- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Aren't you already paying for all the uninsured people who go to emergency rooms without insurance?
Yeah, that should stop.
Aren't you already paying for all the uninsured people who go to emergency rooms without insurance?
Absolutely...its not difficult at all. Police are a function of government because we decided that they were.
I don't think it is either. Dennis Kucinich, perhaps one of the biggest, if not the biggest, supporters of single-payer not for profit health care is saying now is not the time. One wonders when it will be though.
How about this: We kill the insurance system all together, people buy Catastrophic Health Insurance that is only used in obviously, catastrophic circumstances, and when you need to see the doctor, go to the hospital emergency room you pay the amount needed. I think back in the 70's my mom paid 25 bucks per visit to the doctor for me and my sisters. We didn't whip out the health insurance card because the way we use it.. it's not "insurance". What do you think would happen if every time you needed to get your car serviced with tires or an oil change - you placed a claim to your auto insurance company? Think it would go up? Same thing happening with "health insurance"...
Well, the insurance company - a private one - will define what catastrophic means. And the buyer can choose their definition or another company's definition.There's 2 closely related flaws in this plan.
1. Everyone has a different definition of 'catastrophic circumstances'. Is a heart attack catastrophic? What about diabetes (which is likely to cost far more in the long term than the heart attack)?
That's motivation to not stay poor. What happens is, those who cannot afford it go to clinics and or get charity.2. If you're poor, even something relatively minor like an emergency room visit for a broken bone can be 'catastrophic' if you don't have the money to pay the bill.
Never, of course.
It's not the government's job to provide health care. Read the Constitution.
The US Constitution Article I Section 8 said:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Let's just be clear... we lived in this world already. Your parents and grandparents lived in this world without health insurance. We seemed to survive, we can survive again. If you want to help the poor, you pay for them.
NO. Less government, not more.
No, police are a function of government because laws are meaningless without an enforcement mechanism.
Duh.
Health care isn't a function of government because stealing isn't a proper function of government.
Unfortunately yes. So?Aren't you already paying for all the uninsured people who go to emergency rooms without insurance?
Glinda said:Why yes, I have. Here's a little shocking information for you: Medicare is not a universal health system - it's for people over 65 years of age.
Medicare's financial issues are not the result of government mismanagement.
And what is causing the increase in the cost of providing health care services?
OUR PROFIT-DRIVEN HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
It is if you're arguing that something is 'necessary'.I'm sorry, but "it used to be that way and people survived it" isn't a very compelling argument.
This is old and tired.Emphasis mine.
Providing health care could certainly be argued to be 'providing for the general welfare' of the United States.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Your interpretation was rejected by the American people, boo dog. Get over it.Goober said:It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare
The same can be said your interpretation, boo dog.If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
Who says Medicare can't handle medical coverage for people over 65?No, really? Well if they can't handle medical coverage for people over 65, how the hell are we supposed to trust them to handle it for everyone?
Who says Medicare can't handle medical coverage for people over 65?
If your talking about paying for the affordability tax credits provided for in the Bill passed by the House, only we rich folk will be taxed to pay for those.Are we going to have to pay for Obamacare?
If your talking about paying for the affordability tax credits provided for in the Bill passed by the House, only we rich folk will be taxed to pay for those.
This is old and tired.
The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.
If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
Yes, it is. That's why they were specified in the Constitution.Clearly the list of programs further down in that clause is not exhaustive.
And?We have lots of programs that exist to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of our people that aren't in that list.
The USAF was originally part of the army, and was reorganized into it son wervice in 1947. I have argued that it should be re-absorbed back into the army.The air force isn't mentioned in that list, should we get rid of it too?
Both are directly related to the interstate commerce clause.The FAA isn't mentioned in that list either.
Nor is the FCC.
Your argument here has been addressed, countered and mooted.None of these things are in the constitution, because the things they regulate or relate to didn't exist when the constitution was written.
So?And neither did health insurance.
It is only a cheap cop-out if you arent concerned about the government violating the constitution so it can do something that you thing is a 'good idea', and it is -completely- true.But saying that we can't have it because the constitution doesn't allow it is a cheap cop-out and completely untrue.
Show us the numbers, boo dog.Till when 2016 when it will end up costing so much we will all be taxed for it.