Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out

[Papageorgio]

Vermont is correct it is a state issue, not a federal issue. The Feds have no business dictating our insurance decisions.

If the taxpayers of Vermont dislike it, they can vote the people out.

I find it amusing how liberals cry states rights over this but think nothing of the heavy foot of the government to insert its will of ACA.

Now, do I think Vermont's single payer system will work? I think the quality will go down and the middle class will pick up most of the expense, just as it is with the ACA.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Meister, the health industry has already proven to be failure, due to its own corruption and greed.

We will see if the state can do better. Lucky that.

Seriously?????? Health industry hasn't proved to be a failure, where did you come up with that one.
You have to take the gullible award for the week, Jake....or you like socialized medicine....that's so conservative of you.

Of course it is. It has created a system that is not affordable and accessible with quality care for all Americans. It has created its own death panels. Western nations live longer, cheaper, and more healthily than we do.

This has nothing to do with "socialized" medicine, it has to do with the American health care's failure to take care of Americans while getting rich by denying health care.

Jake we are a Western nation.....and living healthily is a life style decision....not a medical decision....

 

[Meister]

Why don't you get the debt totals, because it is your propaganda that you are preaching.

Your ignorance of Western national health care is appalling.

And your deflection from our health care industry's problem here is noted.

Vermont is doing what it is doing because of the failures of our private health care system.

We had from 1994 to 2006 to fix it, and we didn't.

Tough that.

I'm on a tablet this evening, can't do the linking, but did a Google on the subject, and there is serious problems in Europe, so I can only assume that you're too fragile to look up the truth, jake.
As for your premise with Western Healthcare....you are the ignorant one.
I never said our healthcare before obummercare was perfect, but it could have been tweeked for those without, not overhauled for the sake of government control.
You really are a socialist....at the very least with healthcare....probably just scratching the surface with you.

I'm still not sure what Meister's point is here; it seems to keep landing on "you're a socialist".

-- And?

Some things are socialized in any government structure, even ours. Public libraries are socialism. Public parks and the Smithsonian are socialism. National highways are socialism. NOAA and NIH and the CDC and the FDA. And of course Social Security and Medicare. All established by We the People to promote the general welfare. Ya gotta come up with a little better argument than an unexplained insinuation or the same tired old "that'll never work".

We're talking about the government taking over an industry, Pogo.
"That'll never work"because we see other countries economies in stress because of the healthcare costs. Long lines fewer doctors and fewer state of the art technology. They have had enough time to work at the kinks....and haven't. So the uber lefties want to follow suit?
Your "promote the general welfare" has been debunked so many times on this board you should be embarrassed to even bring it up.

I hope that you now understand better where Meister is coming from.

 

[Pogo]

I'm on a tablet this evening, can't do the linking, but did a Google on the subject, and there is serious problems in Europe, so I can only assume that you're too fragile to look up the truth, jake.
As for your premise with Western Healthcare....you are the ignorant one.
I never said our healthcare before obummercare was perfect, but it could have been tweeked for those without, not overhauled for the sake of government control.
You really are a socialist....at the very least with healthcare....probably just scratching the surface with you.

I'm still not sure what Meister's point is here; it seems to keep landing on "you're a socialist".

-- And?

Some things are socialized in any government structure, even ours. Public libraries are socialism. Public parks and the Smithsonian are socialism. National highways are socialism. NOAA and NIH and the CDC and the FDA. And of course Social Security and Medicare. All established by We the People to promote the general welfare. Ya gotta come up with a little better argument than an unexplained insinuation or the same tired old "that'll never work".

We're talking about the government taking over an industry, Pogo.
"That'll never work"because we see other countries economies in stress because of the healthcare costs. Long lines fewer doctors and fewer state of the art technology. They have had enough time to work at the kinks....and haven't.

I don't know that that's true; I only know I've heard it's true, as have you, which again comes from the übernaysayers, so that's when my native state becomes Missouri. In the real world the Canadians and Europeans I know just don't corroborate those wacky sinister stories. I'm not buying.

Your "promote the general welfare" has been debunked so many times on this board you should be embarrassed to even bring it up.

No, actually I'm never embarrassed to bring up the Constitution of the United States of America, nor am I aware it was "debunked", even once. Do tell.

I hope that you now understand better where Meister is coming from.

I understand that you abandoned your choice of pseudo-slur, since you never even addressed it here... which is where this question started.

But you did leave me one clue that is very telling, not counting the debunked Constitution: characterizing health care as an "industry". Perhaps you told me more than you meant to, because that says a lot.

 

[Meister]

I'm still not sure what Meister's point is here; it seems to keep landing on "you're a socialist".

-- And?

Some things are socialized in any government structure, even ours. Public libraries are socialism. Public parks and the Smithsonian are socialism. National highways are socialism. NOAA and NIH and the CDC and the FDA. And of course Social Security and Medicare. All established by We the People to promote the general welfare. Ya gotta come up with a little better argument than an unexplained insinuation or the same tired old "that'll never work".

We're talking about the government taking over an industry, Pogo.
"That'll never work"because we see other countries economies in stress because of the healthcare costs. Long lines fewer doctors and fewer state of the art technology. They have had enough time to work at the kinks....and haven't.

I don't know that that's true; I only know I've heard it's true, as have you, which again comes from the übernaysayers, so that's when my native state becomes Missouri. In the real world the Canadians and Europeans I know just don't corroborate those wacky sinister stories. I'm not buying.

Your "promote the general welfare" has been debunked so many times on this board you should be embarrassed to even bring it up.

No, actually I'm never embarrassed to bring up the Constitution of the United States of America, nor am I aware it was "debunked", even once. Do tell.

I hope that you now understand better where Meister is coming from.

I understand that you abandoned your choice of pseudo-slur, since you never even addressed it here... which is where this question started.

But you did leave me one clue that is very telling, not counting the debunked Constitution: characterizing health care as an "industry". Perhaps you told me more than you meant to, because that says a lot.

Try googling what other countries are enduring with the costs of their healthcare....I had no problem finding it, but...if you don't want the answer, I can see why you made your statement.

Let me help you with the "promote general welfare"

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster



When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????


Having said that.....you would allow your government to run the healthcare. Set the prices on you through taxes, you have no say.....you have no say on your coverage, or lack of coverage, because you have no competition.
That very telling on you. I don't trust my government.

 

[Gadawg73]

Vermont is correct it is a state issue, not a federal issue. The Feds have no business dictating our insurance decisions.

If the taxpayers of Vermont dislike it, they can vote the people out.

I find it amusing how liberals cry states rights over this but think nothing of the heavy foot of the government to insert its will of ACA.

Now, do I think Vermont's single payer system will work? I think the quality will go down and the middle class will pick up most of the expense, just as it is with the ACA.

"The Feds have no business dictating our insurance decisions"

Your team ignored that when we have been saying exactly that fighting against the ACA.

ACA is THE FEDS DICTATING OUR INSURANCE DECISIONS.

Damn son.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Ah....vermont bureaucrats and civil servants will certainly deliver better and more affordable care....lol

 

[Gadawg73]

Listen to Duane, he is slick on slide, knows his stuff.
Don't let him ride bikes though.

 

[Pogo]

We're talking about the government taking over an industry, Pogo.
"That'll never work"because we see other countries economies in stress because of the healthcare costs. Long lines fewer doctors and fewer state of the art technology. They have had enough time to work at the kinks....and haven't.

I don't know that that's true; I only know I've heard it's true, as have you, which again comes from the übernaysayers, so that's when my native state becomes Missouri. In the real world the Canadians and Europeans I know just don't corroborate those wacky sinister stories. I'm not buying.



No, actually I'm never embarrassed to bring up the Constitution of the United States of America, nor am I aware it was "debunked", even once. Do tell.

I hope that you now understand better where Meister is coming from.

I understand that you abandoned your choice of pseudo-slur, since you never even addressed it here... which is where this question started.

But you did leave me one clue that is very telling, not counting the debunked Constitution: characterizing health care as an "industry". Perhaps you told me more than you meant to, because that says a lot.

Try googling what other countries are enduring with the costs of their healthcare....I had no problem finding it, but...if you don't want the answer, I can see why you made your statement.

Let me help you with the "promote general welfare"

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster



When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????


Having said that.....you would allow your government to run the healthcare. Set the prices on you through taxes, you have no say.....you have no say on your coverage, or lack of coverage, because you have no competition.
That very telling on you. I don't trust my government.

OMFG how dense can you be and still find the "Submit" button...

--- You don't think Big Pharma and Big Insurance are "special interest groups" or "particular classes of people?? Really??

This has ZERO to do with "confiscating wealth". Way to miss the point COMPLETELY. That is, unless you mean the gummint's complicity in the taking of that wealth by its arm (nay, its puppeteer) the Corporatocracy. Turning the spotlight off of that and onto your fellow citizens is exactly what they want. You're a good drone.

When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????

An "industry" is an entrepreneur making Barbie dolls and selling them for a profit. The customer understands that he/she doesn't need a Barbie doll but chooses to buy one. Health care is not a Barbie doll. It's a social necessity just like clean water, just like safe food, just like having a federal agency coordinate air traffic so planes don't fly into each other.

Let me guess -- you see nothing wrong with the idea of a for-profit hospital making profits off the sick and infirm ... amirite?

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't know that that's true; I only know I've heard it's true, as have you, which again comes from the übernaysayers, so that's when my native state becomes Missouri. In the real world the Canadians and Europeans I know just don't corroborate those wacky sinister stories. I'm not buying.



No, actually I'm never embarrassed to bring up the Constitution of the United States of America, nor am I aware it was "debunked", even once. Do tell.



I understand that you abandoned your choice of pseudo-slur, since you never even addressed it here... which is where this question started.

But you did leave me one clue that is very telling, not counting the debunked Constitution: characterizing health care as an "industry". Perhaps you told me more than you meant to, because that says a lot.

Try googling what other countries are enduring with the costs of their healthcare....I had no problem finding it, but...if you don't want the answer, I can see why you made your statement.

Let me help you with the "promote general welfare"

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster



When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????


Having said that.....you would allow your government to run the healthcare. Set the prices on you through taxes, you have no say.....you have no say on your coverage, or lack of coverage, because you have no competition.
That very telling on you. I don't trust my government.

OMFG how dense can you be and still find the "Submit" button...

--- You don't think Big Pharma and Big Insurance are "special interest groups" or "particular classes of people?? Really??

This has ZERO to do with "confiscating wealth". Way to miss the point COMPLETELY. That is, unless you mean the gummint's complicity in the taking of that wealth by its arm (nay, its puppeteer) the Corporatocracy. Turning the spotlight off of that and onto your fellow citizens is exactly what they want. You're a good drone.

When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????

An "industry" is an entrepreneur making Barbie dolls and selling them for a profit. The customer understands that he/she doesn't need a Barbie doll but chooses to buy one. Health care is not a Barbie doll. It's a social necessity just like clean water, just like safe food, just like having a federal agency coordinate air traffic so planes don't fly into each other.

Let me guess -- you see nothing wrong with the idea of a for-profit hospital making profits off the sick and infirm ... amirite?

Health care is a personal decision.
My mother died at age 91, never went to doctors after the age of 56, never took prescription dope.
She took care of herself, walked 4 miles a day and swam 2 when she could as she lived in Ft. Myers, Fla.
Health care is a responsibility of each citizen.
Now I agree we need a national health CARE policy as the focus now is on disease care.
But folks are fat and unhealthy because of the BAD decisions THEY MAKE.
And I should not have to pay for their bad decisions.

 

[Claudette]

I agree.

Also when they have more people taking the "free" HC then they have paying for it and taxes go up to cover the costs you can bet your ass the taxpayers in Vt. will catch a clue.

Single payer is not an advance. Its a way for those who have to pay for those who don't. Just like the ACA.

single payor does not prohibit you from having your own insurance or having private doctors in any country that I know of.

where do you get this stuff?

and waiting for care is better than NOT HAVING CARE.

sheesh.

Single payer does not mean single payer? huh?

No it means that taxes will be paying for HC. If you don't pay taxes because your poor then somebody elses money will bankroll your HC and your HC will cost you nothing.

Loads of folks moved to VT because its an easy State to get Welfare in. I know this because I lived in NH for twenty plus years and new loads of folks who moved to Vt for just that reason.

I doubt the taxpaying folks in Vt are gonna think single payer is so great when they are stuck paying for those who can't pay for themselves.

Oh and I could give **** one about the poor. Its not my duty to bankroll their lives for em.

 

[Pogo]

Try googling what other countries are enduring with the costs of their healthcare....I had no problem finding it, but...if you don't want the answer, I can see why you made your statement.

Let me help you with the "promote general welfare"

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster



When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????


Having said that.....you would allow your government to run the healthcare. Set the prices on you through taxes, you have no say.....you have no say on your coverage, or lack of coverage, because you have no competition.
That very telling on you. I don't trust my government.

OMFG how dense can you be and still find the "Submit" button...

--- You don't think Big Pharma and Big Insurance are "special interest groups" or "particular classes of people?? Really??

This has ZERO to do with "confiscating wealth". Way to miss the point COMPLETELY. That is, unless you mean the gummint's complicity in the taking of that wealth by its arm (nay, its puppeteer) the Corporatocracy. Turning the spotlight off of that and onto your fellow citizens is exactly what they want. You're a good drone.

When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????

An "industry" is an entrepreneur making Barbie dolls and selling them for a profit. The customer understands that he/she doesn't need a Barbie doll but chooses to buy one. Health care is not a Barbie doll. It's a social necessity just like clean water, just like safe food, just like having a federal agency coordinate air traffic so planes don't fly into each other.

Let me guess -- you see nothing wrong with the idea of a for-profit hospital making profits off the sick and infirm ... amirite?

Health care is a personal decision.

Bullshit. Health care is a universal necessity, the only alternative to it being death. Religion is a personal decision. How you vote is a personal decision. Career path is a personal decision. Health care is a necessity. One doesn't get a "choice" of whether or not to treat one's maladies. One treats them, or one dies.

My mother died at age 91, never went to doctors after the age of 56, never took prescription dope.
She took care of herself, walked 4 miles a day and swam 2 when she could as she lived in Ft. Myers, Fla.
Health care is a responsibility of each citizen.
Now I agree we need a national health CARE policy as the focus now is on disease care.
But folks are fat and unhealthy because of the BAD decisions THEY MAKE.
And I should not have to pay for their bad decisions.

Actually that's by and large not the case at all. We're really (as a population) not eating differently now than we were before obesity became rampant. Here's very good illustration of that:

Wassup wit Wheat -- it's not what it used to be

Couple of documentaries about changes in the food supply that have themselves also contributed to the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and the like:

"Stuffed" (down the page, in two parts)

We're being poisoned. Not by toxins (well not entirely) but by food industry (for this time unlike hospitals we can safely use the word industry) bent on profits at the expense of public health.

RE wheat above -- I know from direct personal experience that when I stopped eating bread and continued on eating everything else, no other changes, I lost 40 pounds. That was in no way MY decision to put on those 40 pounds. That's just wheat alone, never mind the sugars pumped into everything, again for the sake of naked profits, let alone the corn syrup that dominates that sugar infusion, completely corrupted by Monsanto monopolistic profiteering....

So no, you don't get to blame We the People for the actions of the puppeteers whose boots you blithely lick. And btw with condolences for the loss of your mother, using her to float an "I got mine so you can go **** yourself" philosophy gives me the urge to regurge.

 

[Pogo]

single payor does not prohibit you from having your own insurance or having private doctors in any country that I know of.

where do you get this stuff?

and waiting for care is better than NOT HAVING CARE.

sheesh.

Single payer does not mean single payer? huh?

No it means that taxes will be paying for HC. If you don't pay taxes because your poor then somebody elses money will bankroll your HC and your HC will cost you nothing.

Loads of folks moved to VT because its an easy State to get Welfare in. I know this because I lived in NH for twenty plus years and new loads of folks who moved to Vt for just that reason.

I doubt the taxpaying folks in Vt are gonna think single payer is so great when they are stuck paying for those who can't pay for themselves.

Oh and I could give **** one about the poor. Its not my duty to bankroll their lives for em.

That's curious because I actually lived in Vermont and I found the opposite to be the case. In fact that's why I had to move out.

 

[Meister]

I don't know that that's true; I only know I've heard it's true, as have you, which again comes from the übernaysayers, so that's when my native state becomes Missouri. In the real world the Canadians and Europeans I know just don't corroborate those wacky sinister stories. I'm not buying.



No, actually I'm never embarrassed to bring up the Constitution of the United States of America, nor am I aware it was "debunked", even once. Do tell.



I understand that you abandoned your choice of pseudo-slur, since you never even addressed it here... which is where this question started.

But you did leave me one clue that is very telling, not counting the debunked Constitution: characterizing health care as an "industry". Perhaps you told me more than you meant to, because that says a lot.

Try googling what other countries are enduring with the costs of their healthcare....I had no problem finding it, but...if you don't want the answer, I can see why you made your statement.

Let me help you with the "promote general welfare"

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster



When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????


Having said that.....you would allow your government to run the healthcare. Set the prices on you through taxes, you have no say.....you have no say on your coverage, or lack of coverage, because you have no competition.
That very telling on you. I don't trust my government.

OMFG how dense can you be and still find the "Submit" button...

--- You don't think Big Pharma and Big Insurance are "special interest groups" or "particular classes of people?? Really??

This has ZERO to do with "confiscating wealth". Way to miss the point COMPLETELY. That is, unless you mean the gummint's complicity in the taking of that wealth by its arm (nay, its puppeteer) the Corporatocracy. Turning the spotlight off of that and onto your fellow citizens is exactly what they want. You're a good drone.

When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????

An "industry" is an entrepreneur making Barbie dolls and selling them for a profit. The customer understands that he/she doesn't need a Barbie doll but chooses to buy one. Health care is not a Barbie doll. It's a social necessity just like clean water, just like safe food, just like having a federal agency coordinate air traffic so planes don't fly into each other.

Let me guess -- you see nothing wrong with the idea of a for-profit hospital making profits off the sick and infirm ... amirite?

I stand behind everything I said to you and your "for the general welfare" crap you spewed.
You touted the constitution to back up your flawed premise. General Welfare meant something entirely different to the FF's than what your trying to shovel. It IS NOT up to the government to be in the business of healthcare.....it's a business...not government.
Like I told Jake......there could have been tweaks in the healthcare system for a safety net that got coverage for those without and didn't have to go with a full blown mandate with an overhaul for everyone. Even today we see that the system has failed and it will continue to fail with it's goal of coverage. Yet....you won't address that.
You ignore the fact that socialized healthcare isn't working in countries with large populations, or anywhere other than low populated areas.


You're right, I don't have an issue with for profit healthcare. I don't believe in socialized healthcare.....it isn't any revelation. I believe that a single man in his 70's doesn't want pregnancy insurance shouldn't have to buy it....on the other hand you think he should.
I don't think a couple in their 60's should have to buy insurance that includes birth control....you think they should.
I find it offensive that you think that a government run healthcare with a one size fits all is perfectly fine. You're ridiculous!
America being an exceptional nation is rapidly diminishing under the current administration and with the love and support of you and your ilk.

Now....have a good weekend, I'm heading out for the weekend for some fishing.

 

[Pogo]

Try googling what other countries are enduring with the costs of their healthcare....I had no problem finding it, but...if you don't want the answer, I can see why you made your statement.

Let me help you with the "promote general welfare"

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster



When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????


Having said that.....you would allow your government to run the healthcare. Set the prices on you through taxes, you have no say.....you have no say on your coverage, or lack of coverage, because you have no competition.
That very telling on you. I don't trust my government.

OMFG how dense can you be and still find the "Submit" button...

--- You don't think Big Pharma and Big Insurance are "special interest groups" or "particular classes of people?? Really??

This has ZERO to do with "confiscating wealth". Way to miss the point COMPLETELY. That is, unless you mean the gummint's complicity in the taking of that wealth by its arm (nay, its puppeteer) the Corporatocracy. Turning the spotlight off of that and onto your fellow citizens is exactly what they want. You're a good drone.

When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????

An "industry" is an entrepreneur making Barbie dolls and selling them for a profit. The customer understands that he/she doesn't need a Barbie doll but chooses to buy one. Health care is not a Barbie doll. It's a social necessity just like clean water, just like safe food, just like having a federal agency coordinate air traffic so planes don't fly into each other.

Let me guess -- you see nothing wrong with the idea of a for-profit hospital making profits off the sick and infirm ... amirite?

I stand behind everything I said to you and your "for the general welfare" crap you spewed.
You touted the constitution to back up your flawed premise. General Welfare meant something entirely different to the FF's than what your trying to shovel. It IS NOT up to the government to be in the business of healthcare.....it's a business...not government.
Like I told Jake......there could have been tweaks in the healthcare system for a safety net that got coverage for those without and didn't have to go with a full blown mandate with an overhaul for everyone. Even today we see that the system has failed and it will continue to fail with it's goal of coverage. Yet....you won't address that.
You ignore the fact that socialized healthcare isn't working in countries with large populations, or anywhere other than low populated areas.


You're right, I don't have an issue with for profit healthcare. I don't believe in socialized healthcare.....it isn't any revelation. I believe that a single man in his 70's doesn't want pregnancy insurance shouldn't have to buy it....on the other hand you think he should.
I don't think a couple in their 60's should have to buy insurance that includes birth control....you think they should.
I find it offensive that you think that a government run healthcare with a one size fits all is perfectly fine. You're ridiculous!
America being an exceptional nation is rapidly diminishing under the current administration and with the love and support of you and your ilk.

Now....have a good weekend, I'm heading out for the weekend for some fishing.

I too am piling up things to do so a last thought for now just on the main point ---

This isn't about government "running" or "providing" health care. That might be one approach for better or worse but that's not the point. Let me illustrate what IS the point...

You want your government to protect you from aggression and terrorists -- right?

I'll assume you do, as do I.

-- So why expend all this energy resisting the kind of aggression that soaks a patient for a $60,000 dose of medication? Aggression doesn't always mean bombs and bullets. If you're being waterboarded, you have one guy pouring the water on your face and another guy holding you down; in this analogy government is the latter. You seem to object to the idea that the government should NOT be holding you down so that the other guy can torture you.

OK one more sub-point: a for-profit hospital (like a for-profit anything) means that business has incentive to create more business for itself. If the "industry" it's in is healthcare, that means it's in that company's interest to charge more for hospital stays; to keep you in there longer; to sell you more medication, and to order more tests using the new machine that goes ::bing:: to justify their buying it.

Can you not see where this leads? Really? Think "public utility commission". Then connect the dots. You're posturing against the evil wicked gummint while completely ignoring and giving a pass to the kleptocracy that runs it.

The day I learned that there even WAS such a thing as a for-profit hospital, I fell down on the spot. How the **** did we let that through? Ironically I remember exactly the spot where I was standing ---- in my living room in my house in Vermont.

Finally:

You're ridiculous!
America being an exceptional nation is rapidly diminishing under the current administration and with the love and support of you and your ilk.

I don't see where you get that idea. I've never supported the ACA. I declared when it came out that I would have nothing to do with it and I've kept true to that. Matter of fact I declared my flat rejection as an absurdity to the first version, which came out in a neighboring state to where I lived in Vermont. You remember -- its governor ran for President two years ago. It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now, so I'll thank you to base on what I write and not on words you stuff in my mouth.

You have a fine weekend Meister and thanks for the discussion. And whatever you do, be safe. There are sharks out there and I don't mean in the water.



Edited Jots and tittles:

These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.

Uh, hello?? Then why did you call it "debunked"?
You're still hung up on this idea of "spending", but even granting you that -- you just confirmed what I said.

You ignore the fact that socialized healthcare isn't working in countries with large populations, or anywhere other than low populated areas.

Uh.... this thread is about Vermont. And Vermont is the most rural state we have. There's your "low populated area" -- again, hello?

I believe that a single man in his 70's doesn't want pregnancy insurance shouldn't have to buy it....on the other hand you think he should.
I don't think a couple in their 60's should have to buy insurance that includes birth control....you think they should.
I find it offensive that you think that a government run healthcare with a one size fits all is perfectly fine.

^^ Three absurd claims that I've never made or intimated or hinted at in any way whatsoever, ever. Pregnancy insurance? Birth control? I don't even know what the blue **** you're talking about here. Again, attributing your own wacko ideas to me -- ideas I've never even heard of, let alone endorsed -- isn't making a point, at all.

When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry. It's a business, it's a whole sector of business. You act like that's a bad thing......really?????

No, it is not. A business is when I sell you a widget and make it better than my competitor, or when you hire my competitor's widget service because he does it better than I do. That's a choice; health is an absolute public necessity. There is by definition no one who can choose to go without it without the consequence of death. The idea of one hospital competing with another should strike us all as absurd on its face -- because that's exactly what it is, shamless exploitation of the vulnerable. It's no different than picking the pocket of a person because he's blind and can't see you. No difference. So the way we have (let it) set it(self) up, the word for our excuse for a healthcare system isn't "business" -- it's racketeering. Of course when you're a mobster involved in a racket, you call it a "business".

You can no more sell health care to the highest bidder than you can sell a fire department that way. It's absurd. Health care is to help people in need, not those in greed.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Listen to Duane, he is slick on slide, knows his stuff.
Don't let him ride bikes though.

kinda late for that....

 

[Avatar4321]

good for them. Now the whole world can watch the failure that will occur and this nation will never go down that path.

 

[Gadawg73]

Government now pays for 70%+ of ALL prescription DOPE now.
Thanks to Bush and the Republicans for pushing and obtaining the largest socialist program in 50 years, Gramps and Grannies' all you can eat DOPE plan.

 

[Gadawg73]

Listen to Duane, he is slick on slide, knows his stuff.
Don't let him ride bikes though.

kinda late for that....

Was at his funeral.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Meister, of course there could have been TWEAKS to the system, for many years that could have happened, but the MOFOs controlling the health care system and their dogs in Congress and the legislatures said, no.

And you dare complain that the State of Vermont went in another direction?

The onus was on the health care system, and it failed.