The Truth about Healthcare
The problem is the intellectual dishonesty of lawmakers from both parties on this issue. The real truth is we do have a dysfunctional form of socialized medicine between programs like Peach Care and free healthcare via county hospitals like Grady. And the system will become bankrupt and/or people who do pay via taxes and health insurance will keep seeing the cost go up and quality go down.
You cannot fix a problem with talking points from both sides and not being honest about the issue.
That is why I support mandatory pay health insurance for people who can afford it. We cannot have a system of using tax payers and people who do buy health insurance as an emergency back up plan for people who do not.
We must open up the system to let employers and individual have a choice to buy the same plan lawmakers, vets, and federal workers receive. This would pit private against public insurance—lets see who wins.
We must also eliminate all exclusions, which would encourage preventive medicine which is less expensive and better for consumers. At the same time people must pay extra for life-choice behavior to give an incentive to change bad health choices and promote fitness.
This is just a start.
I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “both parties”. Both Obama and Edwards agree with what you are saying.
John agrees with Obama and Edwards because he supports a big nanny govt. takeover with added police power.
Meanwhile caroline and John’s dems passed a huge expansion in the SCHIP program last night $35B before / $60B after liberal “progressives” confiscated more money from taxpayers to subsidize freeloading, irresponsible parents.
If you can’t afford to provide healthcare or educate your children, THEN DON’T HAVE THEM!
$60B would go a long way toward addressing infrastructure deficiencies that ultimately result in death, destruction and billions needed to re-build. But it’s “for the chilren”, so that makes it OK. It will be cause for celebration when President Bush does the right thing and signs the VETO, sooner rather than later.
John
As I said in another thread, what is your definition for “those who can afford it?”
This latest fiasco that just passed the Senate yesterday will likely include a family of 4 earning $82K. It’s ludicrous to think people earning that kind of money can’t afford health insurance.
The very idea that taxpayer money is going to pay for this is as unconstitutional as it gets. Just for the record, after our bantering back and forth about this issue in another thread, I did some research on the subject. Most family plans are available for around $225-$275 per month for a family of 4. Virtually all of them have some kind of co-pay involved, but that’s pretty much what most company plans have now. There are some considerably more expensive, and some less expensive. The difference depends on what individuals want to pay for “co-pays,” and what the maximum cap is for a particular policy. Also, most of these plans don’t include dental or optical provisions – those are in addition to the policy. The more expensive policies do include these things. With that in mind, I offer the following;
- “Sin” taxes, such as adding another tax to tobacco products is silly. What happens if everyone stops smoking because the price is to high? Where will the money come from at that point? That’s right…additional taxes on the rest of us.
- BOTH parties (despite Caroline’s claims to the contrary) have completely forgotten about the primary thing that made this Nation great – namely competition. Instead of government (again, read TAXPAYER) paying for this, the whole thing should be opened up to as much competition as possible. As with ALL things, more competition leads to more choice, higher quality, and lower cost. Private companies can’t compete if the government picks up the tab.
- BEFORE anything is done with this issue, we need tort reform IMMEDIATELY. Frivolous law suits stemmimg from medical treatment hit an all-time high in 2005 and until we address that, private enterprise can’t possibly compete with the government. People who bring these suits need to be made to pay and liability limits need to be put into law. As I wrote in the other thread, some states are having problems keeping doctors because malpractice insurance rates are so high. This legislation does NOTHING to address this issue.
- I repeat the most important aspect of this. It is NOT a function of any of the three branches of American Government to authorize taxpayer money for personal healthcare. This is an individual responsibility. The “pro-choice” folks who CHOOSE to have children should be held accountable for that choice. Why should people who choose NOT to have children pay for those who do?
- Your idea for people being able to buy policies into government programs flies in the face of the constitution. It is not an an insurance compeny. Get Government OUT of the charity business.
- Here’s a side note for you…A neighbor of mine (he’s 28 years old and his wife is 27 – BOTH are confirmed Democrats) makes about $57K per year. His company offers health insurance and it costs him $143 per month with the company picking up the remainder. They have two kids. Even he’s against this silly legislation. He works hard and provides for his family and thinks, as I do, that people are responsible for the choices they make.
Isn’t THAT what the founders had in mind?
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY!
Mac: Why do you think socialized medicine will bankrupt the country when EVERY other industrialized country on earth has it and none are bankrupted by it?
Left
You ask a valid question.
Clearly, you’ve never looked at any of the following;
1. Rationed care
2. DENIAL of care
3. Waiting lists
4. Wages paid to “Nationalized” health care workers – ESPECIALLY nurses.
I lived in “socialized” medicine countries for 14 years and saw first-hand how it works. To prove the point, my father-in-law who lives in England waited more than 3 months to see a specialist about a kidney ailment. When the date finally arrived, the health service cancelled his appointment and told him the next AVAILABLE appointment was almost 3 months later.
He came to visit us, and I got him an appointment in ONE day. I’ll grant he had to pay for the tests (almost $650), but he got the problem solved in less than a week. Guess what happened next…..when he got back to England, his delayed appointment was cancelled again due to “lack of funding.”
You may call that quality healthcare, but I call it rationed care and a system that’s failing because it costs more and more to maintain. I posted a link aboout this a few days ago that showed the percentage of GNP spent on health care around the world. While the U.S. spends the most, you must remember that the money we spend is 83% funded by PRIVATE citizens and not the government. That makes our system FAR and away better and less burdensome than any socialized country.
Further, my niece just spent THREE years in intensive training to become a nurse only to discover that the National Health Service will only pay about HALF what she can earn here. You see, the public would have to pay more for the NHS to raise wages. What does that say about the quality of care?Needless to say, she’s trying to come here LEGALLY to work and earn a decent living.
Your point about EVERY other industrialized country notwithstanding, I’d remind you we are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a socialist state…..at least not yet.
When a person who has paid his “national health insurance premiums” for 40+
years is denied access, the system is badly broken. If you doubt this, check it out for yourself. You’ll see that everything I’ve said is 100% accurate.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!
Mac: Rationed care? Denial of care? You don’t think that’s happening here? Read about the people that want health insurance but can’t get it, about people that can’t afford it, about people that get it but get denied treatment anyway, about people that think they have it only to have it pulled out from under them when they make a big claim.
For every story like your father-in-law’s there’s 100 where the service is great and the foreign resident would NEVER want to be part of a US-style system.
And since when do people like you (“Don’t raise the minimum wage by 15 cents, it will bankrupt the country!!) give a rat’s ass about wages? Oh, when it actually affects someone in your family.
Single payer healthcare (not socialized, state-run medical facilities) is more efficient because it doesn’t have to support profits and the wasteful administrative overhead associated with wrestling with insurance companies.
Care has to be rationed under every system, at least with single payer there’s more to go around, resulting in better healthcare for more people. There is zero evidence of it bankrupting the country (that’s the deficit-spending Republican’s job).
Lefthook,
Republicans aren’t concerned about money. We have learned over the past years that obviously they missed subtraction and addition classes in elementary school.
Remember:
1. Deficits don’t mattery anyway.
2. Tax cuts pay for themselves.
3. They can’t decide whether we had a surplus or not in 2000.
Hillary, Obama and Edwards do not have mandatory pay; eliminate exclusions and an option to buy into the vets or government plan.
Left
You asked why I said it would bankrupt the Country and I answered your question with undeniable facts. In fact, I even mentioned the links I placed in another thread a few days ago which prove beyond any doubt that what I said is true. If you choose to believe something else based on your “wealth” of knowledge on the subject, you go right ahead and do that!
As usual you paint a picture bases on emotional jibberish and no facts whatsoever.
In the future, if you don’t want a question answered, don’t ask.
Caroline
In your usual uninformed way, you spout left wing talking points and not a single fact. What’s the matter? Didn’t you get your free government hand-out today?
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY!
Mac
If the Government and the AMA would allow nurse practitioners to do low level medicine and work out of pharmacies the issue about cost would go away for most people. And it would be a moot point because we could then focus on people at the poverty level via cost reduction.
And even at poverty level people need to pay something now or in the future or they will not appreciate the service and it will become another entitlement program.
John Caroline/Left….
and any other left-leaning person that thinks is a “good idea” and won’t hurt competition, read on….From the Patriot Post….
The SCHIP sails on
Defining benevolence as solving a self-created problem, Congress stands poised to reauthorize—and dramatically expand—the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The House did vote for expansion and the measure awaits a Senate vote, despite a promised veto from President Bush.
Created in 1997 to provide insurance for children with family incomes too great to qualify for Medicaid, SCHIP has, in the last decade, reduced the rate of uninsured children by approximately 25 percent. Not all is rosy, however. During the same period, the government program has (gasp) expanded to offer coverage not only to the middle class but also to many adults. So much for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
The price has been costly, too, more than just dollars. As SCHIP has wedged itself more deeply into the insurance industry, it has pushed out private insurance enterprise. The Wall Street Journal reports that in 2005, a full 77 percent of children between 200 and 300 percent of the poverty level were already covered by private insurance. Congress wants to expand the SCHIP entitlement to include these children.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that, under the proposed expansion, every enrollment increase of 100 children will be matched by a private insurance reduction of 25-50 children. Yet, as Congress seeks to expand the $35-billion program by as much as $60 billion over five years, it is, in essence, painting itself as the savior of its own failed policies which have placed undue mandates on insurance companies and have prevented individuals from shopping nationally for the most affordable coverage.
An expanded SCHIP will further entrench Congress as a public competitor in the private-insurance industry. Whereas private competition results in lower costs, consumer choice and better services, Uncle Sam’s entrance into the ring translates into higher taxes, reduced enterprise and, as The Wall Street Journal noted, “HillaryCare on the installment plan.”
Any questions?
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY!!!
Left Hook,
Every country with socialized medicine is struggling to meet the demands of their health care system and are creating more barriers to access —-long waits and denial of services based upon bureacracy defined parameters. Those in the U.S. without health care insurance are not put on a waiting list or denied health care when needed. The only type of health care denied by insurance companies is that which is experimental and does not have a proven history of success.
Mac
My idea is not SCHIP. Please tell me what part of my idea you do not like?
Hoads: No, they’re not. They like their healthcare system far more than American’s like theirs.
That’s right-wing rubbish fed to you by health insurance industry lobbyists.
Hoads/Mac: You guys are genetically incapable of looking at the facts of private vs. public healthcare.
The insurance company lobbyists just have to say the word “socialized” and you foam at the mouth.
Left Hook
I apologize. Clearly your background and wealth of education, training and knowledge in micro and macro economics makes your opinion FAR superior to those silly geese at The Wall Street Journal.
Why would ANYONE listen to the experts at the most read economic and financial publication on the planet when they could just as easily get all the economic advice they need from you?
I simply can’t imagine why the economic powers that be around the world haven’t “wised up” and listened to you instead of taking their advice from the people who live, breathe and eat economic statistics and global financial data on a daily basis! How could they be so stupid?
Please accept my heart-felt apology. I should have known better and so should Hoads.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!
John
re post #13;
I don’t like government in the health insurance business. You, who claim to be a Ron Paul supporter and Constitutionalist, should know better than to even suggest government provided health care. Despite what these left wing crazies say, the Constitution clearly speaks of INDIVIDUAL liberty, not government hand-outs to selected groups of people. It also says NOTHING about any branch of government having the constitutional authority to suppress competition by going into business against private companies.
Come on John, you’re a smart guy. Competition is the answer. The more the merrier as it drives down cost, increases choice and improves the quality.
If somebody wanted to set up the kind of pharmacy plan you mentioned, that would be fine as long as the government was not involved in any way, shape or form.
Don’t you think it’s odd that the same people who rambled on and on about how BAD the government health care at Walter Reade was only last month, who now are all for it? The reason is simple. They want more entitlements and less personal responsibility. THAT is the left wing agenda in a nutshell.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY!
Left Hook,
You need to get out more:
http://www.iedm.org/main/show_editorials_en.php?editorials_id=293
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601391.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2137719,00.html
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012407A
And here’s more on the health care financial deficits of countries with socialized medicine:
French healthcare is “badly run”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm
Social care hit by NHS deficits
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6453317.stm
Health education ‘under threat’ from NHS cash raids
http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,,1954396,00.html
Thousands set to lose jobs as NHS deficits crisis deepens, UK
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/31919.php
JAPAN struggling with its health care system
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/18/3/56.pdf
Will health care remain untouchable as Sweden battles its deficit woes?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1336891&pageindex=1
Soaring costs of senior care (worldwide)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1336891&pageindex=1
Public health care has its own share of problems and the U.S. needs to devise health care reform that is uniquely American and not some copycat of systems that will only trade one set of problems for another.
Wrong link above:
Soaring costs of senior care (worldwide):
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2004-10-04-debt_x.htm
If they can’t pay it’s not my problem. I think a good portion of people who want “Universal Healthcare” really just want to take a trip to “Dr. Feelgood” to get some free “happy pills” so they don’t feel so rejected and neglected. It’s a vicious cycle.
John,
Hillary has not released a plan so you can’t comment on what she wants.
Edwards does offer the options you are talking about.
Obama’s plan is similar to what Romney did in MA.
Mac,
Direct quote from Dick Cheney Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” You can look it up.
Sorry, I didn’t pick up your check for you today. Maybe you can do it for yourself. Or you can call Rudy. He’ll cut you a check and put in the mail so you don’t even have to get off the couch and turn off the TV!
Hmm, so the WSJ is saying that when the private insurance companies have to compete with public entities they lose. Pretty much a tacit admission that private insurance has failed.
sgtmac: Your apology is accepted with the same sincerity it was offered.
I try not to rub your nose in my intellectual and moral superiority, but honestly, sometimes its hard not to.
Now, what WSJ article are we talking about?
SgtMac
It sounds like you are against competition. The truth is the goverment is in the healthcare business.
Will not the consumer pick the best product?
Thinking about more government involvement in healthcare gives me clinical depression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tv954W4A-A
Caroline
Re Post #24 . You incredibly idiotic person…..
A tacit admission? The fact is that Government STIFLES competition. You may remember the example I provided with the U.S. Postal Service vs. FedEX, UPS, etc. Here’s a recap;
The reson the USPS is headed south is because the private companies do packages and overnight deliveries BETTER and cheaper. So what does Government do? Raise the price of first class postage because the internet is killing the regular mail business and they can’t afford to lose that as well! What would all the Union members do? Go Postal?
A tacit admission? Ha! Your understanding of economics is akin to Nicole Ritchie’s knowledge about nuclear physics. You need to ge out more Caroline. Your brain is too tense…..two tenths the size of a grape.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!
The problem with health insurance is their profits are based on not paying claims. That is why we need laws and rules.
The same is true with trade. We cannot have a system that allows China to send in goods with poison and have no enforcement or disclosure.
John
You continue to insist that “government” is ALREADY in the health care business when I’ve already proved otherwise. 83% of our healthcare expenditure comes from private funds and insurance plans. That will change dramatically under SCHIP which is legalized robbery in my view.
What’s the purpose of continuing the debate? The democrats have already decided that taxpayer dollars are going to support illegal aliens. Those of us responsible enough to provide for our families are the people being screwed.
What do we do about people who “can’t afford” life insurance? What about car insurance or home owner’s insurance? Should the taxpayers pay for that as well? It seems to me, the left has a single vision for the U.S. and that’s governmental control of everything. The Constitutional concept of limited government is a complete joke to the democrats.
Here’s a GREAT piece by John Boehner regarding the wondrous accomplishments of the left since they took control of the house;
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21834
It’s time to get government out of our lives and especially out of our wallets. People who want a free ride and welfare need to find a Country that will allow them to get that. This Country was built on individual libery, hard work and personal responsibitlity, not “group rights,” or welfare programs.
People like Caroline who misquote the Constitution disgust me. In another thread she stated the Constitution says “to provide for the General Welfare,” when it says no such thing. In the preamble to the Constitution it says “PROMOTE the general welfare,” NOT provide.
Our government promotes the general welfare through effective policy initiatives, such as free trade and competition, NOT government hand outs.
The left has a terrible habit of “using” the Constitution when it suits them and ignoring it when it doesn’t. They also twist it in the same fashion Caroline did.
The answer to the Nation’s health care problem lies in competition WITHOUT governmental interference.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!
Chip Rogers for U.S. Senate!
Since many refer to Canada’s great plan, this is one of many articles on the problems. They are even considering going back to privatization of some things because of the severe problems.
Quote:
Desperate government begs Yellowknife’s MDs to stay
Barbara Sibbald
CMAJ
Physicians in Yellowknife are the latest to benefit as desperate governments continue upping the ante in a bid to keep rural or remote doctors on the job.
In August, the Yellowknife Health and Social Services Board assumed the overhead and operating costs of the city’s 4 medical clinics — an expense estimated to consume 40% of the 18 physicians’ gross incomes.
The health board then offered the doctors a contract with salary, incentives and benefits that total as much as $285 000 annually (see sidebar). By making the move, the NWT hopes to to achieve some of the same stability it acquired by putting the 40 physicians practising outside Yellowknife on contract.
“We were up against the wall,” Dr. David King, president of the Northwest Territories Medical Association, says of the recruiting situation.
Yellowknife, which has 17 000 residents, was down to only 14 physicians in the summer of 1999, and until recently the territory has depended on locums to provide up to half of its physician workforce.
According to the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada (SRPC), the number of rural physicians in Canada declined by 15% between 1994 and 1998. A CMA report to Health Canada in April 1999 pointed out that even in the unlikely event that nothing changes, the rural physician supply will drop by 18% in the next 21 years.
But Dr. John Wootton, executive director of Health Canada’s Rural Health Office, says salaries and incentives alone aren’t enough. Just look at Quebec, he says, which has had salaried physicians in its community clinics for 20 years and yet still has a shortfall. Wootton points to the need for technological links and a consistent level of infrastructure, including diagnostic, therapeutic and transportation tools, for all rural areas. The key to recruitment and retention, Wootton says, is flexibility to address local needs.
Dr. David O’Neil, the SRPC president, agrees. “Every rural area has different needs and different distances to tertiary services or cultural resources.” Sometimes all that’s needed is a transportation allowance or a turn-key office. Other times, the physicians need everything from housing to spousal-employment assistance. He admits, though, that alternative payment plans are particularly useful when patient volume is unpredictable or low.
Salaries and other financial incentives are the cornerstone of most rural recruitment and retention plans across Canada. For example, Prince Edward Island’s new rural physicians get a $20 000 moving grant for providing a 2-year commitment. This summer, Quebec began offering fee-for-service bonuses of 15% to 30% (depending on years of service) and 40% bonuses to specialists. Ontario offers a range of incentives, including salaries and bonuses of $25 000. Saskatchewan physicians are offered salaries of up to $140 000 to start, plus benefits such as subsidized housing and a practice-establishment grant of $18 000.
But Alberta is ahead of everyone by a decade, says O’Neil, who practises in Trochu, Alta. It offers paid locums, CME, enrichment training, bonuses for on-call work, and more. “You have to make the environment attractive for them,” O’Neil says. Next year, Alberta will also offer incentives to 40 medical students to enter a 2-year rural residency program.
Meanwhile, British Columbia may have the most work to do on rural initiatives. This summer, rural physicians in some areas withdrew services and resigned hospital privileges to protest antiquated equipment, inconsistent on-call rates for specialists and the lack of incentives to lure much-needed physicians.
At its annual meeting in Saskatoon in August, the CMA adopted a policy to ensure “reasonable access to uniform, high quality medical care” in rural and remote areas. It contains 28 recommendations touching on the training, compensation, and work and lifestyle issues of these physicians.
“We’ve got to make the practice enjoyable,” maintains O’Neil. “That’s probably as important as the money.” —
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/163/7/873
======================
However, the problem we have is that we, as a nation, have decided that we can’t let anyone go without care. While doctors used to often provide emergency care for nothing, we decided that we couldn’t leave it up to friends, neighbors, or the doctor to decide who was “worthy” of care.
So, we have to have a plan that will deal with what this nation has decided is needed for the poor. Social programs in healthcare aren’t “evil” unless they are done with the Federal Government. Each State can decide what it needs to do based on that state. We may need some federal standards and make sure that people relocated from one state to another aren’t dropped, but, the states are the best place to develop programs that meet “local needs” as the article points out is needed.
Social programs aren’t bad but centralization of them usually is. The people in one state may have an entirely different concept of how they want to pay for their healthcare problems than another state does. But, private insurance has to be the backbone of the plan or else, government control will cause us to lose doctors, have antiquated equipment, outdated hospitals and operating rooms that are so overloaded that like in the U.K. they have a higher Staff infection rate due to lack of time for deep cleaning.
Does that mean it is “fair” to all the people? Of course not. A nation like we created where government is limited isn’t fair. It depends on the people themselves to make life more fair. Unfortunately, when you do that, “we the people” sometimes can be very “unfair,” especially to people we have decided aren’t pulling their own weight in our society. It was that “unfairness” that led to a civil war and the 14th Amendment. However, we have gone too far in removing “personal responsibility” and as a result will suffer the same fate other nations with socialized medicine are experiencing.
Socialized medicine in the other nations, with price controls, etc. have also caused international companies to “get their profits” from the U.S. If the U.S. is removed too, then we will see more companies cut back their research and development of drugs and equipment.
Some of that may be replace with Medical University research but we will still need a manufacturing and distribution system that is profitable. If anything, the U.S. going more socialized, will hurt all socialized healthcare plans in the other nations.
I don’t see the U.S. voters, however, turning down some type of national healthcare plan. What we call middle-class, have lost so much buying power that they are looking for anything that will reduce their expenses and since healthcare is a big one, they will probably support socialized healthcare. That it will cause higher prices on everything that has higher taxes included in them won’t stop them from supporting it.
If, however, the plan required individuals to pay for the taxes needed and it didn’t try to tax business, it might at least be a little better but, voters don’t want their personal taxes raised and to make this work, almost all workers would need to pay tax on their income, even lower wage workers to keep prices from rising.
If you don’t do that, the consumer will then buy even more foreign goods to avoid the higher prices taxes on business would cause. As long as you have a nation of voters who want more government but aren’t willing to pay for it, this problem won’t be solved.
I don’t support any federal government healthcare programs. I might support state and local ones that were efficient and effective, but not federal programs.
Jan Paul
Another good post about the socialized medicine countries. I love the line about providing “reasonable access.” I can only imagine how that might be interpreted. It seems to me it’s the “PC” way of saying rationed care based on SOMEBODY ELSE’S opinion rather than the patient.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!
Chip Rogers for U.S. Senate!
Mac, Heres another article you can add to your list:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
As Dr. Gratzer points out Canadas system of socialized medicine is turning back to private sources to help with its
inefficiencies to cope with an overburdened health care system.He also makes a valid point that in the US the costs of research is passed along to our health care costs and that the US leads the Earth in health care research.Its a trade off that will be sacrificed in any socialized medicine format.The question becomes do we forsake research for cheaper health care?
Mike and Mac
I really think a lot of this is people’s desire to be taken care of cradle to grave. Many people are letting emotions get in the way and the idea that socialism doesn’t work doesn’t “work” for them either. In fact I know numerous people who absolutely –LOVE– to go to the doctor (once their company insurance kicks in, that is–see #28.)
The problem is not that too many cannot afford healthcare. The problem is that too many can cheat the system while having plenty of disposable income for cable TV, cell phones and other unnecessary expenditures. Take a look at the parking lot outside the Board of Health or pediatrician’s office with a large Medicaid clientele, and the cars are better than most families with insurance can afford. As long parents do not marry, Medicaid will pay for all healthcare regardless of income of that child’s father. The illegal alien’s underground employment is the perfect example – how can they afford to send billions back to families in Mexico and Latin America by uneducated and illiterate laborers?
Honest taxpayers will be penalized by being forced to pay the bill or forced to accept government healthcare.
We need to try to change our tax system first to level the playing field. I’ve been in the Army as a healthcare professional. See one, do one, teach one. Hot potato referrals but nothing gets accomplished, patients just wander from one referral to another until they get tired of circling. No thanks.
For some people “free vacation” is an operation followed by 3 days in ICU with a morphine drip, Oprah, and Jerry Springer.
Reagrding the “general welfare” comment contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, James Madison said : “It is supposed by some gentlemen that Congress have authority … by virtue of which they may do anything which they may think conducive to the ‘general welfare’. This, sir, …, raises the important and fundamental question whether the general terms which had been cited are to be considered as a sort of caption or general description of the specified powers, and as having no further meaning, and give no further power than what is found in that specification; or as an abstract and indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever; to all such, at least, as will admit the application of money ….
“I, sir, have always conceived – I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived – that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms….
“It will follow, in the first place, that if the terms be taken in the broad sense they maintain, the particular powers afterwords so carefully and distinctly enumerated would be without any meaning, and must go for nothing. It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the government from limited, as they hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a government without any limits at all.” See Annals of America vol. 3, pages 491-495. (I knew that these books would come in handy some day.) Sorry for the long quote but he says that the general welfare phrase is defined by the enumerated powers of that section and does not authorize Congress to do anything not enumerated. CONGRESS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION ALMOST EVERY DAY.