|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 02/01/2011 : 17:28:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Show me where. Maybe you have a case where it says to promote the general welfare. But then the constitution enumerates our rights and I don't see health care. I am not against ammending the constitution if that's what people want but the Obama administration cannot makeup rights and then say because we have these rights we need to pay for them.
|
Who said Obama was "making up rights?" He just encouraged Congress to pass a health care bill. Or are you suggesting that the Constitution must specifically innumerate a "right" to health care before a national health care program can be legally established? Because that would be a really stupid argument.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2011 : 18:39:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Name any plan by the Republicans (other than tort reform, because it's on the table and it doesn't amount to much) that would get most of the 50 million who are without access to health insurance insured or give them access to affordable healthcare. Name them please. |
First we have tort reform in Texas and our healthcare is cheaper, more jobs were created and there are many doctors to choose from. http://www.tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/Texas_Tort_Reform_Report_2008.pdf
Bill
Summary
Originally posted by Kil
I think it is a human right because almost everyone gets sick. Just like food and shelter, it should be a right, not a privilege. And as I understand it, the plan would actually reduce spending. |
I am not naïve enough to think that we can cover more people with better coverage and health costs will go down. If health care is cheaper then people will use it more and the costs will go up. The studies that show the system will pay for itself do not take this into consideration. Besides, it only pays for itself because they are taxing us for 10 years to cover 6 -7years?
What amount of coverage is our right to have? Is it ok that evil people that have made a lot of money by their own hard work have better health care than others who make an average living? Or does everyone have to have the same coverage?
Originally posted by Kil
The self employed and their families are in deep trouble. I can't afford what is available to me. Dig this. $1500 a month with a $3000 deductible after which it pays 80%. And that's one of the best rates available to me. What about us Robb? We are the 50 million... |
Then lets fix the 50 million, which is really 30 million by the way. Why can’t we come up with a plan to cover the uninsured without overhauling everybody’s coverage? I agree $1500 per month is not affordable, I bet if you could buy any plan offered in the country your rates would be much lower. We can fix your situation without changing other people that can afford their healthcare.
Originally posted by Kil
And this plan has just given small business a tax break in order to offer healthcare to their workers. Yes, I know some people are paying a reasonable rate, but those plans are out of reach for millions of us. Why? Why should that be??? I'm uninsurable unless I go to work for a company that offers health insurance. It's a simple as that. |
I totally agree. Health insurance should not be tied to our employment. Some conservative plans sever this tie so when you lose your job you still have coverage because you are paying for it yourself and I support this.
Originally posted by Kil
As for the increased costs, that should be looked into by congress. Because the insurers are turning in record profits. As long as we don't control what they do, we have the fox guarding the hen house. The plan doesn't kick in fully until 1214. They are trying to make as much as they can in the meantime. NO, let me say it again, NO healthcare provider should be profit driven. That's a big part of the problem. |
It is profits that spur ingenuity. These for profit health care companies save lives every day. My wife has a disorder called achalasia. With drugs, medical equipment and procedures created by for profit health companies it is not really a big deal to treat. 100 years ago she would have died by now from the condition. The companies need to be regulated but profit drives innovation.
Originally posted by Kil
Source.
And what you do is not relevant to this discussion. Charity will not solve the healthcare crisis in this country. |
It is relevant because you accused conservatives of not caring about anybody but themselves. It’s a lie. But liberals demonize anything that contradicts their idea’s. Conservatives want everyone covered; we just disagree on how it should be done. Of course you will perpetuate the lie that we are murderers.
Originally posted by Kil
So it wasn't socialism or unconstitutional when they proposed it? Or it was and they knew it? Or did it just suddenly dawn on them that it's a bad idea that's both socialistic and unconstitutional?
You know what the difference really is Robb? It's that at that time they were facing a possibility of a single payer system, so they came up with a plan that would keep their benefactors in business. That's it. It's all politics Robb. It's not as though they saw the light or the error of their ways. That's just silly. |
And when the republicans endorsed the plan back then the democrats fought against it. I agree its all politics.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2011 : 19:20:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Where you get the fact that health care is a human right? |
Health care should be considered a basic human right.| I think all people should have access to health care but if we want it to be a right then maybe we need to amend the constitution. |
The Ninth Amendment should be good enough. But I see you've skipped over that one:| But then the constitution enumerates our rights and I don't see health care. |
It's a shame that you don't understand that We the People determine what our rights are, and that Constitution does not. The Constitution exists so that We the People can give powers to the government. Its purpose was never to be a list of all of our rights. There were tremendous arguments back in the late 1700s over whether the Bill of Rights was even needed, since to many of the Founding Fathers, the government could only wield whatever powers were given to it, and so it simply could not restrict our speech or ban firearms unless We the People said it was okay. To them, the Bill of Rights was redundant.
You won't find the right to become a parent in the Constitution either, Robb, so can you tell me to which government agency you sent your application?
But back to your prior comment:| What other right forces the government to spend trillions of dollars. |
It'd be interesting to see the total amount spent on courtrooms all over the U.S., wouldn't it? I think it'd be a pretty huge number.| Also saying the conservatives want no other way is a lie. They have proposed many alternatives but the democrat congress would not allow them to be discussed. |
They actually proposed the individual mandate that they now think is unconstitutional, too. Why bother talking to them when their position is so malleable? Who can say if next week they'll be against what they've been proposing this week?
Any Senator or Representative who has recently used the phrase "what the American people want" (or similar language) has abdicated their responsibility to their particular constituents in favor of national poll numbers and/or the party line. I hear it almost every day I listen to the news, and it sickens me every time. Many of the Founding Fathers didn't like what they called "factions" (and what we call parties) for this very reason, but there's really no way to avoid them other than to punish elected officials who obey the party more than the citizens they're supposed to be representing. But few people seem genuinely interested in doing so. Instead, they try to punish the other faction's candidates.
But I'm getting way off-topic.| So there are only people paying outrageous premiums for healthcare? There are millions of Americans paying reasonable premiums for healthcare. |
So long as "reasonable" means "more than people in other Western countries do, and getting less care for it," you're right.
It's not the people who can afford health care who I'm concerned about, anyway. It's the people who can't afford it, and there will always be some of them so long as the term "medical bill" exists.| If someday I need help with healthcare bills then I hope others will do the same for me and I would rather get help from individuals than from the government. |
I would prefer that you not need help to pay for health care at all, ever, no matter how much money you make, and no matter how much or how little you've given to other people or to charity.
Next post:| I am not naïve enough to think that we can cover more people with better coverage and health costs will go down. |
If doctors drew government salaries and there was no such thing as a "health insurance company," costs would go waaaaay down. Health insurance is a completely unnecessary middle-man operation that offers the country nothing but a bunch of desk jobs and genuine "death panels."| If health care is cheaper then people will use it more and the costs will go up. |
If preventative health care were free, people would use it more and we'd be faced with a population who got suspicious moles removed for a couple hundred taxpayer dollars instead of being treated for end-stage melanomas at a cost of hundreds of thousands! Which is cheaper, Robb?| Why can’t we come up with a plan to cover the uninsured without overhauling everybody’s coverage? |
Because most people don't like being told they're going to be paying taxes to cover poor people, and their representatives cave to that pressure instead of doing what's right.| Some conservative plans sever this tie so when you lose your job you still have coverage because you are paying for it yourself and I support this. |
How can a person who has lost his job afford to pay for health insurance on his own? That bizarre notion needs to end, soon.| It is profits that spur ingenuity. |
Lots of people enjoy saving lives for the sake of saving lives. If we hire those people to invent new life-saving technologies, they will. For-profit companies are in it for the profit, not for the lives. The two only coincide so long as a patent lasts.Whoops. Where is the right to marry enumerated in the Constitution?| And when the republicans endorsed the plan back then the democrats fought against it. |
The Democrats wanted more, and the Republican response was so crappy that the Republicans themselves now hate it. Please avoid trying to re-write recent history. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2011 : 20:28:06 [Permalink]
|
I don't believe a right has to be in the Constitution to be counted as a human right.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Article 25, section 1, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25 |
|
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2011 : 22:08:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
I don't believe a right has to be in the Constitution to be counted as a human right.Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Article 25, section 1, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25 |
|
You think quoting a bunch of furriners and a goddamn librul is going to convince anyone? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2011 : 22:27:14 [Permalink]
|
| You're right. What did furriners ever bring to the US anyway? |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 10:08:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
You're right. What did furriners ever bring to the US anyway? |
Smallpox?
On a more serious note, it seems that what the Republicans have done with the individual mandate, they have also done with cap-and-trade:Cap and trade used to be the conservative alternative to liberal plans for direct environmental regulation. Now it's the harbinger of communism and will destroy the entire economy. This would be amusing if it wasn't actually convincing to millions of the ignorant and credulous. So we're beginning to see a pattern:Democrats: "We think the government should be directly involved in industry X."
Republicans: "Why don't we try plan Y, which involves less government interference?"
...At least one election cycle later...
Democrats: "We think plan Y will help solve the problems of industry X."
Republicans: "Egads, man! The American People will never stand for such Socialism!" Is it even possible to have serious discussions about serious issues with such an opposition, Robb? Has the whole Republican Party been replaced with clones of John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 12:46:09 [Permalink]
|
That has been the pattern, Dave. It's so obvious that even as the Democrats move to the right, attempting to get bipartisan acceptance of any plan to move us forward (even if the plan is flawed) the Republicans just regroup, rebrand the idea, and reject it as they move further to the right. No Republican wants to be caught accepting anything the Dems are for even if it was originally a Republican idea.
It shouldn't be surprising that both congress and the president moved up in the polls durring the lame duck session, because some things actually got done in a short period of time. As it turns out, the people actually do want some things to get done. Who'd have thought it?
And how come smart people like Robb can't see that this has been the pattern of his party for the last two years? What's with that?
I just don't see how the Republicans can claim any high ground when they keep shifting the goal posts or pretending that the idea that they promoted never happend.
You're right. How can you work with people like that? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 12:57:17 [Permalink]
|
Please, this could be said about anything in life that causes stress like trying to pay bills each month. Life has worries, period.
To Robb: If you think that dealing with health insurance is just like paying bills, you have clearly not dealt with health insurance people. I know of one parent that had to fight the insurance company every step of the way to get his 2 year old daughter treated for Wilm's tumor.
What is disturbing me about the health care debate, is that a lot of the Republicans are making hysterical statements, like this is socialism, it is being forced down our throats, etc. It prevents any serious discussion of the health care system. Other countries have managed to come up with reasonable health care systems (not perfect of course) without all the hysterics. A lot of the Republicans in Congress don't want Obama to have any successes, so he won't get re-elected.
The problem with Democrats is that they are not nearly as unified as Republicans (which is actually a good thing). I am sure there have been some Democrats who have said supid and irrational things but it is nowhere near as loud or as many as Republicans. There used to be Republicans that were willing to work with Democrats behind the scenes on comprises. that is what Congress is supposed to do. In terms of health care being a right: Nobody chooses to get sick. I have read that in Texas, the governor wants to cut out medicaid altogether, which I imagine, includes medicaid for children. No child chooses to be born poor.
Also in Texas, there was a reports in the New Yorker a couple of years ago that compared the health costs in 2 different counties. One county had far higher costs because they allowed the profit motive to take over medicine.
Paying doctors a salary might be a good idea if medical school wasn't so expensive. Some doctors have over $100,000 debt. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 14:13:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
Paying doctors a salary might be a good idea if medical school wasn't so expensive. Some doctors have over $100,000 debt. |
Lots of countries have also figured out how to provide free university education along with free health care. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 14:34:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by alienist
Paying doctors a salary might be a good idea if medical school wasn't so expensive. Some doctors have over $100,000 debt. |
Lots of countries have also figured out how to provide free university education along with free health care.
|
That's true here for several fields of endeavor that require student loans. Hell, Michelle received an offer to have her student loans completely paid for if she joined the navy. They need psychologists. Teachers can get their loans forgiven if they are willing to teach in troubled neighborhoods. The list goes on.
So why not doctors? And why not especially if they agree to be GP's for a certain amount of time? That's an area where there is a major need.
All things considered, it's not a big investment. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 16:19:53 [Permalink]
|
I agree that doctors can get help with education. My brother and his wife got a navy scholarship and I went to a state school. That means the government subsidized our educations. My point about doctors being on salary means the government will have to subsidize medical education (esp if we want more primary care physicians).
It means that our government has to look at long-term solutions rather than focusing on the next election every 2 years and changing our priorities. I wish that could happen. Right now the VA health system has to beg for money, while the dept of defense have a much easier time getting money.
It is a sad state. It is time for a joke: 3 doctors approach St Peter at the gates of heaven. The surgeon argued he should go to heaven because he had saved so many lives. So Peter says you can come in. The internist argues that she helped so many people by preventing disease. Peter says you can come in. The 3rd doctor, an HMO doctor, says he should go to heaven becaue he has saved so much money. Peter says you can come in but you can only stay for 24 hours. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 16:27:44 [Permalink]
|
I see nobody bothered to comment on this postAlso,
He also issued an injunction that I bet President Obama will not follow. http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/ShowAudio/Florida-Healthcare-Summary-Judgment.pdf page 75
(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief
enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456
U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy
[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)
(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the
federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the
Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the
declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on
Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.
2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.
1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers
are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .
since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared
by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.
Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is
not necessary. |
|
Now its clear that the Obama administration will not comply with the injunction which seems to me to be lawlessness. At least Wisconsin understands.
| Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has taken a great step forward in stopping the implementation of ObamaCare. And quite correctly, Van Hollen said, “Judge Vinson declared the health care law void and stated in his decision that a declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. This means that, for Wisconsin, the federal health care law is dead-unless and until it is revived by an appellate court. Effectively, Wisconsin was relieved of any obligations or duties that were created under terms of the federal health care law.” |
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 17:11:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
I see nobody bothered to comment on this post |
Given that Obama is continuing many of Bush's illegal policies, the idea that he might not follow an injunction is a "dog bites man" story.
Of course, there's not a lot for Obama to do regarding the judge's decision. It means that insurance companies are now free to prohibit 18-26 year-olds from being on their parents' insurance again; that home UV lamps don't get a 10% tax; that Medicaid drug rebates have to drop again, etc. What do you expect, Robb? A big press conference at which Obama specifically orders the heads of various agencies to de-implement each specific measure? That, of course, isn't what happened when the law passed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 17:52:46 [Permalink]
|
Robb
Now its clear that the Obama administration will not comply with the injunction which seems to me to be lawlessness. At least Wisconsin understands. |
The mandate doesn't kick in until 2014. Here is a comment from the page that you linked to Robb.
John C says:
February 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm
@ The Johns: I have been a client of my health insurance company for 8 years and always paid and file 0 major claims in that time. My 15 year old son was diagnosed last spring with cancer. After the initial diagnosis we were dropped from our insurance. After “Obamacare” passed we were informed that we were again eligible for coverage. Found out todays ago now that the new law is on hold we are back out. It’s not a big deal though, I mean if my son dies (which is now likely as we have depleted our savings, home equity and borrowed as much as we can to pay for the care he has received so far). I suppose it was meant to be. Right? Thanks Van Hollen! |
Yay for the good guys! Down with ObamaCare!!!
And you wonder why I think the Republican Party is heartless. Sure this is anecdotal. But there are real repercussions attached to the kind of action Wisconsin is taking. But hey... Wrong is wrong, right?
This action by Wisconsin couldn't have waited until the plan worked its way though the courts, and altered if necessary, right? And you know why they didn't wait? POLIFUCKINGTICS!!! You like it Robb. They're playing the song for you. We wouldn't want Wisconsin to suffer "lawlessness" by allowing the implementation of any provision in RebubliCare ummm, ObamaCare, now would we? But then, the people who are negatively effected by a ruling that covers every single part of the plan, including parts that no one in their right mind would object to, with the exception of insurance companies and their lap dogs of course, are just abstractions to the judge and the politicians, aren't they?
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
“Obamacare” unconstitutional?
