A Simple Defense of Universal Healthcare

[UGLY]

I dont see how eliminating competition will lower the cost of care. When the government is the only provider of health care and hospitals where is the power of negotiation for the cost of drugs and MRI machines. We watch the military spend way to much on equipment from their suppliers.

What happens is senators take jobs at drug companies and then negotiate contracts with their friends in the senate or medicair, not for the best deal but for the best deal that will get them the best bonus. We see it in the military all the time with officers going to work as cosultants at boeing.

As for the fed papers we disagree on what they call for. I believe they call for what the constitution provides and they succeeded. Of course we needed on cetral governemtn and constitution this nation would not have survuved otherwise. We never could made it as 13 seperate nations loosely bonded together, each having its own foriegn treaties and creating its own currency that might not have been upheld or accepted by the next colony.

---

Or perhaps you could eliminate all aspects of private sector health care and have the government run a monopoly on all things healthcare.

[NYGriffin]

I dont see how eliminating competition will lower the cost of care. When the government is the only provider of health care and hospitals where is the power of negotiation for the cost of drugs and MRI machines. We watch the military spend way to much on equipment from their suppliers.There is a wide variety of universal health care options that are not "government is the only provider" solutions. You could still have competition among providers, even with strong regulation of those industries. There is strong regulation of other competitive industries, such as cell phones.

I am not in favor of government being the provider, but I am in favor of maybe something like what Japan has where the govt. limits what can be charged for a procedure etc.

However, I may get my wish if we stay with the status quo. If all things stay the same, I think we will have an unofficial price fixing in place soon. So many of our beloved private insurers are choosing to accept the medicaid fee schedules as what they are willing to pay for a procedure in order to cut costs. If that continues, what we will really have is a system where all generally healthy, young and well employed are covered through private, but identical plans as medicaid, and all sick, old, and underemployed are covered by government medicaid/medicare. Most people have no idea how much their private insurance already looks like medicaid, but only more expensive.

What happens is senators take jobs at drug companies and then negotiate contracts with their friends in the senate or medicair, not for the best deal but for the best deal that will get them the best bonus. We see it in the military all the time with officers going to work as cosultants at boeing. I happen to think this is an argument for better regulation, not removing it.

As for the fed papers we disagree on what they call for. I believe they call for what the constitution provides and they succeeded. Of course we needed on cetral governemtn and constitution this nation would not have survuved otherwise. We never could made it as 13 seperate nations loosely bonded together, each having its own foriegn treaties and creating its own currency that might not have been upheld or accepted by the next colony. A legacy of the founding of our nation that I think we are losing was the pragmatic, fact based approach of the founding generation. The D of I and the Constitution both enshrined a pragmatic approach to improvement over time, not instant perfection. One of their most important "principles" was commitment to a process of rational progress. The Constitutional Convention was not called to solve our problems once and for all, but to figure out how to make a "more perfect union," with the assumption that this was to be an ongoing process.
They sought out political examples from all over the world, regardless of origination in order to make something a little better than they had. Madison sent somewhere around four hundred books about what was working and not working elsewhere in the world to the convention for data. Now if you dare point out that someone else might have a better idea, worth investigating you are lambasted for being "European," "socialist," "unAmerican" etc... Does anyone remember when American Greatness was built on bringing together the hardest workers from all over the world, and experimenting with the best ideas from all over the world to try to make each day a better day for all?

We used to be a forward thinking people that imagined how we could create a better future. Now it seems we are a backward thinking people trying to relive some imagined glory days of the past- its getting very Don Quixoteish. Maybe we should stop using the drones because no one in the 18th century approved.

I think it is a bit sad that when we talk about healthcare we are not talking about what works in other parts of the world, but instead get into some hermeneutic discourse about what the Federalist Papers would have to say about an MRI. They were an historically important propaganda piece. I am not sure that's what we should start with in this discussion.

---

"...promote the general welfare..." is all I need to consider from the 18th century when it concerns healthcare.

Or perhaps you could eliminate all aspects of private sector health care and have the government run a monopoly on all things healthcare.

For me, this is a red herring. This is not something I advocate at all.

[UGLY]

To promote the general welfare not to promote welfare and government dependence. Is it really good for public welfare that we drown in debt and create a culture of dependence, I dont think so. Everybody touts the virtues of medicare yet we cant pay for them, we cant afford them. We cant afford anything more than we already have. Beyond that as a people why do we insist on giving more control of our lives to the government? Do you think that the government just provides these programs and there is no sacrifice for them, you sacrifice a little bit of your freedom every time you allow the government to provide something for you. Its like living with an abusive spouse because you have no way to provide for yourself because you allowed yourself to become dependent on the resources the spouse provides you stay with them, even though they dont treat you right.

The idea of this nation is not and has never been that the federal government would or should take care of you. The idea here is that you will be given the ability to prosper, although you are not guaranteed anything. The same goes for health care. When is it that we will show some personal responsibility. Instead of taking on a $500 a month car payment, buy better health care, that is the choice for some. For other there are already programs in place to help them and we should do more to help those that cannot afford health care, but a nationalized government health care plan is not for me. It is not backward thinking to think this way, its rational. We know that socialism does not work, it doesn't.

I guess if you you dont like the freedom to choose then government run health care is for you, if you dont like hamburgers or ice cream then go for it. But to think that the government will just provide and then not try to regulate our very lives is nieve.

[quinn14]

Very well said, Ugly. I loved the abusive spouse analogy because it hit the nail on the head.

[NYGriffin]

To promote the general welfare not to promote welfare and government dependence. Is it really good for public welfare that we drown in debt and create a culture of dependence, I dont think so. Everybody touts the virtues of medicare yet we cant pay for them, we cant afford them. We cant afford anything more than we already have. Beyond that as a people why do we insist on giving more control of our lives to the government? Do you think that the government just provides these programs and there is no sacrifice for them, you sacrifice a little bit of your freedom every time you allow the government to provide something for you. Its like living with an abusive spouse because you have no way to provide for yourself because you allowed yourself to become dependent on the resources the spouse provides you stay with them, even though they dont treat you right.

The idea of this nation is not and has never been that the federal government would or should take care of you. The idea here is that you will be given the ability to prosper, although you are not guaranteed anything. The same goes for health care. When is it that we will show some personal responsibility. Instead of taking on a $500 a month car payment, buy better health care, that is the choice for some. For other there are already programs in place to help them and we should do more to help those that cannot afford health care, but a nationalized government health care plan is not for me. It is not backward thinking to think this way, its rational. We know that socialism does not work, it doesn't.

I guess if you you dont like the freedom to choose then government run health care is for you, if you dont like hamburgers or ice cream then go for it. But to think that the government will just provide and then not try to regulate our very lives is nieve.

Back to my original post- you could use your logic to say that a federal army is socialism, or a community supported fire department is socialism, or a community police department is socialism. Or interstate highways, postal system, or a space program, or flood control projects- all of its socialism right? Anytime we tax a dollar and spend it on the community in general- its socialism right? Why are we not privatizing everything including defense, fire and police- freedom is every person for themself!?

There are certain things we owe to each other as a community. I happen to think those things which are not dependent on individual merit, but afflict us randomly is what is meant by the "general welfare." Invasion, crime, fire and cancer randomly affect us all- that's why most of those are handled by "socialist" programs of tax and spend, except one.

You are too interested in labels my friend. Your definition of socialism applies to just about every government arrangement I can think of.

establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility- yeah, thats what Soros wants too!
provide for the common defense- what, we need another government handout providing what the second Amendment says we can provide for ourselves?
promote the general welfare- Morris and Madison are communards!
Secure the blessings...- Are you sure Marx wasn't in Philly in 1787?

Community action is not by definition socialism, and to hide behind the charge of socialism does not exactly prove a point. Am I an abused-dependent spouse because I rely on government handouts like defense, police, fire, roads etc? I am quite glad we have a people's army. All along I thought I was an Eisenhower Republican, maybe I am radical socialist afterall! Thanks for clearing that up.

[UGLY]

Back to my original post- you could use your logic to say that a federal army is socialism, or a community supported fire department is socialism, or a community police department is socialism. Or interstate highways, postal system, or a space program, or flood control projects- all of its socialism right? Anytime we tax a dollar and spend it on the community in general- its socialism right? Why are we not privatizing everything including defense, fire and police- freedom is every person for themself!?

There are certain things we owe to each other as a community. I happen to think those things which are not dependent on individual merit, but afflict us randomly is what is meant by the "general welfare." Invasion, crime, fire and cancer randomly affect us all- that's why most of those are handled by "socialist" programs of tax and spend, except one.

You are too interested in labels my friend. Your definition of socialism applies to just about every government arrangement I can think of.

establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility- yeah, thats what Soros wants too!
provide for the common defense- what, we need another government handout providing what the second Amendment says we can provide for ourselves?
promote the general welfare- Morris and Madison are communards!
Secure the blessings...- Are you sure Marx wasn't in Philly in 1787?

Community action is not by definition socialism, and to hide behind the charge of socialism does not exactly prove a point. Am I an abused-dependent spouse because I rely on government handouts like defense, police, fire, roads etc? I am quite glad we have a people's army. All along I thought I was an Eisenhower Republican, maybe I am radical socialist afterall! Thanks for clearing that up.

Great, so i can soon expect to have the government feeding and clothing me, supplying me with a house and all other essentials I need to persue my happiness. Why does anyone need to work or provide for themselves. Would you not agree that people need to eat more than they need health care. Why doesnt the government have to feed me.


Another thing are you just going to recite the preamble or would you care to give actual constitutional backing for your position. if I look at the preamble and the constiution I it read to say that that if an indivudual or a state with the consent of its people can provide for their general welfare then the National government has no need to overstep and provide it.


Here is a good article I found.

General Welfare

The “general welfare” clause is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution: first, in the preamble and second, it is found in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.

Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people, which logically means that it MUST be limited in scope, for the MORE a government undertakes, the more oppressive it becomes. Government MUST be ANCHORED in fundamental principles (see lecture notes).

If you advocate for federal spending on social welfare programs, you are describing a redistribution of income (MY income) for the benefit of Specific individual citizens INSTEAD of (for example) a strong national defense. Which of those activities is the government LEGALLY REQUIRED to perform? (hint: Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.)

If the Federal government MUST do certain things, and something is NOT EXPRESSLY STATED in the constitution as a duty of Federal Government, then HOW (or WHOM) should any other services be provided? (Hint: Tenth Amendment)

[quinn14]

Another shot at the military while unions sit pretty.

Trashing Tricare | Washington Free Beacon

[NYGriffin]

Another shot at the military while unions sit pretty.

Trashing Tricare | Washington Free Beacon

Not a shot at the military at all. Just pointing out that the tag of socialism is tired and rhetorically meaningless in this conversation. Common defense, is rooted in the french word comun for belonging to the people, just like our word communism. Does that make our military a "people's army?" Calling anything the community provides to itself in general as socialist is simply way overreaching, like my tag of our military as a "people's army."

[quinn14]

I was talking about the link I provided, not you. I realize that there is no convincing you until we are already socialist and eating out of dumpsters like they are in Greece. I just think it's funny that Obama is cutting healthcare for the military but keeping the status quo for unions. Give the government an inch and they take a mile.