- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 7,017
- Reaction score
- 2,980
- Location
- The greatest planet in the world.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
What choice? I'm talking about something completely different, guy.You Don't like that choice huh.
What choice? I'm talking about something completely different, guy.You Don't like that choice huh.
Lets take a review the purpose of the Constitution which I submit trumps your opinion on health care:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security have all been upheld under our Constitution.
The Preamble isn't justification for any law. As far as the Constitutionality of the law, Nearly as many Justices ruled it unconstitutional as ruled it constitutional. And the at least one of the majority said it was in fact unconstitutional as written. I would bet money the final chapter isn't written by the Supreme Court on this one. Now, however the SCOTUS can't accept another case until someone has paid the tax.
This thread however asks is it a right privilege or responsibility, not if it's Constitutional. My point is how do you provide a "right" to one person (a patient) if it can ONLY be provide by a second person (a doctor)? What if the doctor refuses?
An excelent point. You can provide no right to a good or service, especially to a PRIAVTE good or service. The MOST that the gov't can do is to provide you funds, via a payment or tax "prebate" that it HOPES that you use for this intended purpose, like they do for "food" with SNAP.
We could make it public, like police and fire departments. :coffeepap
We could make it public, like police and fire departments. :coffeepap
We could make it public, like police and fire departments. :coffeepap
Right, and a brain surgeon will work for what GS rating? I can see the joy on the faces of the public now as they get to use GOV'T medical care facilities EXCLUSIVELY, with their blankets and lawn chairs as they camp out waiting to see THE doctor. If it takes a few hours to get a driver's license renewed and weeks for a passport, what will a gov't doctor visit be like?
Right, and a brain surgeon will work for what GS rating? I can see the joy on the faces of the public now as they get to use GOV'T medical care facilities EXCLUSIVELY, with their blankets and lawn chairs as they camp out waiting to see THE doctor. If it takes a few hours to get a driver's license renewed and weeks for a passport, what will a gov't doctor visit be like?
The question really should be - "Does publicly funded universal health care benefit society as a whole?" Some such systems extant are better than others, but in an overall sense, I think the civilised world has answered "Yes!"
A system wherein everyone capable contributes pro rata to the cost, does not penalise any one individual, wealthy or otherwise. No one is paying for someone else who is capable thereof, and we are all paying for our own health care, but in a manner which does not place an unbearable burden upon anyone. I do not know why Americans are the only society still debating this.
The question really should be - "Does publicly funded universal health care benefit society as a whole?" Some such systems extant are better than others, but in an overall sense, I think the civilised world has answered "Yes!"
A system wherein everyone capable contributes pro rata to the cost, does not penalise any one individual, wealthy or otherwise. No one is paying for someone else who is capable thereof, and we are all paying for our own health care, but in a manner which does not place an unbearable burden upon anyone. I do not know why Americans are the only society still debating this.
From each according to ability, to each according to need, is what you're describing. Yes, it sounds like a clever way to take the most amount of money possible from the people, but that's only half the battle. Then you have to start suppressing runaway costs and pricing, over-utilization, pharmaceutical profiteering, and on and on and on... Gotta hand over control of all of that to a government whose trustworthiness and reputation to not do the corrupt thing is, let me say less than sterling.
And it means giving quite a large number of folks some tough answers, letting some people die sooner, and other things no one likes to admit are needed components of any financially stable, cost-contained, centralized, socialized notion of health insurance.
Far as Americans go, you wanna entitle the world's least healthy population to the world's most expensive medical care, and you honestly wonder why we still debate it? If you have any wonder why it's still being debated, you must be ignoring some key aspects of our health and medical predicament. The cost has to be addressed before the entitlement.
First, PPACA isn't publicly funded healthcare. It's a mandate for people to buy services from another person / company.The question really should be - "Does publicly funded universal health care benefit society as a whole?" Some such systems extant are better than others, but in an overall sense, I think the civilised world has answered "Yes!"
A system wherein everyone capable contributes pro rata to the cost, does not penalise any one individual, wealthy or otherwise. No one is paying for someone else who is capable thereof, and we are all paying for our own health care, but in a manner which does not place an unbearable burden upon anyone. I do not know why Americans are the only society still debating this.
First, PPACA isn't publicly funded healthcare. It's a mandate for people to buy services from another person / company.
Second, the first question should be does it fit into the American way of government?
Many other countries have many social programs, they also enjoy less freedom than the United States. I personally value my freedom.
Sure it penalizes certain people. Healthy people that don't need health care. Wealthy people that may more than they use in healthcare. I don't see how you say those people are not penalized.
PPACA seeks to CONTROL (or destroy) the "private" medical care insurance market, by imposing both mimimum and maximum benefits, limitting overhead/profit and controlling premiuim costs. It is ONLY possible by using gov't mandates, that are simply controling the activities of a THIRD PARTY. What in PPACA, has ANY control over the cost of the actual medical care provided, other that the IPAB, which can only REMOVE care or mandate that it be "free" to the patient?
They are actually a good example of my point. Those aren't rights. Many places don't even have a fire departments. Where I live it's all volunteers. If they decide not to show up..oh well. My rights aren't violated because they didn't show up. Policemen and firemen are people they have a right to their life and liberty, everyone else has no right to their labor.
PPACA seeks to CONTROL (or destroy) the "private" medical care insurance market, by imposing both mimimum and maximum benefits, limitting overhead/profit and controlling premiuim costs. It is ONLY possible by using gov't mandates, that are simply controling the activities of a THIRD PARTY. What in PPACA, has ANY control over the cost of the actual medical care provided, other that the IPAB, which can only REMOVE care or mandate that it be "free" to the patient?
First, PPACA isn't publicly funded healthcare. It's a mandate for people to buy services from another person / company.
Second, the first question should be does it fit into the American way of government?
Many other countries have many social programs, they also enjoy less freedom than the United States. I personally value my freedom.
Sure it penalizes certain people. Healthy people that don't need health care. Wealthy people that may more than they use in healthcare. I don't see how you say those people are not penalized.
Everyone should have the right to proper medical care.
Exactly. They need to call an insurance company and get a policy.
As Mitt Romney and Barack Obama says, personal healthcare should be a mandate. Mitt Romney likes mandates. Can't dog out Obamacare without dogging out Romney too.
Here's the funny part. Rightwingnuts hate Obamacare. But you never hear much out of them regarding Romneycare, which is a spitting image of Obamacare. This is all just partisan hackery.
Here's one for the rightwingers. Watch and cringe. Mitt Obama..er...Romney at the 2008 GOP New Hampshire debates.
You are completely free except those chains?As far as personal freedoms are concerned, I, as a Brit, am not aware of missing out on any freedoms an American enjoys, unless you consider that ludicrous 'bearing arms' thing a 'freedom'. So, apart from that, can you enumerate the freedoms you enjoy that a Briton does not?
Are you seriously suggesting that healthy people are penalised by having health care available as and when they should need it? Are they, and the wealthy, similarly penalised by having police, fire services, and defence forces available? I doubt many of even your most conservative compatriots would agree with those views. Keep it real!
It's just fine if a republican supports it, but it is evil Marxism if a democrat supports it. You just have to get this stuff down Captain.