Universal Health Care

@Caroline,

EmperorNero;91721 wrote:

That's easy to say afterrr it protected you for your entire life. Matey.

The United States Military has never protected me in my life. The closest things to an invasion of US soil in my lifetime has been the 9/11 attacks. The US military has yet to have any need of firing a single shot in defense of sovereign US soil in my lifetime.

EmperorNero;91721 wrote:

Maybe you justs don't realize what the military has done for you.

No, I very much realize what they've done - cost the tax payers roughly 1.5 trillion dollars every year for decades.

Now, would you like to address my points on healthcare, or continue this unrelated tangent on why you so adore our armed services?

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;91657 wrote:

The issue is penalizing a particular individual for not participating in a particular program. This is unprecedented.

What about the program of taxation of income?

2 Replies

@gojo1978,

Yes, but the healthcare legislation will not be superimposed into tax law. Thus, Rich has a great point.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;91979 wrote:

Yes, but the healthcare legislation will not be superimposed into tax law. Thus, Rich has a great point.

He doesn't.

He complains that under the new healthcare bill, he will be penalised for not participating, and he says that is unprecedented. It is not, as if he chooses not to pay his income tax, he will be penalised for that too. Hence, a precedent. There are probably various others too, but that is the most obvious one that springs instantly to mind.

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

But tax law is something quite different than a Federal program. What Rich is talking about would be closer to being penalized for not using the US Postal Service for mail delivery.

Notice that I objected earlier on the basis of taxation, but after Rich's clarification, I think it's pretty clear that taxation is no precedent for being penalized for not participating in this sort of program.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;91999 wrote:

But tax law is something quite different than a Federal program. What Rich is talking about would be closer to being penalized for not using the US Postal Service for mail delivery.

Notice that I objected earlier on the basis of taxation, but after Rich's clarification, I think it's pretty clear that taxation is no precedent for being penalized for not participating in this sort of program.

Hmm. In that case, we go down more of a semantic road regarding precisely where the money is taxed from, whether it be the simple, sensible way, i.e. at source, or by forcing people to buy into an insurance plan.

As my knowledge of America allows me to understand it, the former will be avoided at all costs, as it would be portrayed by the press, and interpreted by the laymen that read it, as communism or some such, and so is effectively political suicide. Which is a shame, as it is the sensible way to do things.

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

As it stands, it appears to be a national insurance plan of sorts. And it is already being called socialism, communism, and Nazism by right wing critics.

Needless to say, there is a large right wing population that is incapable of defining any of those three terms - and, by looking at the signs these people carry, many are also incapable of spelling these terms.

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;91977 wrote:

What about the program of taxation of income?

Congress has Constitutional power to tax. However, it does not have the power to penalize for non-participation. This is a completely new power that Congress is seeking, which has never been introduced before. It would give Congress unprecedented ability to coerce any specific behavior on any specific group that it wishes, should this stand. As I said, I doubt it will stand, because the power would be so broad.

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

Really, Rich, what we are getting into is fairly technical law. I don't think anyone here has a leg to stand on when discussing the Constitutionality of such a thing.

I doubt we could even agree, or find a method by which to speculate upon, an analogous program. I mean, the draft is a program by which the government can compel, by force of penalty, the action of citizens.

Though, one thing we can say for sure - this program would not extend a Constitutional authority to coerce any specific behavior upon any specific group as the legislation applies equally to all Americans.

I'll try to get in touch with an attorney friend of mind and see what he thinks about this.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;92013 wrote:

Really, Rich, what we are getting into is fairly technical law. I don't think anyone here has a leg to stand on when discussing the Constitutionality of such a thing.

This information, as I said in my original post, came from am op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by prominent attorneys, and you can be sure that this penalty, if it ever becomes law will be challenged. It is totally unprecedented and it is a means of coercing people to comply without breaking any law. But I don't think this bill will pass. It is a fiasco. Everyone is looking at the costs and how much additional taxes/penalties are being imposed and are getting really cold feet. Obama blew it just like Hillary did.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;92009 wrote:

Congress has Constitutional power to tax. However, it does not have the power to penalize for non-participation.

It has the power to penalise non-participation in payment of taxes.

If the bill fails in Obama's first term, perhaps in his 2nd, as he cannot be re-elected thereafter, he should just raise income tax to pay for it, or institute what we have here, as pointed out by DDT, National Insurance.

All this talk of "choice" of healthcare provider is garbage, a smokescreen. Who even wants a choice in healthcare provision? Ultimately, who gives a damn who provides your healthcare, as long as they make you better?

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;92024 wrote:

It has the power to penalise non-participation in payment of taxes.

Congress has the power to tax. This is not a tax and is specifically stated so. This is a penalty of non-participation. Something totally new. It will be struck down because of what it implies.

Rich

0 Replies

@TheSingingSword,

TheSingingSword;91946 wrote:

Well, universal healthcare run by the federal government would be illegal, as it is unconstitutional.

It is? The government already runs the Veterans Administration, Medicare, and Medicaid, which are government run universal healthcare systems (for veterans, people over 65, and people below a certain poverty level, respectively). Are these unconstitutional?

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 10:27 PM ----------

gojo1978;92024 wrote:

Who even wants a choice in healthcare provision? Ultimately, who gives a damn who provides your healthcare, as long as they make you better?

People do want choice -- that's very much clear. I'm a pretty nice guy and I give my patients a lot of my time, but I don't get along with everyone -- no one does. And I'm not going to get anywhere with a patient who doesn't trust me, whether it's my fault or not.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;92056 wrote:

People do want choice -- that's very much clear. I'm a pretty nice guy and I give my patients a lot of my time, but I don't get along with everyone -- no one does. And I'm not going to get anywhere with a patient who doesn't trust me, whether it's my fault or not.

No, I don't mean "you or him or her"... I'm referring to providers in terms of the actual insurance companies people use. This seems to be one of the main objections put forward by opponents of universal healthcare.

Here, we can pick our GPs (general practitioners) and change if we don't like the one we have, but in the end, whoever we use, it is free at the point of use, and they are all employed by the state. The state is the one insurance company, and it is not trying to make money, so there is no conflict of interests between provider and client. I personally cannot see how a for-profit, competitive system can be thought of by anyone (except shareholders) to be even remotely as good an idea.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

What drives me the most crazy about multiple insurance companies is that I never can know or keep straight what is covered by this one but not that one. I have to jump through different hoops to get home oxygen therapy for a patient, or home wound care, or a visiting nurse, or to get them into a short term rehab hospital after a broken hip.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

There is absolutely NO reason why health care should be expensive. So I say get rid of the insurance companies, they are the ones causing the prices to sky rocket. Get rid of the government interference in the free market and health care costs will be affordable.

Whats next, we should have to get insurance to buy clothes? Or insurance to buy food?

The system is being abused by these companies.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;67316 wrote:

As someone in the United States that can not afford both tuition for college and health care, I wonder why the U.S. cannot get on the boat with the rest of the developed world and offer health care to all of their citizens. I have read most of the argument for and against universalized health care, and the arguments against it appear to be little more than rhetoric propagated by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. There is much chatter as well from people that seem to think that the government would not be effective at running a health care plan. Why is the government trusted with running the military, but cannot be trusted to run health care?

So I ask, why should we, or why shouldn't we have universalized health care so all Americans can receive the care they need regardless of pre-existing conditions. Other things to consider: is it moral for people to profit from health care? Why is health care in this country tied to employment? Why are people so concern with an increase in taxes when it means that there would be less out-of-the-pocket expenses associated with health care? What is the best form of paying for health care?

I do not oppose universal health care. Overall social costs will decrease if universal health care is implemented.

However, I have never proposed any sort of trust for the state running anything. It is simply not feasible for a bureaucracy the size of the US to manage a health care system. It can only result in huge amounts of wasteful spending and egregious disregard for patient rights.

Furthermore, the track record for the US simply contracting out its political goals to big businesses, universal health care may be the largest step towards A Brave New World style society we have ever seen.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;91486 wrote:

Would you D.T. agree with me that taxes for the purpose of national defense are appropriate and justified by the social constract: i.e. not robbery? I'm sure you will. Would you say that taxes levelled on the people so that the treasury secretary can drive around in a solid gold minivan would be appropriate: i.e. not robbery? No, I sure you would say that they are innapropriate, that amounts to robbery! Certainly. My point is that taxation is not robbery, taxation is neccessary, taxation is indeed fiundemental for the social contract; but ataxation for what purposes?

I find public health care to not be a part of the ideal social contract, and so I consider taxes levelled for the funding thereof to be innapropriate: i.e. tantamount to robbery.

This is all about values. An anarchist considers all forms of taxation to be robbery because they do not believe in the value of the state. From the perspective of values, an anarchist's devaluation of the state has no truth value, so what makes your sentiment more legitimate than theirs?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;92308 wrote:

There is absolutely NO reason why health care should be expensive.

Except for the fact that you have to train and employ doctors, nurses, and technicians; the fact that you have to research, develop and dispense medications that meet strict safety and efficacy standards; the fact that you have to develop and maintain highly technical and precise machines (such as MRIs); the fact that the operations of a hospital require 24/7/365 full time services, employees, and utilities; and the fact that medical liability forces physicians to get malpractice insurance and to practice defensive medicine by over-ordering tests.

Other than that there are no reasons why it should be expensive. Oh wait, there are other reasons too.

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;90764 wrote:

Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!

Watching the ongoing issue on BBC news from here in the UK, it amazes and saddens me how ill-informed large swathes of America are about what the President is trying to achieve for them.

I do not believe in god, but if he exists, may he bless Barack Obama. He is a truly great man.

Hmm. Maybe misery loves company.

---------- Post added 11-15-2009 at 07:58 PM ----------

Aedes;103698 wrote:

Except for the fact that you have to train and employ doctors, nurses, and technicians; the fact that you have to research, develop and dispense medications that meet strict safety and efficacy standards; the fact that you have to develop and maintain highly technical and precise machines (such as MRIs); the fact that the operations of a hospital require 24/7/365 full time services, employees, and utilities; and the fact that medical liability forces physicians to get malpractice insurance and to practice defensive medicine by over-ordering tests.

Other than that there are no reasons why it should be expensive. Oh wait, there are other reasons too.

I think he just left out the word "terrible" before "health care".

1 Reply

Universal Health Care

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know