quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Why the fuck does everyone continue to equate health CARE with health INSURANCE?

You do NOT need insurance to procure health care, you never have, and never will. Obamacare forces you to buy health INSURANCE, not health CARE.

Government run health CARE should be run at the local level, within the states, and not the morass of the Federal government. If a state wants to provide "universal" health care, the citizens should have the ability to vote on the issue, period!

Because if you have some catastrophic illness like cancer, if you dont have health insurance, you will not get the treatment you need. Of if you need an organ transplant, same thing.

If you want to separate the two, then you need to look at universal health care, and take the insurance companies out of the equation.

That's the main crux of the argument.
Insurance companies are in it to make money - not provide a universal care system.
And that, is the root cause of the problem.

Phydeaux quotes only 7% profit for the insurance companies.
But, that is after they've paid out the shareholders and the CEO salaries!
Take out the shareholders completely and cap the CEO's gross income (including pensions and stock options) to $250K a year and then plug that through the profit calculator. I bet that 7% profit soars to a much bigger figure.
Then, cap the payments to all the hospitals, doctors, private clinics and big pharma to sensible levels; I bet those profits would now be an obscene amount and probably in excess of 70%. Yes, just a guess I know. But having worked in the insurance business, I'm saying that's a fair guess and if anything, on the conservative side.

Now appoint a federal government department to run an identical scheme, nationwide, and start with a 10% premium taken as a tax on income and replace your current insurance plan so that it's no longer necessary to have it.
Voila! A dirt-cheap system that I'm sure many working Americans would use rather than pay huge insurance costs.
And that would not require any changes in the constitution or any laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

One would think that if the Constitution actually covered individual health care then that would have happened in 1776. Therefore it does not. One good test for what the founding fathers meant by anything in the constitution is to see where they allocated money after formation of the U.S. and in the decade after the constitution was written. I cannot see any record of money spent on a national health care system. So, why anyone would think the Government has that constitutional responsibility, right or mandate suddenly after well over 200 years of writing "provide for the general welfare" is just plain silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Sure. Which doesn't change the facts much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
That's the main crux of the argument.
Insurance companies are in it to make money - not provide a universal care system.
And that, is the root cause of the problem.

They make a profit by providing a service. And, that is bad... how?

Our doctors, surgeries and pharmacists also make a profit.
The difference being, the costs are significantly reduced.
And those are paid from the taxes - not profiteering insurance companies.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

Phydeaux quotes only 7% profit for the insurance companies.
But, that is after they've paid out the shareholders and the CEO salaries!
Take out the shareholders completely and cap the CEO's gross income (including pensions and stock options) to $250K a year and then plug that through the profit calculator. I bet that 7% profit soars to a much bigger figure.

There is no authority granted to the Federal Government to cap CEO pay (what's funny, though, is that caps on wages and prices are exactly what started the whole "employer sponsored" health insurance perk that is blamed for the debacle that is the US health care system).

If those CEO's were employed by the government then they hold the purse strings and can dictate the level of pay.
That's exactly the same for any company or any government employee.
So... no authority is needed from federal government to cap the pay.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

Then, cap the payments to all the hospitals, doctors, private clinics and big pharma to sensible levels; I bet those profits would now be an obscene amount and probably in excess of 70%. Yes, just a guess I know. But having worked in the insurance business, I'm saying that's a fair guess and if anything, on the conservative side.

Won't happen. Every time the "Doc Fix" Bill is set to expire, a new one is passed. The "Doc Fix" Bill is legislation that is passed to prevent automatic cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates that were signed into law when Clinton reformed Medicare.

Australia is setup much the same way as the US with the main difference being the reimbursments from the government are capped to a much greater extent than those private companies want to charge. That didn't stop them from signing up to the government plan and still remaining a 'private' business with profits etc.
It works there and could work in the US without changing anything.
The only change required is the American people's mindset to think outside of the box.

quote:

The problem with a lot of US legislation is, it's either kicked down the road for a later date or it has a fixed term of power. Most other countries pass a law and it stays on the books forever until it's changed. That's why nobody else suffers from the "expiring laws and mandates" problem that the US have.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

Now appoint a federal government department to run an identical scheme, nationwide, and start with a 10% premium taken as a tax on income and replace your current insurance plan so that it's no longer necessary to have it.
Voila! A dirt-cheap system that I'm sure many working Americans would use rather than pay huge insurance costs.
And that would not require any changes in the constitution or any laws.

Yes, yes it would.

No, it wouldn't.
There is nothing in the constitution that says the government can't offer something to it's people without a major change or new laws. It's just a new service; no different to when cars were introduced and licenses were required to drive one on a public road.
That didn't require a change in constitution.
Offering an alternative to healthcare and claiming the costs to be recovered by a voluntary tax is also allowed under the constitution.
So what change is required?? None at all.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

One would think that if the Constitution actually covered individual health care then that would have happened in 1776. Therefore it does not. One good test for what the founding fathers meant by anything in the constitution is to see where they allocated money after formation of the U.S. and in the decade after the constitution was written. I cannot see any record of money spent on a national health care system. So, why anyone would think the Government has that constitutional responsibility, right or mandate suddenly after well over 200 years of writing "provide for the general welfare" is just plain silly.

OK. Nothing not done in 1776. No Air Force. No tanks. No CIA. No internet. No NASA. No highways. No TV. No radio. No airplanes.

Now which is silly?

In reality there wasn't much health care of any sort in 1776 and I'm sure the idea that it would one day become so expensive that it would endanger our ability to compete economically on the world stage would have made them take action.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Why are your costs reduced?
Why does it matter where the money comes from?
Do your doctors accept their wages, or would they rather make more?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, they aren't employed by the government, and their being employed by the government would require authority, which may or may not require an Amendment to the Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What? Doctors and providers are opposed to further cuts in Medicare reimbursements. Congress doesn't allow those cuts to take place because they know two things are going to happen: 1. Availability of providers accepting Medicare will be negatively effected, and 2. They will lose support (financial and political) of a lot of providers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, just because it works somewhere else doesn't automatically mean it's going to work here, or that it's going to work here the same way. That's not to say that it won't work here. That it has worked or is working elsewhere isn't a guarantor of success in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

The problem with a lot of US legislation is, it's either kicked down the road for a later date or it has a fixed term of power. Most other countries pass a law and it stays on the books forever until it's changed. That's why nobody else suffers from the "expiring laws and mandates" problem that the US have.

OMG, you nailed that right on the head. What politicians in power (from whichever party holds the majorities; currently Democrats, but this isn't limited to their party) do, many, many times, is they write legislation and talk about costs over a 10-year period. While that's not necessarily a bad thing, it can be used to hide an awful lot of shit. The ACA was supposed to cost less than $1T, over a decade. How did they get there? The law only had 6 years of expenditures that went along with 10 years of increased taxes. That was only going to happen for the first decade, and not after that.

It's crap. It's politics. And, much of politics is a bunch of crap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Another ploy is to start handing out the benefits to get people used to them, and then bring the costs in, so that the people who the costs aren't going to hit, but share in the benefits outnumber those who are going to have to pay the costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Constitution only grants limited authorities. If the Constitution doesn't grant the authority, the Federal Government isn't allowed to do it. There doesn't have to be specific limitations stated in the Constitution to prevent an action. Without an action being necessary and proper for the fulfillment of an enumerated power, the action isn't allowed.

Your driver license requirement isn't a Federal requirement. It's a State requirement. State governments and the Federal government are not constrained the same way. Any power not granted to the Federal government is left to either the People or the State governments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Why are your costs reduced?
Why does it matter where the money comes from?
Do your doctors accept their wages, or would they rather make more?

I've tried to explain that concept and with several examples of how it works - including links to documents on how it works in Australia.
Instead of being self-employed and having to do accounting as well as doctoring and paying themselves, they are paid a set salary just like being employed anywhere else in any other company.
And it matters where the money comes from because if it comes from the public purse, it's limited. If you pay yourself and need to claim your salary and expenses from your customers, as the costs rise, so do the charges to your patients.
It's a viscious circle that doesn't exist from nationally funded applications.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, they aren't employed by the government, and their being employed by the government would require authority, which may or may not require an Amendment to the Constitution.

If the government setup the new scheme, then yes, they could be the employers and no change is necessary.
It would be no different to setting up any other government department and emplying their own people with whatever salary they deem to pay. They've done it many times with different things in recent decades without any change to the constitution or the laws.
So why would a healthcare department be any different??
It's your blinkered PoV that seems to prevent you from seeing it.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What? Doctors and providers are opposed to further cuts in Medicare reimbursements. Congress doesn't allow those cuts to take place because they know two things are going to happen: 1. Availability of providers accepting Medicare will be negatively effected, and 2. They will lose support (financial and political) of a lot of providers.

That's because Medicare is making a mint from it's customers.
Just like when our Labour party used to get a lot of funding from the unions, all hell was prophecised when Maggie broke the union grip and the laws that forced employers to pay funds to the Labour party.
The predicted mayhem didn't happen because the people supported the party rather than the unions.
If the party is worth supporting, the people will do it without the big companies.

quote:

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

quote:

As for the providers being negatively affected, they will soon switch to the government provisions because A) there will be a lot more of them; and B) it's guaranteed money so future planning and profitability is made easier; and C) knowing a guaranteed income from an ever-growing customer base without the need for advertising costs is preferential to guesswork and crystal balls.

quote:

Who would give a flying fuck if an insurance company went bust because there are cheaper alternative (nationally run) plans to the product they are offering?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, just because it works somewhere else doesn't automatically mean it's going to work here, or that it's going to work here the same way. That's not to say that it won't work here. That it has worked or is working elsewhere isn't a guarantor of success in the US.

It should work there with ease.
Australia took the US model and applied national level thinking to it and made it work remarkably well.
The problem is, Americans (like yourself), cannot grasp the concepts beyond completely individualistic insurance-based schemes and you try to put things into that box - and it doesn't work (just like O'Bummercare is a clusterfuck for that same reason).
You need a different type of thinking and application.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

The problem with a lot of US legislation is, it's either kicked down the road for a later date or it has a fixed term of power. Most other countries pass a law and it stays on the books forever until it's changed. That's why nobody else suffers from the "expiring laws and mandates" problem that the US have.

OMG, you nailed that right on the head. What politicians in power (from whichever party holds the majorities; currently Democrats, but this isn't limited to their party) do, many, many times, is they write legislation and talk about costs over a 10-year period. While that's not necessarily a bad thing, it can be used to hide an awful lot of shit. The ACA was supposed to cost less than $1T, over a decade. How did they get there? The law only had 6 years of expenditures that went along with 10 years of increased taxes. That was only going to happen for the first decade, and not after that.
It's crap. It's politics. And, much of politics is a bunch of crap.

I quite agree. I bet many others would too.
The trouble is, the US have been doing this for decades now and it's become the norm.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Another ploy is to start handing out the benefits to get people used to them, and then bring the costs in, so that the people who the costs aren't going to hit, but share in the benefits outnumber those who are going to have to pay the costs.

That supposition was also played in Australia and the doom & gloom merchants revelled in it.
It didn't happen.
When the scheme went live, it panned out very well and Australia have a good system that encompasses both a private system and a single-payer system running alongside each other.
Like anything else, it isn't perfect; but it's waaay better than what the US have now, and affordable.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Constitution only grants limited authorities. If the Constitution doesn't grant the authority, the Federal Government isn't allowed to do it. There doesn't have to be specific limitations stated in the Constitution to prevent an action. Without an action being necessary and proper for the fulfillment of an enumerated power, the action isn't allowed.
Your driver license requirement isn't a Federal requirement. It's a State requirement. State governments and the Federal government are not constrained the same way. Any power not granted to the Federal government is left to either the People or the State governments.

A state requirement perhaps. But enacted at a national level.
That didn't require any change to the constitution; all they did is bring out new laws to govern it.
They still introduced the DMV(?) didn't they? That isn't a state thing - it's national.
Adding a new department won't require any change at all; but a lot will depend on how it's implemented.
A bit like the FDA and others, it runs at national authority and is funded by taxes but didn't require a constitutional change.
A healthcare system would be no different at all.
I don't know why people see healthcare as something that cannot be encompassed in just the same way.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

One would think that if the Constitution actually covered individual health care then that would have happened in 1776. Therefore it does not. One good test for what the founding fathers meant by anything in the constitution is to see where they allocated money after formation of the U.S. and in the decade after the constitution was written. I cannot see any record of money spent on a national health care system. So, why anyone would think the Government has that constitutional responsibility, right or mandate suddenly after well over 200 years of writing "provide for the general welfare" is just plain silly.

OK. Nothing not done in 1776. No Air Force. No tanks. No CIA. No internet. No NASA. No highways. No TV. No radio. No airplanes.

Now which is silly?

In reality there wasn't much health care of any sort in 1776 and I'm sure the idea that it would one day become so expensive that it would endanger our ability to compete economically on the world stage would have made them take action.

They had physicians in 1776. Just goes to show, you have no comprehension of what Arturas is getting at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
In reality there wasn't much health care of any sort in 1776

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
In reality there wasn't much health care of any sort in 1776

That's a good point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Who knows what the future may bring? 200 years from now, medical students might hear of the most advanced surgeries of our day, and express shock at the barbarism of cutting people open, and declare that we had no healthcare at all to speak of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?

It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place.

Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?

Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. Government responsibilty for individual healthcare is not a given. Appeals to emotion don't make the cut, and attempts to demonize the very question only establish that those trying the tactic don't have an answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

There are a lot of countries that agree with you. Of course, they don't really see human rights as being the government's responsibility either, or much of anything else other than collecting money from you.

Let's see, there's Haiti, Bangladesh, lots to choose from in Africa. Iran and Iraq would concur with you I'm sure, Bolivia, Mongolia, China... there's a whole bunch of places you could go to and not worry about paying for universal healthcare. In fact, I would suggest that if you move to a country where the policy coincides with your philosophy on the subject, if you just keep your opinions to yourself and be sure to be armed at all times it will definitely contribute to your well-being.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

There are a lot of countries that agree with you. Of course, they don't really see human rights as being the government's responsibility either, or much of anything else other than collecting money from you.

Let's see, there's Haiti, Bangladesh, lots to choose from in Africa. Iran and Iraq would concur with you I'm sure, Bolivia, Mongolia, China... there's a whole bunch of places you could go to and not worry about paying for universal healthcare. In fact, I would suggest that if you move to a country where the policy coincides with your philosophy on the subject, if you just keep your opinions to yourself and be sure to be armed at all times it will definitely contribute to your well-being.

Please point to the philosophy and/or policy that surrounded the establishment of the US that obviously, and by intent, proves that which you espouse? In actuality, you'd have been denounced back then.

It's pathetically transparent that you, and those like you, ignore that the founders would cringe at your assertions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?

It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place.

Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?

Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. Government responsibilty for individual healthcare is not a given. Appeals to emotion don't make the cut, and attempts to demonize the very question only establish that those trying the tactic don't have an answer.

There are a lot of countries that agree with you. Of course, they don't really see human rights as being the government's responsibility either, or much of anything else other than collecting money from you.

Let's see, there's Haiti, Bangladesh, lots to choose from in Africa. Iran and Iraq would concur with you I'm sure, Bolivia, Mongolia, China... there's a whole bunch of places you could go to and not worry about paying for universal healthcare. In fact, I would suggest that if you move to a country where the policy coincides with your philosophy on the subject, if you just keep your opinions to yourself and be sure to be armed at all times it will definitely contribute to your well-being.