Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
For all of those Republicans who are saying that ObamaCare hurts businesses...I agree. I have always agreed. It helps insurance companies, but does nothing to control the costs of Health Care. The solution...the next step - Universal Healthcare.
|
Fail -- UHC does not automatically control the costs of health care and the medical services cost-sharing plan providers that fraudulent continue to refer to as "insurance" companies are not the problem.
Here is one of the problems....
The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com
* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized
Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center
1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org
* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs, On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room†with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Well I agree. Obamacare does nothing to control costs. Expanding medicare to cover everyone makes far more sense. In addition, the govt. should be able to purchase drugs from anywhere including Canada.
|
2/3 of Canadians have private health insurance in addition to UHC.
50% of Danes have private health insurance in addition to UHC.
The percentage of people European countries with UHC who are purchasing private insurance is growing yearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Don't extend medicaid. Extend Medicare to cover everyone and eliminate medicaid. that is certainly an option UHC.
|
You cannot pay for Medicaid.
When you demonstrate that you are capable of putting forth a viable plan with specific measures to preserve Medicare, then perhaps people will take you seriously, instead of just a bunch of hot air.
Quit talking and start chalking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50
Canadian UHC doesn't cover illegals or visitors...as an example.
Besides illegals are getting free care now.
|
Uh, I realize not everyone can be a constitutional scholar, but please.....would you do yourself and everyone else a favor and read the Constitution?
That would include the Amendments, specifically to wit the 14th Amendment.
The issue with the 14th Amendment is that it uses the word "
person" instead of the word "
citizen."
The legal concept is "statutory construction"......
"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning in all but the most extraordinary circumstance is finished." Riva v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 61 F.3d 1003, 1007 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 475, 120 L. Ed. 2d 379, 112 S. Ct. 2589 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the court need not consult legislative history and other aids to statutory construction when the words of the statute neither create an ambiguity nor lead to an unreasonable interpretation. Riva, 61 F.3d at 1007 (quotations omitted). In searching a statute's text to determine congressional intent, we attribute to words that are not defined in the statute itself their ordinary usage, while keeping in mind that meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if that language is taken in context. Id. (quotations omitted).
In interpreting statutes, the Supreme Court has often recognized the rule "that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." E.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 201, 61 L. Ed. 2d 480, 99 S. Ct. 2721 (1979) (quoting Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459, 36 L. Ed. 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 (1892)).
In recognizing the principle that a statute's language and purpose may at time differ, the Court has stated guidelines for reconciling the two:
There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes. Often these words are sufficient in and of themselves to determine the purpose of the legislation. In such cases we have followed their plain meaning. When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one "plainly at variance with the policy of legislation as a whole" this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."
United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 84 L. Ed. 1345, 60 S. Ct. 1059 (1940) (footnotes omitted), quoted in Church of Scientology v. United States Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1979); accord Burroughs v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 686 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1982).
In interpreting a statute, "we begin, as we must, with the express language of the statute . . . . Where, as here, the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, resort to legislative history is unnecessary." Rucker v. Davis, 203 F.3d 627, 636 (9th Cir. 2000); see Citizens Action League v. Kizer, 887 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1989)("In construing a statute, we look first to its plain meaning"). In rare cases where "the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters," an exception should be made to the general plain language rule. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989). However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against inserting words into a statute when the same words are present in other sections of the same statute. The Supreme Court has stated:
[Where] Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1972); See United States v. Wooten, 688 F.2d 941, 950 (4th Cir. 1982). Had Congress intended to restrict § 1963(a)(1) . . . it presumably would have done so expressly as it did in the immediately following subsection (a)(2). See North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521, 72 L. Ed. 2d 299, 102 S. Ct. 1912 (1982); United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 773-774, 60 L. Ed. 2d 624, 99 S. Ct. 2077 (1979). In the latter case, id., at 773, the Court said: "The short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way." We refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each. We would not presume to ascribe this difference to a simple mistake in draftsmanship.
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17, 104 S. Ct. 296 (construing the forfeiture provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)(1)).
We read statutory terms in light of their plain meaning. Baum v. Madigan, 979 F.2d 438, 441 (6th Cir. 1992). "'Statutory words are uniformly presumed, unless the contrary appears, to be used in their ordinary and usual sense, and with the meaning commonly attributed to them.'" Ibid. (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 486, 37 S. Ct. 192, 194, 61 L. Ed. 442 (1917)).
Okays, so very clearly we use the plain language meaning and "
person" means "
person."
Since the 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, you cannot deny legal or illegal immigrants any benefits of any laws.
My suggestion, amend the Constitution and re-write the 14th Amendment to say "
citizen."
Good luck with that....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
Just wanted to point out that Universal Health Care does not necessarily mean an NHS or Canada-style system.
Some nations use insurance based health care to deliver UHC. Some administer it through employers, some even use for-profit insurance. Some have a mini-NHS type system for preventive medicine and catastrophic illnesses, and insurance does the rest.
There is a lot of models out there....
|
....and all of them are failing.
Reality sucks...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Then why the hell did you spend the last few years telling everyone who opposed Obamacare that we were wrong?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Obamacare hasn't even come to full implementation and already you're ditching it for something else, something better.
We still have another year to go before it blows up in our face and I think it will based on how the high risk pools are doing after one year. You think our debt is bad now..just wait until those pools start operating and paying out claims.
The Dems had their chance in 2009/2010. I don't see any change happening with the current setup in DC.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
One simple question...how do you propose to pay for it? If you "take employers out of the mix...reduce their costs", obviously you're not talking about increasing business taxes to cover it. Which means individuals will be paying for it. So, how do you want to do this? Increase "payroll" taxes, like we do with SS/Meidicare? Mabye bump them from 15.6% to 25%? Higher income taxes? National sales tax?
|
I'd like to rep you all, but I have to spread the love around, so instead I'll just do a group hug, and if you're lucky a reach-around.
Ghost-repping...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
Universal health care is needed and inevitable. Vermont will be first and other states will fall in line. The Neocons will be dragged forward into the future as they were in this election.
|
Neo-cons? Which ones? You mean like Neo-Con Susan Rice, who was hand-picked by Obama to be on his White House Staff, but who is now the US Ambassador to the UN....uh, because Obama nominated her.
I would be elated if you actually knew what a neo-con was. I tell you what, why don't you ask Neo-Con Tony Lake....who used to be Blow Job Bill's Chief of Staff for his White House Staff, and then was Obama's foreign policy adviser during the 2008 Election Campaign.
Will you do that?
I know it won't be easy for you to admit that you have no idea what a neo-con is.
You can start with Leon Trotsky...when he was living in Mexico City....and his link to the Young People's Socialist League.....and their links to Neo-cons.
Factually...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
I am. 10% payroll tax. End refundable tax credits and EIC also.
If you want it you have to pay for it.
|
Won't work. ...
Quote:
As strapped state and local governments scramble for ways to balance their budgets, it's become very clear that it will be impossible for many to honor their pension promises to new employees and even current retirees. According to a recent economic study, the cost to fully fund these promises would cost taxpayers $5 trillion over a 30-year period, or nearly $1,400 a year in higher state and local taxes and fees for every household in the country.
Put another way, contributions to pay for public employees' retirement benefits now total 5.7 percent a year of all state and local taxes, fees, and other government charges. "Government contributions to state and local pension systems must rise to 14.1 percent" to produce fully funded pension systems, the study said, and it will take 30 years to get there.
|
$5 Trillion Price Tag for Public Pensions - Yahoo! Finance
Boy was I ever wrong...I thought you owed about $3.2 TRILLION in public pensions.
Nope,
it's $5 TRILLION.
Maybe if you all hold hands and sing Kumbaya $5 TRILLION will magically fall out of the sky. But if it doesn't...you're welcome to stay in my barn.
Wondering how you're gonna pay for that....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Medicare is a better choice than Medicaid and costs less per person (assuming equal services).
|
Actually, it costs about the same.
Medicare spends $13,000 annually, although those are generally over 65 (people on SSDI automatically qualify for Medicare).
For Medicaid, the average is $6,775 per person, but the biggest costs are 15 and under and 45 and over.
Analyzing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
I think we might be.
The high risk pools have been operating for a year now.
They were given enough money to last until 2014 when full Obamacare kicks in.
Several states have already run out of money to pay claims and have asked the Fed for more money. The claims are running twice the national average for similar services. Why ? Is anyone analyzing this ?
Is anyone in Congress noticing this ? Do they even care ?
Don't you think the same will happen when the masses get to enroll in 2014 ?
|
I would like to see that data. I wasn't aware of that, and if what you say is true, then you have some real serious problems....financially....but then we already knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Can you provide the breakdown of how they can afford such low premiums and still provide quality care ?
How come the US can't do the same ? Where is our bottleneck ?
|
No, none of them can provide a break-down of anything, because they are totally clueless, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except they are willfully ignorant in addition to being clueless.
1] US uses the obsolete Hospital Model; Europe uses the Clinic Model
2] 2.6 beds per 1,000 people in Europe -- the 27 EU and EU wannabes -- while in the US there is one bed for every 179 people (as of January 3, 2012) there are 1,746,938 fully staffed hospital beds in the US -- to distinguish from the non-staffed beds.
As I have stated
ad nauseum. it would be necessary for the US to close 60% of its hospitals.....if you want an health care system
like Europe.
3] Limited coverage....the Euro-States cap annual spending and life-time spending; Obamacare bans, bars, proscribes, prohibits and criminalizes annual limits and life-time spending as of January 1, 2014.
4] Attitude......
The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com
* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized
Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center
1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org
* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs, On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room†with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.
I keep saying that one of the major obstacles is that Europeans go to the doctor to get well, while Americans go do the doctor to feel good.
"Getting well" and feeling good are not the same thing. Getting well is objective, and can be measured, quantified and qualified.
"
Feeling good" is subjective, and cannot be measured.
Euro-States do not have flat screen TVs, or jacuzzi, or on-demand movies or
feng shui.
Those things are not free....they cost money.
4] Restricted services......Euro-States do not provide diet/weight loss, smoking cessation or any other number of services. Even alcohol and drug rehab is out-side the normal scope for many of the Euro-States.
5] Rationing.....Euro-States ration health care using a number of different means.
6] Co-pays.....remember, 21 of the 27 EU countries are nothing more than large US cities.....meaning those, um, you know, "countries" (snicker) have populations that are less than 9 Million people. The use co-pays, but as costs continue to rise......note that their UHCs are Ponzi-Schemes just like Mediare.....people are being forced to obtain private insurance to cover the co-pay.
That's just
some of the differences.
There are many other social and cultural differences. Just as an example, Europeans can "afford" to pay higher taxes for health care, because they are not burdened by things like auto insurance, automobile payments, automobile maintenance and gasoline consumption.
Another cultural and social difference is living accommodations. Three things.....smaller housing means smaller utilities, less maintenance, less costs, plus Europeans share living accommodations with others...meaning many residences are multi-household, and then Europeans care for their own elderly, meaning you have many multi-generational households. The point being housing costs are less.
Differentiating....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
Restore the tax rate on the upper class to 1960's levels (70%), close corporate tax loopholes, reduce military budget and stop launching expensive foreign wars.
|
Are you going to restore the tax code to 1960s levels as well?
The impression one gets from your comment is that you are uninformed and not sufficiently knowledgeable --- because you don't understand the tax system, or that you are aware, but your intent is to spread disinformation and confuse people.
In 1964 (when the law changed) it was 77% over $400,000. You wanna tell people how many Americans earned more than $400,000 in 1964? I'll give you an hint....the average annual income was $4,576 per year.
Ooops.
In 1965, the average tax rate was 11.6%.
Ooops, again.
Why didn't you tell people that? What are you trying to hide from them? Why don't you want people to know the truth?
And cutting military spending will not fund a UHC.
Not amused....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
I did reply to a your post in an earlier thread raising very much the same objection as you have here. You're not going to continue the insist on the same math, using the same assumptions, derived from the status quo, without taking into consideration any possibility for bending the cost-curve, are you? |
I already debunked you on that on another thread.
You will never achieve the necessary cost reductions because the obstacle is the American Hospital Association.....the very same Non-Governmental Organization that wrote much of Obamacare....and donated heavily to Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 Elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
All your calculations amount to is a demonstration that our present system is absurdly, indefensibly, impossibly expensive. Very clearly, whether it's ACA as it now stands or some improved version, something will have to change those numbers you keep posting - but you seem to regard them as immutable.
|
They are immutable.
They are immutable, because the issue is primarily centered on the human condition -- or rather human American condition, which is hedonistic selfishness and a desire to have everything "free."
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
What I actually did was simply post a link to the British Columbia Ministry of Health website giving information of the monthly premium rates for the province's (single-payer) health insurance plan. |
Why didn't you tell people that 2/3 of Canadians pay for private health insurance as well?
There's 30 Million people in O Canada!.
Are there 30 Million people in the US? Nope, there's 314+Million....total fail for you. Study Economy of Scale and get back to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
How does the civilized world restrain their health costs to half our rate? You seem to enjoy this sort of research - why don't you find out for us?
|
I would prefer you do it, since you don't understand it.
I can sum up the issue very quickly....
You want a single-payer plan, but you don't want to do the things Euro-States did in order to be able to afford a single-payer plan.
Had you bothered to do any research, and if you understood what you were reading, you should have found out that...
....in the 27 Euro-States there are 2.6 beds per 1,000 people
...in the US there is one bed for every 179 people (as of January 3, 2012) there are 1,746,938 fully staffed hospital beds in the US.
You want to be able to afford UHC like Euro-States do? Then you need to reduce the number of hospital beds that you have.
Begging your pardon, but I'm not exactly convinced you're competent, so I'll do the math for you.
2.6 beds per 1,000 people.
314,000,000 / 1,000 = 314,000 * 2.6 = 816,400 total beds.
1,746,938 beds
--816,000 beds
-------------------
930,538 beds to be eliminated.
or 53% of your current hospital beds.
Now, does everyone understand where I get the 60% figure from? For several years I've been saying that if you want an health care system, um, you know, like Europe, you'll have to close 60% of your hospitals. That's how I came to that conclusion (well one of the ways -- I always look at other angles).
But 53% is not 60%!
You're right...but then I talking about closing 60% of your hospitals....which would result in the loss of 53% of your beds.
My bad, maybe I should have explained that last year or year before last or whatever so that people understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
As I said to you in this post, the onus is on the defenders of the status quo. It isn't enough for opponents of health-insurance change to point out how expensive our current system is, and then conclude from that that change is impossible. |
Um, no, sorry, you're the one who wants something you cannot possibly have, so you need to do more than just talk crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
As I said in reply to workingclasshero, the onus is on defenders of the status quo. We know that UHC or single-payer systems cost much less than the American status quo - we don't guess, surmise, or postulate: we know.
|
I showed you one of the reasons why it costs less.
I you prepared to lose more jobs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
Cleverly dodged - my compliments.
|
We tag team.
So...uh, .....look....why don't you do some research and then perhaps we can have a discussion on an equal level.
Not impressed....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
UHC costs about half of what the present system does.
|
That may or may not be true, and you haven't proven your case.
Do you think a Ford Pinto or a Yugo costs less than a Mercedes Benz?
Well, hold that thought.......is a Ford Pinto the same as a Mercedes Benz?
Some people...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Not this shyte again! GIVE THIS STUFF A REST!
|
When you people stop lying, and start engaging in reasonable debate based on facts and not propaganda and disinformation we'll consider giving it a rest.
You compare two or more things that are
similar.
You cannot compare two things when they are totally and completely
dissimilar. In case you missed it......
The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com
* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized
Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center
1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org
* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs, On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room†with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.
You thought European hospitals have jacuzzi and flat screen TVs? You thought wrong.
You think those things are "free?" Well, they aren't. They cost money. And who pays for jacuzzi and flat screen TVs?
Everyone does through higher health care costs, and then you have the unmitigated gall to blame "insurance" companies for raising their rates because you have jacuzzi and flat screen TVs.
More to the point, if you want UHC
like Europe, then you're going to have to make your health care system,
like Europe, which means getting rid of jacuzzi and flat-screen TVs, and then closing 60% of your hospitals so that you become......
like Europe.
Are you or are you not willing to close 60% of your hospitals so that you can afford UHC
like Europe?
It's a simple question, and yes, "
this shyte again!" and again and again until you get the honesty, courage and integrity to admit that you have to make major changes to your health care system which will be very traumatic, affecting large numbers of jobs.
So let's dispense with the nonsense and deal with the facts.
Repetitiously....
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
