RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment

RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/25/2010 8:24:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Well, that's easy enough to debunk. After all, the majority of Americans already has government-run single-payer through either Medicare, the military, or various other programs. Only about a third of Americans are subject to the industrialized health insurance companies. Guess who has higher administrative costs? By a 10:1 margin, private health insurance companies. Guess where doctor's offices and hospitals nowadays spend a huge amount? Medical billing. What we currently have is the most inefficient bureaucracy you can possibly have. And as for fraud: health insurance fraud is CURRENTLY one of the largest crime industries around, medical identity theft amounts to about four times the size of identity theft for other reasons. There is a simple fix to the fraud problem (and I believe it has actually already been enacted). Private health insurance companies are allowed to drag their feet paying, sometimes for months or years. Permit Medicare to do the same, and the problem goes away because the crooks are interested in quick payment and then disappearing. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Single payer has always struck me as the biggest invitation to fraud imaginable, quickly followed by the spiral of increased bureaurocracy and lowered efficiency as we try to plug the endless varieties of holes and scams. Your 10:1 cost ratio is wrong in two respects. First, on a cost per $ of services the real number is about 3:1. Too bad even that is a bullshit number. On a cost per claim basis its about 1:3. If the government started administering low cost services instead of being so heavily weighted toward end of life care admin costs would triple. And Medicare fraud so far outweighs private insurance fraud its silly to even raise. Once again you prove you dont have a fucking clue what your talking about.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/25/2010 8:29:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Your 10:1 cost ratio is wrong in two respects. First, on a cost per $ of services the real number is about 3:1. Too bad even that is a bullshit number. On a cost per claim basis its about 1:3. If the government started administering low cost services instead of being so heavily weighted toward end of life care admin costs would triple. And Medicare fraud so far outweighs private insurance fraud its silly to even raise. Do you have any proof of these assertions?

TheHeretic -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/25/2010 8:46:06 PM)
I dunno, Hippie. Your comparisons seem kinda all over the board. A "let's put the gov't in charge of healthcare" Amendment seems a bit more on par with giving women the vote, banning and re-legalizing booze, and directly electing Senators than with being able to get some decent smoke for the backache. What I'm getting very curious about here, is the obvious assumption by those determined to talk about anything but this, that such an amendment would never pass. Why is that? Don't you believe that a majority of the people, in a supermajority of the states, would go along? If ya'll are so confident in the rightness of your position, why wouldn't this be the very best way of all to guarantee the utopia of single-payer in perpetuity? Why am I sensing fear, instead?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/25/2010 9:01:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I dunno, Hippie. Your comparisons seem kinda all over the board. A "let's put the gov't in charge of healthcare" Amendment seems a bit more on par with giving women the vote, banning and re-legalizing booze, and directly electing Senators than with being able to get some decent smoke for the backache. What I'm getting very curious about here, is the obvious assumption by those determined to talk about anything but this, that such an amendment would never pass. Why is that? Don't you believe that a majority of the people, in a supermajority of the states, would go along? If ya'll are so confident in the rightness of your position, why wouldn't this be the very best way of all to guarantee the utopia of single-payer in perpetuity? Why am I sensing fear, instead? judging from this board Im not so confident that such an asinine amendment wouldnt pass.

tazzygirl -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/25/2010 9:08:23 PM)
Ok. You want a constitutional amendment. How would you propose it be initiated?

Musicmystery -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/25/2010 9:08:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic It is going to court, Muse. I suspect it isn't going to pass muster, but after that Kelo eminent domain case, God only knows. Everybody with a lick of brains and honesty knows that Obamacare is a stepping stone, and some of us cynics think the real purpose is to speed up the chaos and collapse, and force even more drastic reform. Which will spur even more challenges in the court. If the supporters are so sure of themselves and their cause, why such fear to the idea of officially making this part of our social compact, instead of trying to slip it in through everything except the front door? Rich, Now you're just being an ass. Fear? Anything but the front door? What a dweeb. Congress passing legislation IS the front door. And you're STILL trying to spin this away from what it is. IF it fails in court---and even those bringing suit acknowledge the challenges aren't likely to stand--THEN is the time to consider changing the Constitution to accommodate the legal challenge. That's how it works. Laid out in the Constitution and everything.

TheHeretic -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/25/2010 9:49:18 PM)
Alright, Muse. So let's say the Supreme Court finds this law incompatible with, oh, let's say, the 10th Amendment, just to fill the blank. Do you think it could be pushed through, and if not, why?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/25/2010 10:05:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I dunno, Hippie. Your comparisons seem kinda all over the board. A "let's put the gov't in charge of healthcare" Amendment seems a bit more on par with giving women the vote, banning and re-legalizing booze, and directly electing Senators than with being able to get some decent smoke for the backache. What I'm getting very curious about here, is the obvious assumption by those determined to talk about anything but this, that such an amendment would never pass. Why is that? Don't you believe that a majority of the people, in a supermajority of the states, would go along? If ya'll are so confident in the rightness of your position, why wouldn't this be the very best way of all to guarantee the utopia of single-payer in perpetuity? Why am I sensing fear, instead? You are the one who is attempting to invoke Article V. You are the one who seems to be advocating that one particular action by the US Congress should not be left up to the Congress, but, rather, should be the subject of a Constitutional Amendment. I'm saying that you, and those of your political persuasion, who evidently object to Healthcare on Constitutional grounds, seem to have no problem with trying to make Health Care the subject of an Amendment, but shy away from other important topics, seemingly claiming that the Constitution is sancrosanct, and shouldn't be subject to partisan manipulation. I am asking you, why stop there? Why not make abortion the subject of an Amendment? Why not have an Amendment that says that all Americans can purchase, use, consume, market, sell, any substances that alter consciousness? If you want to slide down that slippery slope, I'm game. But don't be a hypocrite and advocate Amendments for only those things which you favor.

rulemylife -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 6:43:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I dunno, Hippie. Your comparisons seem kinda all over the board. A "let's put the gov't in charge of healthcare" Amendment seems a bit more on par with giving women the vote, banning and re-legalizing booze, and directly electing Senators than with being able to get some decent smoke for the backache. What I'm getting very curious about here, is the obvious assumption by those determined to talk about anything but this, that such an amendment would never pass. Why is that? Don't you believe that a majority of the people, in a supermajority of the states, would go along? If ya'll are so confident in the rightness of your position, why wouldn't this be the very best way of all to guarantee the utopia of single-payer in perpetuity? Why am I sensing fear, instead? judging from this board Im not so confident that such an asinine amendment wouldnt pass. Which one is that Willbeur? Giving women the right to vote? No that can't be it, I think we've already done that. But maybe when the teabaggers "take our country back" we can correct that mistake too.

TheHeretic -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 8:54:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ok. You want a constitutional amendment. How would you propose it be initiated? I don't know that I want an amendment, Tazzy, but I'd certainly like to see the level of discussion and debate that process would require. As I'm sure you are aware, there are two ways to initiate the ball rolling. One of those has never been used. The method we have used would require a serious call to action. Since President Obama can't fill a 600 seat hall at the moment, he might not be the ideal muezzin for the task (couldn't resist [;)] ). Realpolitik would demand this be a bipartisan effort, which means framing it outside the left/right paradigm. Conservatives would need to be calling/writing/emailing their congressional representatives and demanding the debate be put to a national referendum as well

Owner59 -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 10:02:48 AM)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_does_the_individual_mandat.html "And what happens if you don't buy insurance and you don't pay the penalty? Well, not much. The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent." "The theory behind the mandate is simple: It's there to protect against an insurance death spiral. Now that insurers can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, it would be entirely possible for people to forgo insurance until, well, they develop a medical condition. In that world, the bulk of the people buying insurance on the exchanges are sick, and that makes the average premiums terrifically expensive. The mandate is there to bring healthy people into the pool, which keeps average costs down and also ensures that people aren't riding free on the system by letting society pay when they get hit by a bus." "The irony of the mandate is that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax on decent, hardworking people who don't want to purchase insurance. In reality, it's the best deal in the bill: A cynical consumer would be smart to pay the modest penalty rather than pay thousands of dollars a year for insurance. In the current system, that's a bad idea because insurers won't let them buy insurance if they get sick later. In the reformed system, there's no consequence for that behavior. You could pay the penalty for five years and then buy insurance the day you felt a lump" What rich is saying,is he want`s the old (present) system,where if you`re broke,you get sicker, go untreated and/or un-diagnosed and/or die..........because freedom`s at stake! .....[8\|].

Musicmystery -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 11:16:41 AM)
quote: I'd certainly like to see the level of discussion and debate that process would require. It's been a decades long discussion. And the current legislation was debated for months--not to mention that it's largely a Republican plan from the 1990s. The House, the Senate, and the President's desk. It's how a bill becomes a law. All neatly laid out in the Constitution. I love that document.

TheHeretic -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 1:54:58 PM)
And that discussion has gotten us where, Muse? A partisan law that couldn't even survive the whole process you are so enamored of today? Remember how it went after the Kennedy seat was reassigned? I don't seem to recall any reports from the conference committee on that one... I don't look at something as large and invasive as healthcare as a simple new entitlement. Do we need the amendment process to make it happen? Nope. There is no "welfare amendment," but we have laws in this country that say the poor are entitled to free food from the government. I'd argue that this easily falls under the General Welfare clause, but I'm not convinced that umbrella is big enough for healthcare, too.

Owner59 -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 2:55:11 PM)
I read somewhere about government promoting the general welfare. Where was that?.........

TheHeretic -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 3:31:58 PM)
Aside from the Preamble, the proper reference would be Article 1, Section 8, O59. It mentions general welfare in the opening clause, but then goes on to list several specifics. Your other thread's subject is based on a couple of those directly specified powers. Be careful here, Basiji. I know how it spikes your blood pressure when you realize you are accidentally supporting my position.

MrRodgers -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 4:05:10 PM)
First of all, this would never be proposed by the for-profit crowd, otherwise known as republicans. They are being paid to keep the status quo. Second, the dem senate would be necessary to even introduce such an amendment and it would never pass the repub house. The repubs just love those $100 MRI's going for $1500...here. So, get ready to buck-up Chuck.

Musicmystery -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 5:57:01 PM)
quote: And that discussion has gotten us where, Muse? A partisan law that couldn't even survive the whole process you are so enamored of today? Project much? Enamored of? The discussion got us, finally, to this law. Not only COULD it survive, it did--despite Republicans best efforts to kill the same plan they themselves proposed in the 90s. Of course it's partisan--EVERYTHING is partisan today (including whether the troops deserve more pay, killed under partisan opposition).

TheHeretic -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 8:07:28 PM)
No, Muse. It was passed, but not by the usual process of the House and Senate getting together to work out the differences in each chamber's version, then both having another vote on that, before sending it to the President for his signature. I'm not suggesting it was passed in some illegal maneuver. I'm just saying that a detour was used for the final stretch, and that they couldn't have finished, without changing the path. As for the last shot, if pay raises for the troops were attached to repealing DADT and an amnesty bill, yes, I'm sure the Repubs were just out to be cheap with the troops...[8\|] Yeah, Muse. Projecting. I'm projecting your words into how I frame my reply quote: All neatly laid out in the Constitution. I love that document.

tazzygirl -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 8:31:35 PM)
Regardless of the path, it was still legal.

truckinslave -> RE: A Healthcare Rights Amendment (9/26/2010 9:01:37 PM)
Like anyone else who believes in freedom more than government I have great hopes for the mandate case. If we win that a CA may well be necessary for any of the lefts grand socialist schemes. Hopefully we can destroy this one both legislatively and constitutionally; and in far less time than it took to destroy their hodgepodge of goobledygook "gun control" laws.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875