ObamaCare- Mandate is Constitutional as a Tax, etc.

[GuyPinestra]

LOL. The other side of the coin is that it can, and should be, used to establish a single payer universal health care system based on an income tax on all income. A system that emphasizes preventive care rather than trips to the emergency room. A system, like those in Japan and Germany, that would require Health Insurance Companies, to be non-profits.

This will lower costs for all, with much better results, as we have seen in the other industrial nations.

Germany does not have single payer universal health care. They have a public/private partnership where people can have their own insurance if they choose, or just publicly provided insurance that covers nothing but basic care. You'll get an aspirn for your headache but not cancer treatment.

Japan's health care system is failing.

Health care in Japan: Not all smiles | The Economist

On the positive side, patients can nearly always see a doctor within a day. But they must often wait hours for a three-minute consultation. Complicated cases get too little attention. The Japanese are only a quarter as likely as the Americans or French to suffer a heart attack, but twice as likely to die if they do.

Some doctors see as many as 100 patients a day. Because their salaries are low, they tend to overprescribe tests and drugs. (Clinics often own their own pharmacies.) They also earn money, hotel-like, by keeping patients in bed. Simple surgery that in the West would involve no overnight stay, such as a hernia operation, entails a five-day hospital stay in Japan.

Emergency care is often poor. In lesser cities it is not uncommon for ambulances to cruise the streets calling a succession of emergency rooms to find one that can cram in a patient. In a few cases people have died because of this. One reason for a shortage of emergency care is an abundance of small clinics instead of big hospitals. Doctors prefer them because they can work less and earn more.

LOL. All of this, yet Japan has the highest longevity of any nation in the world. Sheesh, that alone says that they are doing something right that we are not. Because we rank down around 50th in longevity, below even some third world nations. That is not WHO statistics, but the CIA World Book statistics.

Japanese longevity is a result of their diet, not their medical care, idiot!

 

[Contumacious]

The Dangerous Supreme Court



"The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers."

~ Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States, p. 178

.

 

[Flopper]

We all pay out of pocket for routine maintenance and repairs on our homes, our cars, our computers, and all other things that we own. It is ridiculous not to do the same for our healthcare at least up to an amount that won't break the bank.

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . . This is just one way we can change the culture to re-establish affordable healthcare without creating another unsustainable entitlement that drains the lifeblood from the economy.

Much of what you write is right on. But your statement above is merely assertion without evidence. Give us some credible links to consider.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Germany does not have single payer universal health care. They have a public/private partnership where people can have their own insurance if they choose, or just publicly provided insurance that covers nothing but basic care. You'll get an aspirn for your headache but not cancer treatment.

Japan's health care system is failing.

Health care in Japan: Not all smiles | The Economist

On the positive side, patients can nearly always see a doctor within a day. But they must often wait hours for a three-minute consultation. Complicated cases get too little attention. The Japanese are only a quarter as likely as the Americans or French to suffer a heart attack, but twice as likely to die if they do.

Some doctors see as many as 100 patients a day. Because their salaries are low, they tend to overprescribe tests and drugs. (Clinics often own their own pharmacies.) They also earn money, hotel-like, by keeping patients in bed. Simple surgery that in the West would involve no overnight stay, such as a hernia operation, entails a five-day hospital stay in Japan.

Emergency care is often poor. In lesser cities it is not uncommon for ambulances to cruise the streets calling a succession of emergency rooms to find one that can cram in a patient. In a few cases people have died because of this. One reason for a shortage of emergency care is an abundance of small clinics instead of big hospitals. Doctors prefer them because they can work less and earn more.

LOL. All of this, yet Japan has the highest longevity of any nation in the world. Sheesh, that alone says that they are doing something right that we are not. Because we rank down around 50th in longevity, below even some third world nations. That is not WHO statistics, but the CIA World Book statistics.

Japanese longevity is a result of their diet, not their medical care, idiot!

You are a fool, period. Your statement alone demonstrates you are not a credible player on this board.

 

[Foxfyre]

We all pay out of pocket for routine maintenance and repairs on our homes, our cars, our computers, and all other things that we own. It is ridiculous not to do the same for our healthcare at least up to an amount that won't break the bank.

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that the role of the federal government is to be big brother and Nanny to force people to do what people should do for themselves or make us all pay whether the people do that or not. How do you equate freedom for people to live their lives as they choose and not allow them to make their own decisions re their medical care?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We all pay out of pocket for routine maintenance and repairs on our homes, our cars, our computers, and all other things that we own. It is ridiculous not to do the same for our healthcare at least up to an amount that won't break the bank.

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that the role of the federal government is to be big brother and Nanny to force people to do what people should do for themselves or make us all pay whether the people do that or not. How do you equate freedom for people to live their lives as they choose and not allow them to make their own decisions re their medical care?

It is located in We the People, Foxfyre, and our voting, in our governance of the Constitution, and in the checks and balances. We are not a libertarian people, never have been, never will be.

 

[dblack]

It is located in We the People, Foxfyre, and our voting, in our governance of the Constitution, and in the checks and balances. We are not a libertarian people, never have been, never will be.

Speak for yourself. Many of us have been, are, and will continue to be. You, most assuredly, are not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wrong again dainty!

Wrong? Tax people that do not buy insurance. Same thing as Romney Care.

Obamacare is upheld

this was a post reply to kwc who was initially denying ACA/Obamacare was ruled Constitutional. It was watching and quoting FOX.





"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is located in We the People, Foxfyre, and our voting, in our governance of the Constitution, and in the checks and balances. We are not a libertarian people, never have been, never will be.

Speak for yourself. Many of us have been, are, and will continue to be. You, most assuredly, are not.

I am assuredly not, never will be, and We the People are making very clear that we never will be like your very small minority. You are part of the social compact, from the day you were born. You don't get to opt out unless you give up citizenship. Your options? Fight politically to overturn those who voted for the law. Try to impeach Roberts and or Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The logjam has been finally broken.

Regardless of who wins the elections, the plan will be revised and reformed not repealed.

This is a great victory for the American people, and that Chief Justice Roberts made it possible is a stunning revelation.

Stunning to who? The idiots, like you, who think that conservatives can't think?

 

[regent]

When the ink dried on the Constitution, the state governments assumed responsiblity for the well-being of its citizens. One of the well-being responsibilities was their health, and lives. When the Great Depression hit the states could no longer do the job and the federal government took over. After a time the federal government began turning back some of that resposibilty to the states. Today they share. But as the population ages and new expensive medical procedures are created it has become much more costly. Some average families cannot cope with some of the expenses of a major illness and a number of other families cannot cope with any of the expenses.
The primary question for those of us that have health care at this time or are not sick is: should we continue to treat our sick and elderly even if they have no money, and if so, what is the best way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The logjam has been finally broken.

Regardless of who wins the elections, the plan will be revised and reformed not repealed.

This is a great victory for the American people, and that Chief Justice Roberts made it possible is a stunning revelation.

Hmm...what is a great victory, specifically?
Not even the most informed people who were involved in drafting the legislation know what is in it or what will happen....so you know more than they do?
Businesses have hired accountants and healthcare experts to try and figure this thing out - and have not.
But - you - of course have it all figured out and know it is a great victory.

And you on the flip side know it's not a good piece of legislation? You have it all figured out?

You claim you do, so why don't you explain why a law that threatened something which 7 justices united in declaring unconstitutional is a good thing?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all pay out of pocket for routine maintenance and repairs on our homes, our cars, our computers, and all other things that we own. It is ridiculous not to do the same for our healthcare at least up to an amount that won't break the bank.

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

There is actually a pretty simple solution to that, end the social contract that demands that we pay for other people's health care just because they show up at an ER. Make ERs places that cover emergencies, and let them tell people who have hangnails to go away.

Or would that offend your sensibilities as being a practical solution to a government created problem?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that the role of the federal government is to be big brother and Nanny to force people to do what people should do for themselves or make us all pay whether the people do that or not. How do you equate freedom for people to live their lives as they choose and not allow them to make their own decisions re their medical care?

It is located in We the People, Foxfyre, and our voting, in our governance of the Constitution, and in the checks and balances. We are not a libertarian people, never have been, never will be.

Tell you what, I challenge you to follow your own advice and provide some credible links to back up the statement that We the People authorizes the government to tell me who I can have sex with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB, quit crying, you look silly.

There is a social compact, not contract. OddDude is trying that one without success right now.

 

[koshergrl]

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that the role of the federal government is to be big brother and Nanny to force people to do what people should do for themselves or make us all pay whether the people do that or not. How do you equate freedom for people to live their lives as they choose and not allow them to make their own decisions re their medical care?

It is located in We the People, Foxfyre, and our voting, in our governance of the Constitution, and in the checks and balances. We are not a libertarian people, never have been, never will be.

Tell you what, I challenge you to follow your own advice and provide some credible links to back up the statement that We the People authorizes the government to tell me who I can have sex with.

That challenge will stand forever. To my knowledge, JS has never, in the history of the world, provided any documentation or evidence to back up any of the stupid things he says.

What he usually does is jump to another thread, where he'll pretend he won this argument, then later, jump back to this thread, and pretend he won an argument elsewhere....

 

[Foxfyre]

We all pay out of pocket for routine maintenance and repairs on our homes, our cars, our computers, and all other things that we own. It is ridiculous not to do the same for our healthcare at least up to an amount that won't break the bank.

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

There is actually a pretty simple solution to that, end the social contract that demands that we pay for other people's health care just because they show up at an ER. Make ERs places that cover emergencies, and let them tell people who have hangnails to go away.

Or would that offend your sensibilities as being a practical solution to a government created problem?

Or, if you don't want to put the onus on the medical staff in E.R. to judge whether something is or is not an emergency, just allow the E.R. to give a bill to everybody who shows up there without insurance. And allow the hospital to go after their money by normal legal means. That simple change in the current 'social contract' would eliminate almost all of the hang nails and other non emergency E.R. traffic. If folks have to pay for their healthcare, they'll go to the dovctor instead of the far more expensive E.R.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB, quit crying, you look silly.

There is a social compact, not contract. OddDude is trying that one without success right now.

What's the difference?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is located in We the People, Foxfyre, and our voting, in our governance of the Constitution, and in the checks and balances. We are not a libertarian people, never have been, never will be.

Tell you what, I challenge you to follow your own advice and provide some credible links to back up the statement that We the People authorizes the government to tell me who I can have sex with.

That challenge will stand forever. To my knowledge, JS has never, in the history of the world, provided any documentation or evidence to back up any of the stupid things he says.

What he usually does is jump to another thread, where he'll pretend he won this argument, then later, jump back to this thread, and pretend he won an argument elsewhere....

I know. The advantage is that it makes it easier to argue with sensible people when he is hiding.