IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

okie, I am sorry for getting out of hand and george was kind enough to point it out. I am tired and cranky and said some things that should have been left unsaid. I offer you my handshake and an apology for attacking a fellow A2ker in such a horrific fashion.

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

okie, I am sorry for getting out of hand and george was kind enough to point it out. I am tired and cranky and said some things that should have been left unsaid. I offer you my handshake and an apology for attacking a fellow A2ker in such a horrific fashion.

Well said.

But how could we possibly tell if you, Gus, were ever cranky?

You are usually a very bright light here, deftly using irony and wit to point out hypocrisy and pompousness, and doing so without polluting it with anything mean-spirited or angry. I was distressed to see you off your usual form. Very glad to see you back.

mcg :
you might find it hard to understand , but :

SHE NEEDED THE MONEY TO PAY FOR HER CANCER TREATMENTS !

try to read what miller wrote - it's pretty easy to understand .
hbg

This is a bit beneath your usual level of discourse, old europe. Don't you think you are being just a bit judgemental about the affairs of others in matters that don't even remotely affect you?

From the constitutional perspective the Air Force was merely a piece of the Army (which is mentioned in the Constitution), one which was later made a distinct organization, however, with common political governance. NASA or anything like it was not contemplated in the constitution, however, there is nothing in that document that inhibit the government from creating it.

Some aspects of the "Universal" health care systems being considered do indeed raise constitutional issues. Single payer and government managed variants will indeed likely limit the ability of both individual citizens and medical practicioners to freely contract for services under the terms they wish - rights that are guaranteed under the constitution.

Just where in the u.s. constitution is free health insurance stipulated, hamburger? If you can find it, please quote it.

Uh, oe, are you reading the same constitution? The constitution clearly places defense as something the federal government should be involved in. The same cannot be said for universal health care.

You are certainly correct in this Walter. If I am not mistaken the commitment to certain social welfare principles in basic law goes back almost to the founding of a united Germany. However, as a matter of historical fact this was instituted as a palliative for the popular acceptance of very authoritarian governments - after a period of near revolution and political unrest in the early and mid 19th century.

georgeob1 wrote:

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

okie, I am sorry for getting out of hand and george was kind enough to point it out. I am tired and cranky and said some things that should have been left unsaid. I offer you my handshake and an apology for attacking a fellow A2ker in such a horrific fashion.

Well said.

But how could we possibly tell if you, Gus, were ever cranky?

You are usually a very bright light here, deftly using irony and wit to point out hypocrisy and pompousness, and doing so without polluting it with anything mean-spirited or angry. I was distressed to see you off your usual form. Very glad to see you back.

Good observation, georgeob. I also see gus the same way you do; he is witty and adds humour to many a day for me.

earlier, okie wrote:

Just where in the u.s. constitution is free health insurance stipulated, hamburger? If you can find it, please quote it.

okie wrote:

Uh, oe, are you reading the same constitution? The constitution clearly places defense as something the federal government should be involved in. The same cannot be said for universal health care.

Here we go.

Just where in the US Constitution is a space programme stipulated, okie? If you can find it, please quote it.

old europe wrote:

earlier, okie wrote:

Just where in the u.s. constitution is free health insurance stipulated, hamburger? If you can find it, please quote it.

okie wrote:

Uh, oe, are you reading the same constitution? The constitution clearly places defense as something the federal government should be involved in. The same cannot be said for universal health care.

Here we go.

Just where in the US Constitution is a space programme stipulated, okie? If you can find it, please quote it.

Maybe it hasn't dawned on you yet, oe, but the space program has alot to do with defense.

Walter, Was there any connection to the Knights of Malta that gave impetus to hospitals in Europe?

hamburger wrote:
mcg :
you might find it hard to understand , but :

SHE NEEDED THE MONEY TO PAY FOR HER CANCER TREATMENTS !

try to read what miller wrote - it's pretty easy to understand .
hbg

The woman lacked medigap insurance to fill the gaps left in her medicare plan. She has kidney disease/failure which is covered by medicare ( at least in part ), but most if not all health insurance companies refuse to cover patients with end stage renal failure.

THUS...she had to get money to cover the cost nor covered by MEDICARE...

Right. But most of us have noticed by now that universal health care and state run health care are not necessarily the same.

So, arguing against universal health care, saying "I don't want the government to run the health care system" misses the point entirely. I agree that constitutional issues might be brought up if this was a discussion about implementing a single payer system in the US - but that's not what the thread title says, and it wasn't the point hamburger was making (and okie was replying to).

I just find it annoying if people keep confusing the terms, either because they are too lazy to read up the issue at hand, or because they want to deliberately muddy the water.

Can you share with us the definition of universal health care you are using so as not have this confusion?

I just find it annoying if people keep confusing the terms, either because they are too lazy to read up the issue at hand, or because they want to deliberately muddy the water.

It's totally believable story. The couple ran into trouble because they most likely didn't have a MEDIGAP health insurance policy, which would have filled in the gaps their MEDICARE policies.

The woman in question, needed the money to
pay her mounting medical bills. I believe her and recall that Medicare pays only about 80% of physician's fees.

If she had a medigap insurance plan, then one needs to recall that most medigap insurance plans
do not cover end stage renal failure. In fact if you have end stage renal failure prior to the start fo the medigap plan, the plan will not enroll you.

McGentrix wrote:

Can you share with us the definition of universal health care you are using so as not have this confusion?

old europe - as quoted by McGentrix above - wrote:

I just find it annoying if people keep confusing the terms, either because they are too lazy to read up the issue at hand, or because they want to deliberately muddy the water.

Can you share with us the definition of universal health care you are using so as not have this confusion?