Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[MMI]

And still somehow they are able to make astronomical profits and sell their product in other countries at a great loss.

Do you really believe they sell stuff in other countries at a great loss? I don't.

The stuff they sell in Africa, you'd regard as old-fashioned medicine, long since superceded by something else (or maybe the same stuff in a new package). They made thier pile in the West, but this provides a steady trail income.

And the stuff they give away in Africa is out-of-date medicine that would otherwise be destroyed.

[Thorne]

Do you really believe they sell stuff in other countries at a great loss? I don't.

The stuff they sell in Africa, you'd regard as old-fashioned medicine, long since superceded by something else (or maybe the same stuff in a new package). They made thier pile in the West, but this provides a steady trail income.

And the stuff they give away in Africa is out-of-date medicine that would otherwise be destroyed.

That may be so, I don't know. But even so, what of it? It's a business. That's what businesses do. If you have a product which people need, or want, you make money. Tons of money, if your smart.

[Belgarold]

Do you really believe they sell stuff in other countries at a great loss? I don't.

The stuff they sell in Africa, you'd regard as old-fashioned medicine, long since superceded by something else (or maybe the same stuff in a new package). They made thier pile in the West, but this provides a steady trail income.

And the stuff they give away in Africa is out-of-date medicine that would otherwise be destroyed.

Yes, this is true. I wasn't even considering these 'giveaways' but the stuff they sell in Canada, for instance, is sold at a great deal less because the country will not allow them to sell at too high of a profit.

Thorne, I am not against them making a profit, but there should be a limit on this, yes. And as a follow-on, what the Health Insurance industry does is criminal. You pay your premium and when something happens and you need the insurance the insurance company does all it can to not do their jobs, pay out. And bean counters let people die every day.

How much is enough profit to make on the misery of every day Americans?

[mkemse]

ANYONE who uses Medicare, is using a 100% Government Financed Medical Servie. it is pure Socialism, the Goverment controls EVERY aspect of Medicare, Premiums, drug costs, doctorss fees (beter know as assignment, some Doctors accept assignment other do not, i you accept it it means you het what the GOVERNMENT feels the service is worth rather the whatit may actualy be worth) ect I have been on it for 9 years out of inabilibty to afford Private insurace so i recieive it through my disability, check
But it is still 100% Socialised Medical Insurance it is run by The Social Security Adm, which is 100% governeent owned and operated
So much for Sicialism and bein a Socialst, if you use Medicare you are using a Socialist form of health insurance, plain and simple

[wmrs2]

ANYONE who uses Medicare, is using a 100% Government Financed Medical Servie. it is pure Socialism, the Goverment controls EVERY aspect of Medicare, Premiums, drug costs, doctorss fees (beter know as assignment, some Doctors accept assignment other do not, i you accept it it means you het what the GOVERNMENT feels the service is worth rather the whatit may actualy be worth) ect I have been on it for 9 years out of inabilibty to afford Private insurace so i recieive it through my disability, check
But it is still 100% Socialised Medical Insurance it is run by The Social Security Adm, which is 100% governeent owned and operated
So much for Sicialism and bein a Socialst, if you use Medicare you are using a Socialist form of health insurance, plain and simple

I pay a monthly premium for medicare coverage and what medicare does not pay my supplementary insurance does pay. My medicine is paid by supplemental insurance too. i am not against socialized medicine. There are many social programs that are good and necessary. I was really impressed yesterday of how Oboma handled the public health forum. I will be interested to see how things work out as a result of the collaboration that is taking place.

People should take yesterday's forum as an example of how to behave on this forum. Nobody acted like they had a chip on their shoulders and dared each other to knock it off. Everybody knew what they were whether liberal or conservative. Had some smart ass made critical remark about Bill Clinton or G Bush there would have been a fight right there in the forum. Everybody needs to know when it is time to shut there mouths so the people's business can be done, don't you agree?

[MMI]

I'll have to take your word for that, Thorne. Grudgingly, and noting that, as an ex-employee, you gained from what they did.

Although I know my view is cynical, I do not see why I should regard chemical company chiefs as any different from banking bosses or motor-car manufacturers.

[MMI]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to book in at the Hilton, mkemse, and ask the doctor to visit you there?

[mkemse]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to book in at the Hilton, mkemse, and ask the doctor to visit you there?

Yes but he would still charge me for a "house call" , but yes it would be cheaper

[MMI]

Public health services are a good fix, not perfect, but good.

[Torq]

OK, Folks it's that time again for my famous


ENOUGH

Comment!!!!!!

Stay ON TOPIC and stop the ""MUD SLINGING,,PERSONAL ATTACKS

There will not be another warning!!!!!!

Be Well
T

[steelish]

The original post asked, "Do people deserve universal healthcare?


In my opinion, that's not really an answerable question. Healthcare is not an individual right. It is a purchasable good, therefore it is NOT the role of the government to get involved.

Do people deserve a place to live?
Do people deserve a job?
Do people deserve a car?

NO! People have the RIGHT to life. They have the RIGHT to become individuals, with thoughts and opinions. People have the RIGHT to feel what they want and express their opinions. People have the RIGHT to be free and pursue knowledge.

We've lost sight of the fact that having the government provide us with healthcare is against our constitution! Everything America stands for was based upon our rights as humans, and the freedom to live as we see fit.

So basically, what I am saying is that people deserve many things, but I think the original post was stated incorrectly. I do not feel that people have a RIGHT to healthcare. Nor do I think the government has the right to force me to purchase it, which is what is written into the bill.

[MMI]

Do people deserve a place to live?
Do people deserve a job?
Do people deserve a car?

IMHO, Yes, Yes and Of Course Not.

I might have crazy principles, but I'd rather house my family in a state-owned home than let them freeze, even if by freezing they nobly upheld their right to freedom.

As for entitlement to work, so long as I'm not press-ganged into the service of the state, or enslaved by some other person or organisation, I would be glad of the opportunity to work for pay, rather than having to depend upon others for alms and succour. If such jobs are available, I believe I am entitled to one.

You might think a car equates to the right to a home, or a job, or to health care, but I imagine few others would.

[steelish]

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

[Lion]

Please refrain from posting about things you have no idea about.

I would like to not respond as I can see there's no getting through to you

I don't care if you studied the principles of Economics and Political theory, and that if your knowledge in the subject is far suprior to everyone elses on the subject. But twice you said something to another member that wasn't called for. Present your facts, theories and opinions, and let the other decide for themselves. If someone isn't getting your point, then try to rephrase your arguement, but please don't include these sort of comments in the future.

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

You know what, I completely disagree with your stance on healthcare. After what my family has gone through in the last couple of years, and what my friend's family has gone through, I think it's inhumane to not have it free for everyone.

BUT

For the first time, I actually got what you meant, being on the other side of this topic, and respect that.

[SadisticNature]

The figures in the article don't include appropriations, however the total appropriations are included in the national debt, and can in fact be estimated by calculating the change in debt (actual) and subtracting the change in debt (budgetary). Note that the budget includes the interest on the debt, so that is not a factor to worry about in this calculation. As an economist, you should have some experience at estimating hidden information using publicly available financial data.

Again as per your own quotations of the article, the appropriations items are not included in the budgets. I continue to contend that claiming defense spending is only 4.8% of GDP when the appropriations dwarf this amount and most of those appropriations are related to wars is rather disingenuous. It may be true in a certain sense, but only in the sense that the budget doesn't reflect the spending of the country at all since all the appropriations dwarf it and hide the real picture.

I'm sure if the situation were reversed, and the military spending was entirely on the budget while all the social programs were appropriations and I claimed social spending was 0% of GDP, and military spending was 40% you'd cry foul just as quickly, and correctly so.

Also using % of GDP is misleading as it doesn't given a clear fiscal picture of a country given widely disparate tax policies. What is the federal government revenue as a % of GDP? If you're spending 4.8% of GDP on military and your revenue is under 20% of GDP then non-appropriated military spending is going to be over 25% of the budget.

[SadisticNature]

Actually this is nothing new. The US has consistently privatized many essential services, in some cases with monopolies. If you're so convinced its unconstitutional feel free to quote the portion of the constitution or a particular amendment it violates. Since very similar things have happened before you are also welcome to cite court cases where things of a similar vein were called unconstitutional. I think you are unlikely to find any.

As for requiring you to purchase healthcare: If you face a dire health problem that requires expensive medical care the most likely scenario is that you go broke.

At this point you are likely to be unable to work due to health complications, and as a result will be on 1) Welfare and 2) Medicaid.

Since the government will have to pay for all these situations, I see no problem with the government levying a specific tax on those who choose not to buy healthcare in order to pay for these added costs. The government already levies certain specific taxes and benefits for social problems/boons. Most income tax benefits fall into this category.

[oww-that-hurt]

We in Montana need a new Senator that remembers what a working stiff earns here. In my house we are working middle class that can't afford health insurance but make too much for 'assistance', not that we would take it anyway. We don't have cable/satellite TV, a cell phone, high-speed internet (just this 56K modem), new cars, don't go to movies or fancy restaurants or even RENT movies, and the list is endless of what some folks think they need but we do without. This isn't a 'oh-poor-me' stand, just background info. Our Senator wants to fine us over $3,000 if we don't get insurance. Insurance for us would be over $1,000 per month, which will just never happen. We can cut a few more corners (lower thermostat, less driving, etc.) to cover the 'fine'. We still won't have insurance, but also won't be able to pay for medical and dental and eye-care check-ups, which we now do. So much for preventive care. We even have enough budget left over to donate a BUNCH of food to the food bank (Pantry Partners). Well, with the 'fine', there goes that item, too. It all just gets under my skin. Sorry for the rant. Y'all have a nice Christmas!

[steelish]

Actually this is nothing new. The US has consistently privatized many essential services, in some cases with monopolies. If you're so convinced its unconstitutional feel free to quote the portion of the constitution or a particular amendment it violates. Since very similar things have happened before you are also welcome to cite court cases where things of a similar vein were called unconstitutional. I think you are unlikely to find any.

As for requiring you to purchase healthcare: If you face a dire health problem that requires expensive medical care the most likely scenario is that you go broke.

At this point you are likely to be unable to work due to health complications, and as a result will be on 1) Welfare and 2) Medicaid.

Since the government will have to pay for all these situations, I see no problem with the government levying a specific tax on those who choose not to buy healthcare in order to pay for these added costs. The government already levies certain specific taxes and benefits for social problems/boons. Most income tax benefits fall into this category.

We have a Congress pushing hard to get this thing past cloture by Christmas. In fact, they plan to vote on it tomorrow morning.

To get this thing to a cloture, Bill Nelson has been offered exemptions on Medicare/Medicaid cutbacks for three counties in Florida. HUH? I thought there WEREN'T going to be any cutbacks at all! I guess bribery (again) is what is needed to get bills passed, rather than Congressmen working on what their constituents want.

As for unconstitutional; by FORCING me (or anyone else) to purchase healthcare, they are taking away free choice.

[DuncanONeil]

The figures in the article don't include appropriations, however the total appropriations are included in the national debt, and can in fact be estimated by calculating the change in debt (actual) and subtracting the change in debt (budgetary).

Read that again and see if it makes sense to you?

[DuncanONeil]

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

The Constitution does not grant the Government an enumerated right over health care.

[MMI]

The trouble with free choice is this: if I choose not to buy healthcare, and fritter my money away on trivialities, then should I became seriously ill, the state would not leave me to die, as it should.

How many Americans "choose" not to have healthcare?

[DuncanONeil]

Several millions of American choose to not have health insurance. Yet the Liberal Nobility are counting those same people as victims.

The trouble with free choice is this: if I choose not to buy healthcare, and fritter my money away on trivialities, then should I became seriously ill, the state would not leave me to die, as it should.

How many Americans "choose" not to have healthcare?

[Bren122]

what COULD it be challenged under- congressional over reach and states rights? Health has been traditionally viewed as an area of states control. Medicare and Medicaid are much more limited than the proposed reforms and may not wholly serve as a precedent; by contrast they do establish a precedent of federal input into the health system.
the government could counter-argue that it has the power to introduce the reforms under the commerce clause- it does seem to be a more solid argument.

Roe v Wade was not decided on choice per se but on the government's rights to interfere with that choice. it guarantees that a person can not be prevented from having an abortion but subsequent decisions have established that it is not an open ended matter- the states can have some say on when and how that abortion is performed.

[DuncanONeil]

Except that the Governments intrusion into commerce is limited to interstate commerce. Insurance providers are prohibited form interstate competition. Therefore the commerce clause is moot!

what COULD it be challenged under- congressional over reach and states rights? Health has been traditionally viewed as an area of states control. Medicare and Medicaid are much more limited than the proposed reforms and may not wholly serve as a precedent; by contrast they do establish a precedent of federal input into the health system.
the government could counter-argue that it has the power to introduce the reforms under the commerce clause- it does seem to be a more solid argument.

Roe v Wade was not decided on choice per se but on the government's rights to interfere with that choice. it guarantees that a person can not be prevented from having an abortion but subsequent decisions have established that it is not an open ended matter- the states can have some say on when and how that abortion is performed.

[steelish]

This might enlighten everyone

[SadisticNature]

It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.

The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.

The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.

In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.

[steelish]

It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.

The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.

The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.

In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.

I'm a registered Democrat and have always believed in the system up to this point. I could care less that it is an opinion piece. It brings facts to light. I've read opinion pieces by Democrats also, and STILL I am leaning the opposite way...mostly because of the controversial nature of our current administration.

I AM NOT AGAINST a healthcare system...what I am against is the slight of hand, sneak in the night way the Democrats are going about trying to get it passed and the clauses they insist upon inserting into it. WHY does it HAVE to force you to buy health insurance? Why can't it be an elective?

As to the statement that by my arguments "the FBI and the CIA are unconstitutional" I do not feel that way at all. For one thing, they were formed to protect the US and enforce Federal laws. I have absolutely nothing against that.

So by your argument, it ISN'T unconstitutional for the government to tell you that you MUST purchase a 13" black and white television ONLY or you will pay a penalty? Or maybe you MUST purchase a hybrid vehicle or pay a penalty? How about if you are only allowed to have one child per household. Would that be ok?

[SadisticNature]

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

[steelish]

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

For one thing, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 WAS unconstitutional and went unchallenged. There is still much controversy surrounding it and it has had 200 amendments to it since it passed.

And, in the words that so many like to use...the Health Care bill is going to set PRECEDENCE for the possibility of other Congressional interference into our every day lives. I find it hard to believe that the proponents of this bill (the ones who are not politicians) are 100% certain that this bill will be good and right for the future of our country.

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun )

[DuncanONeil]

The issue at hand is not health care, but helath insurance. The all inclusive health insurance is one of the major contributers to the high cost of health care.
Were we the people still responsible for choosing and paying for a portion of our health care prices would not be so high.
Case in point Lasik surgery is not covered in most plans yet since inception the price of such surgery has dropped. It is a completely consumer driven product. As such has improved its equipment and lowered its cost at a quick pace.
High deductible with medical savings accounts would be a good start, tort reform, interstate competition. But the Dems don;t like these ideas as there is a huge measure of personal responsibility inherent in them.

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.