If Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea...

[danielpalos]

The right wing only believes in the general warfare not the general welfare.

Not at all. Conservatives want to see us out of military involvement in other countries and focusing on National Defense, not foreign defense.

Likewise, Conservatives simply understand thst the General Welfsre of the nation is not slwsys the same as the general welfare of 100% of our citizens. Conservatives also understand that a starving, homeless man is far more motivated than one with food and shelter from the Government.

End the drug war, alleged conservatives. We don't need Any percentage of that.

 

[danielpalos]

Privileges and immunities that promote the general welfare are powers delegated to our legislators.

Those aren't the words, that is your opinion.

Those are the powers established by our federal Constitution.

No, it isn't. Prove me wrong, give us the words.

Yes, it is. You merely have lousy reading comprehension and repeal. Coincidence or conspiracy?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I knew you would post that, that has been debunked many times already. It is merely your interpretation of "general welfare". I knew you couldn't prove what isn't true.

That proves it. You have show how health care does not provide for the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Privileges and immunities that promote the general welfare are powers delegated to our legislators.

I asked for a quote, you gave me an opinion.

You Only need Ten Commandments if everything is that simple.

Those are the powers delegated to Congress via our federal Constitution.

Yes, and they are specific. Tell us where the right to healthcare exists.

Providing healthcare provides for the general welfare.

There is no, common Offense clause nor any general Warfare clause.

Your interpretation does not make heathcare into a right. Sorry.

Yes, it does. All Congress has to do is stand around and take voice votes to have any Act enacted as Law in our republic.

The right wing, and You in particular, are simply clueless and Causeless.

 

[Anathema]

End the drug war, alleged conservatives. We don't need Any percentage of that.

No. We need to actually stsrt fighting the drug war.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

Not at all, and it had nothing to do with our insurance not being to ACA standards because I work for a small company of under 50 employees. We are exempt from those standards.

My employer dropped insurance because Commie Care gave him the ability to do so without losing all of his workers. That wasn't possible before Commie Care because many of our employees would have left for companies that still had insurance.

Until Commie Care came along, I had insurance all of my life and I have preexisting conditions. Okay, so go find another job! Not so easy in your mid 50's as it is in your mid 20's. The jobs I did call all said the same thing, they too dropped coverage for their employees. So keep looking until you find a company that has health insurance! Okay, even if I could do that, and I start with a new company at the bottom of the ladder, what's stopping them from dropping their insurance a year or two after I take the job? Nothing, because we have Commie Care now.

So I'm in a bad position. Commie Care wants 25% of my net pay to get insurance, and it's not even insurance really. There is only one plan for me to keep my healthcare facility, and it comes with a $7,000 deductible and a $7,100 out of pocket. There is no prescription, no dental, no eye care, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

Like I said, Commie Care was designed for Democrat voters--low wage workers, and it's the middle income people that get screwed because there are many more Republican voters who are middle-class. A french fry maker can get insurance for fifty bucks a month but middle-income workers would get the same plan for $700.00 a month. It's was a vote buying scam right from the beginning. Take care of Democrat voters and let Republican voters die off.

We are the only country in the world that saddles employers with the cost of group health insurance. It started during WW2 because there was a wage freeze, and employers needed something extra to attract new employees. Ford has been paying more for group health insurance than for steel since 1977,It was bound to end, because it makes our manufacturers noncompetitive with other nations. group health insurance will be completely gone within 10 years. ACA didn't kill group health. It has been doomed for years. In fact, that is why I retired at age 60 from my career as a health insurance executive. All the big companies had switched to self insurance in order to avoid state premium taxes. They hire insurance companies just to handle claims. The next step is to drop group health altogether.

 

[sartre play]

No matter what kind of health care we get, some how it will not be in the best interest of most of us.

 

[Rustic]

Any type a mandatory insurance is legalized extortion… So it cannot be trusted

You don't want a country do you?

The whole concept of insurance is fraudulent...

Single payer is not insurance.

It's worse if that's possible, it's a tax that cannot be controlled.

Yep, Medicare is spinning out of control.

Trustees: Medicare Will Go Broke in 2016, If You Exclude Obamacare's Double-Counting

 

[bendog]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

Not at all, and it had nothing to do with our insurance not being to ACA standards because I work for a small company of under 50 employees. We are exempt from those standards.

My employer dropped insurance because Commie Care gave him the ability to do so without losing all of his workers. That wasn't possible before Commie Care because many of our employees would have left for companies that still had insurance.

Until Commie Care came along, I had insurance all of my life and I have preexisting conditions. Okay, so go find another job! Not so easy in your mid 50's as it is in your mid 20's. The jobs I did call all said the same thing, they too dropped coverage for their employees. So keep looking until you find a company that has health insurance! Okay, even if I could do that, and I start with a new company at the bottom of the ladder, what's stopping them from dropping their insurance a year or two after I take the job? Nothing, because we have Commie Care now.

So I'm in a bad position. Commie Care wants 25% of my net pay to get insurance, and it's not even insurance really. There is only one plan for me to keep my healthcare facility, and it comes with a $7,000 deductible and a $7,100 out of pocket. There is no prescription, no dental, no eye care, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

Like I said, Commie Care was designed for Democrat voters--low wage workers, and it's the middle income people that get screwed because there are many more Republican voters who are middle-class. A french fry maker can get insurance for fifty bucks a month but middle-income workers would get the same plan for $700.00 a month. It's was a vote buying scam right from the beginning. Take care of Democrat voters and let Republican voters die off.

We are the only country in the world that saddles employers with the cost of group health insurance. It started during WW2 because there was a wage freeze, and employers needed something extra to attract new employees. Ford has been paying more for group health insurance than for steel since 1977,It was bound to end, because it makes our manufacturers noncompetitive with other nations. group health insurance will be completely gone within 10 years. ACA didn't kill group health. It has been doomed for years. In fact, that is why I retired at age 60 from my career as a health insurance executive. All the big companies had switched to self insurance in order to avoid state premium taxes. They hires insurance companies just to handle claims. The next step is to drop group health altogether.

And ultimately the problem is that when an insurer, or even medicare/mediciad, pay or a procedure, they pay multiple times what the actual cost of provision is. People pay a fraction out of HC savings accts what priv insurance pays. But then, a cat scan machine costs multiple times what the same machine sells for in say Taiwan.

 

[Spare_change]

Who should go without?

... those who choose do.

You know, like the 22 million identified by the CBO during their analysis of the Senate bill.

Very few of them are people who will choose to go without. You idiot.

Childish name calling? Really? Grow the fuck up.

How many?

33 million in 2014 - eligible for healthcare insurance, but didn't take it - 7.7 million non-citizen immigrants, 3.8 million who fell into the "Medicaid gap", 7.7 million aged 19-24, and 14.4 million in other age groups. 33 Million Americans Still Don’t Have Health Insurance How Many People Don't Have Health Insurance? - 2016

 

[g5000]

Who should go without?

False dilemma

Does not apply. Healthcare is either universal or it's not. If you want to make an argument as to why healthcare shouldn't be universal,

then do so.

Wrong again. Universal healthcare is a system whereby government ensures all citizens receive a specific package of benefits.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong that only the government can ensure every citizen gets the healthcare they require.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

Not at all, and it had nothing to do with our insurance not being to ACA standards because I work for a small company of under 50 employees. We are exempt from those standards.

My employer dropped insurance because Commie Care gave him the ability to do so without losing all of his workers. That wasn't possible before Commie Care because many of our employees would have left for companies that still had insurance.

Until Commie Care came along, I had insurance all of my life and I have preexisting conditions. Okay, so go find another job! Not so easy in your mid 50's as it is in your mid 20's. The jobs I did call all said the same thing, they too dropped coverage for their employees. So keep looking until you find a company that has health insurance! Okay, even if I could do that, and I start with a new company at the bottom of the ladder, what's stopping them from dropping their insurance a year or two after I take the job? Nothing, because we have Commie Care now.

So I'm in a bad position. Commie Care wants 25% of my net pay to get insurance, and it's not even insurance really. There is only one plan for me to keep my healthcare facility, and it comes with a $7,000 deductible and a $7,100 out of pocket. There is no prescription, no dental, no eye care, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

Like I said, Commie Care was designed for Democrat voters--low wage workers, and it's the middle income people that get screwed because there are many more Republican voters who are middle-class. A french fry maker can get insurance for fifty bucks a month but middle-income workers would get the same plan for $700.00 a month. It's was a vote buying scam right from the beginning. Take care of Democrat voters and let Republican voters die off.

We are the only country in the world that saddles employers with the cost of group health insurance. It started during WW2 because there was a wage freeze, and employers needed something extra to attract new employees. Ford has been paying more for group health insurance than for steel since 1977,It was bound to end, because it makes our manufacturers noncompetitive with other nations. group health insurance will be completely gone within 10 years. ACA didn't kill group health. It has been doomed for years. In fact, that is why I retired at age 60 from my career as a health insurance executive. All the big companies had switched to self insurance in order to avoid state premium taxes. They hire insurance companies just to handle claims. The next step is to drop group health altogether.

No, group health insurance will be here for many years because people realize it's a before tax benefit. If you lose that benefit or switch jobs to a company that doesn't have it, you are paying for your insurance with after tax money.

As long as employers need employees, they will offer healthcare as a benefit in spite of the damage DumBama has done to this country. This would be especially true if the Republicans were smart enough to offer tax incentives to companies that go back to providing healthcare insurance, and maybe reverse some of the damage done.

My employer went through a lot of applicants before he found somebody that would take the job with no healthcare coverage. The only reason the guy decided to work for us is because he was on his wife's plan that she had through her employer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I disagree with that. Everyone should receive medical treatment. Everyone in the USA always has. That's the point. ACA was not a fix for a problem, it was an attempt for a government takeover of 1/6 of our economy. It was an attempt to make all medical care like the VA.

It's sole purpose was to create as many new government dependents as possible. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

Not at all, and it had nothing to do with our insurance not being to ACA standards because I work for a small company of under 50 employees. We are exempt from those standards.

My employer dropped insurance because Commie Care gave him the ability to do so without losing all of his workers. That wasn't possible before Commie Care because many of our employees would have left for companies that still had insurance.

Until Commie Care came along, I had insurance all of my life and I have preexisting conditions. Okay, so go find another job! Not so easy in your mid 50's as it is in your mid 20's. The jobs I did call all said the same thing, they too dropped coverage for their employees. So keep looking until you find a company that has health insurance! Okay, even if I could do that, and I start with a new company at the bottom of the ladder, what's stopping them from dropping their insurance a year or two after I take the job? Nothing, because we have Commie Care now.

So I'm in a bad position. Commie Care wants 25% of my net pay to get insurance, and it's not even insurance really. There is only one plan for me to keep my healthcare facility, and it comes with a $7,000 deductible and a $7,100 out of pocket. There is no prescription, no dental, no eye care, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

Like I said, Commie Care was designed for Democrat voters--low wage workers, and it's the middle income people that get screwed because there are many more Republican voters who are middle-class. A french fry maker can get insurance for fifty bucks a month but middle-income workers would get the same plan for $700.00 a month. It's was a vote buying scam right from the beginning. Take care of Democrat voters and let Republican voters die off.

Imagine if you lived in the UK. You'd probably be paying around 8% of your wages, and you'd get healthcare whether you were working or not. And you don't want this? You could go get private healthcare and still be under 25% of your wages and have higher quality healthcare.

My main concern is the power you'd be giving government if you allowed them to control your healthcare.

Let's take Commie Care for instance. They created law that an insurance company cannot charge you higher rates if you have a preexisting condition. But they can if the applicant uses tobacco products. Democrats are against tobacco products. You have to purchase a plan that has birth control, but you don't have to include life sustaining prescriptions such as what I use.

See how it's all about politics? And that's what happens when you give government the power to control something as serious like healthcare.

What I'm saying is that lets say we went to a government run system, and eventually the Democrats get control over all three branches. You don't think they would use that control to get you to do what they want?

For instance, you can still own a gun since it's constitutionally protected, but you must pay higher rates because you own a gun. Or maybe cigarettes. Yes, cigarettes are legal, but you have to pay higher rates if you smoke. If you weigh too much? Higher rates again.

Democrats love to control people by taking their money if you don't march in lockstep. If you don't have health insurance because you can't afford it, then they will keep your income tax refund check. See how it works now?

Democrats are not to be trusted--never will. Democrats are power hungry control freaks and yes, they would use government healthcare to promote that power to push their political agenda.

 

[PredFan]

Those aren't the words, that is your opinion.

Those are the powers established by our federal Constitution.

No, it isn't. Prove me wrong, give us the words.

Yes, it is. You merely have lousy reading comprehension and repeal. Coincidence or conspiracy?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I knew you would post that, that has been debunked many times already. It is merely your interpretation of "general welfare". I knew you couldn't prove what isn't true.

That proves it. You have show how health care does not provide for the general welfare.

Wrong idiot. You are claiming it's a right, YOU have to prove it. You have failed so far.

 

[PredFan]

I asked for a quote, you gave me an opinion.

You Only need Ten Commandments if everything is that simple.

Those are the powers delegated to Congress via our federal Constitution.

Yes, and they are specific. Tell us where the right to healthcare exists.

Providing healthcare provides for the general welfare.

There is no, common Offense clause nor any general Warfare clause.

Your interpretation does not make heathcare into a right. Sorry.

Yes, it does. All Congress has to do is stand around and take voice votes to have any Act enacted as Law in our republic.

The right wing, and You in particular, are simply clueless and Causeless.

Let me give you one last clue before I dismiss your stupid ass.

Rights do not come from government.

Good bye idiot.

 

[danielpalos]

End the drug war, alleged conservatives. We don't need Any percentage of that.

No. We need to actually stsrt fighting the drug war.

No, we don't. If y'all can raise taxes for a drug war, it cannot be very important.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't want a country do you?

The whole concept of insurance is fraudulent...

Single payer is not insurance.

It's worse if that's possible, it's a tax that cannot be controlled.

Yep, Medicare is spinning out of control.

Trustees: Medicare Will Go Broke in 2016, If You Exclude Obamacare's Double-Counting

Yet, the right wing has no problem wasting money on a drug war.

 

[danielpalos]

Who should go without?

False dilemma

Does not apply. Healthcare is either universal or it's not. If you want to make an argument as to why healthcare shouldn't be universal,

then do so.

Wrong again. Universal healthcare is a system whereby government ensures all citizens receive a specific package of benefits.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong that only the government can ensure every citizen gets the healthcare they require.

It has to do with the, "government sponsored socialism of equality". The private sector has no profit motive to ensure, equality.

 

[danielpalos]

I disagree with that. Everyone should receive medical treatment. Everyone in the USA always has. That's the point. ACA was not a fix for a problem, it was an attempt for a government takeover of 1/6 of our economy. It was an attempt to make all medical care like the VA.

It's sole purpose was to create as many new government dependents as possible. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voter.

Merely correcting for the failure of capitalism. The right wing would know that, if y'all had more than just repeal.

 

[danielpalos]

Those are the powers established by our federal Constitution.

No, it isn't. Prove me wrong, give us the words.

Yes, it is. You merely have lousy reading comprehension and repeal. Coincidence or conspiracy?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I knew you would post that, that has been debunked many times already. It is merely your interpretation of "general welfare". I knew you couldn't prove what isn't true.

That proves it. You have show how health care does not provide for the general welfare.

Wrong idiot. You are claiming it's a right, YOU have to prove it. You have failed so far.

Only idiots resort to emotionalism. Providing healthcare promotes the general welfare.