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.
Government buying a piece of bread for a family: Providing Things
Government ensuring the wage earner has no unnecessary resistance to find a job, to be able to buy a break: Providing Means..
I agree with you on this part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Another example would be health care spending by the government. There is a massive deficit it maintains. That is an example of providing things, something we've become way too used to, so much so that we don't even care to discuss it. If government devised ways that operates on a similar model as a private business but without "profits" being any part of it, it would be providing means.
I understand what you're saying on the difference, and depending on specifics, I may agree with the plan.
That said, none of that makes providing medical care or medical insurance or any other means the same as the constitutional right to life.
"Most Americans" do not. And when that day comes, say good-bye to the best health care in the world, because with no profit to be made, there will be little reason to invest in R&D for medical technology and instrumentation, etc.
I know of a company, Imed, that was a small start up company out in CA, initially. Now they are big. They have always been on the cutting edge. Good-bye.
Why would one suppose there may be fewer people getting coverage thru Employer than if ACA had not been passed? Think about it.
I did.
If the fine is cheaper then the premiums, you could pay the fine.
Because preexisting conditions can no longer be used to deny health insurance, some ( probably single people in their 20s to 40's) could wait until they had a major health problem, then get insurance.
Health care is not a Right? If you believe that then for millions of Americans our Founding National documents are in serious error and need correction. For without health care things like LIFE or PUSUIT OF HAPPINESS are meaningless. I'll use myself as an example, I am a Kidney dialysis patient and have been one for 4 going on 5 years. It as a health care procedure that I do four 4 hours every 48 hours with the exception of Sundays. It is not a very pleasant procedure but without it I face my death in a few weeks after stoping treatment. It is health care that cures nothing and has no positive prognosis. However, I thank GOD and his servant Richard Milhouse Nixon who in 1972 supported the legislation that allowed me to go on Social Security and Medicare so I can have this treatment for which taxpayers pay my dialysis provider $1900 dollars a week. $1900 a week is a princely sum of money to someone like me and something I never had. Now I get a little adgitated over loose talk about health care not being a right or should be treated like any good or service. For me its not and is just as essential to life as having air to breath or water to drink. So as an American do I have a right to LIFE or not. Or does the right to LIFE end at birth.
You have my heart felt sympathy on your condition.
Having said that IMO, IF our founding father's WANTED to make health care aright, they would have included, specifically as they did other items, in the Constitution.
They would have it made some provision for the gov't to pay for everybody's doctor bills.
You have my heart felt sympathy on your condition.
Having said that IMO, IF our founding father's WANTED to make health care aright, they would have included, specifically as they did other items, in the Constitution.
They would have it made some provision for the gov't to pay for everybody's doctor bills.
Maybe because back then, Docs were paid with a chicken or two. Ask Ron Paul, he may still be paid that way.
If the fine is cheaper then the premiums, you could pay the fine.
Because preexisting conditions can no longer be used to deny health insurance, some ( probably single people in their 20s to 40's) could wait until they had a major health problem, then get insurance.
It's being done in Mass. with their healthcare.
The first year fine for not having insurance is $95. Is there any plan out there for less than $95/year ?
You have my heart felt sympathy on your condition.
Having said that IMO, IF our founding father's WANTED to make health care aright, they would have included, specifically as they did other items, in the Constitution.
They would have it made some provision for the gov't to pay for everybody's doctor bills.
Health care 250 years ago was something absolutely different in what we have today. You could say there wasn't any "healthcare" back then but quacks, really. Throw the town quack a few chickens, he then tosses a couple of leaches on you, presto!
As far as provisions to pay for it, it's called taxes. Kind of like that FICA tax American workers pay every week but not able use it until you are old or so sick one can not get coverage or possess the resources to pay a handsome some everyday of the week.
You have my heart felt sympathy on your condition.
Having said that IMO, IF our founding father's WANTED to make health care aright, they would have included, specifically as they did other items, in the Constitution.
They would have it made some provision for the gov't to pay for everybody's doctor bills.
Do you think the founding fathers could have ever even thought of such a thing? Health care? In 1776? What did it consist of then? Leeches, bloodletting? How in the heck could they have considered health care and the rights to access to care at such a time. There was no health care. You died very easily. For what little they had, if you did get some care, you could pay with a chicken, or some vegetables from your garden. Life has way surpassed what our founding fathers could have envisioned. While the Constitution should be used as a framework, there are just going to be some issues that you can't get back to.
I mean, like the right to bear arms, I can agree with but do you think they ever considered the weapons we were someday going to have. Do you think they would have thought it safe that everyone have an AK-47 to "fight the local militia." We aren't even doing anything the same that relates to the struggles they were dealing with.
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.
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.
