ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

Plus, it HAS been said many times. The government is give authority to do what is needed for the welfare and protection of society.

No, it has not been given that authority. The Constitution establishes the federal government to provide for the General Welfare of the citizens, not their specific welfare. The General Welfare encompasses everything else we see in the Constitution: a general establishment of law and order within the country. This health care mandate makes the government involved in the specific welfare of each person, whether they like it or not. This is not provided for in the Constitution. The federal government does not have the power to micromanage every decision each of us makes, and it was never given the authority to tell us what we must purchase.

[pimpdave]

Night Strike, who has absolutely no understanding of economics, weighs in on an issue that way back at it's inception, was always about the macro-economic impact of medical care.

Same reason for Social Security. It allows for a significantly more stable economy.

But he's too selfish and the people who feed him the talking points he regurgitates are too selfish to ever acknowledge that reality.

[Night Strike]

Night Strike, who has absolutely no understanding of economics, weighs in on an issue that way back at it's inception, was always about the macro-economic impact of medical care.

Same reason for Social Security. It allows for a significantly more stable economy.

But he's too selfish and the people who feed him the talking points he regurgitates are too selfish to ever acknowledge that reality.

Aren't you the selfish one demanding that the rich pay more to the government? I'm pretty sure wanting to take money away from other people is infinitely more greedy than wanting to allow people to keep their own money.

And even if keeping your own money is more greedy, I thought you're always one stating that the government is not supposed to be involved in morality? Saying one group is being greedy is a moral judgement, which you state the government isn't allowed to be making.

[Woodruff]

Plus, it HAS been said many times. The government is give authority to do what is needed for the welfare and protection of society.

No, it has not been given that authority. The Constitution establishes the federal government to provide for the General Welfare of the citizens, not their specific welfare. The General Welfare encompasses everything else we see in the Constitution: a general establishment of law and order within the country. This health care mandate makes the government involved in the specific welfare of each person, whether they like it or not. This is not provided for in the Constitution. The federal government does not have the power to micromanage every decision each of us makes, and it was never given the authority to tell us what we must purchase.

Basic affordable medical care doesn't fall under the idea of "general welfare" in your mind?

[Night Strike]

Plus, it HAS been said many times. The government is give authority to do what is needed for the welfare and protection of society.

No, it has not been given that authority. The Constitution establishes the federal government to provide for the General Welfare of the citizens, not their specific welfare. The General Welfare encompasses everything else we see in the Constitution: a general establishment of law and order within the country. This health care mandate makes the government involved in the specific welfare of each person, whether they like it or not. This is not provided for in the Constitution. The federal government does not have the power to micromanage every decision each of us makes, and it was never given the authority to tell us what we must purchase.

Basic affordable medical care doesn't fall under the idea of "general welfare" in your mind?

No. The principles of General Welfare are outlined in the Constitution by the powers it allows the government to hold. There is nothing in there about providing for the health care of the people. Therefore, the government cannot be making health care decisions for the people.

[Phatscotty]

Night Strike, who has absolutely no understanding of economics, weighs in on an issue that way back at it's inception, was always about the macro-economic impact of medical care.

Same reason for Social Security. It allows for a significantly more stable economy.

But he's too selfish and the people who feed him the talking points he regurgitates are too selfish to ever acknowledge that reality.

Actually....

Social Security allowing for a significantly more stable economy??? Consider that thingy called the Federal deficit and national deficit, and it's significance on America's recent credit rating downgrade.



Social Security is the #2 largest claim on America's annual budget, right behind Medicare and Medicaid.

The debt's caused by these government programs make up a total of 54% of all Federal spending. This gigantic claim on our economy is thee #1 factor that makes our economy's balancesheet significantly LESS STABLE.

[Juan_Bottom]

The Constitution has been irrelevant basically almost since it was written. May I draw your eyes to the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by our founding fathers.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress...
Democratic-Republicans denounced them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration, and as infringing on the right of the states to act in these areas, though they did use them after the 1800 election against Federalists.[4] They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. They were very controversial in their own day, as they remain to the present day. Opposition to them resulted in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which were foundational to the states rights theory that helped lead to the Civil War.....

and to amend the act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject; to extend the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens of the United States from five years to fourteen years.
authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States."
authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. §§ 21–24. At the time, war was considered likely between the U.S. and France.

An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States"; made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 (the day before Adams' presidential term was to end).

Republican editors, a member of Congress, and private individuals were targets of prosecution under the Sedition Act. Twenty-five people were arrested. Of them, eleven were tried, one died awaiting trial, and ten were convicted of sedition, often in trials before openly partisan Federalist judges.

The Constitution doesn't matter. You didn't sign it, you born into it. The only thing that matters is who's got the balls to fight for "freedom" and who's currently got the power to define the power.
Thomas Jefferson, upon entering the office of the President of the United States immediately repealed the Acts and pardoned everyone arrested by it. Take his advice and either run for office and be the Alpha hero or... take his other advice and start doing to government officials what the Tea Party does to minorities and kill kill kill.

[Phatscotty]

I voted right direction. sure we are having debt problems right now and we were recently downgraded, and sure all the big money corporations got waivers, and sure other countries end up rationing the health care, but I don't care and that shouldn't matter when it comes to people being sick and not getting the care they need. They should be able to go to the hospital. I even heard of doctors chopping off children's feet just to get an extra $5,000.

Something needed to be done.

[Neoteny]

Your mom needed to be done.

[Woodruff]

Plus, it HAS been said many times. The government is give authority to do what is needed for the welfare and protection of society.

No, it has not been given that authority. The Constitution establishes the federal government to provide for the General Welfare of the citizens, not their specific welfare. The General Welfare encompasses everything else we see in the Constitution: a general establishment of law and order within the country. This health care mandate makes the government involved in the specific welfare of each person, whether they like it or not. This is not provided for in the Constitution. The federal government does not have the power to micromanage every decision each of us makes, and it was never given the authority to tell us what we must purchase.

Basic affordable medical care doesn't fall under the idea of "general welfare" in your mind?

No.

And here we have the compassionate conservative stance on the underprivileged.

The principles of General Welfare are outlined in the Constitution by the powers it allows the government to hold. There is nothing in there about providing for the health care of the people. Therefore, the government cannot be making health care decisions for the people.

Again, I point to the General Welfare clause. Basic affordable medical care absolutely falls within the scope of the general welfare of the populace.

[PLAYER57832]

Basic affordable medical care doesn't fall under the idea of "general welfare" in your mind?

No.

And here we have the compassionate conservative stance on the underprivileged.

Only its absolutely everyone, not just the underpriviliaged who are impacted here.

[Night Strike]

Plus, it HAS been said many times. The government is give authority to do what is needed for the welfare and protection of society.

No, it has not been given that authority. The Constitution establishes the federal government to provide for the General Welfare of the citizens, not their specific welfare. The General Welfare encompasses everything else we see in the Constitution: a general establishment of law and order within the country. This health care mandate makes the government involved in the specific welfare of each person, whether they like it or not. This is not provided for in the Constitution. The federal government does not have the power to micromanage every decision each of us makes, and it was never given the authority to tell us what we must purchase.

Basic affordable medical care doesn't fall under the idea of "general welfare" in your mind?

No.

And here we have the compassionate conservative stance on the underprivileged.

The principles of General Welfare are outlined in the Constitution by the powers it allows the government to hold. There is nothing in there about providing for the health care of the people. Therefore, the government cannot be making health care decisions for the people.

Again, I point to the General Welfare clause. Basic affordable medical care absolutely falls within the scope of the general welfare of the populace.

So it's the government's role to define the prices for products? That sounds much more like a planned, central economy than a free one built upon capitalism.

[Woodruff]

The principles of General Welfare are outlined in the Constitution by the powers it allows the government to hold. There is nothing in there about providing for the health care of the people. Therefore, the government cannot be making health care decisions for the people.

Again, I point to the General Welfare clause. Basic affordable medical care absolutely falls within the scope of the general welfare of the populace.

So it's the government's role to define the prices for products? That sounds much more like a planned, central economy than a free one built upon capitalism.

Favoring capitalism over the basic health of the populace is what caused unions to spring up - you sure you want to beget something similar? You see, the reason that government intervention is being viewed as necessary is because that capitalism health care system you seem to love is failing miserably.

[Night Strike]

The principles of General Welfare are outlined in the Constitution by the powers it allows the government to hold. There is nothing in there about providing for the health care of the people. Therefore, the government cannot be making health care decisions for the people.

Again, I point to the General Welfare clause. Basic affordable medical care absolutely falls within the scope of the general welfare of the populace.

So it's the government's role to define the prices for products? That sounds much more like a planned, central economy than a free one built upon capitalism.

Favoring capitalism over the basic health of the populace is what caused unions to spring up - you sure you want to beget something similar? You see, the reason that government intervention is being viewed as necessary is because that capitalism health care system you seem to love is failing miserably.

That's because the capitalist system isn't allowed to work. The government already defines minimum coverages, whether that coverage is what the buyer wants/needs. They don't allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. I also think there should be no such thing as employer-provided healthcare and then each individual could purchase the policy that suits them the best. No other type of insurance is purchased by a large group of people, so there is no reason heath insurance needs to be.

[GreecePwns]

Night Strike, can you provide an example of a country where the capitalist system is (or once was) allowed to work, which also has (or had in the past) proved to be better than single-payer health care?

[Night Strike]

Night Strike, can you provide an example of a country where the capitalist system is (or once was) allowed to work, which also has (or had in the past) proved to be better than single-payer health care?

Heck, our system before this health care law was better than any single-payer system. This law has made our system even worse than it was because it moved it closer to a single-payer system instead of further away from one.

[PLAYER57832]

[
That's because the capitalist system isn't allowed to work. The government already defines minimum coverages, whether that coverage is what the buyer wants/needs. They don't allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. I also think there should be no such thing as employer-provided healthcare and then each individual could purchase the policy that suits them the best. No other type of insurance is purchased by a large group of people, so there is no reason heath insurance needs to be.

For Capitalism to work, you have to have truly free access, consumers have to have the knowledge and ability to choose. That is not the case in health care.. ever.

Nor is it the case in education or a few other things. Not everyone is rightly subject to the free market. Any economist worth their salt will tell you that right off the bat.

[thegreekdog]

For Capitalism to work, you have to have truly free access, consumers have to have the knowledge and ability to choose. That is not the case in health care.. ever.

Wait... you have to explain this a bit more. First, talk about the phrease "free access." What does that mean? Second, why don't consumers have knowledge and ability to choose in healthcare? Third, why does the Affordable Care Act fix any of those perceived problems you have.

[GreecePwns]

So better is "closer to what I want?" How about something objective?

[Woodruff]

The principles of General Welfare are outlined in the Constitution by the powers it allows the government to hold. There is nothing in there about providing for the health care of the people. Therefore, the government cannot be making health care decisions for the people.

Again, I point to the General Welfare clause. Basic affordable medical care absolutely falls within the scope of the general welfare of the populace.

So it's the government's role to define the prices for products? That sounds much more like a planned, central economy than a free one built upon capitalism.

Favoring capitalism over the basic health of the populace is what caused unions to spring up - you sure you want to beget something similar? You see, the reason that government intervention is being viewed as necessary is because that capitalism health care system you seem to love is failing miserably.

That's because the capitalist system isn't allowed to work. The government already defines minimum coverages, whether that coverage is what the buyer wants/needs. They don't allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. I also think there should be no such thing as employer-provided healthcare and then each individual could purchase the policy that suits them the best. No other type of insurance is purchased by a large group of people, so there is no reason heath insurance needs to be.

Wait, wait, wait...you're trying to tell me that these health insurance companies WOULDN'T drop people as soon as they got a serious condition if the government would just get out of their way? Is that really what you're trying to claim? Because I have a lot of difficulty believing that.

[Phatscotty]

So better is "closer to what I want?" How about something objective?

Closer to freedom and liberty. to be more specific, further from a dependency program, further from debt, further from socialism.

[Night Strike]

Wait, wait, wait...you're trying to tell me that these health insurance companies WOULDN'T drop people as soon as they got a serious condition if the government would just get out of their way? Is that really what you're trying to claim? Because I have a lot of difficulty believing that.

You're picking one area where a government regulation might have some merit and trying to use it to argue in favor of the entire health care law? Quite a stretch there. Futhermore, in a free market, if an insurance company is dropping people instead of paying out benefits, that insurance company is going to be losing customers before it even gets to a payout stage. Also, people could probably sue for a breach of contract (and maybe even criminal charges?), which all those trial lawyers would just jump all over.

[PLAYER57832]

For Capitalism to work, you have to have truly free access, consumers have to have the knowledge and ability to choose. That is not the case in health care.. ever.

Wait... you have to explain this a bit more. First, talk about the phrease "free access." What does that mean?

If I want a TV, or washing machine, I can look around, see what's available. Not everyone has the same availability, but we all have choice, even if some people might have to go further.

When your child or you are suffering an appendicitis attack, swallow poison or stop breathing, you go to the NEAREST facility that can take you.

Even for less pressing issues, things like cancer treatment, etc, the "choice" has to do with location, access and not really variation in care. When there is variation, it is as I note below, that their doctor sees one facilty or another as meeting the patient's needs more closely.

Second, why don't consumers have knowledge and ability to choose in healthcare?

We don't have medical degrees. We really don't have the ability to gain the knowledge we need, despite the hype about self-found cures on the internet. In fact, the misinformation on the internet is never more a problem than on the internet.

I am not saying we have to be utterly ignorant, but the real truth is (and study after study shows this), people do tend to follow their doctor's reccomendations on decisions, and for good reason.

In fact, as several studies, including a Texas study cited not too long ago (I think in another thread), this is why having more doctors actually doesn't result in lower costs. Because the doctors feel pressured to treat more and more patients and convince themselves that those on the border would benefit. (note, I am NOT talking about any intentional practice. Most ofthese doctors will swear up and down that they are not altering their decisions. This is something subtle that happens). It is actually the exact opposite of a free market.

Third, why does the Affordable Care Act fix any of those perceived problems you have.

That comment is not about the Affordable Care Act, its about constitutional mandates and Nightstrike's insistance that a free market for healthcare is a good idea.

If I had to pick a US system, I would look at something like Geisenger. Its not perfect and I am still finding out more about it (may be our area care, for one thing), but it has done some good things, like holding themselves responsible for mistakes and limiting the treatment options available in some cases, based on evidence of effectiveness.

Also, here is the thing. When it comes to a refridgerator, you may want a side-by-side freezer, I may want one on the bottom, maybe you want bigger meat drawers, etc, etc. When it comes to medicine, its about what works best to cure the disease. That does vary with the individual, but its not really a matter of taste or opinion, its a matter of evidence and data.

[PLAYER57832]

Wait, wait, wait...you're trying to tell me that these health insurance companies WOULDN'T drop people as soon as they got a serious condition if the government would just get out of their way? Is that really what you're trying to claim? Because I have a lot of difficulty believing that.

You're picking one area where a government regulation might have some merit and trying to use it to argue in favor of the entire health care law? Quite a stretch there. Futhermore, in a free market, if an insurance company is dropping people instead of paying out benefits, that insurance company is going to be losing customers before it even gets to a payout stage. Also, people could probably sue for a breach of contract (and maybe even criminal charges?), which all those trial lawyers would just jump all over.

You have obviously never dealt with Blue Cross over anything more than minor issues, because that is EXACTLY what they do. Proving it is very, very difficult, and no, there is not easy recourse in the courts.

[PLAYER57832]

Night Strike, can you provide an example of a country where the capitalist system is (or once was) allowed to work, which also has (or had in the past) proved to be better than single-payer health care?

Heck, our system before this health care law was better than any single-payer system. This law has made our system even worse than it was because it moved it closer to a single-payer system instead of further away from one.

You have clearly NO idea of what healthcare is like in any other country, because its our system, not theirs that consistantly rates out poorly.

But.. you have been shown the data over and over and just decide not to believe it.