- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 13,663
- Reaction score
- 4,633
- Location
- Fla
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Tort reform and....that's about it, as far as I can tell.
Then they really have no plan correct ?
Tort reform and....that's about it, as far as I can tell.
Agreed. Every social program in the country is going broke. Yet we strive to add more to the mix? After 2014 we will be wondering where we are going to get the money to pay for all the healthcare that is being provided. Wonder if China is going to be open for loans. Maybe Russia?
Tort reform and....that's about it, as far as I can tell.
Weve been paying for all the healthcare right along...sigh...why wont you people acknowledge that....you think all the people with no insurance going to ERs with gunshot wounds and in car accidents and needing super expensive treatment and surgeries...is FREE ? do you think thats all just free...do you think illegal immigrants coming across the border that get sick or get a traumatic injury and get treated and surgery is FREE ?? weve been paying for it all along as taxpayers...now it evens the playing field...people that can afford to pay need to have insurance....
Tort reform is all we need.
We will make it illegal to file a lawsuit against a doctor or any other medical professional. We will also make it illegal to file a lawsuit against a hospital or medical facility. Then healthcare costs will immediately plummet.
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?
The Preamble is the purpose of the Constitution. If you are confused about how UHC, just ask every other industrialized nation on the planet. We are the last remaining hold out.
We also have a different system of laws than every other industrialized nation in the world. So I will ask again, 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?
I would argue that the 10th amendment prohibits UHC.We have no laws that prevent UHC.
I don't remember heath care being as enumerated power.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And, as long as doctors are paid, they have no problem providing services, just as they do in every other industrialized country on the planet.
We have no laws that prevent UHC. And, as long as doctors are paid, they have no problem providing services, just as they do in every other industrialized country on the planet.
I would argue that the 10th amendment prohibits UHC.
I don't remember heath care being as enumerated power.
The question is; Can we definitively provide a right to a person if it has to be provided by another person.
I think you are mistaken. Why don't you ask a doctor?
Obamacare has 83 percent of doctor
I deal with doctors everyday. Based on my conversations with them, while they have compassion for the uninsured, they feel that this particular "remedy" (UHC) will do more harm that good. They claim that, as it is, their reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid generally don't even break even against their expenses for those patients. Additionally they state that UHC, leaving no room for competition, will leave little in the way of discretion for the physicians and little incentive for quaity care and customer service.
See the Supreme Court decisions that were upheld for SS, Medicare, and the Republican insurance mandate.
Single payer would have never passed.
None of those are a "right". They are law, they are not rights.
The rule of law is good enough for me.
So you concede that X, Y and Z are perhaps not "rights" after all, and that's fine with you as long as we write laws that entitle people to X, Y and Z anyway?
What I am fine with, is that under our Constitution, it is the Supreme Court that was specified as the body that decides what is Constitutional and what is not, just as they have with SS, Medicare, and the conservative's insurance mandate.
Uhmm what about Citizens united?
It remains the rule of law, even though I personally do not agree with it.
The rule of law is good enough for me.
Yes, we haven't accomidated those whose beliefs instruct them not to use 'health care', but trust in God to do the right thing. (They wouldn't go running to the hospital at the last minute would they?)So you would not support mandatory Universal healthcare in the United States since the supreme court has ruled the government can't force citizens into commerce according to our Constitution?
Until healthcare becomes affordable, it should be an option.I hope this is pretty self explanatory. What do you think? This'll be multiple choice and I'll include an "other". Give me a sec to get the poll up.
Yes, we haven't accomidated those whose beliefs instruct them not to use 'health care', but trust in God to do the right thing. (They wouldn't go running to the hospital at the last minute would they?)