Medicare is already Constitutional. If you want to argue that it's Constitutional for people over 65 but not for people under 65, you'll be laughed out of the courts.
I wasn't speaking specifically about the mandate proposal, just using it as an example. I don't see any mention of health care being a right or something provided by the government in our Constitution, so instead of trying to twist the Constitution's words to fit an agenda, they should spell it out in an amendment.
Medicare is already Constitutional. If you want to argue that it's Constitutional for people over 65 but not for people under 65, you'll be laughed out of the courts.
You obviously haven't been alive that long.
I had a long post, but my computer ate it.
If it were up to me, I'd socialize the whole provider system and probably due a hybrid of UK/Tawian's socialized medicine. The services are free(with co-pays), and obviously independent companies would still exist and they would, in turn, compete with each other to make products, medicines, etc.
Even with all their success in their health care system, Taiwan has suffered some misfortunes. The government is not taking in enough money to cover the services it provides, so it is borrowing money from banks.[15] The revenue base is capped so it does not keep pace with the increase in national income. Premiums are regulated by politicians[16] and they are afraid to raise premiums because of voters. The country is slow at adopting technology except for drugs. There is a low doctor-to-population ratio resulting in too many patients depending on too few doctors. Patients visit the doctor more frequently causing doctors to keep visits short to about 2 to 5 minutes per patient.[17] There is no system to regulate systematic reporting of clinical performance, patient outcomes and adverse events.
Basically, no one would ever have to worry about if they could afford health insurance - ever. I see the necessity of this no different than police, fire department, etc.
Right, because of Nazi Germany? Oh wait... Communist Russia? Gone. China? Yea, if they want to eat all our debt.
They've been using this system with a small population for about 20 years, and it is beginning to fail. If you think you can have the universal coverage of Taiwan with the healthcare quality of the US by magically snapping your fingers, you are grossly mistaken.
So what happens when crime continually increases? You have to hire more police, they have to work longer hours, you have to pay for better equipment, etc. Basically, costs keep going up. How do you make up that money? You think the problem that needs fixing is the police, and not the crime. Same principal. Disease rates, especially the costly chronic diseases, keeps increasing. Making people pay less for insurance isn't going to decrease disease rates, or costs.
If something costs little to nothing to you, you are more likely to use it for frivolous reasons. This increases costs to somebody else. Guess who?
Why are they gone?
Why haven't they come back?
You think it's because of the goodness of mankind?
Hence, that's why I said a UK/Taiwan hybrid.
Uh, that's a terrible analogy and a terrible solution to your analogy. You could educate your populace, re-think your laws, etc
Of course, making me people pay less for insurance overall isn't going to decrease disease rates but an initiative by the government for people to exercise, eat well and keep a strong mental health would certainly be beneficial.
Those that misuse the system should and will be fined. Just like any other government program.
Is this is a serious question?
There is, literally, no need for the United States' massive military. At all.
The rest of the modern world would disagree with you.
If the US military did not exist tomorrow, you think there is no entity in the world that would take advantage of that fact?
So you want to take all the successful parts, and ignore the downsides.
You began using the police and fire as an analogy, not me. The point stands. You think government can force a system to work the way it wants, while ignoring the true reasons for its current failings.
So you pay less, disease rates keep increasing. Where does the additional money come from to make up the difference?
Is that really your answer? I'm not talking about fraud... I'm talking about people going to the doctor for a cold. I'm talking about people people trying to take advantage of every benefit they are entitled to, even if it isn't necessary.
Setting all that aside, let me give you this question:
The leading expense in our heath care system today is treatment for chronic diseases, such as diabetes. Say we get a government system to pay 100% of our medical costs. This year we have X number of people getting treatment for diabetes, and we spend Y dollars. Next year, twice as many people have diabetes requiring treatment. What is the cost in terms of Y?
Most who argue for socialized medicine do some hand waving and insist that Y is not dependent on X. They insist that no matter the disease rate, or the rate of treatment, costs are completely independent and should remain within the realm of affordability.
So, what is Y?
I don't see you would have a problem Constitutionally. All you have to do is sell the idea of a 2 trillion+ a year program and doubling or tripling their taxes. You won't be saving them money, and in fact people will pay more since you'll have universal coverage.
I expect that the doubling or tripling of taxes won't be mentioned, in fact denied, but we've already heard that anything is worth it. No need to be honest about it.
The problem is that you'll have to sell it to the public first, and it will put an end to the Democratic Party, because despite of your fervor for the agenda, the American Public wouldn't vote for them for dog catcher.
Quote: Assuming they would increase.
Assuming, that is true, one could easily presume, that if the rates of chronic illness increased that would in-turn also reduce the cost of the treatment.
Yeah, Medicare sure put an end to the Democrats.
I hate to rain on your parade, but every nations health care costs are increasing, and guess what? The US isn't in first, or second, or third... In fact 2007-08 per capita in real terms in the UK was twice that of the US.
Point- So you pay less, disease rates keep increasing. Where does the additional money come from to make up the difference?
Demographics fail.
I hate to rain on your parade, but every nations health care costs are increasing, and guess what? The US isn't in first, or second, or third... In fact 2007-08 per capita in real terms in the UK was twice that of the US.
Your magic wand is broken. You don't really know anything about health care do you? You don't know about how it's provided, why it costs what it does (hint, salaries aren't it), or much of anything else. "Assuming it goes up". What do you think an aging population is going to do to utilization? It's going to go through the roof. Just the various dementias associated with aging will place a huge burden on the system, but you didn't think of that.
Your magic wand doesn't work.
Could you act like an adult? I have no reason to debate someone with such as this.
Medicare is already Constitutional. If you want to argue that it's Constitutional for people over 65 but not for people under 65, you'll be laughed out of the courts.
Imagine yourself dealing with a fervent believer of the Creation Museum in an evolution thread where many of the participants do not understand evolution beyond what they read in a newspaper. That's where I am, and further, some are advocating the CM have significant control over education.
That would be frustrating.
^^^You brought it up in an earlier post. Why do YOU consider it to be a "lost argument"? Because we actually have lousy results compared to most first-world nations despite it costing way more?
No, I minimized the downsides further.
You used the crime example, not police services.
Assuming they would increase.
Sounds awful lot like fraud to me.
Assuming, that is true, one could easily presume, that if the rates of chronic illness increased that would in-turn also reduce the cost of the treatment.
Yea, and it'd frustrating if all the did was throw ad hominens around like there actually an argument. Grow up.
Meh.
The bottom line, despite not being perfect socialized medicine is the way to go and nobody is going bankrupt due to it. Nobody should be refused medical care and have to live life 50% or go bankrupt, period.