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 11-22-2013, 01:26 PM
 
17,288 posts, read 28,173,772 times
Reputation: 8675

Advertisements

One would hope so.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:31 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,337,120 times
Reputation: 4167
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
One would hope so.
And millions would hope not.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:33 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,337,120 times
Reputation: 4167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0618 View Post
I am self employed and a conservative but i keep going back and forth on single payer.

I dont trust the federal government regardless what party is in charge to run it.

I think the final answer to this is a modified single payer system.
Keep in mind too, that Federal involvement in medical care is explicitly forbidden by the U.S Constitution.

Needless to say, that part of the Constitution is the single most violated section in the document.

The only exception might be medical care for injuries sustained by members of the (constitutionally assigned to the Fed) Armed Services during the performance of their duties.

All other involvement in medical care is prohibited to the Fed govt.

It's allowed to the states and lower governments if they want to participate. And, of course, to the people.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:35 PM
 
7,783 posts, read 8,133,306 times
Reputation: 4710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
And millions would hope not.
They all will eventually. The old way of delivering healthcare via for-profit insurance is a dismal failure, and has been failing for several years.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 15,431,416 times
Reputation: 3952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Keep in mind too, that Federal involvement in medical care is explicitly forbidden by the U.S Constitution.
Where, exactly?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:36 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,671,667 times
Reputation: 2171
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Wrong, Our current system is bloated specifically and explicitly by private Insurance Companies which make money off the friction in the system. It is the multiple parallel systems which are designed deliberately to raise switching costs that account for at least 16 cents on every healthcare dollar we spend.
This was intentional and part of the tax and wage control codes the federal government enforced. It has never made any sense to have your employer buy your insurance for you, but the federal government made it a tax benefit for you to have them do so. Thus, health benefits and control was ceded to employers, who then put insurers in charge. Handing this politicians makes EVEN LESS SENSE.

Quote:
The 16-25% savings comes regardless of who the "single payer" eventually ends up being. In many countries with a single payer system, the systems are run by a private company, not the government.
Yes, we know monopolies are always the cheapest way to do things. It worked so well for phone services. Long distance rates skyrocketed when it opened up to competition, remember? It used to cost 25 to 35 cents a minute to call long distance during the day and taking away the monopoly skyrocketed the price to around 3 cents a minute. /sarcasm

Quote:
This does not account for the additional savings that could be obtained via elimination of "defensive medicine" allowed by the single system combined with the unique opportunity it presents for tort reform.
After all, tort reform could ONLY be accomplished if the federal government were in charge of medicine. /sarcasm

The assumptions in your posting are just beyond ridiculous.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:39 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,671,667 times
Reputation: 2171
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Where, exactly?
Quote:
Article [IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X]
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.
The federal government was not delegated the power to run a compulsory medical system. Ergo, it DOES NOT HAVE that power.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 02:06 PM
 
Location: The High Plains
525 posts, read 486,868 times
Reputation: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
The federal government was not delegated the power to run a compulsory medical system. Ergo, it DOES NOT HAVE that power.
“Both sides agree that Congress has the constitutional power to enact a national health care system that raised taxes to support a single government agency that pays all medical bills, just like Medicare,” said Walter Dellinger, who served as acting solicitor general in the administration of President Bill Clinton and supports the law.
Randy E. Barnett, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs who on Wednesday sought Supreme Court review, made essentially the same point. “What I’ve said from Day 1,” he said, “is that if Medicare is constitutional then Medicare-for-everyone is constitutional.”
Mr. Dellinger said there was irony in this harmony. “The constitutional attack is focused on a mandate that was necessary if the new system was to utilize the existing private market, which had traditionally been a conservative and Republican proposal for how to deal with health care,” he said.

-Adam Liptak

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/us...ound.html?_r=0
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 02:09 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,337,120 times
Reputation: 4167
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402 View Post
“Both sides agree that Congress has the constitutional power to enact a national health care system that raised taxes to support a single government agency that pays all medical bills, just like Medicare,” said Walter Dellinger, who served as acting solicitor general in the administration of President Bill Clinton and supports the law.
Randy E. Barnett, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs who on Wednesday sought Supreme Court review, made essentially the same point. “What I’ve said from Day 1,” he said, “is that if Medicare is constitutional then Medicare-for-everyone is constitutional.”
Mr. Dellinger said there was irony in this harmony. “The constitutional attack is focused on a mandate that was necessary if the new system was to utilize the existing private market, which had traditionally been a conservative and Republican proposal for how to deal with health care,” he said.
TRANSLATION: None of them have been able to find any part of the Constitution that authorizes government to have anything to do with civilian medical care.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 02:16 PM
 
Location: The High Plains
525 posts, read 486,868 times
Reputation: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
TRANSLATION: None of them have been able to find any part of the Constitution that authorizes government to have anything to do with civilian medical care.
For all practical purposes...does it really matter?

Medicare is the law and it has been for decades. A Medicare for all expansion is no different than the Medicare we already have, practically speaking.
Rate this post positively 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:43 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top