No One Has a Right to Health Care

[Ray From Cleveland]

What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?

This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.

. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.

Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.

It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?

That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.

. The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.

Only contagious ones. What the founders thought were national concerns are in the US Constitution; healthcare is not one of them.

. It became one of them, but it has been mismanaged over the years, and the gray areas involved has allowed the confusion to reign supreme all because of, just like it shows here.

You don't think they had people dying of contagious diseases when our country was founded; people not getting the care they needed? Of course they did--much worse than today I'm sure.

If we are going to depend on the federal government to take care of all our woes, then what's the point of having state governments anymore? Eventually people will be conditioned into the federal government taking care of everything which as been the pattern the last hundred years or so.

The larger the government--the smaller the citizen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?

This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.

. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.

Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.

It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?

That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.

. The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.

Only contagious ones. What the founders thought were national concerns are in the US Constitution; healthcare is not one of them.

Neither is the FAA, but it matters to us since we, maybe unlike you, don't live in 1789...

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Yes, we can change our Constitution and it has been changed many times; it's called the Amendment process.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The larger the government--the smaller the citizen.

Seven billion people on the planet, and 320 million here. Exactly how much are you supposed to matter?

They look you up by a number for a reason, just another speck, not brick, in the wall eh?

 

[beagle9]

Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...

What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?

The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?

This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.

. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.

How do you propose to protect that freedom? If the pro-life crowd gets control, what will prevent them from refusing to cover abortions or birth control? And, more generally, who decides what a valid health care procedure would be? Should people be allowed to user their government provided health insurance to pay for faith healers? Cosmetic surgery? I could go on, but I trust you get the point.

. You just added another question that would be addressed in the ideas put forth, but it doesn't disqualify the idea altogether... It is just parts of the idea that would be debated as to the criteria in which medical services would be covered, and which ones would be considered as out of pocket expenses. Abortions would not be covered unless involved incest, rape or the life of the mother. Then there would be rules and criteria involved in those situations also.

And how is that not government controlling healthcare? Why do we need government to decide what kinds of healthcare we try? Why can't that be an individual decision. - and before you go there, simply being able to "allowed" spend your own money on alternatives is not freedom if you have no money to spend because it was taken to pay for government health insurance.

That's the fundamental BS of government "provided" services. We're forced to pay for them, in advance via taxes, and then we have to jump through hoops to get the services we paid for, hoops that are inevitably arbitrary and political.

. You are so confused my friend, that I don't know if I can help you understand or not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.

Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.

It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?

That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.

. The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.

Only contagious ones. What the founders thought were national concerns are in the US Constitution; healthcare is not one of them.

Neither is the FAA, but it matters to us since we, maybe unlike you, don't live in 1789...

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Yes, we can change our Constitution and it has been changed many times; it's called the Amendment process.

Actually, they expected us to have thrown it out long ago. That's what they did. The Amendment process was just so they didn't have to in the 20 or so years it was in force.

 

[dblack]

What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?

This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.

. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.

How do you propose to protect that freedom? If the pro-life crowd gets control, what will prevent them from refusing to cover abortions or birth control? And, more generally, who decides what a valid health care procedure would be? Should people be allowed to user their government provided health insurance to pay for faith healers? Cosmetic surgery? I could go on, but I trust you get the point.

. You just added another question that would be addressed in the ideas put forth, but it doesn't disqualify the idea altogether... It is just parts of the idea that would be debated as to the criteria in which medical services would be covered, and which ones would be considered as out of pocket expenses. Abortions would not be covered unless involved incest, rape or the life of the mother. Then there would be rules and criteria involved in those situations also.

And how is that not government controlling healthcare? Why do we need government to decide what kinds of healthcare we try? Why can't that be an individual decision. - and before you go there, simply being able to "allowed" spend your own money on alternatives is not freedom if you have no money to spend because it was taken to pay for government health insurance.

That's the fundamental BS of government "provided" services. We're forced to pay for them, in advance via taxes, and then we have to jump through hoops to get the services we paid for, hoops that are inevitably arbitrary and political.

. You are so confused my friend, that I don't know if I can help you understand or not.

About what?

 

[beagle9]

Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...

What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?

The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?

This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.

. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.

How do you propose to protect that freedom? If the pro-life crowd gets control, what will prevent them from refusing to cover abortions or birth control? And, more generally, who decides what a valid health care procedure would be? Should people be allowed to user their government provided health insurance to pay for faith healers? Cosmetic surgery? I could go on, but I trust you get the point.

. You just added another question that would be addressed in the ideas put forth, but it doesn't disqualify the idea altogether... It is just parts of the idea that would be debated as to the criteria in which medical services would be covered, and which ones would be considered as out of pocket expenses. Abortions would not be covered unless involved incest, rape or the life of the mother. Then there would be rules and criteria involved in those situations also.

And how is that not government controlling healthcare? Why do we need government to decide what kinds of healthcare we try? Why can't that be an individual decision. - and before you go there, simply being able to "allowed" spend your own money on alternatives is not freedom if you have no money to spend because it was taken to pay for government health insurance.

That's the fundamental BS of government "provided" services. We're forced to pay for them, in advance via taxes, and then we have to jump through hoops to get the services we paid for, hoops that are inevitably arbitrary and political.

It will be an independent choice of what healthcare services you choose.. You would be the arm of the system that would have the insurance card issued you by the government, and through your choices on the use of that card within the criteria given it, you will help to remold the system to a more quality one that would know that if it cheats you, then you would not bring your business to that provider any longer. Soon the weak and bad would be shut down, and the ones who are wanting your business will be working hard to keep you coming back. We all win and the government wins also. The government would no longer be as a dictator in our affairs of this nature or any others when it does involve itself, but it would be as it should be "A representative of we the people".

 

[dblack]

What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?

This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.

. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.

How do you propose to protect that freedom? If the pro-life crowd gets control, what will prevent them from refusing to cover abortions or birth control? And, more generally, who decides what a valid health care procedure would be? Should people be allowed to user their government provided health insurance to pay for faith healers? Cosmetic surgery? I could go on, but I trust you get the point.

. You just added another question that would be addressed in the ideas put forth, but it doesn't disqualify the idea altogether... It is just parts of the idea that would be debated as to the criteria in which medical services would be covered, and which ones would be considered as out of pocket expenses. Abortions would not be covered unless involved incest, rape or the life of the mother. Then there would be rules and criteria involved in those situations also.

And how is that not government controlling healthcare? Why do we need government to decide what kinds of healthcare we try? Why can't that be an individual decision. - and before you go there, simply being able to "allowed" spend your own money on alternatives is not freedom if you have no money to spend because it was taken to pay for government health insurance.

That's the fundamental BS of government "provided" services. We're forced to pay for them, in advance via taxes, and then we have to jump through hoops to get the services we paid for, hoops that are inevitably arbitrary and political.

It will be an independent choice of what healthcare services you choose.. You would be the arm of the system that would have the insurance card issued you by the government, and through your choices on the use of that card within the criteria given it, you will help to remold the system to a more quality one that would know that if it cheats you, then you would not bring your business to that provider any longer. Soon the weak and bad would be shut down, and the ones who are wanting your business will be working hard to keep you coming back.

Yeah. I hear what you're saying. But I think you correctly identified the most important aspect to something like this working - "The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to." - and I don't see how you can protect that freedom. It's always going to be controlled by whomever is in control of the government at the time. They'll have the power to impose their values on the rest of us via control of our healthcare spending, as well as the power to further any other political agenda that might benefit from controlling such choices. And they will use it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The larger the government--the smaller the citizen.

Seven billion people on the planet, and 320 million here. Exactly how much are you supposed to matter?

They look you up by a number for a reason, just another speck, not brick, in the wall eh?

The Constitution is not a document that protects each one of our concerns, the Constitution is a document that protects the freedom of all people. It wasn't written to expand the power of the federal government, it was written to limit that ability.

 

[beagle9]

. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.

Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.

It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?

That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.

. The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.

Only contagious ones. What the founders thought were national concerns are in the US Constitution; healthcare is not one of them.

. It became one of them, but it has been mismanaged over the years, and the gray areas involved has allowed the confusion to reign supreme all because of, just like it shows here.

You don't think they had people dying of contagious diseases when our country was founded; people not getting the care they needed? Of course they did--much worse than today I'm sure.

If we are going to depend on the federal government to take care of all our woes, then what's the point of having state governments anymore? Eventually people will be conditioned into the federal government taking care of everything which as been the pattern the last hundred years or so.

The larger the government--the smaller the citizen.

. Talking about one issue, but the tactic is to include all issues in order to shut the resolve of one issue down. Yes there is trouble that the government has not served us well, but it is because the people have simply lost control of the government where as it had been taken over by an element in society that has given the government a bad name.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.

. The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.

Only contagious ones. What the founders thought were national concerns are in the US Constitution; healthcare is not one of them.

Neither is the FAA, but it matters to us since we, maybe unlike you, don't live in 1789...

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Yes, we can change our Constitution and it has been changed many times; it's called the Amendment process.

Actually, they expected us to have thrown it out long ago. That's what they did. The Amendment process was just so they didn't have to in the 20 or so years it was in force.

So where in the Constitution does it have an expiration date?

The Constitution doesn't change automatically and no, the founders didn't expect us to throw it out one day because to do so would be throwing out the foundation that made this the greatest country on earth.

This is why the amendment process is so difficult. If we wanted such change, it has to be done by a super majority of people. It doesn't change because Democrats have leadership for a few years and then Republicans have the same later on. That may be how we change laws, but not the foundation of our laws.

 

[beagle9]

. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.

How do you propose to protect that freedom? If the pro-life crowd gets control, what will prevent them from refusing to cover abortions or birth control? And, more generally, who decides what a valid health care procedure would be? Should people be allowed to user their government provided health insurance to pay for faith healers? Cosmetic surgery? I could go on, but I trust you get the point.

. You just added another question that would be addressed in the ideas put forth, but it doesn't disqualify the idea altogether... It is just parts of the idea that would be debated as to the criteria in which medical services would be covered, and which ones would be considered as out of pocket expenses. Abortions would not be covered unless involved incest, rape or the life of the mother. Then there would be rules and criteria involved in those situations also.

And how is that not government controlling healthcare? Why do we need government to decide what kinds of healthcare we try? Why can't that be an individual decision. - and before you go there, simply being able to "allowed" spend your own money on alternatives is not freedom if you have no money to spend because it was taken to pay for government health insurance.

That's the fundamental BS of government "provided" services. We're forced to pay for them, in advance via taxes, and then we have to jump through hoops to get the services we paid for, hoops that are inevitably arbitrary and political.

It will be an independent choice of what healthcare services you choose.. You would be the arm of the system that would have the insurance card issued you by the government, and through your choices on the use of that card within the criteria given it, you will help to remold the system to a more quality one that would know that if it cheats you, then you would not bring your business to that provider any longer. Soon the weak and bad would be shut down, and the ones who are wanting your business will be working hard to keep you coming back.

Yeah. I hear what you're saying. But I think you correctly identified the most important aspect to something like this working - "The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to." - and I don't see how you can protect that freedom. It's always going to be controlled by whomever is in control of the government at the time. They'll have the power to impose their values on the rest of us via control of our healthcare spending, as well as the power to further any other political agenda that might benefit from controlling such choices. And they will use it.

. Yes you identify the problem with government, where as who is in charge of it, and would they implement death panels if want to try and rob from the coffers that hold the accounts of millions of Americans as has been the case with Social Security as it has been claimed (social security is going broke). Healthcare insurance and Social Security should be made solvent and would mean hands off unless want to serve time in federal prison for a long long time.

 

[Contumacious]

The supreme court has ruled in favor of ssi and the aca. The supreme court has the power of judicial review through case law and the constitution is broad in scope. So both these issues are constitutional.

In order to accommodate FDR 1935 fascist revolution the SCOTUS abolished the Constitution (1787)

Under the welfare/warfare police state Constitution of 1935 everything goes. Government Bureaucrats have unlimited powers .

The SCOTUS "justices" job is to perpetrate the fraud that there is still judicial review, they collect steady paychecks, the prestige of being SCOTUS justices because many narcotized citizens believe that they are still a court, and they also enjoy federal BCBS.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Given that all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, that would not be surprising. But what does it have to do with their legislators refusing to help their constituents get access to health coverage?

Most Americans don't want anything to do with Obamacare...

Prove it.

actually had you been paying attention, you might have notice that the republicans took control of the houses back basically due to the American voters hope that obamacare would be reversed. It was, how does your illegal alien leader put it?? Oh yes, a mandate.
only the worthless bottom feeders really want obamacare

It doesn't matter who wants ACA, or who doesn't. Or why. It's a dangerous abuse of government power and should be struck down as soon as possible.

Some folks said that about the 13th Amendment.

Some folks said it about the 14th Amendment.

Some folks said it about the 15th Amendment.

And the 19th.

And Social Security.

And Medicare.

And...

Yep, that is a problem.


Sooner or later freedom loving Americans will realize that a concerted action is necessary , that words are no longer effective and that they must communicate with

 

[Uncensored2008]

. Wouldn't my idea of a government insurance for healthcare plan, that is paid for by all Americans who have an income in this nation work best ? Government would then work to ensure that us and them (as our money managers of our care), are not overcharged, defrauded and abused by the providers in the way in which you speak. The government would be a non-profit in the situation (only charging a tax for adminstration cost to run the program for us). By use of the private health insurance providers, we are getting double slammed, because it has profit motives that causes it to abuse us in the situation as well, and then it is caught up in fighting the healthcare providers who try and hit them hard as you speak, and if they can't win well guess what ? They will turn to you (the client or insured), and they will kick you out because you are to much of a risk (robbing them of too much profits), and because you have brought those huge cost.upon them. Then where do you turn if private health insurance has banned you with your conditions that would be deemed as pre-existing folks ? No other carrier that has profit motive wants you, so you turn to government or depend upon walking into emergency rooms where you will be treated as second class citizens, and may even be left in a chair to die. At this point I might should say elect me as your President, and these issues would be fixed... LOL

So just add more water to the soup?

A thousand gallons of water to each gallon of soup and there will be plenty for all?

You Communists are so smart....

 

[beagle9]

. Wouldn't my idea of a government insurance for healthcare plan, that is paid for by all Americans who have an income in this nation work best ? Government would then work to ensure that us and them (as our money managers of our care), are not overcharged, defrauded and abused by the providers in the way in which you speak. The government would be a non-profit in the situation (only charging a tax for adminstration cost to run the program for us). By use of the private health insurance providers, we are getting double slammed, because it has profit motives that causes it to abuse us in the situation as well, and then it is caught up in fighting the healthcare providers who try and hit them hard as you speak, and if they can't win well guess what ? They will turn to you (the client or insured), and they will kick you out because you are to much of a risk (robbing them of too much profits), and because you have brought those huge cost.upon them. Then where do you turn if private health insurance has banned you with your conditions that would be deemed as pre-existing folks ? No other carrier that has profit motive wants you, so you turn to government or depend upon walking into emergency rooms where you will be treated as second class citizens, and may even be left in a chair to die. At this point I might should say elect me as your President, and these issues would be fixed... LOL

So just add more water to the soup?

A thousand gallons of water to each gallon of soup and there will be plenty for all?

You Communists are so smart....

Point out in my words where you think that I'm a communist because of what I propose here, and how about be specific. You know we could easily say to any party that ends up in control of the federal government, and then when they use the feds for any reason what so ever, that they are communist, oppressors, dictators or what ever else type of label that anyone decides to use. What role should the government play, if society or business decides to weild it's overwhelming power in a way that is wrong in this nation ? Who steps in ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Point out in my words where you think that I'm a communist because of what I propose here, and how about be specific. You know we could easily say to any party that ends up in control of the federal government, and then when they use the feds for any reason what so ever, that they are communist, oppressors, dictators or what ever else type of label that anyone decides to use. What role should the government play, if society or business decides to weild it's overwhelming power in a way that is wrong in this nation ? Who steps in ?

Words have meanings. That you fail to understand the meanings is irrelevant. You advocate for the means of production (key term) in health care to be owned or directed by the state.

I'll give you a hint, that is not the definition of a free market capitalist.

 

[Arianrhod]

Given his outspoken disdain for the PPACA, one wonders if Justice Scalia had health insurance, or if as a good Catholic he just relied on Jesus.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Given his outspoken disdain for the PPACA, one wonders if Justice Scalia had health insurance, or if as a good Catholic he just relied on Jesus.

Maybe he had an Obama Care plan and that's what finished him off.

 

[Arianrhod]

Given his outspoken disdain for the PPACA, one wonders if Justice Scalia had health insurance, or if as a good Catholic he just relied on Jesus.

Maybe he had an Obama Care plan and that's what finished him off.

As I understand it, they have access to the same plan Congress has:

Just Ask: What Health Benefits Do the Supreme Court Justices Receive?

Of course, if you're 79 and obese, with a history of smoking, poor diet, hypertension, and heart disease, and you've recently had surgery on your shoulder with the potential for throwing a clot, you might not want to spend a weekend on a remote hunting ranch with not medical personnel on staff and the nearest emergency vehicle at least 10 miles away.

At least I wouldn't. :shrug: