare" does not mean what you claim. Never has and never will.

 

[Gungnir]

Don't worry about it Dogger, and thank you.

We're not talking about some fundies' version of the bible here.

Just call us women hating Nazis while you're at it.

The constitution is a combination of the written document and caselaw.

Speaking of the Holy Bible, you read just like the Pharisees arguing for the Oral Torah against the Christ.

Legislative power is reserved unto the Congress; it is just as illegal for an Executive Order to make law as it is for the Supreme Court to "reinterpret", "reword", or "redefine" the Constitution. Cite from the document otherwise.