Should Government Take over Health Care?

[Christopher68]

If you want to play the constitution game then theres lots of other things you have to dezal with also. Example, The Federal Reserve Systen is totally constitutional in the way it handles currency and it;s existance, marriage liscences or unconstitutional, social security is unconstitutional, drivers liscences are unconstituional. The constitution was suspened by the 1933 War Powers act, and the 1935 Fiancial Rstoration act. It was over before you and I came about. I’m not interested in having more people die just to protect few select ideals from a document we otherwise don’t use anymore. Either follow it totally or not at all.

I do follow it totally. The federal government should easily be reduced to about 10% of it’s current size.

 

[Ella]

One thing that seems to unite other countries’ health care systems is the profit motive is taken out of the insurance companies. All companies in Switzerland, for instance, are non-profit.

And as for gakroeger posting a link instead of telling us exactly what he prefers in his current Medicare system over what other folks are proposing, that is unfortunate, because what we need is a dialogue, not partisan hackery. I REALLY AM INTERESTED in what you prefer about your Medicare now over the public options being considered.

 

[Ella]

Free clinics don’t have the specialists, which are the only ones that could help me. I’ve been able to use free clinics for things like flu shots, colds, the basic stuff and I am grateful for that, but none of those doctors are able to treat the underlying illnesses that keep me chronically ill.

Sadly, if Pathia lived in any other first world country, she would be covered. Period.

 

[gakroeger]

Sadly, if Pathia lived in any other first world country, she would be covered. Period.

Depends on the illness and the Country; there are numerous testimonials from Canadian residents that have had diagnosis’s of major illnesses’ such as brain tumors that could not be scheduled for surgeries for months and they came to the U.S. for treatment to save their lives. These people are very adamant about the quality of the U.S. health care versus Canada’s.

As mentioned in the first post, Obama has openly stated his preference of setting up review boards to determine the odds on a medical treatment being successful and depending of the outcome of this review board’s decision based on the odds, the persons age, and who knows what else “they” (not you or your doctor) will determine if you get the treatment or not.

 

[rtconstant]

Depends on the illness and the Country; there are numerous testimonials from Canadian residents that have had diagnosis’s of major illnesses’ such as brain tumors that could not be scheduled for surgeries for months and they came to the U.S. for treatment to save their lives. These people are very adamant about the quality of the U.S. health care versus Canada’s.

There are also numerous testimonials of Americans going to other countries for medicine and treatment. In fact its an up and coming business.

As mentioned in the first post, Obama has openly stated his preference of setting up review boards to determine the odds on a medical treatment being successful and depending of the outcome of this review board’s decision based on the odds, the persons age, and who knows what else “they” (not you or your doctor) will determine if you get the treatment or not.

Incorrect. HR 3200 will specify the types of specialists which can make decisions regarding your treatment but you chose the physician and they will determine treatment. It Ironic that a supporter of private healthcare would actually bring up medical choice and bureaucrats as a fear tactic against public healthcare, especially since it precisely those things that are wrong with private healthcare.

 

[gakroeger]

Free clinics don’t have the specialists, which are the only ones that could help me. I’ve been able to use free clinics for things like flu shots, colds, the basic stuff and I am grateful for that, but none of those doctors are able to treat the underlying illnesses that keep me chronically ill.

I again recommend that you contact your local chapter of SVDP or other similar organization. I know that in our chapter we have paid for medical procedures and prescription drugs that the client did not have the means to pay. Even if that particular agency does not have the funds, they can often advise you of additional help agencies in your area that may be able to help. In our particular chapter one of the volunteers I work with is a medical doctor and has many resources to send people to.

 

[gakroeger]

There are also numerous testimonials of Americans going to other countries for medicine and treatment. In fact its an up and coming business.

Incorrect. HR 3200 will specify the types of specialists which can make decisions regarding your treatment but you chose the physician and they will determine treatment. It Ironic that a supporter of private healthcare would actually bring up medical choice and bureaucrats as a fear tactic against public healthcare, especially since it precisely those things that are wrong with private healthcare.

Don’t take everything you hear as truth. Read the bill yourself.

 

[mary_bobo]

We have no competition as it is. a governement take over would be taking the medical socialism that is private and making it public. I think a good take over for a few decades will scare the insurance compannies to never cheat people again once medical goes back to private.

Have you ever seen a government program, once installed, ever fall by the wayside?

 

[gakroeger]

Have you ever seen a government program, once installed, ever fall by the wayside?

Or have you ever seen one come in on or under budget? Have you ever seen a governement program that did not turn into a black hole into which money flows.

 

[fultonfish]

Drivers’ licenses (and many other things) are covered by the Tenth Amendment:

The Tenth Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

tenthamendmentcenter.com/

Some states have initiated government health care only to find out that it is a bottomless pit and absorbs an unlimited amount of money.

It is far too complex for a government bureaucracy to operate and some states have found refuge in offering euthanasia services for difficult medical cases. [Sometimes, it’s not even the complexity of the case, but the unwillingness of the bureaucracy to investigate that there are newer medications that can offer cures or treatment but which the bureaucracy is too educationally-challenged to check out.]

There is at least one thread on CAF that discusses that option of offering people the “pain pill”.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I do follow it totally. The federal government should easily be reduced to about 10% of it’s current size.

As well as state governments, but it is not going to happen you your life time or my life time. So I’m being pragmatic, becausee being an idealogue got me nowhere whatsoever, and I don’t make a habbit of fighting loosing battles. If it weren’t for some of this unconstitutional stuff , my wife would be dead guarenteed and the chance I might be alive is far less than 50/50. Freedom to me isn’t in a type of governement, as much as it is in whether I get to live they way I feel natural and desire.

 

[rtconstant]

Don’t take everything you hear as truth. Read the bill yourself.

i have I’m not you have though.

 

[pathia]

I again recommend that you contact your local chapter of SVDP or other similar organization. I know that in our chapter we have paid for medical procedures and prescription drugs that the client did not have the means to pay. Even if that particular agency does not have the funds, they can often advise you of additional help agencies in your area that may be able to help. In our particular chapter one of the volunteers I work with is a medical doctor and has many resources to send people to.

I make too much to get free drugs, I’ve asked the companies and groups around me already.

The drugs I need are something like $750-$1250 a month here in the states without insurance. I could import them from overseas, but now they’re getting seized 3 out of 4 times, I can’t keep bouncing around on meds like that, as that’s not healthy either.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I make too much to get free drugs, I’ve asked the companies and groups around me already.

The drugs I need are something like $750-$1250 a month here in the states without insurance. I could import them from overseas, but now they’re getting seized 3 out of 4 times, I can’t keep bouncing around on meds like that, as that’s not healthy either.

Funny we can import cars, but not meds. Am I missing something here/

 

[aspawloski4th]

Drivers’ licenses (and many other things) are covered by the Tenth Amendment:

The Tenth Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

tenthamendmentcenter.com/

Some states have initiated government health care only to find out that it is a bottomless pit and absorbs an unlimited amount of money.

It is far too complex for a government bureaucracy to operate and some states have found refuge in offering euthanasia services for difficult medical cases. [Sometimes, it’s not even the complexity of the case, but the unwillingness of the bureaucracy to investigate that there are newer medications that can offer cures or treatment but which the bureaucracy is too educationally-challenged to check out.]

There is at least one thread on CAF that discusses that option of offering people the “pain pill”.

As far as a drivers liscense it is unconstitutional. By7 virtue of the fact it illegal to drive without one. Any true constitutional court of the 1800s would of nullified drivers liscenses.

 

[4elise]

usccb.org/healthcare/

Issues Related to Coverage of Low-income People in Health Care Reform
August 2009
The USCCB has stated that the needs of poor and vulnerable people should be particularly cared for in any
health care reform proposals. For low-income people, significant premiums and cost-sharing charges can serve as
barriers to obtaining coverage or seeing a doctor. Therefore, Medicaid cost-sharing protections should be maintained
and new coverage options should protect the lowest income enrollees from burdensome cost sharing. We urge
Congress to limit premiums or exempt families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level from monthly
premiums. The bishops also recommend limiting co-payments and other costs which could discourage needed care. In
order to move toward universal coverage, the bishops urge increases in eligibility levels. For example, we urge Congress
to maintain at least the proposed minimum national eligibility level for Medicaid at 150 percent and CHIP at 300 percent
of the Federal Poverty Level; to ensure comprehensive coverage; and to provide states with the resources to expand
coverage.

Commentary

Health Care Reform and a Dispute About Dying
Richard Doerflinger
Associate Director Pro-Life

Congress’s effort to enact health care reform legislation has sparked a vigorous debate. From a Catholic viewpoint the underlying issue is clear: Tens of millions of Americans lack basic health coverage; many more risk losing what they have as costs rise. And this is a matter of justice. As Pope John XXIII said almost half a century ago: “Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care…” (Pacem in Terris, no. 11). ** A society that does not ensure basic life-affirming health care for those in need is failing in a basic responsibility.**

Since the right to health care is based on the right to live, it is also clear that what attacks life is not health care at all, and not a legitimate goal of health care reform. The Church insists that reform is too important and legitimate a goal to be hijacked by destructive agendas such as government-mandated abortion coverage.

 

[St_Francis]

usccb.org/healthcare/

Commentary

Health Care Reform and a Dispute About Dying
Richard Doerflinger
Associate Director Pro-Life

I do not really understand how a positive right like this can be mandated by the Church? I mean, we have the right not to be coerced into becoming even Catholic much less anything else, we have the right not to be killed, etc, but these rights require *refraining *from action on the parts of others.

Now suddenly we have a “right” to all the medical care we want/need? That imposes an obligation on others to provide that care. Will we draft people into the medical field? Will we force doctors to work? How does this work, in the world, and how does it fit into Catholic theology?

 

[aspawloski4th]

I do not really understand how a positive right like this can be mandated by the Church? I mean, we have the right not to be coerced into becoming even Catholic much less anything else, we have the right not to be killed, etc, but these rights require *refraining *from action on the parts of others.

Now suddenly we have a “right” to all the medical care we want/need? That imposes an obligation on others to provide that care. Will we draft people into the medical field? Will we force doctors to work? How does this work, in the world, and how does it fit into Catholic theology?

It dosn’t matter. It has to be done. It’s not fair that some get health care they need while others don’t. Print the money to pay for it if you have to. It gets printed for less important already!

 

[St_Francis]

It dosn’t matter. It has to be done. It’s not fair that some get health care they need while others don’t. Print the money to pay for it if you have to. It gets printed for less important already!

But maybe it’s not fair to impose that type of debt on those who are coming along after us? I mean, when the government prints money, we are either imposing debt or causing inflation, and either way, that’s bad for our future situation.

Not to mention setting up a situation *just before *we have a lot of people about to retire. The OP said that this was a move to sort of spread the costs more widely when the baby boomers started to retire. The government said they would pay for it, but they see that they will not be able to, so rather than admit that they made a mistake, they are trying to dash it through in such a hurry, citing all this *urgency, *when the provisions won’t start taking effect for *4 years. *

And I’m sure they said that in Oregon there wouldn’t be rationing, and yet the bureaucrats have somehow managed it. What is even more disturbing is that they are using “comparative effectiveness;” this is something that the Obama administration *has already put in place, *in the most recent stimulus bill.

 

[fultonfish]

Several states have tried different approaches to government provided health care or health insurance and they have all ended very badly.

Massachusetts, Hawaii and others.

The Federal Medicare program is the worst of all and denies more claims than any of the private sector insurance programs.