Money Won't Buy You Health Insurance (retired, Australia, billion, security)

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

Medicare for All is constitutional.

Congress designed Medicare to promote the general welfare of the United States. The program's financing mechanisms proceed under the taxing and spending powers, together with the commerce clause.

I say medicare for ANYONE is unconstitutional on a national level.. it promotes the INDIVIDUAL welfare.. the person who needs the care.. Again, your sickness has no effect upon me or society. States however can run all of the insurance programs they wish legally.

Tell me what part of the Constitution authorizes INDIVIDUAL welfare?

[LetMePost]

Originally Posted by pghquest

No your not.. You are forced to buy insurance if you want to DRIVE the cars.. and this insurance is to protect OTHERS that you might cause harm to.. Its not to protect you..
..

With pleasure...

Insurance is there to protect you. It protects your butt from getting sued and covering the cost of repairs and medical bills. Requiring drivers to get atleast liability insurance benefits all drivers, that's why that policy is there. Why would you want to be the only one with liability insurance when everyone else in the room isn't insured?

Originally Posted by pghquest

Yes, I see the value in insuring OTHERS against damages if I'm careless.. Do you see the difference? The fact that its not unaffordable is because government doesnt require the car insurance companies to pay for the oil changes, to insure the motors, the transmissions etc.. They do with health insurance..

The policy for minimum liability insurance is across the board so that it ends up benefiting drivers. America is obese. We're careless. Nobody is asking healthcare companies to pay for every visit and nuance of human health. That's why there are deductibles in place, so they don't pay for your tylenol, but that's really up to what the health insurance companies will allow. A lot of companies are now are being more preventative by paying for regular checkups and health programs outside of the hospital. Trying to prevent bad lifestyles and health choices earlier.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Wrong.. its government making insurance unaffordable by requiring insurance companies to provide care that is not needed.. Example again, dentist, routine dr visits etc.. Many can pay these out of pocket but the government doesnt allow these service not to be covered.. Also in addition because government pays such a high percentage of claims, (through medicare/medicaid), and they dont pay enough to cover the proceedures, these costs are passed onto others.. If government would pay $5 a year to insure their vehicles, the cost of car insurance would surely climb.. Who do you think pays for the losses needed to be made up?
..

I don't think dental coverage is mandatory... for adults anyways. I'm not talking about a common cold here, I'm talking about MRI's, days spend in a hospital, births. Stuff regular people are overcharged for and cannot pay out pocket. Again, with deductibles, that's to prevent frivolous visits.

Originally Posted by pghquest

And that public option doesnt afford you free bus tickets or free plane tickets.. try again..

I never said free and I don't think the idea of public option in healthcare was free run government healthcare system either. Somebody pays, but a public bus is pretty darn affordable. Public planes??? LOL

[LetMePost]

Originally Posted by pghquest

But they dont make EVERYONE get auto insurance.. do they?

No the don't. If you can show that you can afford to pay whatever threshold, then you don't have do. How many people can claim to afford to a 50k hospital bill ?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by LetMePost

With pleasure...

Insurance is there to protect you. It protects your butt from getting sued and covering the cost of repairs and medical bills.

You mean sued to PAY SOMEONE ELSES COSTS?

Originally Posted by LetMePost

Requiring drivers to get atleast liability insurance benefits all drivers, that's why that policy is there.

Dear LetMe.. Do you also need someone to explain things to you..
You get liability to PAY SOMEONE ELSES CARE..
If the car is financed, you get full coverage to PAY THE BANK..

You are under no obligation to get care TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN COSTS.

Originally Posted by LetMePost

Why would you want to be the only one with liability insurance when everyone else in the room isn't insured?

My wishes does not make the laws, nor does my wishes justify them.. I wouldnt care if the road is full of self insured provided the road is full of people THAT CAN PAY ME if they hit me.. Do you understand that? There are LOTS of peope/organizations who legally drive around without insurance.. These groups can pay YOU if they hit YOU.. The are under no obligation to again have coverage for themself..

Originally Posted by LetMePost

The policy for minimum liability insurance is across the board so that it ends up benefiting drivers.

Wrong.. it benefits the person YOU HIT.. The driver who caused the accident receives no benefit.. they are left with no car, and no money from the accident.. if you wreck and you have liability.. you receive NOTHING.. but the person you hit does get compensated.. again, its to PAY THEM.. not YOU.. Its not rocket science...

Originally Posted by LetMePost

America is obese. We're careless. Nobody is asking healthcare companies to pay for every visit and nuance of human health.

Wrong.. its a governmental mandate because the "poor" cant afford their $75 doctor visit..

Originally Posted by LetMePost

That's why there are deductibles in place, so they don't pay for your tylenol, but that's really up to what the health insurance companies will allow.

Wrong.. the deductible is there to stop people from making unnecessary visits to the doctors.. Once you hit the deductible, it doesnt matter what the costs are.. The aspirin reason is pathetic.. if you get charged $5 per aspirin and your deductible is $20, they can give you 4 aspirins or 100, you pay the same.. its not why the deductible is in place...

Originally Posted by LetMePost

but that's really up to what the health insurance companies will allow. A lot of companies are now are being more preventative by paying for regular checkups and health programs outside of the hospital. Trying to prevent bad lifestyles and health choices earlier.

Thats because GOVERNMENT mandates it in order to get a license to sell insurance in the states..

Originally Posted by LetMePost

I don't think dental coverage is mandatory... for adults anyways. I'm not talking about a common cold here, I'm talking about MRI's, days spend in a hospital, births. Stuff regular people are overcharged for and cannot pay out pocket. Again, with deductibles, that's to prevent frivolous visits.

Ahh, there goes that argument.. "what people can not afford".. BULL CRAP.. The bill is one thing, what people pay is something totally different.. If you pay the billed amount you are a fool... But none of this has anything to do with the fact that it doesnt matter to me.. if you cant afford treatment.. Really.. it doesnt.. you can get sick, get cancer, die, none of it has an effect on me and while you wont like to obviously die, your death has nothing to do with the welfare of the general public, which is what the Constitution authorizes..

Originally Posted by LetMePost

I never said free and I don't think the idea of public option in healthcare was free run government healthcare system either. Somebody pays, but a public bus is pretty darn affordable. Public planes??? LOL

The fact that its pretty dam affordable is irrelevant.. The fact that you dont drive does not afford you free transportation does it? The public option for insurance is also pretty dam affordable now, isnt it? last I checked it was FREE.. Welfare for example..

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by LetMePost

No the don't. If you can show that you can afford to pay whatever threshold, then you don't have do. How many people can claim to afford to a 50k hospital bill ?

The fact that you cant afford something is immaterial.. How many people cant afford cars, but yet we dont buy people cars, do we?

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

no xrays are overused and dont find the problem

example

after I got hurt in Iraq, the va xrayed my back.......20 times......could not find the problem...they said DDD.....

I paid for ONE , MRi and found the 2 herniated discs.....and then started getting the treatment, had my back surgery in 2007

my father has medicare(he is 82) they spend more money on xrays than they would with one mri

the FACT is that singlepayer will not lower the costs of ANYTHING, especially if they are the ones paying...because they will pay for the 'cheaper' test..even if running that 'cheaper' test 20 times will cost more than the one 'more expensive' test that will actually find the roblem

and singlepayer will not lower any of the assosiacate costs of delivering medicine( ie it wont lower fuel costs, it wont lower electric costs...it wont lower realestate costs...it wont lower salary costs)

singlepayer will not do anything except FORCE the few taxpayers to pay for the many

We, the taxpayers already pay for many - e.g. Medicare (Medicare tax) Medicaid (State & Federal Tax), Tricare, VA (Federal tax) Cigarette Tax (if you smoke tax pays for CHIP - State (s) Children Health Insurance Program)

If we had Medicare for All, you could get rid of all of
the above except the Medicare payroll tax, of course.

Medicare pays for MRI's. Medicare does not decide what tests a doctor does. They never have. They are not limiting in that regard. Medicare MRI coverage | Medicare Coverage for MRI | Caring.com

MRI's are overused, and abused Maybe not in your particular situation. I'm surprised you didn't go to
the VA.

Overtreatment in Action: $30 Billion Wasted on Unnecessary MRI, CT Scans | BNET

FL leads nation in imaging - FierceHealthcare

[texdav]

Originally Posted by DBIF

if your idea of liberty is getting screwed by a health insurers then knock yourself out.

ou a welcome to pay fpor your own or start uyour own group. Its like those who complai about employers.well becoe one by starting your own business then.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I say medicare for ANYONE is unconstitutional on a national level.. it promotes the INDIVIDUAL welfare.. the person who needs the care.. Again, your sickness has no effect upon me or society. States however can run all of the insurance programs they wish legally.

Tell me what part of the Constitution authorizes INDIVIDUAL welfare?

I'm very familiar with the unconstitutionality argument
of the general welfare clause in Article 1.

Medicare for All would fall under Section 8

A health care system in the late 1700's did not exist.

The average life expectancy was 25-35. Smallpox, malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia, influenza, rickets caused deaths. Few even went to medical school - self taught. They did not have effective medicines, or painkillers, or even the infamous stethoscope around the neck. They killed more folks with their treatments, than they cured

Ben Franklin in a joint effort with Dr. Bond opened the free hospital for the poor and sick in Penn, PA. "So pleased was Franklin that he later stated: "I do not remember any of my political maneuvers, the success of which gave me at the time more pleasure..."
That was 1751

The term doctor was first used in 1769.

During the Revolutionary War doctors were only
equipped with saws, whiskey, scissors and clamps.
That was 1775 - 1783.

The Constitution was signed and ratified
That was 1787-1788.

After the Revolutionary War, it was President John Adams who signed the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.
It required that all privately employed sailors had a 1% deduction from their wage from their employer, and it was given to the Secretary of the Treasury.
In return, they received care at the federal hospital or posts as they called them that the President/government built.
That IS our first government run health care system for private citizens by taxation of an employee's wage in exchange for total health care services provided by the U.S. government.
That was 1798

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probably one in which it was passed" - Thomas Jefferson/Letter to William Johnson
That was 1823

So, in the SPIRIT, that John Adams had government health care for privately employed citizens through taxation of wages, and the HUMANITARIAN nature of
Ben Franklin, and the WISE words of Thomas Jefferson,

I ascertain, they would all be for MEDICARE FOR ALL

The insurance mandate under ObamaCare is not
constitutional because 1. It's not a tax 2. It's
not uniform throughout the US, and 3. The government
can't force citizens to sign private contracts.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by texdav

you a welcome to pay for your own or start up your own group. Its like those who complain about employers. well become one by starting your own business then.

Today's health insurance companies are practically a monopoly. Let me see they call them ...conglomerates

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

I'm very familiar with the unconstitutionality argument
of the general welfare clause in Article 1.

Medicare for All would fall under Section 8

What section exactly? The part dealing with the power to provide and maintain a navy?

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

A health care system in the late 1700's did not exist.

The average life expectancy was 25-35. Smallpox, malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia, influenza, rickets caused deaths. Few even went to medical school - self taught. They did not have effective medicines, or painkillers, or even the infamous stethoscope around the neck. They killed more folks with their treatments, than they cured

Ben Franklin in a joint effort with Dr. Bond opened the free hospital for the poor and sick in Penn, PA. "So pleased was Franklin that he later stated: "I do not remember any of my political maneuvers, the success of which gave me at the time more pleasure..."
That was 1751

The term doctor was first used in 1769.

During the Revolutionary War doctors were only
equipped with saws, whiskey, scissors and clamps.
That was 1775 - 1783.

The Constitution was signed and ratified
That was 1787-1788.

What does any of this have to do with the constitutionality of giving everyone free medical treatment and medicare?

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

After the Revolutionary War, it was President John Adams who signed the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.
It required that all privately employed sailors had a 1% deduction from their wage from their employer, and it was given to the Secretary of the Treasury.
In return, they received care at the federal hospital or posts as they called them that the President/government built.
That IS our first government run health care system for private citizens by taxation of an employee's wage in exchange for total health care services provided by the U.S. government.
That was 1798

Ahh, but here is where you go wrong.. That was for government HEALTH CARE.. Not Insurance.. If you look at my previous postings, you'll see that I supported the legality of government run hospitals.. but hospitals are NOT insurance industries..

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probably one in which it was passed" - Thomas Jefferson/Letter to William Johnson
That was 1823

And not one section of the constitution which was passed, national healthcare would be constitutional..

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

So, in the SPIRIT, that John Adams had government health care for privately employed citizens through taxation of wages, and the HUMANITARIAN nature of
Ben Franklin, and the WISE words of Thomas Jefferson,

they paid for Health CARE, again, not insurance.. My recollection (which I posted earlier today, and even last year when the debate was going on) is that legally the govt can run hospitals, justifying the "common good", just like they operate police and fire, but health INSURANCE is not health care..

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

I ascertain, they would all be for MEDICARE FOR ALL

You have not made an argument to support the legality of medicares existance..

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

The insurance mandate under ObamaCare is not
constitutional because 1. It's not a tax 2. It's
not uniform throughout the US, and 3. The government
can't force citizens to sign private contracts.

#3 is the killer.. No individual can force another individual to enter into a binding contract.. You have this one correct, its sad so many others dont know basic 101 of the law..