States are the best place for healthcare!!

[Navy1960]

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. 10th Amendment

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.

In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING

So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?

 

[oreo]

I agree 100%. I believe each state should be mandated to fix the health care problems & ever rising costs that Americans face.

Mitt Romney did it in the state of MASS--by MANDATING that everyone is covered in his state. They did a study in his state & found that over 50% of the unisured in his state made over 70K per year, could have easily afforded it, but chose not to get it. After he mandated coverage--premiums were dramatically lowered for all. Everyone had to pay for their medical insurance. The poor were still covered by Commonwealth health insurance program.

As your article states:
In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

NOW--it would be very interesting to find out how much a MASS citizen pays for coverage--as compared to the national average.

ANYONE OUT THERE THAT LIVES IN MASS?

 

[auditor0007]

There would be nothing wrong with mandating that each state deal with health insurance in this manner. The bottom line is that in order to reduce healthcare costs for everyone, everyone must be covered and must also pay something into the system, regardless who is running that system.

 

[Navy1960]

There would be nothing wrong with mandating that each state deal with health insurance in this manner. The bottom line is that in order to reduce healthcare costs for everyone, everyone must be covered and must also pay something into the system, regardless who is running that system.

That I think auditor is the main stopping point here, I do believe that most people would agree that reducing costs in the healthcare industry would be a good thing and having access too affordable healthcare is another good thing. However, where it tends to go off track is who is best at doing that, and as I have indicated, it's my opinion that the states and the people that live in them are better at doing that as well as the private entities in the states. Now what the Fed. can do is provide a path for that to happen. It would seem to me that the best place for me to get healthcare and those better equipped to make healthcare decisions for me are those that live and work where I live and this same principle should apply across the nation.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There would be nothing wrong with mandating that each state deal with health insurance in this manner. The bottom line is that in order to reduce healthcare costs for everyone, everyone must be covered and must also pay something into the system, regardless who is running that system.

None of the health insurance "reforms" being proposed in Congress would lower health care costs. On the contrary, every one of them would raise health care costs and that increase in costs would be paid for with hirer taxes or larger deficits. When Obama tries to sell his health insurance proposals by saying they will lower health care costs or slow the rate of increase he is clearly lying.

 

[Navy1960]

There would be nothing wrong with mandating that each state deal with health insurance in this manner. The bottom line is that in order to reduce healthcare costs for everyone, everyone must be covered and must also pay something into the system, regardless who is running that system.

None of the health insurance "reforms" being proposed in Congress would lower health care costs. On the contrary, every one of them would raise health care costs and that increase in costs would be paid for with hirer taxes or larger deficits. When Obama tries to sell his health insurance proposals by saying they will lower health care costs or slow the rate of increase he is clearly lying.

toomuchtime, I think if issues such as Illegal Immigration healthcare costs are not addressed, and drug costs, along with several other factors. The result of all of this will be exactly what you have said, higher costs, lower quality care, and higher taxes. That is why I have said that its best that the individual states decide for themselves what is best for them. As whats best for Ca. is not whats best for Az.

 

[sealybobo]

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. 10th Amendment

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.

In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING

So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?

When all other arguments fail, this is the GOP's fallback argument.

Here is the answer. American citizens have the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. LIFE baby!!!

And our government breaks up monopolies.

And we already have medicare and social security. Are those unconstitutional too?

If they are, then you have lost this argument a long time ago.

Now go vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul.

 

[sealybobo]

I apologize to Navy for being vulgar to him. He asked me not to and I think he has earned the right to ask for respect. My bad.

 

[Navy1960]

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. 10th Amendment

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.

In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING

So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?

When all other arguments fail, this is the GOP's fallback argument.

Here is the answer. American citizens have the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. LIFE baby!!!

And our government breaks up monopolies.

And we already have medicare and social security. Are those unconstitutional too?

If they are, then you have lost this argument a long time ago.

Now go vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul.

sealy, first of all you have no such rights in the constitution..

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

thats in the Declaration of Independence not! the constitution, and medicare , as well as social security were passed as tax measures bascially ..

AAPS WAS ORGANIZED to maintain the highest ethical integrity of the medical profession, to protect the responsibility, independence, and freedom of patients and doctors, particularly from encroachment upon their liberty by government...It does not seek any subsidy of any kind from the federal government. All we want is to be left alone to exercise our best judgment and skill for the benefit of our patients.

Mr. Roosevelt knew that the Federal Government did not have Constitutional authority to interfere in social welfare problems and said so quite effectively before becoming President of the United States. The Founders clearly did not intend to grant such authority to the Federal Government, as shown in the Federalist papers and other writings.

Social Security legislation, including Medicare, violates Constitutional principles. In a speech to the employees of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, on October 23, 1962 (U.S.D.H.E.W. 17, US Govt Printing Office: 1963, O-685-624), Frances Perkins explained how the Social Security Act was used to subvert the Constitution:

``Before I was appointed, I had a little conversation with Roosevelt in which I said perhaps he didn't want me to be the Secretary of Labor because if I were, I should want to do this, and this, and this. Among the things I wanted to do was find a way of getting unemployment insurance, old-age insurance and health insurance. I remember he looked so startled, and he said, `Well, do you think it can be done?' I said, `I don't know.' He said, ``Well, there are Constitutional problems aren't there?'

Medicare

So yes, it is unconstitutional for the Federal Govt. to provide healthcare to all it's citizens as it violates the 10th Amendment. It's exactly why I said, in order to get healthcare to states that want them, then allow those states to proceed with voting for it on their own.

 

[Navy1960]

I apologize to Navy for being vulgar to him. He asked me not to and I think he has earned the right to ask for respect. My bad.

apology is accepted sealy and thank you , I understand and admire your passion for the issues and know that you mean well for your country and just the mere fact that you would be here as an advocate for your cause shows that. In this thread you can see that people are no so far apart on issues sometimes as you may think. They may disagree on forms , but in the end, I think that lowering the cost of healthcare is a damn good thing, it's how we get there is whats at issue, I really do believe that in your state for example, a program like the one they have in Mass. would be a good thing and would pass in over whelming numbers. In my state however, as most people I know at least have some form of insurance, the oppisite might be true. see what I mean?

 

[toomuchtime_]

There would be nothing wrong with mandating that each state deal with health insurance in this manner. The bottom line is that in order to reduce healthcare costs for everyone, everyone must be covered and must also pay something into the system, regardless who is running that system.

None of the health insurance "reforms" being proposed in Congress would lower health care costs. On the contrary, every one of them would raise health care costs and that increase in costs would be paid for with hirer taxes or larger deficits. When Obama tries to sell his health insurance proposals by saying they will lower health care costs or slow the rate of increase he is clearly lying.

toomuchtime, I think if issues such as Illegal Immigration healthcare costs are not addressed, and drug costs, along with several other factors. The result of all of this will be exactly what you have said, higher costs, lower quality care, and higher taxes. That is why I have said that its best that the individual states decide for themselves what is best for them. As whats best for Ca. is not whats best for Az.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent states from making changes in their health care systems now, but if federal money is involved, it should, imo, be aimed at achieving specific health outcomes. That means the states would not be able to decide what they would try to achieve with federal money but would have some discretion about how they would achieve it. This is, in fact, how the Medicaid and SCHIP programs work.

 

[Navy1960]

None of the health insurance "reforms" being proposed in Congress would lower health care costs. On the contrary, every one of them would raise health care costs and that increase in costs would be paid for with hirer taxes or larger deficits. When Obama tries to sell his health insurance proposals by saying they will lower health care costs or slow the rate of increase he is clearly lying.

toomuchtime, I think if issues such as Illegal Immigration healthcare costs are not addressed, and drug costs, along with several other factors. The result of all of this will be exactly what you have said, higher costs, lower quality care, and higher taxes. That is why I have said that its best that the individual states decide for themselves what is best for them. As whats best for Ca. is not whats best for Az.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent states from making changes in their health care systems now, but if federal money is involved, it should, imo, be aimed at achieving specific health outcomes. That means the states would not be able to decide what they would try to achieve with federal money but would have some discretion about how they would achieve it. This is, in fact, how the Medicaid and SCHIP programs work.

I was thinking more along the lines of a hybrid of tax credit that is used to pay state premiums for healthcare This money would in turn find it's way back to the Fed in the form if taxes paid by the states and the providers. more or less like a closed loop. The more people enter the bigger the pool/ However its my opinion the states should be the source for all this , the Fed. should only provide incentives for those states to do so.

 

[sealybobo]

I apologize to Navy for being vulgar to him. He asked me not to and I think he has earned the right to ask for respect. My bad.

apology is accepted sealy and thank you , I understand and admire your passion for the issues and know that you mean well for your country and just the mere fact that you would be here as an advocate for your cause shows that. In this thread you can see that people are no so far apart on issues sometimes as you may think. They may disagree on forms , but in the end, I think that lowering the cost of healthcare is a damn good thing, it's how we get there is whats at issue, I really do believe that in your state for example, a program like the one they have in Mass. would be a good thing and would pass in over whelming numbers. In my state however, as most people I know at least have some form of insurance, the oppisite might be true. see what I mean?

I enjoy cursing back and forth, but only with people who like doing it back. If someone complains and is sincere, I really try not to be a jerk.

Ok, now back to healthcare.

1. Do they deny people in MA with pre existing conditions?

2. Are the costs in MA still too expensive?

Looks like in MA their solution is to raise costs, premiums, copays and tax cigarettes to pay for it. Doesn't say anything about bringing down costs. I think the MA solution is the solution that private insurers want.

Screw them. Single payer/public option will be cheaper and more comprehensive. It won't have to deal with the high administration costs, advertising or profits.

And you can stay with your private plan, so don't worry. In fact, the public option will bring down your costs.

Just the fact that the same people who were saying government will do a terrible job are now saying that the government plan will run them out of business, tells me they are crapping their pants, and thats great.

Healthcare should not be for profit. The profit part of it is harmful to patients.


If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care ... then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?" Obama said in response to a question at a White House news conference.

That's not logical," he scoffed, responding to an industry warning that government competition would destabilize the employer system that now covers more than 160 million people.

Individuals and small businesses would get to pick either the public plan or a private one through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. Eventually, the exchanges could be opened to large companies as well. "The public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies," Obama said.

We do not believe that it is possible to create a government plan that could operate on a level playing field," said the insurers' letter, signed by AHIP head Karen Ignagni and Scott Serota, the Blue Cross CEO. " Regardless of how it is initially structured, a government plan would use its built-in advantages to take over the health insurance market."



Obama takes on insurers over health plan - White House- msnbc.com

 

[Navy1960]

Do you know sealy I have even suggested that people who are advocating "nationalizing" healthcare are going about the wrong way. Let me play devils advocate here a moment, if I were a supporter of Govt. sponsored healthcare for all which as you can see I clearly am not, I would go about it in another way. For example, if as many people supported the idea as suggested then I would push for a constitutional amendment to make healthcare a right under the constitution. you would need 2/3rds of the states to ratify it but once done. There you have it. a "right" As for the Mass. plan if the goal is to cover everyone, then there you have it. "everyone covered" with the exception of illegal immigrants. You do realize though that Medicare is not administered by the Federal Govt. right? and is contracted out to for profit companies? Even if the Govt. were to institute a govt. takeover of the healthcare industry they do not have the capacity or knowledge to manage it and would have to rely on the same evil for profit companies that people blame now. If people think that by doing so, that will keep them in line I suggest they dont know a whole lot about Govt. contracting then and for them to take a look at the Air Force Tanker program to get a good look at how well contracting works. The point is sealy, you live in MI. and MI, is better suited to meet your needs than Washington. Washingtons job is to provide the means by which MI. can promote and environment to meet those needs be it business, or state.

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime, I think if issues such as Illegal Immigration healthcare costs are not addressed, and drug costs, along with several other factors. The result of all of this will be exactly what you have said, higher costs, lower quality care, and higher taxes. That is why I have said that its best that the individual states decide for themselves what is best for them. As whats best for Ca. is not whats best for Az.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent states from making changes in their health care systems now, but if federal money is involved, it should, imo, be aimed at achieving specific health outcomes. That means the states would not be able to decide what they would try to achieve with federal money but would have some discretion about how they would achieve it. This is, in fact, how the Medicaid and SCHIP programs work.

I was thinking more along the lines of a hybrid of tax credit that is used to pay state premiums for healthcare This money would in turn find it's way back to the Fed in the form if taxes paid by the states and the providers. more or less like a closed loop. The more people enter the bigger the pool/ However its my opinion the states should be the source for all this , the Fed. should only provide incentives for those states to do so.

Again, even if we agree the states might be better at designing health care/health insurance changes to serve their individual needs than the federal government would be, I still can't see the justification for federal dollars being spent unless it is to achieve specific health outcomes.

So if the federal goal were to make quality health care available to more people, and one state wanted to do this by openning public health clinics in underserved areas and another wanted to do this by subsidizing health insurance for a certain economic class, as long as both plans met certain performance criteria, I'd have no problem with federal assistance to the states to carry out these plans, but if a third state wanted to use the money to lower insurance costs to some people who already had insurance, I'd say, no, because that was not the purpose the money was appropriated for.

 

[sealybobo]

Govt. sponsored healthcare for all which as you can see I clearly am not, I would go about it in another way. For example, if as many people supported the idea as suggested then I would push for a constitutional amendment to make healthcare a right under the constitution. you would need 2/3rds of the states to ratify it but once done. There you have it. a "right" As for the Mass. plan if the goal is to cover everyone, then there you have it. "everyone covered" with the exception of illegal immigrants. You do realize though that Medicare is not administered by the Federal Govt. right? and is contracted out to for profit companies? Even if the Govt. were to institute a govt. takeover of the healthcare industry they do not have the capacity or knowledge to manage it and would have to rely on the same evil for profit companies that people blame now. If people think that by doing so, that will keep them in line I suggest they dont know a whole lot about Govt. contracting then and for them to take a look at the Air Force Tanker program to get a good look at how well contracting works. The point is sealy, you live in MI. and MI, is better suited to meet your needs than Washington. Washingtons job is to provide the means by which MI. can promote and environment to meet those needs be it business, or state.

I didn't say healthcare for all. I said a government option. You can keep your private healthcare. The public option is just another choice. You like having choices, right?

And I don't know if states are better than the Federal Government at doing this or not. A little late to suggest this, isn't it Navy? It is almost impossible to take you guys serious when you fought any and all solutions for sooo long and now that you know change is coming, here you are with all the answers. For years you only told us we couldn't, and now you have solutions? This is one of my problems I have with people on the right. Same pattern on every issue. Deny, argue, and then when you can't deny anymore, then tell us that you have the answers. Sorry, we got it from here. We know you don't want change. We know most of you have ok health coverage and you don't want healthcare for all because you worry it will hurt you personally. And healthcare went up 191% during Bush's 8 years. We didn't have enough democratic votes to make change. Now that we do, we don't need your help. We know you only want to slow up any/all progress. Sorry Navy, but you know what I am saying is true.

All of your concerns are either unfounded or can be solved. I don't have all the answers, but I know that you and the slick for profit ceo's can be very convincing. We will take what you say under advisement.

Do private insurers gouge medicare patients like they do blue cross patients? Do they deny medicare patients for pre existing conditions? Medicare works fine. We are just talking about expanding that to millions of Americans. We want the same thing John McCain gets. Seems to work for the Senators. Why can't we have that?

They aren't talking about taking over the healthcare industry. They're just going to be the middle man between the doctors and patients. Trust me, they can figure it out. And do it for less. And you can have a CEO and For Profit making your medical decisions for you. Go for it. In America you are free to do that.

You want a good example of bad contracting, just look at Haloburton and Blackwater. That's why we should not have FOR PROFITS running our wars either. Don't get me started.

 

[Sarah G]

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. 10th Amendment

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.

In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING

So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?

It's too late for that. If any Repub was interested in Healthcare legislation, they would have taken this up long ago when they were in charge.

The Democrats now have it, we have a president who intends to get UHC done and America wants it.

 

[editec]

So now the argument isn't against socialized heath care as long as the STATES, rather than the FEDs, mandate it?

Interesting development.

Those of you who imagine that the States ought to do this task have far more faith in State governments efficacy and integrity than I do.

 

[Navy1960]

So now the argument isn't against socialized heath care as long as the STATES, rather than the FEDs, mandate it?

Interesting development.

Those of you who imagine that the States ought to do this task have far more faith in State governments efficacy and integrity of state governments than I do.

My point in this thread is actully quite simple, and that is that states that are demanding mandated healthcare that is run by the Govt. should be a state issue. In fact if a majority of a states residents desire Universal healthcare then my point is simply that the individual states should as a matter of course vote on that those issues and this issues does not belong at the Federal level as far as "public options" go.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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. 10th Amendment

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.

In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING

So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?

It's too late for that. If any Repub was interested in Healthcare legislation, they would have taken this up long ago when they were in charge.

The Democrats now have it, we have a president who intends to get UHC done and America wants it.

You're not keeping up with the news. Universal health insurance is off the table for all practical purposes because no one has been able to come up with a plan for universal coverage that will not either require some sort of large middle class tax increase or trillions of dollars of new debt. So, having failed to deliver on their primary promise of universal health insurance, the Congressional Dems turned to a public plan in the hope of showing some sort of victory, but it is a virtual certainty that it will not pass the Senate. It is uncertain at this point if the Dems will be able to deliver any major health insurance or health care changes.