If Medicare is unconstitutional

[momor]

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?

 

[Gene_Church]

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?

I am uncertain whether Medicare is unconstitutional, but universal healthcare, as proposed, certainly seems to be. It requires all individuals to purchase insurance, which I do believe to be unconstitutional.

I would propose a complete overhaul of healthcare, in that insurance should not be provided by employers. The reason we can get low prices for bread, or milk, or any product in the private market, is that we shop for prices, and negotiate prices. With current health insurance, we pay with insurance to the ultimate provider, the physician or hospital, for an amount universally offered by the insurance company. If you have no insurance, ironically, physicians and hospitals will negotiate a price with you that is frequently less than private insurance will pay them. If, instead of having both the insurance company and the employer in the middle of the decisions, we could use health savings accounts with credit cards attached to them, and the consumer would negotiate the price and decide the amount of service they want. We do this with automobiles, and other consumer products. Insurance products could be offered in the same fashion as insurance was originally provided to sailing merchants–ship owners put up a certain amount of their profits, and if they lost a ship, it was paid for from the fund. Insurance companies, or private citizens, could deposit to the fund. If the Government provided funds for services, the citizen could keep a percentage of the funds that are not used. This costs the Government less in tax funds, and encourages the citizen to spend less on health care.

I would cap liability to cut costs as well.

Individuals control their costs and decide how much they will pay. As to poor states versus wealthier states, the citizenry decides where they live. If an area does not provide competitive benefits, other parts of the country may.

 

[momor]

I am uncertain whether Medicare is unconstitutional, but universal healthcare, as proposed, certainly seems to be. It requires all individuals to purchase insurance, which I do believe to be unconstitutional.

I would propose a complete overhaul of healthcare, in that insurance should not be provided by employers. The reason we can get low prices for bread, or milk, or any product in the private market, is that we shop for prices, and negotiate prices. With current health insurance, we pay with insurance to the ultimate provider, the physician or hospital, for an amount universally offered by the insurance company. If you have no insurance, ironically, physicians and hospitals will negotiate a price with you that is frequently less than private insurance will pay them. If, instead of having both the insurance company and the employer in the middle of the decisions, we could use health savings accounts with credit cards attached to them, and the consumer would negotiate the price and decide the amount of service they want. We do this with automobiles, and other consumer products. Insurance products could be offered in the same fashion as insurance was originally provided to sailing merchants–ship owners put up a certain amount of their profits, and if they lost a ship, it was paid for from the fund. Insurance companies, or private citizens, could deposit to the fund. If the Government provided funds for services, the citizen could keep a percentage of the funds that are not used. This costs the Government less in tax funds, and encourages the citizen to spend less on health care.

I would cap liability to cut costs as well.

Individuals control their costs and decide how much they will pay. As to poor states versus wealthier states, the citizenry decides where they live. If an area does not provide competitive benefits, other parts of the country may.

If health savings accounts are the vehicle for funding health care, what should happen when people who don’t fund their accounts end up in the ER needing catastrophic health care?

Given the high cost of hospital care, do you think most families can adequately fund a health savings account for all members or is some type of insurance going to be necessary?

 

[Gene_Church]

If health savings accounts are the vehicle for funding health care, what should happen when people who don’t fund their accounts end up in the ER needing catastrophic health care?

Given the high cost of hospital care, do you think most families can adequately fund a health savings account for all members or is some type of insurance going to be necessary?

To the extent that they cannot, private charities could be allowed to provide to health savings accounts. The government may provide funds to the health savings accounts, and, could share risk with the poor. They will choose to purchase what services they wish, and can keep a portion of the funds that are not spent.

Medicare did not exist before 1964. There were private nursing homes to provide skilled nursing care for the elderly, and Catholic and religious hospitals that provided services to those in need. Private institutions such as churches were able to provide for the services, because Americans faced lower taxes and with more disposable income, were charitable.

 

[momor]

I think one of the most important problems in our health care system today is what to do about the massive amount of health care that is provided without any reimbursement because, for whatever reason, people can’t pay for it. The cost of this bad debt gets passed on primarily to those who DO pay.

Even if you don’t agree with universal care at least it seeks to address this problem.

How can we assure that any needed healthcare will be paid for?

 

[royal_archer]

I think one of the most important problems in our health care system today is what to do about the massive amount of health care that is provided without any reimbursement because, for whatever reason, people can’t pay for it. The cost of this bad debt gets passed on primarily to those who DO pay.

Even if you don’t agree with universal care at least it seeks to address this problem.

How can we assure that any needed healthcare will be paid for?

The proposed health care reform just like medicare does not address the problem of people not paying for their own health care (directly or through shared risk). These programs simply shuffle the costs around. As a contributing member of society I have to pay for the people who do not contribute. It really doesn’t make to much difference if I pay for it through higher medical costs for me, higher insurance costs, or higher taxes. The fact is that I still have to pick up their tab for them.

Keep in mind I welcome the opportunity to help those in need but I am less thrilled about sending money through a bloated government program where the politicians get first cut, the dead beats get the second cut and the needy get some if there happens to be any left over. When I give to charity, much more money goes to those who actually need it.

 

[royal_archer]

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?

First those programs are not allowed for in the constitution. Unfortunately some people in our past decided to look the other way while the government broke the law. In doing so, they ignored the consequences. One of those consequences is the creation of a dependent class. Now there are some politicians who actually want to foster a larger dependent class so as to get the votes to cement their power.

Could you immagine pawn shops actively campaigning for the government to stop arresting theives because it may reduce their business? Well welfare recipients and the related industries are also the benneficiaries of illgotten goods. Instead of recognizing that these people have planned their lives around miss appropriated resources, and trying to dismantle that system, their are some who ask that we do more of the wrong thing. For instance look at the baby boomers writing IOUs to themselves on their childrens, and grand childrens behalf. This generation created as situation where there will not be addequate resources to support them in their latter years but instead of preparing and working later, they are expecting to create a massive debt and raise taxes on the following generations. The WWII generation did the same thing. These generations are culpable for the situation they are in and should be expected to endure the reprocusions.

I’ll speak to the younger in need below.

a. Should care be funded?

Obviously yes. b is the better question.

b. How should it be funded?

It should be funded by those who stand to bennefit.

Where that falls short charity has always been there to help the truly needy if it has not been taken by the leaches first.

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

That is up to the people with the resources.

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

That is the wrong way of looking at it. Your question implies that there are resources out there in some pool and we are just trying to divvy them out. We need to recognize that those resources have to be created and we need to encourage the creation of resources by allowing those that produce to say how they want what they produce to be used.

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

Do you mean states like Zimbawe, China, Switzerland, etc? or just the states that are members of the United States? There should be no obligation or expectation for one state to provide resources to another state except out of the good will of individual citizens. I hope you don’t want some group like NATO or the UN to decide to pass health care legislation forcing us to pay for the worlds unlimmited health care.

 

[kimmielittle]

Listeningopcorn:

 

[gamewell45]

The proposed health care reform just like medicare does not address the problem of people not paying for their own health care (directly or through shared risk). These programs simply shuffle the costs around. As a contributing member of society I have to pay for the people who do not contribute. It really doesn’t make to much difference if I pay for it through higher medical costs for me, higher insurance costs, or higher taxes. The fact is that I still have to pick up their tab for them.

Keep in mind I welcome the opportunity to help those in need but I am less thrilled about sending money through a bloated government program where the politicians get first cut, the dead beats get the second cut and the needy get some if there happens to be any left over. When I give to charity, much more money goes to those who actually need it.

Using your analogy, the same could be said for spenditures on the military; those who do not contribute as members of society benefit from military protection. Yet you and others who are contributing members of society pick up the tab for those who don’t work, (children, elderly, laid off workers, etc). Both are considered essential necessities, so do we as American’s–who pride ourselves of helping those who can’t help themselves–accept the costs as we would the military? Or should there be a second standard?

 

[royal_archer]

Using your analogy, the same could be said for spenditures on the military; those who do not contribute as members of society benefit from military protection. Yet you and others who are contributing members of society pick up the tab for those who don’t work, (children, elderly, laid off workers, etc). Both are considered essential necessities, so do we as American’s–who pride ourselves of helping those who can’t help themselves–accept the costs as we would the military? Or should there be a second standard?

Military for defense is needed and constitutional military for foriegn nation building is not constitutional and not needed.

You can not sort out the cost of the military by person unless you just had a flat head tax which would be much more fair.

 

[AnotherVoice]

To the extent that they cannot, private charities could be allowed to provide to health savings accounts. The government may provide funds to the health savings accounts, and, could share risk with the poor. They will choose to purchase what services they wish, and can keep a portion of the funds that are not spent.

Medicare did not exist before 1964. There were private nursing homes to provide skilled nursing care for the elderly, and Catholic and religious hospitals that provided services to those in need. Private institutions such as churches were able to provide for the services, because Americans faced lower taxes and with more disposable income, were charitable.

Prior to July 30, 1965 the medical needs of the elderly and the indigent were not being met. If people’s needs were being accommodated by charities the bills, Medicare and Medicaid, would never have been introduced.

 

[JimG]

Prior to July 30, 1965 the medical needs of the elderly and the indigent were not being met. If people’s needs were being accommodated by charities the bills, Medicare and Medicaid, would never have been introduced.

Not being met? I’m not sure I believe that. I don’t recall numerous elderly dying on the streets for lack of medical care. Instead of buying private insurance, those over 65 were forced into the government plan, while employees had to pay the medicare payroll tax. As to whether the results are better now than pre-1965, I’d like to see some statistics.

What has changed, it seems to me, is that Medicare coverage has increased demand for medical services, thereby driving up prices and costs. The program has now been in effect long enough to see demographics working against it as it wends its way toward insolvency.

 

[AnotherVoice]

Not being met? I’m not sure I believe that. I don’t recall numerous elderly dying on the streets for lack of medical care. Instead of buying private insurance, those over 65 were forced into the government plan, while employees had to pay the medicare payroll tax. As to whether the results are better now than pre-1965, I’d like to see some statistics.

What has changed, it seems to me, is that Medicare coverage has increased demand for medical services, thereby driving up prices and costs. The program has now been in effect long enough to see demographics working against it as it wends its way toward insolvency.

I am not sure that the number of elderly you recall dying in the streets would be a valid barometer for medical care.

The major problem that was being addressed by Medicare was that the average retired person could not afford medical care; or the insurance premiums for medical care, without the help of an employer. Not very different than the situation we have today.

Of course the demand for medical services increased. With the help of Medicare and/or Medicaid people who were previously unable to afford even basic medical services; now could have treatment. While the treatments generally were not maters of life and death they did improve the quality of life.

And yes the system is heading toward insolvency; but still the Democrats in office will take 536 billion dollars from Medicare to fund their start up insurance company.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I am not sure that the number of elderly you recall dying in the streets would be a valid barometer for medical care.

The major problem that was being addressed by Medicare was that the average retired person could not afford medical care; or the insurance premiums for medical care, without the help of an employer. Not very different than the situation we have today.

Of course the demand for medical services increased. With the help of Medicare and/or Medicaid people who were previously unable to afford even basic medical services; now could have treatment. While the treatments generally were not maters of life and death they did improve the quality of life.

And yes the system is heading toward insolvency; but still the Democrats in office will take 536 billion dollars from Medicare to fund their start up insurance company.

Then lets work on getting insurance premiums down as well as the cost of providing health care down. Medicare should only have been enacted if/when this had failed.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

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?

As far as #1 and #2 (and a, b, c) we should actively be trying to get the cost of premiums and care down do more affordable levels. All you’re proposing is that we push the already high cost of premiums and healthcare to the government (or some other charity). It does not actually fix anything wrong with the system in regards to process.

Once this has been addressed, and if people are failing through the cracks, only then, you may have a argument for some sort of government paid for system.

 

[royal_archer]

I am not sure that the number of elderly you recall dying in the streets would be a valid barometer for medical care.

The major problem that was being addressed by Medicare was that the average retired person could not afford medical care; or the insurance premiums for medical care, without the help of an employer. Not very different than the situation we have today.

Now that the government has stepped in and raised taxes with hopes of free medical for retirees, companies have found it much easier to dump their medical programs for retirees. I am sure corporations are equally delighted with the prospects of universal health care in that it will be a way to pass those costs on to their employees with out it looking like a pay cut.

Of course the demand for medical services increased. With the help of Medicare and/or Medicaid people who were previously unable to afford even basic medical services; now could have treatment. While the treatments generally were not maters of life and death they did improve the quality of life.

If quality of life were a consideration then why take away money from the working class and reduce their quality of life?

And yes the system is heading toward insolvency; but still the Democrats in office will take 536 billion dollars from Medicare to fund their start up insurance company.

This happens all of the time with contracts getting restructured and the books getting cleared. This medicare take over will likely be used to sweep the medicare problems under the rug, zero the books, and make it look like there was nothing wrong.

 

[AnotherVoice]

Now that the government has stepped in and raised taxes with hopes of free medical for retirees…

This medicare take over will likely be used to sweep the medicare problems under the rug, zero the books, and make it look like there was nothing wrong.

I can’t believe you are saying things like NOW that the government has stepped in; and this Medicare take over… The medicare program has been a government run program since it’s inception. The government has been in charge of it since 1965.

The government is the largest health insurance company in this country. Private health insurance companies account for 34% of expenditures. Government programs already account for 47.5% of health care expenditures in this country.

 

[royal_archer]

I can’t believe you are saying things like NOW that the government has stepped in; and this Medicare take over… The medicare program has been a government run program since it’s inception. The government has been in charge of it since 1965.

The government is the largest health insurance company in this country. Private health insurance companies account for 34% of expenditures. Government programs already account for 47.5% of health care expenditures in this country.

Actually I meant the other areas of the medical industry that are not currently under the government “Medicare” program; little m not big M.

 

[jc-servant]

Not being met? I’m not sure I believe that. I don’t recall numerous elderly dying on the streets for lack of medical care. Instead of buying private insurance, those over 65 were forced into the government plan, while employees had to pay the medicare payroll tax. As to whether the results are better now than pre-1965, I’d like to see some statistics.

What has changed, it seems to me, is that Medicare coverage has increased demand for medical services, thereby driving up prices and costs. The program has now been in effect long enough to see demographics working against it as it wends its way toward insolvency.

There were many Americans with no health insurance back then who either didn’t see a doctor and died at home or who paid cash for care whenever they could. More families lived in multigenerational homes, so family cared for their own seniors at home more frequently than they do currently. It is only within the last 30 years or so that we have seen the huge boom in young single people living on their own and the same for seniors being sent to nursing homes.

Americans of all ages but especially seniors have begun demanding more costly scans, tests and procedures in the past 30 years because they are available. It is not a phenomenom solely seen in those on Medicare. I look at medical records every single day at work and I have done for years. I see people with no insurance, sad excuses for insurance, HMOs, PPOs, Medicaid and Medicare. Doctors make their money on fee for service in most of our country and that includes a cut of costly scans and tests run in their clinics or by places where they have a financial stake. This also has nothing to do with Medicare but rather the means by which doctors make their money in our health care system.

 

[jc-servant]

If someone has posted some legal authority for why they believe that Medicare is “unconstitutional” I must have missed it. The same goes for the proposed healthcare reform. Exactly what part of the U.S. Constitution is supposedly going to be violated and which part of the current bills (that have yet to be reconciled into one bill) are proposing something that would violate the Constitution?

In my experience the term “unconstitutional” is thrown around quite often for anything the government is doing or might do that someone does not like, but rarely is there any real legal authority cited to support the assertion. If I had a dollar for every person who has tossed that term out who has no idea of what the Constitution really says or even of how our government or legal system works, I would be very rich and able to retire.