“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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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!

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.

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!