Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 28 to 33 of 33

Thread: A Simple Defense of Universal Healthcare

  1. #28

    Default Re: A Simple Defense of Universal Healthcare

    Ugly- as I am sure you already know the Constitution does not only give the Legislature powers, and specifically outlaws certain types of powers, it also gives what have been known as the implied powers that emanate from the rational exercise of its powers also known as the necessary and proper clause (Article 1, Section 8, clause 18.) This was first held up in McCullough v. Maryland (I think...) which does in fact empower the Congress to enact laws that it sees fit for the general welfare which appears earlier in section 8 of article 1, author of your article not withstanding.

    Point in fact- many federal efforts to "have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business" has certainly been done, and many times upheld by the Supreme Court, even at the time of the founders and the early republic.

    As for the idea of universal health care being constitutional, Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon all offered their own program in favor of it to Congress, only to have it blocked, most often by powerful Congressional lobbyists protecting the profits of the doctors (groups like the AMA.)

    Thanks to them, we now have the most overpaid doctors in the world, and consistently poor outcomes. We pay more for less because we assume the market will handle healthcare. It will not, because supply and demand is not elastic in the case of healthcare. You can not rationally choose between care for your disease and not care for your disease. It is not like choosing between Ford, Honda and GM, or a bicycle. Doctors know this and have abused us for generations.

    I think if a solid slate of both democratic and republican presidents thought it not only constitutional, but valuable and worthwhile- I am in solid moderate territory on this rather than socialist territory.
    Think about it:Truman and Eisenhower both offered forms of federal universal health care programs (yes tax dollars taken from A and given to B- the way all federal spending programs work), during the height of McCarthyism, and were not remembered as socialist. Speak of it now and you are Eugene Debs.
    Last edited by NYGriffin; 02-28-2012 at 05:40 PM.

  2. #29

    Default Re: A Simple Defense of Universal Healthcare

    Please take the time to read this article Griffin. It is a long one so you won't be able to read it in 5 minutes, but it isn't a 30min read either. This is what I fear is coming here. It comes in small steps as you will read. People get fat and happy and then wake up one day and their lives are upside down.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/ma...ewanted=1&_r=2

  3. #30
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: A Simple Defense of Universal Healthcare

    The point NY is that you are leaning on a broad phrase in the preamble and one section of the costitution in order to try and make your point. The fact is like the article stated that the general welfare clause is not meant so that the government can provide everything. When would it stop. Why do you want the government to have more power over your life. ITs not to say that if universal healthcare were implimented that it would not be illegal, its that it is an overstepping of the powers of the government in my opinion. Clearly the legislature can make any law it deisres with certain limits but just because you can doesnt mean you should. The founders would not have attempted this, they never intended for the people to become dependent on the government because they knew the danger in it.

    I also think it is funny that people from all over the world come here for health care because we have the best Dr's and equipement and you say that not only are Dr's over paid but they give us inferior care. I think that says a lot about you. What do you think a Dr. should make and what other nations do you believe give superior care to their people.

    The other issue is how do we pay for it. can you tell me how we can afford to add another massive entitlement to our books when we cant pay for what we have now.

  4. #31
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: A Simple Defense of Universal Healthcare

    "The Expansion of government means the loss of liberty." Ron Paul

  5. #32
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,966

    Default Re: A Simple Defense of Universal Healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    Another shot at the military while unions sit pretty.

    Trashing Tricare | Washington Free Beacon
    Did you read your link? The reporting and language is definitely bias but still:
    It said the yearly premiums for a retired colonel were going from $460 to $2048 over five years. I dont know what health care benefits are, but that seems like awesome benefits to me. It also did not mention what the union benefits are. I am guessing that they are no way as good as the benefits retired military get. Don't active military families get even better benefits?

    It also stated that the changes had "unanimous support among the military chiefs"

  6. #33

    Default Re: A Simple Defense of Universal Healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    Did you read your link? The reporting and language is definitely bias but still:
    It said the yearly premiums for a retired colonel were going from $460 to $2048 over five years. I dont know what health care benefits are, but that seems like awesome benefits to me. It also did not mention what the union benefits are. I am guessing that they are no way as good as the benefits retired military get. Don't active military families get even better benefits?

    It also stated that the changes had "unanimous support among the military chiefs"
    Are you saying that a colonel having to increase his premiums from $460 to $2048 is fair? These people put their lives on the line for our freedom. What if the colonel is now disabled because of a roadside bomb and he has other means of income except his military disability? I don't know what the civilian DoD benefits are, but if an increase is needed somewhere, those are the people they should hit with it. They aren't getting shot at or risking their lives. But, since Obama probably figures that he will never win the military vote, he'll try to get the civilian military vote.

    As for the unanimous support amount the military chiefs, I'm not sure who they are. I am betting they are people not affected by this change. I'm thinking like the Joint Chief of Staff and others like that who are more Washington types. I don't know for sure though. I'll try to find out. It's just another example of Obama trying to buy votes. Just like giving the healthcare exemptions to other unions across the nation.

    This story is an exact example of the hypocrisy of liberals. If it were a private health insurer raising rates by over 300% you all would be outraged. Obama himself would be using it as an example of the evil profit oriented health insurers. Anyone who thinks this is okay, yet complains about private insurance is doing nothing but talking out of both sides of their mouths.
    Last edited by quinn14; 02-29-2012 at 08:40 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •