HillaryCare is back!

[Starbuck1975]

You can interpret the Constitution or the Founders' intent however you want, but only what is written in the Constitution is the governing document of the United States, not opinions written by its authors elsewhere. If there was agreement on those opinions and that they were important, they would have been in the Constitution itself and ratified. You don't get to claim something is unconstitutional unless it violates the actual Constitution, not Madison's papers or Federalist papers, etc. Plus you completely dodged why Medicare hasn't been overturned as unconstitutional by the courts which are tasked with interpreting the Constitution if your case is so strong.

Quite true, but much of the language in the Constitution is vague at best...hence the debate between those who believe in strict adherence to the Constitution versus those who believe the language is open to interpretation. Our nation fought a Civil War over this very debate in terms of the balance between States' rights versus the Federal government, a disagreement that nearly derailed the Constitutional Convention to begin with.

Many Constitutional scholars reference the writings of Madison and others in entering the larger debate on Constitutional adherence.

As for Medicare, I am not aware of a challenge to this program, nor am I aware of a Supreme Court ruling that establishes it as precedence...but I don't think any court would touch such a popular concept with a ten foot pole...as others have said, you can make a case for Medicare, or any federal medical coverage effort, as an extension of societal welfare...the debate, as always, comes down to who will pay for such a program, and the choices afforded through it.

Similarly, just because the Federal government has the Constitutional right to exercise a certain power does not necessarily mean it will follow the best couse of action in doing so...Medicare, and Hillary's proposal, are perfect examples of big government bureaucratic solutions to problems better served by free markets.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't.

Son of a B

Now you roll out my Constitution question on Hillary Health care when you never answer my question on where in the Constitution does it say the U.S. is the World's policeman?

You bet your ass the Constitution applies to health care.

"It says general welfare of the people."

That does not mean 43 million without health care while the rich have it.

I'm glad that you guys are burning yourselves at the stake using my questions.

This is awesome :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

You can interpret the Constitution or the Founders' intent however you want, but only what is written in the Constitution is the governing document of the United States, not opinions written by its authors elsewhere. If there was agreement on those opinions and that they were important, they would have been in the Constitution itself and ratified. You don't get to claim something is unconstitutional unless it violates the actual Constitution, not Madison's papers or Federalist papers, etc. Plus you completely dodged why Medicare hasn't been overturned as unconstitutional by the courts which are tasked with interpreting the Constitution if your case is so strong.

Quite true, but much of the language in the Constitution is vague at best...hence the debate between those who believe in strict adherence to the Constitution versus those who believe the language is open to interpretation. Our nation fought a Civil War over this very debate in terms of the balance between States' rights versus the Federal government, a disagreement that nearly derailed the Constitutional Convention to begin with.

Many Constitutional scholars reference the writings of Madison and others in entering the larger debate on Constitutional adherence.

As for Medicare, I am not aware of a challenge to this program, nor am I aware of a Supreme Court ruling that establishes it as precedence...but I don't think any court would touch such a popular concept with a ten foot pole...as others have said, you can make a case for Medicare, or any federal medical coverage effort, as an extension of societal welfare...the debate, as always, comes down to who will pay for such a program, and the choices afforded through it.

Similarly, just because the Federal government has the Constitutional right to exercise a certain power does not necessarily mean it will follow the best couse of action in doing so...Medicare, and Hillary's proposal, are perfect examples of big government bureaucratic solutions to problems better served by free markets.

That is your opinion that they are better served by free markets. Free markets say old people are not a good insurance risk, and most would most certainly go without medical coverage without Medicare. There is a reason that Medicare is a popular untouchable concept. People aren't stupid in supporting it, in many cases their survival depends on it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

The Constitution also says blacks are 3/5ths of a person. That's what Amendments are for.

Then again, you are from Georgia.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

You can easily argue it's like auto insurance; it's a privilege to drive much like it's a privilege to be a U.S. citizen. Pretty simple argument that escapes you.

Nonetheless, national healthcare will come in our lifetimes. You'll also continue to be wrong about things, everything, year after year. And it'll be sad to watch, especially when you justify the failure of the surge a year from now.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

You can easily argue it's like auto insurance; it's a privilege to drive much like it's a privilege to be a U.S. citizen. Pretty simple argument that escapes you.

Nonetheless, national healthcare will come in our lifetimes. You'll also continue to be wrong about things, everything, year after year. And it'll be sad to watch, especially when you justify the failure of the surge a year from now.

Ha comparing driving which is a voluntary action with being a citizens where most of us were born into it. I think the simple analogy you bring up has nothing to do with the situation.

So when national healthcare arrives and fails like every govt program under the sun. Will you be back here admitting what a naive baffoon you were to believe the politicians?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

If healthcare was about choice, I'd agree, but it isn't. You need healthcare or one accident could destroy your finances, unless you have well over $10 million. A majority of people CANNOT get healthcare without severe restrictions or obscene costs with the current system. Therefore, it needs to be changed.

They FORCE you to pay taxes, think of it as a tax with an actual benefit.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Promote General Welfare?

Promote != to provide.

It isn't promoted right now.. the country caters to big business and high profits at the expensive of our peoples' health.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

Where do you see Hillary proposing forcing anyone to do anything? Show that to me in her specific proposal. From what I see it's all incentives.

From the article
"The New York senator said her plan would require every American to purchase insurance"

"The centerpiece of Clinton's latest effort is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance "

Require = force

BTW I love this bit:
"Clinton adviser Laurie Rubiner said the mandate could be enforced in a number of ways, such as denying certain tax deduction to those who refused to buy insurance. But she stressed that a specific mechanism would be worked out once the plan was passed."

Vote for the plan and let us work out the little details later.

Denying certain tax deductions is not not forcing. If I don't buy a hybrid, I am denied hybrid tax deduction, but noone is forcing me to buy a hybrid.
Anything voted on would have to come out of Congress, with all the details.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Senseamp let me get this right:
I have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, the right to own guns, the right to a trial by my peers, the right to privacy (so I can have an abortion), the right to be secure in my person, houses, papers and effects, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to vote if I am a female or under 18 yet I don?t have the right to NOT have health insurance?

I don?t believe the courts will allow the government to ?force? people to have private healthcare insurance.

There is no way to survive financially without healthcare insurance... it is essentially NOT an option.. it is funny that you are pretending like it's an actual option not to have health insurance and survive in this country.

An occasional person lucky enough to be healthy(thus far) telling others that health insurance isn't necessary is laughable. You could have half a million dollars, get into an accident and lose it all. Where are these "options"?

Where do I get covered for "pre-existing conditions" without a government related or specific job related insurance?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674That does not mean 43 million without health care while the rich have it.

I'm glad that you guys are burning yourselves at the stake using my questions.

This is awesome :thumbsup: :laugh:

Actually many of the rich are counted among this 43 million.

Many HEALTHY people who don't want to spend money on something they don't need now are part of that 43 million.


so you would force taking money from people for something they do not want or need? So UHC is going to be like Social Security, taking money under the promise of some future benefit?


Can't wait to see that trust box.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That is your opinion that they are better served by free markets. Free markets say old people are not a good insurance risk, and most would most certainly go without medical coverage without Medicare. There is a reason that Medicare is a popular untouchable concept. People aren't stupid in supporting it, in many cases their survival depends on it.

Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but the advancement of medicine is a huge burden on society.

Through medicine, we are now able to conquer diseases that at one time kept the life expectancy of humans much lower...and in a sense, preventing the natural cycle of life from "keeping the human herd" under control.

65 is a reasonable and logical age for retirement, but with the wave of Baby Boomers entering the twilight of their lives, they will place a huge burden on Medicare, and the companies obligated to support them in their retirement.

Given the reduced level of diet and exercise across America, not only will the elderly live longer, but there is an expectation that the system will alleviate the suffering they will face from their own lifestyle choices.

But this is a delicate line to walk...there is no doubt that millions of Americans require medical care for diseases or conditions that were simply a result of their losing the genetic lottery...and in our society, it is impossible to make a call on who deserves medical care without breaching the notion of civil liberties.

My solution is quite simple, but more difficult to implement...let the free market offer the most cost effective means for providing health care to the American people, with the government stepping in only to ensure that insurance companies and providers do not neglect certain demographics...and also serve to protect the American people from price fixing, monopolies and profiteering...a simple concept to implement, but difficult to enforce when our government representatives are in bed with the very insurance companies and medical providers we expect them to keep in check through legislation.

Any government funded and controlled solution to medical care is going to place an unfair burden on either corporate America or middle class taxpayers...many on this forum complain when the government hands out corporate welfare, yet there is also an expectation that corporations will provide the revenues necessary to fund corporate bureaucracy.

A truly screwed up system indeed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The current system is broken. Period. It had 15 years after it killed HillaryCare to do better its way. It failed miserably. Health coverage is even less affordable, and even more people are not covered. Time to stick a fork in it and start over.

Then you ought to pay attention to the fact that Hillary's proposal is not a new system, but subsidies and a mandate for the current system. The "national HMO nightmare" will be strengthened by her proposal, not weakened.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Promote General Welfare?

Promote != to provide.

It isn't promoted right now.. the country caters to big business and high profits at the expensive of our peoples' health.

Sure it is, most people in this country consider themselves in a good position. If the govt actively worked against these people, I doubt they would have such a high opinion of where they are today.

The fact is the majority of this nation has health insurance and access to the best medical care in the world. We are talking about 45 million people which is a bunk number anyways as it includes people who choose yes, choose to not carry medical insurance, and people who are in transitional positions in life. Like for instance a kid graduating highschool and getting off mom and dads health plan. Young people rarely require the kind of medical coverage older people do.

The truer number I have heard tossed around where people want\require health insurance and simply cant afford it or arent offered a program through their employment falls in about the 15-20 million range.

So for ~6.5% of the population we are going to scrap the current system and throw everybody on the govts program? While we do this our medical care will lower, you can be guranteed that. What happened at the vets hospital last summer is a preview what you can expect once govt takes over healthcare.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
The current system is broken. Period. It had 15 years after it killed HillaryCare to do better its way. It failed miserably. Health coverage is even less affordable, and even more people are not covered. Time to stick a fork in it and start over.

Then you ought to pay attention to the fact that Hillary's proposal is not a new system, but subsidies and a mandate for the current system. The "national HMO nightmare" will be strengthened by her proposal, not weakened.

I did pay attention to that, and that is why I said Republicans should jump on this because at least it preserves the current system and doesn't switch to a single payer system. If nothing is done, and current system keeps deteriorating, then at some point there will be political support for more drastic changes.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

While both are a form of authoritarianism, I'm a lot more worried about a government that spies on me than one that wants everyone to have health care.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

I'm not at all shocked at how dense your analysis is. As I posted, earlier, universal health care is consistant with the mission statement of the Constitution, as set forth in the Preamble, to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists, or anyone else, without a legitimate search warrant is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to that same Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

PJ -- How long are you going to continue to pimp the same totalitarian Bushwhacko bullshit? :roll:

GIVE UP! George W. Bush and his criminal cabal are a greater threat to our Constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties than Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and all the Al Qaeda wannabes in the world could ever be. At least, they admit they're trying to destroy us, while the Bushwhackos are actually doing it, daily, and lying about it. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[alchemize]

I've reviewed the plan on her website. There are a lot of questions to be answered obviously, the devil is in the details. Overall I give it a C. It will come at the expense of higher taxes which I'm fundamentally against, I believe it should be funded by budget cuts somewhere else. We need some kind of first step to offer coverage to everyone and get people out of the ER. It's no "cure" but it will help with the symptoms of so many uninsured.

As far as the "forcing" folks to buy health insurance, it's simply a fee or tax the government is levying for the privilege of using public facilities. No different than mandating auto insurance to operate a car. I'm interested to see what the penalties would be for not carrying it. Obviously turning someone away from an ER to die is not an option...perhaps you just sock them with the bill, much like what is done today.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

While both are a form of authoritarianism, I'm a lot more worried about a government that spies on me than one that wants everyone to have health care.

How do you expect that government to enforce compliance with this proposal if not by spying? This is not UHC. The government is not providing health care under this model, it is requiring that everyone purchase health insurance.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
The current system is broken. Period. It had 15 years after it killed HillaryCare to do better its way. It failed miserably. Health coverage is even less affordable, and even more people are not covered. Time to stick a fork in it and start over.

Then you ought to pay attention to the fact that Hillary's proposal is not a new system, but subsidies and a mandate for the current system. The "national HMO nightmare" will be strengthened by her proposal, not weakened.

I did pay attention to that, and that is why I said Republicans should jump on this because at least it preserves the current system and doesn't switch to a single payer system. If nothing is done, and current system keeps deteriorating, then at some point there will be political support for more drastic changes.

Thanks for making me go back through all your posts in this thread only to find out that you said nothing of the sort. :roll:

You and Harvey and some others in this thread need to take off the partisan blinders and wake up. This isn't UHC. Hillary is pandering to those same health insurance interests that you claim to be opposed to.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
You and Harvey and some others in this thread need to take off the partisan blinders and wake up. This isn't UHC. Hillary is pandering to those same health insurance interests that you claim to be opposed to.

Vic -- I don't care if Hillary's plan is a bad joke. I don't intend to vote for her, anyhow. I'm closer to Edwards' views, and I'm more concerned with the fact that, as things stand, the insurance and pharma execs are taking home mega-fortunes while millions of people, many of whom are working full time, are ill and dying of curable illnesses and physical conditions.

SOME form of universal health care that spends more of that money addressing those problems would be a blessing to the nation.

 

[Pabster]

Just curious, Harvey. You realize that Edwards' "Plan" calls for mandatory health exams?

Do you really like the idea of John Edwards telling you when you must get that colonoscopy?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

While both are a form of authoritarianism, I'm a lot more worried about a government that spies on me than one that wants everyone to have health care.

How do you expect that government to enforce compliance with this proposal if not by spying? This is not UHC. The government is not providing health care under this model, it is requiring that everyone purchase health insurance.

I never said I am for Hillary's plan. I only said which poison I would prefer to swallow.

The "spying" in this case isn't good, obviously, but at least I know her intentions before I vote next fall. I'll have the choice to be spied on when I cast my vote, rather than have shadowy figures decide this for me

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
You and Harvey and some others in this thread need to take off the partisan blinders and wake up. This isn't UHC. Hillary is pandering to those same health insurance interests that you claim to be opposed to.

Vic -- I don't care if Hillary's plan is a bad joke. I don't intend to vote for her, anyhow. I'm closer to Edwards' views, and I'm more concerned with the fact that, as things stand, the insurance and pharma execs are taking home mega-fortunes while millions of people, many of whom are working full time, are ill and dying of curable illnesses and physical conditions.

SOME form of universal health care that spends more of that money addressing those problems would be a blessing to the nation.

I think everyone is concerned about those people, Harv. I know it makes for an easy straw man for you to beat up on in order to cover up for your knee-jerking and your oddly childish black-and-white good guys and bad guys world view, but the actual disagreement really is about how to address the problems and in such a way that would actually be a blessing to the nation. Forcing the poor to provide proof that they're contributing to the mega-fortunes of those same execs might be SOME form in your book, but not mine.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Just curious, Harvey. You realize that Edwards' "Plan" calls for mandatory health exams?

Do you really like the idea of John Edwards telling you when you must get that colonoscopy?

What a silly question to ask of a liberal!