If Medicare is unconstitutional

[royal_archer]

Three words- Necessary and Proper

Then why have a constitution?

 

[royal_archer]

Acceptance through silence.

sort of like those who silently accepted the concentration camps.

 

[gamewell45]

sort of like those who silently accepted the concentration camps.

I honestly couldn’t tell you; I wasn’t there.

 

[gamewell45]

As much as people claim Americans want the Canadian or other socialist medical program, you don’t see many people leaving to go to those countries.

That’s easier said then done; Most industrialized countries, including Canada have strict immigration laws and can take years to legally immigrate.

 

[royal_archer]

That’s easier said then done; Most industrialized countries, including Canada have strict immigration laws and can take years to legally immigrate.

So you want us to pay for all of the people who were rejected by these other countries?

Maybe if we had equally draconian immigration policies then we wouldn’t have so many uninsured people here.

 

[gamewell45]

So you want us to pay for all of the people who were rejected by these other countries?

Maybe if we had equally draconian immigration policies then we wouldn’t have so many uninsured people here.

You don’t sound very charitable do you? Well guess what? we don’t have draconian immigration policies here, so you’ll have to accept them for what they are. Unless your a native American Indian, you happen to be an immigrant too. How would you like it if people took your attitude back when your family came to America?

 

[jc-servant]

You obviously misread what I posted and you quoted. I did not say the judges created programs, I said they were appointed by the same parties that created the program.

"Unfortunately we have supreme court judges appointed by the political parties that have created these unconstitutional programs. "

This was not a factual error it was failure in your reading of my post.

Supreme court justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not appointed by political parties which have no official powers under the Constitution to appoint anyone to a government position. They can only nominate their candidates for an election and Supreme Court justices are not elected. Parties don’t create programs, elected members of Congress who may belong to one party or no party “independents” make laws that create programs. At the moment we have no single bill from both houses of Congress creating anything for health care.

As to the list of sections from the Constitution, you did not state to what they supposedly apply within the last version of the House bill. “Wealth redistribution” is a catchy phrase being batted around by talking heads and that would include all taxation that is used for any purpose by any level of government, so clearly the generic idea of wealth redistribution is not unconstitutional because it has been happening since the early days of the country and is specifically one of the powers “taxation” given to our government. We have “representation” by electing members of the Congress that makes those laws that move the money around, so whether we like how they do it or not it is not automatically unconstitutional.

 

[royal_archer]

You don’t sound very charitable do you? Well guess what? we don’t have draconian immigration policies here, so you’ll have to accept them for what they are. Unless your a native American Indian, you happen to be an immigrant too. How would you like it if people took your attitude back when your family came to America?

It is the Canadians and others who do not have open immigration who are the ones not being charitable. Anyone from anywhere in the world can come to America and be treated like an equal.

 

[royal_archer]

Supreme court justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not appointed by political parties which have no official powers under the Constitution to appoint anyone to a government position. They can only nominate their candidates for an election and Supreme Court justices are not elected. Parties don’t create programs, elected members of Congress who may belong to one party or no party “independents” make laws that create programs. At the moment we have no single bill from both houses of Congress creating anything for health care.

But all of those individuals belong to one of the two parties in control. The one or two “independents” have no power except in a very rare tie breaker situation. However, even in those situations, they can mearly stear a decision to one of the two options provided by the parties that are in charge.

As to the list of sections from the Constitution, you did not state to what they supposedly apply within the last version of the House bill. “Wealth redistribution” is a catchy phrase being batted around by talking heads and that would include all taxation that is used for any purpose by any level of government, so clearly the generic idea of wealth redistribution is not unconstitutional because it has been happening since the early days of the country and is specifically one of the powers “taxation” given to our government. We have “representation” by electing members of the Congress that makes those laws that move the money around, so whether we like how they do it or not it is not automatically unconstitutional.

They apply to any part of the bills that attempt to assume powers not granted to the Federal government, which is nearly the entire thing.

Using tax dollars for things specifically called out in the constitution is not wealth redistribuiton unless there is descrimination in how the taxes are collected.

 

[momor]

Thank you to the several people who posted actual ideas about how to fund healthcare.

I am hoping to get this discussion back on track with the issue I originally posted (see below). Please don’t get distracted over constitutional arguments. It solves nothing. If you think the federal gov’t should not be involved in healthcare, then please offer solutions for how healthcare should be funded. Let’s keep the arguments confined to the pros and cons of ideas proposed.

For those who think Medicare or other federal funding for health care is unconstitutional and government health care should exist only at the state/local level I have some questions to start the discussion. I’m not asking to debate the constitutionality of federal funding of healthcare, only what you would propose in it’s place.

What would your plan be for state/local run health care for the following groups?

1. seniors and disabled who have no access to employer sponsored health insurance
2. those who are legitimately unable to afford private or employer sponsored insurance?
3. persons who through their own negligence have no insurance and no hope of paying their medical bills but need catastrophic medical care?

a. Should care be funded?

b. How should it be funded?

c. If the funding source runs out of money do you cut benefits or provide unfunded care?

d. If you cut benefits, how do you decide who/what gets cut?

What about poor states vs wealthier states. Should there be any obligation for a wealthier state to help those that are poor?

 

[royal_archer]

Thank you to the several people who posted actual ideas about how to fund healthcare.

I am hoping to get this discussion back on track with the issue I originally posted (see below). Please don’t get distracted over constitutional arguments. It solves nothing. If you think the federal gov’t should not be involved in healthcare, then please offer solutions for how healthcare should be funded. Let’s keep the arguments confined to the pros and cons of ideas proposed.

The problem with some of proposed solutions is that they are unconstitutional and that has to be considered. So your goal should be to get solutions that are viable and constitutional such as:

• Individuals paying for their own healthcare,
• Billing foriegn countries for the unpaid health care costs associated with their citizens.
• Eliminating job killing programs that keep people from getting jobs with insurance.
• Reducing government mandates that force health care costs up
• Remove barriers from new lower cost providers entering the system.

 

[momor]

The problem with some of proposed solutions is that they are unconstitutional and that has to be considered. So your goal should be to get solutions that are viable and constitutional such as:

• Individuals paying for their own healthcare,
• Billing foriegn countries for the unpaid health care costs associated with their citizens.
• Eliminating job killing programs that keep people from getting jobs with insurance.
• Reducing government mandates that force health care costs up
• Remove barriers from new lower cost providers entering the system.

Care to flesh out those ideas?

 

[royal_archer]

Care to flesh out those ideas?

They all seem pretty straight forward to me. Which one would you like to discuss?

 

[momor]

If I could make the changes I wanted to healthcare funding here are a few I would make:

The first thing I would do is transition the funding out of the employment realm. Under our current system those who are least able to afford the cost of healthcare, the unemployed, are unable to get the relatively more affordable coverage offered by employer group health policies.

I would create about 5 national competing **not-for-profit ** insurance companies open to anyone who wants to join. Customers could change insurers once per year.

I would cap (and closely audit) salaries and operating expenses and require that all premium revenue in excess of the caps be reinvested in the company, held in reserves, and/or used to reduce premiums. Companies would have the freedom to offer the type of plan (certain basic coverage required by all) they wanted and competition would help refine those plans to meet the needs of the customers.

Every citizen would be required to participate in an insurance plan or deposit money in an interest bearing medical savings account sufficient to cover catastrophic illness. Current employer contributions and tax deductions would be fairly distributed between employees and employer and phased out over several years. It would not become a windfall savings for employers.

Premium costs would be the same for everyone regardless of age or condition. Tax funded subsidies would pay on a sliding scale for those unable to afford their premiums. Incentives would be created for healthy lifestyles and prudent use of health system resources.

Medical providers of all types would be paid by fee scale and receive incentives to provide quality evidence-based care. There would be no unfunded medical care under this system.

Reform of the medical malpractice / legal system would be required.

That’s my idea for a start in broad brush strokes. I would envision a system that incorporates what works best in Medicare, VA, universal care, and HMO/staff model systems. Feel free to critique it and offer substitute ideas.

 

[momor]

They all seem pretty straight forward to me. Which one would you like to discuss?

I’m intrigued by your proposal to bill foreign countries. Can you provide some ideas for how that might look if you were in charge of implementing that program?

 

[royal_archer]

If I could make the changes I wanted to healthcare funding here are a few I would make:

The first thing I would do is transition the funding out of the employment realm. Under our current system those who are least able to afford the cost of healthcare, the unemployed, are unable to get the relatively more affordable coverage offered by employer group health policies.

Many companies don’t just offer insurance they actually pay the costs of those health bills. I hope you are not talking about banning companies from doing such. Also consider that many individuals would choose not to buy insurance if it were not offered by their employer, they would instead use the money to buy luxury items.

I would create about 5 national competing **not-for-profit ** insurance companies open to anyone who wants to join. Customers could change insurers once per year.

You could do that right now. Doing so would be much cheaper than all of the money being invested trying to force people into an unconstitutional government run program.
I would love to see the Church create an insurance program that pool costs across all in the church who were willing to pay. Unfortunately programs like this risk going insolvent because they try to cover people who are not contributing.

I would cap (and closely audit) salaries and operating expenses and require that all premium revenue in excess of the caps be reinvested in the company, held in reserves, and/or used to reduce premiums. Companies would have the freedom to offer the type of plan (certain basic coverage required by all) they wanted and competition would help refine those plans to meet the needs of the customers.

The only moral way to “cap” salaries is through competition.
By the way I have dealt with the government oversight on contracts before and the red tape and other inefficiencies drive up the cost more than most people realize. What would happen when a surgeon reaches his salary cap in the middle of an operation?

Every citizen would be required to participate in an insurance plan or deposit money in an interest bearing medical savings account sufficient to cover catastrophic illness. Current employer contributions and tax deductions would be fairly distributed between employees and employer and phased out over several years. It would not become a windfall savings for employers.

Aside from that being illegal and immoral; It would likely result in a reduction of benefits with out an equivalent increase in wages.

Actually I like the idea of forcing people to buy insurance which is only reasonable since you are forcing medical facilities to treat people regardless of their ability to pay and need to provide protection to those companies.

Premium costs would be the same for everyone regardless of age or condition. Tax funded subsidies would pay on a sliding scale for those unable to afford their premiums. Incentives would be created for healthy lifestyles and prudent use of health system resources.

This will only give freeloaders more incentive to not contribute.

Medical providers of all types would be paid by fee scale and receive incentives to provide quality evidence-based care. There would be no unfunded medical care under this system.

Aside from this being blatantly illegal, this would only lead to corruption.

Reform of the medical malpractice / legal system would be required.

That’s my idea for a start in broad brush strokes. I would envision a system that incorporates what works best in Medicare, VA, universal care, and HMO/staff model systems. Feel free to critique it and offer substitute ideas.

But Medicare and VA systems are miserable failures which have only survived by subsidies generated by the commercial systems, deficit spending, and forced exploitation of the American working class.

 

[royal_archer]

I’m intrigued by your proposal to bill foreign countries. Can you provide some ideas for how that might look if you were in charge of implementing that program?

Yes, medical companies send the unpaid bill to the country of the patient. Un paid bills go to the feds and the fed sends summary bills directly to that country. Foriegn aid would be debited to pay the accounts and if all else failed assetts from those countries would be siezed.

 

[sarah578]

It’s so scary to see all the changes that are happening to health care today. It is my prayer that everyone can find Affordable Health Insurance that meets their needs. Remember that at this point, we all still options. Don’t forget to research all of them before you choose what’s best for you and your family.