Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out

[LogikAndReazon]

Perhaps bernie sanders can run it like a commune.... Needs based of course. Lol

 

[Gadawg73]

Perhaps bernie sanders can run it like a commune.... Needs based of course. Lol

Commune chicks put out.
Far out.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Comparing Vermont to most anywhere else is just plain BS. Their population is about 627,000 mostly white.

NYC is over 8 million, one city alone. Vermont is about the same population as Boston.

The Right uses the population for any argument. Single payer is based on many things but not population.

That is where you are wrong.
Case closed

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree.

Also when they have more people taking the "free" HC then they have paying for it and taxes go up to cover the costs you can bet your ass the taxpayers in Vt. will catch a clue.

Single payer is not an advance. Its a way for those who have to pay for those who don't. Just like the ACA.

You have different objectives than they do. They believe fairness = sameness. Single payer provides sameness.

So does public education. Should we take that away from the poor too?

No....You're wrong.. There are options to traditional public school.
There are private schools, religion based schools, charter schools and the option for parents to home school.
In order to function, single payer MUST exist as a captive market. That means NO options.
This thing in Vermont is an idea. And idea for which there is no funding. Vermont's tax base is not strong enough to fund a single payer system.
The announcement has " vote for us because we thought of this".

 

[jasonnfree]

You have resolved to never step foot in Vermont?

I have resolved that previously, and this only hardens my stance on the issue. Let them seceed and join Canada, where they belong.

Why are you still in Massachusetts by the way. Isn't it a fairly liberal state?

 

[thereisnospoon]

and yet you live under a centralized federal government.

I suspect you'd actually like a time machine to take you back to the articles of confederation because what you want is a fantasy.

I just said that I was for states rights and yes we all live under a massive centralized govt. You love bigger govt even though it is mediocre and doesn't operate efficiently.....we get it.

I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?

"which gives federal law supremacy over state laws..."
First..This is true but not accurate. The Supremacy clause applies only when there is an absence of state law.
For example....The prohibition on sports betting. Before the Interstate Wire Act,4 states Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon already permitted betting on sports. Therefore the Act did not apply to those states because under the States Rights Clause, federal law cannot supersede existing state law. There are certain conditions though. If an existing state law is deemed unconstitutional or so egregious that it outrages the system of federal government. For example if a state had a law that permitted a 12 year old child to own firearms. Or that permitted a young child to operate dangerous equipment as part of their employment. The federal government would be so outraged it would be virtually compelled to pass legislation which would not "outlaw" said state law but to word the federal law so that it would be impossible for the state law to be enforced.
You have to remember, laws do not go through "repeal" in an of themselves. Legislation must be passed and signed by the President that deems the existing law invalid. The old law still exists though. it is "legal" but unenforceable.
"and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?"
This is not true and not accurate. There is no such law. Nor do the words "act for the general welfare of the populace" appear anywhere in the US Constitution.
The only reference to "general welfare' is in the Preamble....
Which in part reads "promote the general welfare"....

 

[thereisnospoon]

I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?

So if "general welfare" means whatever the hell the Federal government wants to do, then why did they bother writing a document which stated they are restricted from doing anything that isn't enumerated? What is the point in limiting power when one of the powers is all powers?

What do you suppose they were saying the government can't do? Is there any limit?

What these libs refuse to acknowledge and this is typical due to the manner in which Obama is more a ruler than a governor is that the US Constitution is a LIMITING document.
If as Boopie says she wants a government to 'follow the Constitution", then she agrees that the government CANNOT do anything not stated in the Document.
Of course as a lib she thinks precisely the opposite.
Al Gore stated the liberal line on this very issue when the used the term "no controlling legal authority"....What he meant was "it doesn't say we can't".....

 

[Mertex]

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

Not so. People on Medicare don't experience that or Medicare would have already been thrown out. You're delusional.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

Just a comment: Comparing the problem with VA to problems with single payor are a little off. Not saying single payer doesn't have issues, but the comparison isn't apples to apples. The VA problem was with the way the government ran the hospitals. No privately run business in there. Single Payer just pays for the treatment at a private sector hospital.

The doctors at the VA stated the best thing that could happen to a patient is that they needed a service not offered by the VA. Then the patient would be provided a voucher to go to a private sector hospital.

Single payer would make all medical professionals defacto federal employees and all medical facilities de facto federal institutions.
Once again, for single payer to function it MUST have a 100% captive market.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just said that I was for states rights and yes we all live under a massive centralized govt. You love bigger govt even though it is mediocre and doesn't operate efficiently.....we get it.

I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders
The Founders and the ?general welfare? « IndividualRightsGovernmentWrongs.com

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?" James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
The General Welfare Clause



There is plenty more out there for you to Google, Jillian.

Essentially, this blows Jillian's argument straight to Mars.

 

[Mertex]

that's way over their heads, all they see is FREE free free and that make everything all good

For someone who has admitted being on welfare at some point in time, you sure are against your own interests. Doesn't that appear dumb to you? You would rather have insurance companies that can hike up the premiums whenever they feel like it as opposed to an affordable regulated price? Go figure.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders
The Founders and the ?general welfare? « IndividualRightsGovernmentWrongs.com

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?" James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
The General Welfare Clause



There is plenty more out there for you to Google, Jillian.

there is no way she is an attorney or she is a all out Socialist/commie

I think she's full of shit.
I'm not an attorney. Never went to law school. I think I have a much better grasp on the law than she does,
I think it is her ideological approach which disqualifies her as a source of knowledge on the law.

 

[Pogo]

that's way over their heads, all they see is FREE free free and that make everything all good

For someone who has admitted being on welfare at some point in time, you sure are against your own interests. Doesn't that appear dumb to you? You would rather have insurance companies that can hike up the premiums whenever they feel like it as opposed to an affordable regulated price? Go figure.

I wonder if Steph would give up her public utility commission too...

 

[thereisnospoon]

I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders
The Founders and the ?general welfare? « IndividualRightsGovernmentWrongs.com

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?" James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
The General Welfare Clause



There is plenty more out there for you to Google, Jillian.

Rightwing nuts like you can think the Constitution means anything you want to think it means.

What it actually means is what it does. The Founders are dead. Get over it.

While you libs think the Document means nothing.
You view it only as a road block to your goal of a socialist utopia.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.

Wrong point of view, we know it will be a failure and have outlined it....the problem is you keep rooting for shit that fails.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Having a third party, an insurance company, paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
Until government enters the picture and fully assumes that role. Single payer in America with plaintiffs lawyers running up the tab as high as they can telling their clients to go to the doctor non stop to raise the damages on their accident cases.
We have become a nation of village idiots.
Health care costs will either skyrocket in Vermont or doctors will leave or not go there to practice when they first get their license. Or both.
Whatever happened to folks taking responsibility for their own health care? They have cash for their toys. Sell them and pay for your own damn health care.

you do realize that some people have health problems and cant afford to pay for everything that they need right?.....

We have medicare and medicaid alrwafy in place.
If the less fortunate already have access to the medical care system, then we did not need any further federal mandate ( ACA)....Of course Obamacare ( ACA) has absolutely ZERO to do with health care. It is merely a system of federal mandates costing trillions that is set up for failure. The reason it's set up for failure is so that Obama can go to the people and say "this ACA was never going to work. Ultimately we need a universal health care system. By executive order I...."....Blah blah blah

 

[Mertex]

The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.

Wrong point of view, we know it will be a failure and have outlined it....the problem is you keep rooting for shit that fails.

Medicare is not a failure. Many Republican/conservatives that are on it love it and don't want it changed. How do you rationalize that with your statement?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers Dead

In Canada, the pay for medical doctors is about 50% lower. In Norway, it is nearly two-thirds lower.

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers To Be History - TheStreet

.

Yes, only a matter of time before the nation follows suit, as you said. It begins with one state. Look how fast they are coming on board with same sex marriage.

You must be kidding....Your post does not dignify a response.

 

[Pogo]

The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.

Wrong point of view, we know it will be a failure and have outlined it....the problem is you keep rooting for shit that fails.

No, the point was, and is, you nutters keep rooting for shit TO fail.

That's what conservatism is all about, right? Keep the status quo, never improve anything?

 

[buckeye45_73]

The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.

Wrong point of view, we know it will be a failure and have outlined it....the problem is you keep rooting for shit that fails.

Medicare is not a failure. Many Republican/conservatives that are on it love it and don't want it changed. How do you rationalize that with your statement?

They love it, because it's all they got. I worked in a mail order pharmacy and setup orders for patients....there is a HUGE difference between medicare and private insurance...HUUUUUUGE

Most of my complaints were medicae, because they wouldn't cover equipment for their treatments....Part C gave them the medicine, but they still had to pay for things like testers for diabetes, and basically anything for their treatments that isn't medicine.