i didn't see the cons ution in any of this.
Would you like to argue that the health care bill is uncons utional? If so, would you also like to make the argument that Social Security, welfare, and the like are uncons utional?
If that is the case, I would love for you to explain how they are currently still in existence. With them being, you know, uncons utional.
this has illustrated how naive you are.
Sure we can survive on breaking the cons ution. We've had Pleggy vs Ferguson, Brown vs Board of Education proving that we as a society haven't lived up to the do ent. That's why there's a supreme court.
As far as SS, and welfare. The cons ution states that taxes are to be enforced to support an army or militia. Welfare, SS, and other programs are not enumerated in there. FDR was the man who openly tried to subvert the cons ution by packing the court, and was the man who passed SS. Thanks for proving my point.
For this silly argument anyway.
Should we all have "food insurance". After all, no one in this country must go hungry therefore we must force our citizens to pay for each others grocery lists.
Yes, however, the greater good does not mean to place those who cannot pay into a system that will increase the costs.
I think the biggest free market part of the problem is that it is too cheap for those insured. I don't mean the monthly payments, but the per visit costs. Co-pays are non-existent to cheap for most health care plans. That means a person doesn't think twice before seeing a doctor if needed or not, raising the monthly cost to everyone. Same with medications. If I have a plan that gives me any medication for $10 a month, who am I to say "Doc... Do I really need that?" When employers pay the bulk of the cost, the consumers understand the real costs even less. Without the users of health care having a stake in the price structure, things only get worse when you add more people to such a system. Far worse, since the poor will probably have a zero co-pay. As it stands, paying higher costs to cover those who use the emergency rooms and clinics, I think are cheaper than giving them health care benefits with no co-pay.
I would argue that mandating full coverage and the methods this far seen the democrats want to impliment are uncons utional.
You cannot force a person to pay for something they don't desire, and demand a punishment fee if they don't.Health Care is not a right, and even if it was, it would be limited to access to health care. Not forcing participation of it.
Social Security is not a given to all. If you don't participate, you are qualified, except under some procedures never intended.
Welfare... I say is uncons utional, but few agree with me there. Then I mean allowing long term use of it for those who can provide for themselves.
Still, it isn't a mandatory system. You are not compelled to be on welfare if you don't want to be.
No .
What is more basic to life than food and shelter, but neither of there are a guaranteed right!
I don't know what the 8-10 other options, mentioned, are but, yeah...there are various programs available in every state to assist similarly situated patients. Charity and State-run medical aid come in all sorts of sizes, shapes, and varieties.
Bottom line, no one loses their house over non-payment of medical bills. You, me and Ms. Canfield could walk out of the hospital and not pay one cent, continue living our lives as we have, and never fear of losing an asset.
The hospital, in which Ms. Canfield found herself, writes off a lot of patient expenses (charity), So do many (if not all) other hospitals; Some raise the cost to paying customers to cover the non-paying, etc...
And, like the hospital spokesperson said, there are organizations, programs, and agencies that specifically target medical care.
For instance, Shriners Childrens Hospitals are run by the Shrine branch of the Freemasons. They provide major medical care -- free of charge -- for any child, completely subsidized by the Shrine. An organization to which I choose to contribute because they took a child, on my recommendation to a clown at a circus, and performed several major surgeries to correct a debilitating genetic defect. They also provided rehabilitation and physical therapy afterward.
If you give the government the power to take more of my money so they can mismanage health care -- like they already do with Medicare and Medicaid -- then I won't have as much to donate to the Shriners who are doing real work at no one's expense other than those who voluntarily choose to support it.
In a similar vein, a lot has been said (maybe not on this board but, I know, by President Obama) about Insurance Companies making exorbitant profits only to deny care when it is most needed.
Well, guess what; the average profit margin for an American health insurance company, these days, is 4%. Not that exorbitant, if you ask me.
Also, I bet you can't guess which insurer is the bigger "denier" of medical claims, these days, either. Bingo! Government-run Medicare.
And, you want reform? I say you free up the insurance industry to compete for profits and encourage charity to organizations like Shriners and that hospital in which Ms. Canfield gratefully found herself.
Yoni...
I brought up similar facts when Exxon had their record profits. Lib s just don't care about the facts. They have an agenda.
I get it. I'd rather private industry handle the economics of health care instead of an inefficient federal government with the built-in bureaucratic costs, waste, and fraud.
Charity is a private affair.
We have a (and have had) power-hungry Congress(es) and an ignorant electorate.
We do have "food insurance." They call it by various names. W.I.C, A.F.D.C, Welfare, Food Stamps, Lone Star Card...etc...
My same arguments apply there, as well. Private, commercial enterprises could better provide charity than can a behemoth federal government.
Oh, and shelter; I give you Section 8 housing.
Oh yes...
Section 8 housing, where the waiting list is 2 years here in Oregon.
Will health care be that long for a waiting list?
And, where legitimate home-owners can watch their property values drop like Dennis Kucinich's mouth on Obama's .
Probably.
Still, section 8 housing isn't considered a right. Not everyone qualifies for it. It most often goes to single mothers. Single fathers be damned.
That's another thing that bothers me about this whole "medical-care-is-a-right" nonsense...other than, of course, no one having the "right" to the fruits of someone else's labor.
Rights can't be means-tested.
It's a right for everyone or it's not a right at all.
Absolutely.
So, do you think welfare is uncons utional or not?
Fair enough.I ask only to hear an actual answer. If people believe that welfare/social security, etc etc, SHOULD be uncons utional if the laws were read properly, that's an argument with merit. I just like to have it out in the open.
rights are whatever citizens decide are rights.
There's no such as inalienable, God-given rights. pure myth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
