CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

I would vehemently oppose any such verbiage in a new constitution. I don't want a government that functions as a general purpose "provider", regardless of who is being provided for. This is specifically what I'd want to address with a separation of economy and state. Government should protect our freedom to take care of ourselves.

Not everyone has the same advantages that you do to exercise your "freedom". If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society such as this one you must assume the responsibilities that accompany those benefits.

You cannot impose burdens on others in order to exercise your "freedom". If "taking care of yourself" means that others must suffer unnecessary hardships then that is clearly never going to be ratified by the majority.

FF has grasped this point when she has conceded that a "moral and good people" must provide for those less fortunate. We differ on how that can be accomplished but she does appreciate that the obligation to provide for the less fortunate does exist.

And again you mischaracterize what I said. Under liberty, there is NO OBLIGATION to involuntarily provide for anybody. There is no morality whatsoever in forcibly confiscating from the productive and transferring that property to somebody else. I said that a moral society will take care of the most helpless among it, but that will come from morality, i.e. voluntarily either individually or via social contract. Distribution of resources via a large one-size-fits-all central government or a government that presumes the power to assign who will give and who will receive is not liberty. That is totalitarianism.

 

[Olde Europe]

If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.

I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.

How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?

The reformed Constitution I propose will prevent the federal government from presuming that kind of terrible power ever again.

The ACA does not control every aspect of healthcare. It merely sets a minimum standard of health insurance, which would rather mark the difference between real insurance and the mere illusion of one, and mandates that everyone have insurance. People in the Mafia are benefiting "society as a whole"? Or people selling snake oil, or corrupt investment papers? Obamacare extended the liquidity of Medicare considerably, your unfounded accusations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Britons would be enormously surprised to hear that they're living under a totalitarian system. Maybe you should inform them?

Those "intentional and blatant lies" amount - in any reasonable person's judgement - to a little sugar-coating here or there. The novelty value of that in the realm of politics is sub-zero.

Your "reformed" Constitution ought to be rejected as a giant step back in history, and, I am confident, will never garner the support of anyone beyond the tiny fraction of Americans who could be described as reactionary ultra-libertarians.

 

[Foxfyre]

The wording of the Constitution empowers Congress to spend taxpayer money on the General Welfare of We the People. Therefore it is constitutional for the Federal government to provide subsidies in order that healthcare is affordable to everyone.

If you have a problem with this concept for healthcare then you must have a problem with subsidies to farmers too. In fact you must have a problem with subsidies to nuclear plants, football stadiums, aircraft manufactures, pharmaceutical companies, oil corporations, Google, Walmart, etc, etc.

Either it applies to all of them or none of them.

Ah, well... I'd rather argue for a somewhat narrower definition of "general welfare", like, things with a more direct relationship with humans' pursuit of happiness. Moreover, I'd suspect that Foxfyre would tell you in no uncertain terms that she'd oppose every subsidy you might care to mention, reducing the General welfare to protection of life, property, and a safe environment for commerce. Given how unclear the term "General welfare" really is, reasonable people might reasonably disagree on its meaning.

In that healthcare even for those who cannot on their own afford it protects those who can from the uncontrolled spread of contagious diseases, there's a clear enough link for me to the General welfare. Subsidies for Walmart, not so much.

I do not necessarily object to all subsidies. If they are necessary to provide incentive to produce products essential to the general welfare, they can be a good thing. Or they can be useful as an economic stimulus when used judiciously and wisely. One example:

In 1980, the State of New Mexico and the Village of Rio Rancho NM offered some land and some temporary tax incentives for Intel to establish a production plant there. Thirty five years later, as a result of that plant that started out with 25 employees, Rio Rancho has been the fastest growing city in New Mexico and has become one of the largest. That small plant has grown to be the largest industrial employer in the state with roughly 2,800 employees all earning a good living. The last time I looked, the annual economic impact for the state was more than $830 million and for every 10 full-time jobs at Intel, it is estimated another 18 private sector jobs are supported because the plant is there.

It is of note that the state and local community partnered to meet a specific need in a specific area for its own purposes. This was not a federal effort and the federal government was not involved in any way. Had it been, I am pretty darn sure the outcome would not have been nearly so beneficial or successful.

It is my opinion that high inheritance taxes and poorly thought out and misplaced federal subsidies targeting large agribusinesses and mega corporations have displaced many private small businesses in favor of big box stores and have displaced most of the family farms in favor of big corporate farm tracts. But then on the march to totalitarianism, it is necessary to be able to control the economy and the food supply and the federal government has taken power to do both.

My proposed reformed Constitution would correct that.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.

I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.

How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?

The reformed Constitution I propose will prevent the federal government from presuming that kind of terrible power ever again.

The ACA does not control every aspect of healthcare. It merely sets a minimum standard of health insurance, which would rather mark the difference between real insurance and the mere illusion of one, and mandates that everyone have insurance. People in the Mafia are benefiting "society as a whole"? Or people selling snake oil, or corrupt investment papers? Obamacare extended the liquidity of Medicare considerably, your unfounded accusations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Britons would be enormously surprised to hear that they're living under a totalitarian system. Maybe you should inform them?

Those "intentional and blatant lies" amount - in any reasonable person's judgement - to a little sugar-coating here or there. The novelty value of that in the realm of politics is sub-zero.

Your "reformed" Constitution ought to be rejected as a giant step back in history, and, I am confident, will never garner the support of anyone beyond the tiny fraction of Americans who could be described as reactionary ultra-libertarians.

When the federal government has power to dictate to we the people what we MUST buy and denies us any other option, and when it dictates to the insurance companies what they MUST insure and denies them any other option, and when it dictates what medical services must be provided at all levels, the federal government is controlling every aspect of our healthcare.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ACA does not 'require' anyone to buy anything.

Americans are at liberty to have no health insurance if they so desire, absent any punitive measures by government. The Act prohibits the IRS from taking any adverse action against those who decide to not purchase health insurance, save that of garnishment of one's tax refund; and if no refund is forthcoming, no further action may be taken by the government.

Consequently, the notion that the ACA is 'tyranny' is hyperbolic nonsense and wrong, where opposition to the ACA is predicated solely on partisanism, not the facts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Healthcare is not a shared resource. It is a service/product sold by healthcare providers just as food is sold by a supermarket or houses or business spaces are sold by developers or office supplies are sold by Staples or Office Depot. A shared resource is the air we all must breathe--there is no way to separate out some for the use of one person and other for the use of another. Or water in an aquifer that spans a number of properties or counties or water in a river that is shared by multiple states.

Therein lies the rub!

You perceive healthcare as a product from which profits must be derived.

Did Florence Nightingale share your profit motive? How about Albert Schweitzer? Or Doctors without Borders? Are the healthcare workers putting their lives on the line in Liberia and Sierra Leone doing it to make a profit?

Helathcare is not just about making a profit. Certainly it is a career choice but how many enter the profession with the expectation of becoming wealthy? How many are willing to slave away for 10 years earning next to nothing and racking up hundreds of thousands in loans if they are not dedicated to the concept of helping the sick?

The profit aspect of healthcare is distorted way out of proportion to the real purpose of healthcare.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread Jesus never asked for payment for healing the sick. He did it out of love and compassion for the suffering of the sick. The Hippocratic Oath is not about how much to charge, it is about dealing with the ailments of people.

Here is the modern version used by Johns Hopkins.

Hippocratic Oath (Modern version)

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today. ​

Hippocratic Oath Modern version - Bioethics - Library Guides at Johns Hopkins University

Nowhere does it mention the term profit.

The fundamental difference is your perception of healthcare versus mine.

To me healthcare is something that We the People must provide for the General Welfare of all. Because when we don't care for those less fortunate than ourselves we lessen ourselves as human beings. I don't begrudge the taxes I pay for the healthcare of others because to me that is just part of my duty as a citizen.

Again you have dishonestly mischaracterized what I said. I did not say that profits must be derived from healthcare. I have never said that profits must be derived from food or clothing or office supplies either.

But it is a tortuous and indefensible stretch to suggest that delivery of healthcare is any different than delivery of food, shelter, or clothing or any other necessity of life or even those things that allow us to be happier or more productive humans.

Why is it more in the interest of the 'general welfare' for the government to control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price when it does not (yet) presume to do that for food, water, or shelter or any other necessities of life?

Again you have dishonestly mischaracterized what I said.

How ironic that you make that false accusation and then follow it with this malicious mischaracterization of what I actually posted.

Why is it more in the interest of the 'general welfare' for the government to control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price

Let's expose the former by asking this all too obvious question...if the private sector is not in the business of making a profit then why is there a private sector at all? So given that the private sector is in the business of making profits it does so out of healthcare too, right? All I did was quote you exactly so there was no "mischaracterization" on my part of what you posted or your position.

As far as your mischaracterization of the latter is concerned where did I post that government has the right to "control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price"?

You cannot point to a single thing that I have posted that supports your canard.

What I have done is make the case that healthcare and profits are not a good combination because they end up denying the least fortunate their access to affordable healthcare. I have also made the case that in order for healthcare to be equitably distributed that can only happen via a central non profit agency that treats everyone equally. I have established that affordable healthcare for all is in the best interests of this nation as a whole and I have debunked your claims that there is bloat and self serving in Medicare.

Since we live in a free society there is nothing stopping anyone from setting themselves up in the private sector and offering "premium" healthcare services for a profit. But when it comes to the fact that everyone requires affordable healthcare at some stages in their life the best means of providing it equitably is from a single nationwide non profit organization.

If you insist upon objecting to this falling under the Federal government then an independent non profit agency could be formed to do the same thing. Payroll deductions could be funneled in directly via the IRS and it could be managed as a single payer for all healthcare services provided to the American people. None of the healthcare providers would be "controlled" by this agency (just as Medicare doesn't control them either). They would just be doing the same jobs in the same careers but would be paid via the single payer non profit instead of the for profit private sector.

This makes fiscal sense too because by eliminating the profit overhead which only gives us 80 cents of healthcare for every dollar in the private sector compared to 98 cents of healthcare for every dollar in the non profit single payer alternative. Healthcare professionals will be better off because they will get more money from the single payer non profit than they do from the for profit private sector right now. (Note that currently Medicare deals only with the most expensive sector of the population. Once the pool is expanded to the entire population there will be more funding for the same coverage.)

The concept is identical to what we have right now with Medicare and it works for millions of Americans. Why break what works and works well? Just expand it to ensure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare. It doesn't matter if it comes via the non profit Federal government or a non profit single payer agency. The end result is the same by ensuring that everyone has affordable healthcare.

Isn't that the humane thing that a "good and moral people" would do in a civilized society?

I give up. It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you. I objected to your specific and targeted mischaracterization of what I said. I did not mention you or characterize you in any way in my argument in support of the topic.

If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.

I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.

How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?

The reformed Constitution I propose will prevent the federal government from presuming that kind of terrible power ever again.

So when I accurately quote you I am "mischaracterizing you personally" but when you do it you are being "objective" and "truthful"?

How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.

Your alternative is better? Allowing your fellow Americans to suffer and die for your "freedoms"? We the People are better than that. At least the majority of us are.

I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.

Yet another canard. It is your beloved extortionist private sector HMO's that are the totalitarians that are taking away your choices, opportunities, options and liberty. They call them "In Network" forcing you to use their "preferred providers" rather than your family doctor. They gouge you with deductibles and copays and percentages that leave you on the hook for thousands of dollars.

Single payer has no such restrictions. You can choose any healthcare provider and the SP will pay them the going rate for the service. Your liberty is unimpeded while you get more bang for your medical dollars. But to you that is the "worst form" because "to me it sounds like a straight jacket". Perhaps if you actually researched single payers before your kneejerk reaction you might not have that misperception.

What is Single Payer Physicians for a National Health Program

What is Single Payer?
Single-payer national health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.

The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.​

 

[Foxfyre]

Well thanks anyway for making my point that most progressives seem unable to argue a point of view without using straw men, non sequitur, personal insults, and ad hominem. If I had to pick one single trait of progressivism to dispute it, it would be the fact that most people who embrace that ideology cannot articulate an objective rationale for their point of view.

Yeah, we've seen this wager before about "liberals cannot make a cogent argument". How did that go for you? (In case you don't remember, you lost.)

I have by now also a good idea as to how this "perception" came to pass, and is being regularly reinforced: You plainly ignore arguments you cannot rebut. Instead you reduce yourself to catapulting Heritage-Cato-Birch propaganda whilst pretending to address your opponents' arguments.

As to why healthcare should be universal, that should be an easy argument to make: It's the decent thing to do, which is why the developed world does it (except for the U.S.). It provides for a healthier workforce, thus boosts productivity. It prevents unnecessary suffering from protracted, chronic diseases due to maladies going untreated. It rectifies a part of the blatant unfairness of the U.S. economic system. It makes controlling epidemics in an ever more intertwined world far easier and more efficient. It is, in the end, more efficient than the healthcare system pre ACA. Oh, and did I mention, as much as it angers the short-sighted I-Me-Mine crowd, it's the decent thing to do?

I conceded that one member did make a coherant argument and was happy to lose my wager over that. Alas, the member has not been able to sustain the argument without throwing in mischaracterizations, ad hominem etc.

But let me ask you this. On what basis do you argue that the ACA is doing a better job of healthcare delivery than pre-ACA? How is forcing people to prepay for healthcare a better plan than the option to have medical savings accounts that would accomplish the same thing but remain in the control of the people who established them?

Can you say for a fact that it was NOT government meddling and mandates that has contributed dramatically to healthcare costs becoming unaffordable for those without insurance? If so, how do you explain the dramatic increase in medical costs that occurred at precisely the same time that Medicare and Medicaid went into effect in the 1960s?

Can you say for a fact that it is necessary to force everybody into a government controlled and mandated system rather than to focus on the relatively very few who really could not afford healthcare insurance?

Can you explain how and why some people support a program that has now been exposed to produce almost none of the benefits it was supposed to produce and they KNEW that it would not when they advertised it? And that it is now a fact that it was sold to us with a whole bunch of intentional lies? How does any American condone that?

Can you say for a fact that the federal government that requires an enormous bureaucracy on top of the delivery system will provide better and more affordable healthcare than that same delivery system would have done privately without the additional expense of that enormous bureaucracy?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

I would vehemently oppose any such verbiage in a new constitution. I don't want a government that functions as a general purpose "provider", regardless of who is being provided for. This is specifically what I'd want to address with a separation of economy and state. Government should protect our freedom to take care of ourselves.

Not everyone has the same advantages that you do to exercise your "freedom". If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society such as this one you must assume the responsibilities that accompany those benefits.

You cannot impose burdens on others in order to exercise your "freedom". If "taking care of yourself" means that others must suffer unnecessary hardships then that is clearly never going to be ratified by the majority.

FF has grasped this point when she has conceded that a "moral and good people" must provide for those less fortunate. We differ on how that can be accomplished but she does appreciate that the obligation to provide for the less fortunate does exist.

I'm pretty sure FF has always felt that way, as have I - it's no concession. The issue here isn't the value of society caring for the poor. It's with setting up government as "caretaker". A provider always has power over those provided for and is implicitly empowered to decide what's best for them. It's that power we want to keep out of the hands of government.

The government is accountable to We the People.

The private sector is accountable to their shareholders and the Wall Street Casino bosses.

You happily empower the private sector to deny you benefits even though your only recourse is more expensive than what you were denied. With the government you have the right to lobby those in power directly and to fire them if you don't get what you want.

 

[Foxfyre]

In rebuttal to a cut and paste argument for single payer, I'll provide my own cut and paste:

VA Hospitals Why Single-Payer Systems Fail

Excerpt:

. . . .The VA is a perfect example of why government-run health care fails. Like any single payer system, Tanner explains, the VA cuts and controls its costs with a budget that limits the amount that it can spend on care. Funding is determined not by what consumers are willing to spend, but by whatever budget Congress sets.

Demand for VA care has increased as soldiers return home from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. From 2007 to 2012, enrollment in VA services rose by 13 percent. An additional $24 billion -- a 76 percent increase -- was poured into the program over those five years, but the agency still has budget problems. And because the VA lacks the resources to provide all of the care that is demanded, it rations care -- just as every other single-payer system does.

Moreover, it takes an average 160 days simply for a veteran to gain access to his health benefits, and the case-processing backlog within the VA currently sits in excess of 344,000 claims. Appealing a VA decision is lengthy as well, requiring an average wait time of 1,598 days.

Tanner cites Medicaid as a similar example: Medicaid patients are six times as likely to be denied a doctor's appointment as the privately insured, and when they do manage to get an appointment, they wait an average of 42 days to see a doctor -- twice as long as a privately insured individual would wait.

Promising health care does not mean that the government will actually deliver more health care, writes Tanner. Americans should take note of the problems within the VA as the federal government continues to exert greater control over our health system.

Source: Michael D. Tanner, "How VA Hospitals Are a Government-run Disaster," Cato Institute, May 16, 2014.

This of course is not what single payer advocates want. But it is surely what we'll have if they get their wish.

My reformed Constitution will provide better for the veterans, but it will otherwise take healthcare away from the federal government altogether and will return it to the states and private sector where it belongs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

I would vehemently oppose any such verbiage in a new constitution. I don't want a government that functions as a general purpose "provider", regardless of who is being provided for. This is specifically what I'd want to address with a separation of economy and state. Government should protect our freedom to take care of ourselves.

Not everyone has the same advantages that you do to exercise your "freedom". If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society such as this one you must assume the responsibilities that accompany those benefits.

You cannot impose burdens on others in order to exercise your "freedom". If "taking care of yourself" means that others must suffer unnecessary hardships then that is clearly never going to be ratified by the majority.

FF has grasped this point when she has conceded that a "moral and good people" must provide for those less fortunate. We differ on how that can be accomplished but she does appreciate that the obligation to provide for the less fortunate does exist.

And again you mischaracterize what I said. Under liberty, there is NO OBLIGATION to involuntarily provide for anybody. There is no morality whatsoever in forcibly confiscating from the productive and transferring that property to somebody else. I said that a moral society will take care of the most helpless among it, but that will come from morality, i.e. voluntarily either individually or via social contract. Distribution of resources via a large one-size-fits-all central government or a government that presumes the power to assign who will give and who will receive is not liberty. That is totalitarianism.

What you call "liberty" is misery to those less fortunate than yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In rebuttal to a cut and paste argument for single payer, I'll provide my own cut and paste:

VA Hospitals Why Single-Payer Systems Fail

Excerpt:

. . . .The VA is a perfect example of why government-run health care fails. Like any single payer system, Tanner explains, the VA cuts and controls its costs with a budget that limits the amount that it can spend on care. Funding is determined not by what consumers are willing to spend, but by whatever budget Congress sets.

Demand for VA care has increased as soldiers return home from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. From 2007 to 2012, enrollment in VA services rose by 13 percent. An additional $24 billion -- a 76 percent increase -- was poured into the program over those five years, but the agency still has budget problems. And because the VA lacks the resources to provide all of the care that is demanded, it rations care -- just as every other single-payer system does.

Moreover, it takes an average 160 days simply for a veteran to gain access to his health benefits, and the case-processing backlog within the VA currently sits in excess of 344,000 claims. Appealing a VA decision is lengthy as well, requiring an average wait time of 1,598 days.

Tanner cites Medicaid as a similar example: Medicaid patients are six times as likely to be denied a doctor's appointment as the privately insured, and when they do manage to get an appointment, they wait an average of 42 days to see a doctor -- twice as long as a privately insured individual would wait.

Promising health care does not mean that the government will actually deliver more health care, writes Tanner. Americans should take note of the problems within the VA as the federal government continues to exert greater control over our health system.

Source: Michael D. Tanner, "How VA Hospitals Are a Government-run Disaster," Cato Institute, May 16, 2014.

This of course is not what single payer advocates want. But it is surely what we'll have if they get their wish.

My reformed Constitution will provide better for the veterans, but it will otherwise take healthcare away from the federal government altogether and will return it to the states and private sector where it belongs.

More irony?

Republicans overloaded the VA system with casualties from 2 wars and never increased the funding and then were "shocked" when it failed to provide the proper care. Oh yes, all of those demands by Libertarians to slash government spending harmed the vets just as it harmed the elderly too.

Blaming the victim because of the extreme right's selfishness and greed is the standard kneejerk reaction. The VA was underfunded and understaffed because of incessant demands by Republicans to cut the budget. That was a betrayal of the vets in my opinion and one that won't soon be forgotten either.

No, your "reformed Constitution" won't "provide better for the veterans" because it won't provide any healthcare at all. Why should anyone's "liberty" be burdened by caring for a veteran any more than it should be burdened by caring for the elderly or the sick?

You don't get to wrap yourself in the flag while denying the less fortunate the basics of healthcare. There is no way that the American people would ever ratify that kind of faux "patriotism".

 

[Foxfyre]

The ACA does not 'require' anyone to buy anything.

Americans are at liberty to have no health insurance if they so desire, absent any punitive measures by government. The Act prohibits the IRS from taking any adverse action against those who decide to not purchase health insurance, save that of garnishment of one's tax refund; and if no refund is forthcoming, no further action may be taken by the government.

Consequently, the notion that the ACA is 'tyranny' is hyperbolic nonsense and wrong, where opposition to the ACA is predicated solely on partisanism, not the facts.

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/requirement_flowchart_3.png

 

[Foxfyre]

In rebuttal to a cut and paste argument for single payer, I'll provide my own cut and paste:

VA Hospitals Why Single-Payer Systems Fail

Excerpt:

. . . .The VA is a perfect example of why government-run health care fails. Like any single payer system, Tanner explains, the VA cuts and controls its costs with a budget that limits the amount that it can spend on care. Funding is determined not by what consumers are willing to spend, but by whatever budget Congress sets.

Demand for VA care has increased as soldiers return home from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. From 2007 to 2012, enrollment in VA services rose by 13 percent. An additional $24 billion -- a 76 percent increase -- was poured into the program over those five years, but the agency still has budget problems. And because the VA lacks the resources to provide all of the care that is demanded, it rations care -- just as every other single-payer system does.

Moreover, it takes an average 160 days simply for a veteran to gain access to his health benefits, and the case-processing backlog within the VA currently sits in excess of 344,000 claims. Appealing a VA decision is lengthy as well, requiring an average wait time of 1,598 days.

Tanner cites Medicaid as a similar example: Medicaid patients are six times as likely to be denied a doctor's appointment as the privately insured, and when they do manage to get an appointment, they wait an average of 42 days to see a doctor -- twice as long as a privately insured individual would wait.

Promising health care does not mean that the government will actually deliver more health care, writes Tanner. Americans should take note of the problems within the VA as the federal government continues to exert greater control over our health system.

Source: Michael D. Tanner, "How VA Hospitals Are a Government-run Disaster," Cato Institute, May 16, 2014.

This of course is not what single payer advocates want. But it is surely what we'll have if they get their wish.

My reformed Constitution will provide better for the veterans, but it will otherwise take healthcare away from the federal government altogether and will return it to the states and private sector where it belongs.

More irony?

Republicans overloaded the VA system with casualties from 2 wars and never increased the funding and then were "shocked" when it failed to provide the proper care. Oh yes, all of those demands by Libertarians to slash government spending harmed the vets just as it harmed the elderly too.

Blaming the victim because of the extreme right's selfishness and greed is the standard kneejerk reaction. The VA was underfunded and understaffed because of incessant demands by Republicans to cut the budget. That was a betrayal of the vets in my opinion and one that won't soon be forgotten either.

No, your "reformed Constitution" won't "provide better for the veterans" because it won't provide any healthcare at all. Why should anyone's "liberty" be burdened by caring for a veteran any more than it should be burdened by caring for the elderly or the sick?

You don't get to wrap yourself in the flag while denying the less fortunate the basics of healthcare. There is no way that the American people would ever ratify that kind of faux "patriotism".

And back on ignore you go. I have no problem with you questioning a point I make or making your own argument to rebut it. But I see no point in having a discussion with somebody who characterizes me personally this dishonestly. Sigh.

 

[dblack]

The ACA does not 'require' anyone to buy anything.

What possible definition of 'require' could you be using? The ACA does, in word and fact, legally require those not exempted to buy federally approved health insurance.

Consequently, the notion that the ACA is 'tyranny' is hyperbolic nonsense and wrong, where opposition to the ACA is predicated solely on partisanism, not the facts.

That's not true either. My opposition is based on the continuing conversion of our government from a liberal democracy to corporatism.

 

[dcraelin]

...I have no doubt it [capitalism] could reduce overall costs[ of health care]...

reduce?? What about reduce by 80% and add 10-20 years to our life spans. We know what the standards of living were in USSR, Red China, and East Germany under liberalism.

i DOUBT THAT

 

[dblack]

You happily empower the private sector to deny you benefits even though your only recourse is more expensive than what you were denied.

I'm not quite sure I understand what that sentence is supposed to mean, but I've noticed you have an odd sense of "denied". You can't be denied something that wasn't yours to begin with, or otherwise owed to you by mutual agreement. If an insurance company refuses to pay for health care expense that a policy holder is promised, they've committed fraud and legal action is warranted. Also, who exactly do you think populates "the private sector"? The private sector IS 'we the people'.

With the government you have the right to lobby those in power directly and to fire them if you don't get what you want.

If your interests don't enjoy majority support, this is only effective if you're politically connected or very wealthy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...I have no doubt it [capitalism] could reduce overall costs[ of health care]...

reduce?? What about reduce by 80% and add 10-20 years to our life spans. We know what the standards of living were in USSR, Red China, and East Germany under liberalism.

i DOUBT THAT

dear, it does not matter one tiny bit that you doubt it, it only matters if there is a reason to doubt it. Obviously if you had one you would have been happy to present it. You must think before you post.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My opposition is based on the continuing conversion of our government from a liberal democracy to corporatism.

yes ACA is perfect example wherein corporations and govt are combined. Does that make you a conservative/libertarian??

 

[Derideo_Te]

In rebuttal to a cut and paste argument for single payer, I'll provide my own cut and paste:

VA Hospitals Why Single-Payer Systems Fail

Excerpt:

. . . .The VA is a perfect example of why government-run health care fails. Like any single payer system, Tanner explains, the VA cuts and controls its costs with a budget that limits the amount that it can spend on care. Funding is determined not by what consumers are willing to spend, but by whatever budget Congress sets.

Demand for VA care has increased as soldiers return home from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. From 2007 to 2012, enrollment in VA services rose by 13 percent. An additional $24 billion -- a 76 percent increase -- was poured into the program over those five years, but the agency still has budget problems. And because the VA lacks the resources to provide all of the care that is demanded, it rations care -- just as every other single-payer system does.

Moreover, it takes an average 160 days simply for a veteran to gain access to his health benefits, and the case-processing backlog within the VA currently sits in excess of 344,000 claims. Appealing a VA decision is lengthy as well, requiring an average wait time of 1,598 days.

Tanner cites Medicaid as a similar example: Medicaid patients are six times as likely to be denied a doctor's appointment as the privately insured, and when they do manage to get an appointment, they wait an average of 42 days to see a doctor -- twice as long as a privately insured individual would wait.

Promising health care does not mean that the government will actually deliver more health care, writes Tanner. Americans should take note of the problems within the VA as the federal government continues to exert greater control over our health system.

Source: Michael D. Tanner, "How VA Hospitals Are a Government-run Disaster," Cato Institute, May 16, 2014.

This of course is not what single payer advocates want. But it is surely what we'll have if they get their wish.

My reformed Constitution will provide better for the veterans, but it will otherwise take healthcare away from the federal government altogether and will return it to the states and private sector where it belongs.

More irony?

Republicans overloaded the VA system with casualties from 2 wars and never increased the funding and then were "shocked" when it failed to provide the proper care. Oh yes, all of those demands by Libertarians to slash government spending harmed the vets just as it harmed the elderly too.

Blaming the victim because of the extreme right's selfishness and greed is the standard kneejerk reaction. The VA was underfunded and understaffed because of incessant demands by Republicans to cut the budget. That was a betrayal of the vets in my opinion and one that won't soon be forgotten either.

No, your "reformed Constitution" won't "provide better for the veterans" because it won't provide any healthcare at all. Why should anyone's "liberty" be burdened by caring for a veteran any more than it should be burdened by caring for the elderly or the sick?

You don't get to wrap yourself in the flag while denying the less fortunate the basics of healthcare. There is no way that the American people would ever ratify that kind of faux "patriotism".

And back on ignore you go. I have no problem with you questioning a point I make or making your own argument to rebut it. But I see no point in having a discussion with somebody who characterizes me personally this dishonestly. Sigh.

You really don't have a clue how you come across, do you? Denying healthcare to those who can't afford it and instead leaving it up to privileged who are judgmental of those earning minimum wage and selfish when it comes to less fortunate is never going to be ratified by the majority of the American people.

Both the current Constitution and the ACA are here to stay because they work as intended. The Federal government does not "control" anyone and it doesn't infringe upon your "liberty".

Feel free to continue your Obamacare bashing thread but you are never going to accomplish your OP goal because all you want are those who agree with you to tell you that you are doing a "good job". None of your proposals have managed to withstand any scrutiny at all which is only to be expected.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You happily empower the private sector to deny you benefits even though your only recourse is more expensive than what you were denied.

I'm not quite sure I understand what that sentence is supposed to mean, but I've noticed you have an odd sense of "denied". You can't be denied something that wasn't yours to begin with, or otherwise owed to you by mutual agreement. If an insurance company refuses to pay for health care expense that a policy holder is promised, they've committed fraud and legal action is warranted. Also, who exactly do you think populates "the private sector"? The private sector IS 'we the people'.

With the government you have the right to lobby those in power directly and to fire them if you don't get what you want.

If your interests don't enjoy majority support, this is only effective if you're politically connected or very wealthy.

Greedy HMO's are exempt from law suits so no, you can't sue them for denying you health care.

Plenty of grass roots movements have ousted politicians from power. Why can't you do the same thing if they refuse to address your legitimate grievances?