U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-26-2014, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,772 posts, read 14,174,683 times
Reputation: 15955

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
The Constitution is not a code of law. That's what legislators do, codify law. The Constitution does not have to specifically mention healthcare no more than it specifically has to mention an interstate highway system, or a space program, or many others, for such actions to be constitutional.
No, your argument is heavily flawed.

Those things are mentioned in the Constitution. From Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Book 8:

"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature (or form)? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?"

Speech is communication. The medium of communication -- verbally, with sign language, body language, a book, a newspaper or other periodical, the internet, the airwaves --- matters not.

Any intelligent person can see that, and any intelligent person can also see the brilliance in the simplicity of the Constitution -- that an handful of words like Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press could an express an idea that was unbound and unfettered by time.

So...how stupid is the US Supreme Court?

In Olmstead v. US, 277 US 438 (1928). Dumbass justices didn't ask the proper questions: What is a telephone? What is its nature? What does it do?

So you end up with wire-taps are legal under, um, you know, uh, the 14th Amendment.

Finally in Berger v. New York (State), 388 US 41 (1967) and Katz v. US, 389 US 347 (1967) the Supreme Court justices reached down with both hands and pulled their heads out of their rectums.

Must two people be embraced to communicate? At arm's length? In the same room? How distant must two people be to communicate, 10 meters? 25 meters? 100 meters? 300 meters? In the same political subdivision? In the same State? On the same continent? Or even on the same Planet?

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were on the Moon, the were not communicating with people on Earth?

I sure hope not, because that would be absurd.

Wire taps are searches
Searches are governed by the 4th Amendment
Therefore....Wire taps are governed by the 4th Amendment.

Hello? Bueller? ......Bueller?....Anyone?.....

So if there are any "flaws," it is due to the inherent nature of people, not the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
Here's a question you didn't consider: does the constitution allow for the government to run a healthcare system?

The constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Does the constitution delegate the power to run a universal healthcare system to the federal government and/or does it prohibit individual states from creating a healthcare system?

The answer to that is No. Therefore, the rest of your questions are meaningless.
Your argument is slightly flawed.

Healthcare, since its inception has been intra-State Commerce, and the pseudo-federal government has no power or authority to do anything.

The American Hospital Association, in its zeal to Stalinize healthcare and eliminate all Free Market aspects, further coerced healthcare into intra-State Commerce.

If you read the Supreme Court's opinion......

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

(b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. ___.

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.

Source: National Federation Of Independent Business Et Al. v. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, Et Al. US Supreme Court 2012




....it is crystal clear that the US can never have any type of national healthcare system. At this point, I'm going to be a bastard and not differentiate systems just to prove that Obamacare supporters are ignorant and have no idea what they're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
General welfare clause.

The answer is yes. Therefore your disagreement is meaningless.
You couldn't even get it right....how sad is that?

It's the "general Welfare" [sic] clause.

Wel'fare (well and fare): happiness; success; prosperity

Well: convenient; happy

to Fare (Saxon): to be in a state good or bad; to proceed in any train of consequences good or bad

Source: A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found. Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition. 10th Edition; London, 1785.

I so love teaching English to foreigners.


Educating the people unionized public school teachers couldn't....


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2014, 06:32 PM
 
18,174 posts, read 10,322,881 times
Reputation: 13257
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak View Post
Medicare is paid for through payroll taxes that you pay your entire working life. Just like Social Security. It has been said that if one invested privately what they pay to the government in Social Security taxes their entire working life, they would be way ahead by the time they retire. Social Security is a poor investment.

No, it's Democrats who love other people's money. That's why Democrats love taxes.

I hope that by the time you get old, you will have your wish: No Social Security, and no Medicare.
Yes, but the problem with that thinking is that WHO would invest privately what they pay through mandatory taxation? ANSWER: very few as not everyone would deem it important at the age of 21. Now what do you do with those who arrive at their retirement or medical clinic without funds; well goodness me! You cover them with Medicaid ot welfare and who will be picking up the tab for that, why YOU will of course.

The difference is plain: without a universal tax applied to ALL of you to pay for some sort of universally available healthcare, YOU will pay the WHOLE freak'n bill for those who cannot, or will not cover themselves.

Does the Fram Filter commercial of yesteryear have any meaning for you at all? "You can pay me something now or pay me a LOT more later".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 07:14 PM
 
Location: SC
8,779 posts, read 5,624,256 times
Reputation: 12778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Uh-huh....and from where does new medical technology come?

Does the medical technology fairy pop in and wave her wand?

Maybe you think a gnome riding a gargantuan pink bunny rabbit comes round delivering new MRI machines and other technology.

Oh, maybe there's a spell for that?

Bestow Medical Capital Improvements
Necromancy

Level: 7th Level Wishful Thinker

Components: V, S, Free Money

Casting Time: 1 thirty-minute TV Sitcom

Range: Entire United States

Target: Medical Facilities

Duration: Until Obsolescence

Saving Throw: None

Spell Resistance: None

Choose one of the following three effects.

Instantly adds a new wing onto an hospital; or

Adds $100 Billion in new medical technology; or

• Instantly modernizes all existing medical facilities.

The effects of the Bestow Medical Capital Improvements spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed by a collapsing economy.



And so did Americans, when there was still some semblance of Free Market in the health plan coverage sector of the economy.




Uh-huh.....

...obviously the Force wasn't with you....

Mircea
Do you have any idea what "profit" means? You do realize it is different from "cost" which contains r&d?

But if you really feel that someone must profit off your health (or lack thereof), then as i said you are welcome to pay more for your plan and provide that profit.

Last edited by blktoptrvl; 03-26-2014 at 07:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,772 posts, read 14,174,683 times
Reputation: 15955
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I submit to you that you can never expect to see "free market" healthcare in the presence of "health insurance".
But you already did.

Very few people got health insurance from insurance companies, for this reason:

Quote:
"...the opportunities for fraud [in health insurance] upset all statistical calculations ... Health and sickness are vague terms open to endless construction. Death is clearly defined, but to say what shall constitute such loss of health as will justify insurance compensation is no easy task."
Source: Insurance Monitor July 1919, vol. 67(7), page 38

So, if insurance companies did not issue insurance policies, then who did?

Hospitals.

As you move deeper into the Great Depression, cash-strapped States start looking for revenues, and the health insurance issued by hospitals needs to come under State regulatory supervision.

This is about 1935 or so.

Now, the American Hospital Association --- the enemy of Americans --- starts lobbying State legislatures for "enabling laws," to avoid being regulated by State insurance commissions, and give the American Medical Association an unfair advantage over any future competitors in health insurance:


NY Laws 1934, c. 595, adding Article 14, 452-461, to the New York Insurance Law. The 1939 legislature adopted a new codification of the Insurance Law, effective June 15, 1939, in which Article DC-C, 250-259, was substituted for Article 14, broadened to include non-profit medical indemnity
corporations, and amended in other respects.


Alabama: Acts 1935, act no. 544, amended. Acts 1936 (Ext. Scss.) act no.169, Acts, 1939;

California: Stat. 1935, c 386, amended, Stat. 1937, c. 881, Stat. 1939, A. B. 1712;

Illinois:Rev. Stat. (1937) 551-562;

Mississippi: Laws 1936, c 177;

Georgia: Laws 1937, no. 379, p. 690;

Maryland: Laws 1937, c. 224;

Massachusetts: Annotated Laws (1938 Supp.) c 176A;

Pennsylvania: Stat. Ann. (Purdon, 1938) tit. 15, a 49A, 2851-13012851-1309;

Kentucky: Acts 1938, c. 23;

New Jersey: Laws 1938, c. 366;

Connecticut: Laws 1939, S. B. 51;

District of Columbia: S. B. 497, 76th Cong. 1st Scss.(1939);

Iowa: Laws 1939, c. 222;

Maine: Laws 1939, c. 149;

Michigan: Laws 1939, H. B. 145;

New Hampshire: Laws 1939, H. B. 232;

New Mexico: Laws 1939, c. 66;

Ohio: Laws- 1939, S. B. 181;

Rhode Island: Laws 1939, c. 719;

South Carolina: Acts 1939, H. B. 845;

Texas: Laws 1939, Subst. H. B. 191;

Vermont: Laws 1939;

Wisconsin: Laws 1939, S. B. 288.

Note: The Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin acts were passed in 1939 after bills had been defeated in 1937.

This further cemented healthcare in the US as intra-State Commerce instead of Interstate Commerce.

At this point, the American Hospital Association now creates the "Out-of-Network" clause in an attempt to force non-member hospitals to close their doors and go out of business.

It worked.

The very first hospital to offer health insurance was in one of the following cities: Philadelphia, Cleveland or Chicago. All three hospitals closed their doors decades ago, so there are no records. There are newspaper reports of events. For example, in the society section it mentions so-and-so being hired to coordinate group health plans with local employers and what not. The Cleveland hospital was run by a known member of the American Medical Association, so they would not be a member of the American Hospital Association.

After the 1942 ruling by the National War Labor Board allowing health benefits in lieu of wages due to FDR's imposed wage freezes, a few insurance companies get into the act.

However it was the 1949 In re: Inland Steel Supreme Court decision that opened the flood-gates.

That ruling indicated that employer-based group health was not a passing fad, rather it was here to stay, so now every insurance company gets into the act, and within a few years, the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross had lost more than 60% of its Market Share.

Anyone want to know why?

Well, here are your choices.....choose wisely....

1] throw away your money in the garbage by continually paying premiums every month to the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross and get nothing in return, unless you actually have a situation involving catastrophic healthcare

...or...

2] invest your money by paying premiums for a fixed amount of time, plus have both a catastrophic health plan and a life insurance plan, and when you die, all the money you paid --- plus a huge profit -- is given to your beneficiaries.

You really care about your grand-daughter and grand-son and you really would like for them to go to college.

How much money will your grand-daughter and grand-son get from the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross?

$0

How much money will your grand-daughter and grand-son get from the life insurance policy tied to catastrophic health insurance through private for-profit insurance?

Out of $120,000 you could leave them $5,000 each, and then leave your spouse $50,000 and then leave $30,000 to each of your two children, so that your children and grand-children can buy a house, or put a down-payment on a house or go to college.

So....like this is a no-brainer.....which is the better value?

According to the BLS...

Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

...$120,000 in 1952 is equal to $1 Million now.

When you die, wouldn't you like to have $1 Million to give to your spouse, children, grand-children, favorite charities and such?

What if you got a catastrophic illness?

Well, in 1952, you might spend $50,000 over the course of your life-time, which still leaves you $70,000 to distribute to your beneficiaries.

In 2014, you might spend $350,000 on healthcare for a catastrophic illness, but you would still have $650,000 (or more) to give to your beneficiaries.


Is that beautiful, or what?

The Free Market is truly beautiful.

But that ends in 1954 with this law...


"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."

Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information see the 1986 Internal Revenue Code.

The American Hospital Association along with your government interfere in the Free Market to stifle competition and give the American Hospital Association an unfair competitive advantage which also rapes Americans of wealth that could be passed down to their families.

Soviet-style Command Economics is great, no?


Does everyone see how ignorant Obamacare supporters really are?




Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Insurance, by nature is a precautionary protection against an unexpected event, such as car insurance, or fire insurance. Surely no one expects to cash in on that insurance, and the costs of that insurance is predicated upon many more people not needing to make a claim against it, than those that do need to.
But that fails, since people already did cash in on it....until 1954.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
This is not the case with health care ... it's the exact opposite. People have been purchasing so called health care insurance with the express intent to use it, and with a reasonable expectation that they will need to use it ... and sooner rather than later. This destroys the workable model of "insurance" as being paid for by many, but used by few. So it could never work, and the problems of astronomical cost increase, price gouging, corruption are at the very center of scheme which masqurades as "insurance".
That isn't true at all.

The aforementioned "enabling laws" in addition to other laws obtained through the lobbying efforts of the American Hospital Association function as a bar to Free Market health plan coverage.


Once the IRS tax code is changed, and once all of the States repeal or rescind all of the "enabling laws" and other legislation, then you can have Free Market health insurance:

1] Catastrophic healthcare is separated out; objectively defined; re-coupled with life insurance; and Americans now can generate wealth, and pass that wealth onto their children and grand-children.

2] Having separated catastrophic care, you now have ER coverage which equates to liability insurance to an automobile. You purchase ER coverage in an amount annually, such as $250,000 or $100,000 or $500,000....your choice. That makes it cheaper for everyone.

3] Everything else is a rider....pregnancy/child-birth is a rider (which is cancelled once it's no longer needed) and then doctor office visits is a rider.....if you don't want it, don't buy it.....if you want co-pays, fine, you can pay an higher premium, and if you want "free" office visits you can get a rider for that and pay even higher premiums. You can get a rider for medication. You can two separate riders for medication, one for medication only for use with ER incidents, and a second for general purposes.

The Great Disconnect is that people refuse to see that there are two components here: healthcare and health plan coverage. Reducing the cost of health plan coverage will not reduce the cost of healthcare, but reducing the cost of healthcare will reduce the cost of health plan coverage.

Obamacare does nothing to address the high costs of healthcare, which keep increasing, because Obamacare supporters do not understand the difference between healthcare costs and health plan costs.

Economically....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 07:57 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,962,109 times
Reputation: 3155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi000 View Post
Given many countries have either free or inexpensive healthcare, should America adopt a "universal healthcare" concept moving forward?

Here are a few questions to consider:

1. How would it impact the economy and job creation?
It would have a positive impact, since employers would not have to deal with this costly benefit. It is imperative to separate between employment and healthcare. The economic reality changed. What worked in the 1970 is inappropriate today.
Quote:

2. What kind of structural changes to the healthcare industry are necessary?
Most healthcare services cannot be for profit business.
Quote:

3. The effect on illegal immigration?
Illegal immigration can be stopped if and when the US decides so, regardless of healthcare. For some healthcare services you'll need to be US citizen or at least a registered immigrant.

That said, I recognize that any universal healthcare system has its drawbacks. However, for most Americans it will be a better solution than the current situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:44 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top