Republicans can't deal with medical care:

[Into the Night]

Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition.

Then go find one. They are out there.

I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents.

Better handled at the State level (and already is). The federal government has no authority to implement such a program according to the Constitution. They cannot do anything legally outside the powers specifically laid out in the Constitution. Various States, however, have this already coded into their constitutions. If yours doesn't, see your local legislature about such an amendment and get the people of your State to vote for it.

Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.

Socialism does not improve anything.

The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical provider’s grievous failure.

Private lawsuits already do that.

An insurance organization directly or indirectly causing or worsening the condition of who was then their client, that eventually caused or increased the amount of the catastrophic medical expense would be the insurer’s failure.

A blanket proposal that fails to cover a lot of cases. What if the insurer specifies they won't cover a certain condition when you sign up with them. Are they still liable?

 

[CFM]

CFM, I suppose what both Rjhenn and Gonzomin are referring to is USA's prior and our current healthcare policies were and are in comparison to those of the world's all other industrial nations' healthcare policies, the most expensive per their nations' populations' persons, and per patient.

Although USA's aggregate medical costs are the most expensive among industrial nations, The consequences due to many of those other nations' healthcare policies are superior to that of the USA; (i.e. other nations are all doing it at lesser cost and many of them are doing it better than what USA has or is now accomplishing).

Respectfully, Supposn

The policies prior to Obamacare worked perfectly fine for ME and MY FAMILY. Excellent coverage, low costs as part of the compensation package, and never a single problem having them pay, what few times it was actually used.

As far as doing something well and at a low cost to ME, it was accomplishing plenty. Since it's not my responsibility to worry about others, what they had, or didn't have, and paid is none of my concern.

 

[Supposn]

Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition. ...

Then go find one. They are out there.

Into the Night, I'm a proponent of such a provision be a requirement of any medical insurance qualifying for the Affordable Care Act or the federal standards requirements of medical insurance within whatever federal policy may update or replace the federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.
///////////////////

I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition. ...

Better handled at the State level (and already is). The federal government has no authority to implement such a program according to the Constitution. They cannot do anything legally outside the powers specifically laid out in the Constitution. Various States, however, have this already coded into their constitutions. If yours doesn't, see your local legislature about such an amendment and get the people of your State to vote for it.

Into the Night, the same unconstitutional assertion was made in opposition to the federal minimum wage rate. If the Affordable Care Act were ever to be deemed as to be unconstitutional, both the concepts of federal minimum wage rate and a mandated acqiring of qualifying medical insurance would themselves remain constitutional. Republican’s dilemma is that a constitutional mandated medical insurance plan would be passed. The majority of USA voters want coverage with no penalty for previous conditions. Commercial insurance companies cannot make that happen without government subsidies. Federal funding of legal residents’ catastrophic medical costs reduces all (i.e. commercial, or nonprofits’ or governments’) insurance plans, but that’s not enough to enable non-government insurers with no federal subsidies offering adequate medical insurance policies at affordable prices with no penalties for pre-existing conditions.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Gonzomin]

Then go find one. They are out there.

Better handled at the State level (and already is). The federal government has no authority to implement such a program according to the Constitution. They cannot do anything legally outside the powers specifically laid out in the Constitution. Various States, however, have this already coded into their constitutions. If yours doesn't, see your local legislature about such an amendment and get the people of your State to vote for it.

Socialism does not improve anything.

Private lawsuits already do that.

A blanket proposal that fails to cover a lot of cases. What if the insurer specifies they won't cover a certain condition when you sign up with them. Are they still liable?

The public welfare clause in the constitution, according to Supreme Court decisions, gives Congress the power to collect taxes and implement programs for the public good. So yes, a healthcare program is constitutional.

 

[Supposn]

Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition. ...

Socialism does not improve anything.

Into the Night, medical insurance is effectively substantially or entirely funded with every of the world’s major industrial nations, (including the USA); (; all of our basic medical insurance systems are, to a substantial extent if not entirely socialism. I’m an old man and I expect to see this trend in the USA to continue further within my lifetime.

Medicare was enacted because commercial insurance enterprises cannot themselves provide adequate and affordable medical insurance for most elderly people.

Basic medical insurance is among the products that cannot be provided in manners to our nation’s public and economic best interests without substantial government regulation and intervention. Despite what you believe, almost, but not all products are or should best be created and distributed by pure competitive participants within a free enterprise market.
Government providing some basic medical insurance is not equivalent to socialized medicine. United States healthcare providers outside of hospitals are almost entirely independent competitive enterprises and I expect they will remain so.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[gemini104104]

It appears the reason repukes cannot deal with medical care is that they are so far out bat sh!t crazy and full of horrible forms of cancerous diseases, they are terrified to find out the diagnosis of that type of karma effect.

 

[Supposn]

I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.

The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical provider’s grievous failure. An insurance organization directly or indirectly causing or worsening the condition of who was then their client, that eventually caused or increased the amount of the catastrophic medical expense would be the insurer’s failure. ...

Private lawsuits already do that.

Into the Night, hospitals and other healthcare providers would not need to wait for a court settlement or decision before they were compensated. Remedial procedures and care on the patients’ behalves would not be delayed.
//////////////////////////

A blanket proposal that fails to cover a lot of cases. What if the insurer specifies they won't cover a certain condition when you sign up with them. Are they still liable?

Insurance qualified under the Affordable Care Act cannot choose not to cover some particular medical condition. They can choose not to cover some future unnecessary elective procedures such as cosmetic surgery; but even that’s not absolute. For example, repairs of the damage to fire victim or birth defects may be considered as grievous and requiring “necessary” surgery.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night, I'm a proponent of such a provision be a requirement of any medical insurance qualifying for the Affordable Care Act or the federal standards requirements of medical insurance within whatever federal policy may update or replace the federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.

Why do you wish the federal government to interfere with markets like this? They have no authority to do so. Price controls never work. They ALWAYS cause shortages.

Into the Night, the same unconstitutional assertion was made in opposition to the federal minimum wage rate.

An argument, not an assertion. The argument is correct. The federal government has no authority to implement any form of price controls. Minimum wage laws are price controls. They never work.

If the Affordable Care Act were ever to be deemed as to be unconstitutional, both the concepts of federal minimum wage rate and a mandated acqiring of qualifying medical insurance would themselves remain constitutional.

NONE of it is constitutional. The federal government does NOT have authority to require you to buy anything. They do NOT have the authority to implement price controls.

Republican’s dilemma is that a constitutional mandated medical insurance plan would be passed.

I don't give a shit about Republicans or Democrats. I give a shit about the Constitution, and how far the federal government has deviated from it.

The majority of USA voters want coverage with no penalty for previous conditions.

Then they can pressure their States to pass appropriate amendments to the Constitution, giving the federal government that authority. Until then, it is unconstitutional.

Commercial insurance companies cannot make that happen without government subsidies.

WRONG. Commercial insurance companies made that happen when they first opened and there WERE no laws about medical insurance companies.

Federal funding of legal residents’ catastrophic medical costs reduces all (i.e. commercial, or nonprofits’ or governments’) insurance plans,

WRONG. That money from the federal government is NOT free. YOU pay for it, whether through federal taxation, through the costs of federal regulations, and through the devalued dollar from the federal government printing too many of them.

but that’s not enough to enable non-government insurers with no federal subsidies offering adequate medical insurance policies at affordable prices with no penalties for pre-existing conditions.

They do not need federal assistance to offer such insurance. They never did, and they still don't. It matters not. The federal government has no authority there.

 

[Into the Night]

The public welfare clause in the constitution, according to Supreme Court decisions, gives Congress the power to collect taxes and implement programs for the public good. So yes, a healthcare program is constitutional.

That is NOT a power or authority. It is a reason. It places a guiding limit on the powers and authorities the Constitution DOES give. Go read the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the 'public welfare' clause is to be used as you suggest, why have a Constitution at all?

No court has authority to change the Constitution. The federal government does NOT have authority to implement price controls on health care, or even to regulate it at all.

 

[Truth Detector]

Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition.

I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.
The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical provider’s grievous failure. An insurance organization directly or indirectly causing or worsening the condition of who was then their client, that eventually caused or increased the amount of the catastrophic medical expense would be the insurer’s failure.

Respectfully, Supposn

What a pile of low information word salad bile. It's OBVIOUS you don't know how insurance works.

Do you know how Government managed plans work to keep costs down? By LIMITING care, services and R & D.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night, medical insurance is effectively substantially or entirely funded with every of the world’s major industrial nations,

That is their decision, according to their governments. The United States is not run by the consensus of other nations.

(including the USA);

It is unconstitutional in the USA.

all of our basic medical insurance systems are, to a substantial extent if not entirely socialism.

Government subsidies and regulation of medical insurance is entirely socialism.

I’m an old man and I expect to see this trend in the USA to continue further within my lifetime.

So do I. I also expect to see the misery that comes from it to become greater as a result. Fortunately, there IS a revolt over this forming here and there.

Medicare was enacted because commercial insurance enterprises cannot themselves provide adequate and affordable medical insurance for most elderly people.

Yes they can. They have already done so. Medicare itself does NOT provide adequate and affordable medical insurance AND it's very costly to you and me.

Basic medical insurance is among the products that cannot be provided in manners to our nation’s public and economic best interests without substantial government regulation and intervention.

WRONG. It has already happened in the past. The federal government has NO authority here.

Despite what you believe,

Not what I believe. It's history. You just choose to deny the history of free markets and desire to turn to and justify socialism.

almost, but not all products are or should best be created and distributed by pure competitive participants within a free enterprise market.

They WERE created and distributed in free enterprise markets. It was the free market that created the health care system and health care insurance in the first place!

Government providing some basic medical insurance is not equivalent to socialized medicine.

Correct. It is equivalent to socialized medical insurance.

United States healthcare providers outside of hospitals are almost entirely independent competitive enterprises and I expect they will remain so.

False equivalence. Health care is NOT health care insurance. You are moving the goalposts around.

 

[Gonzomin]

That is NOT a power or authority. It is a reason. It places a guiding limit on the powers and authorities the Constitution DOES give. Go read the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the 'public welfare' clause is to be used as you suggest, why have a Constitution at all?

No court has authority to change the Constitution. The federal government does NOT have authority to implement price controls on health care, or even to regulate it at all.

You make no sense. Hamilton backed the clause ,We do have a responsibility to the people. The Supremes have used the clause in many cases. That gives it more weight than just an appearance in the constitution.
However, universal healthcare does not cost you money. it is half the cost of our medical care that leaves millions without and many more with substandard care. Universal care would take the cost of medical care out of companies hands. That would help their ability to compete across the globe. It would free them from record keeping and constant negotiations as prices go up over and over. It would give them money they could return to employees in higher wages.

 

[CFM]

The public welfare clause in the constitution, according to Supreme Court decisions, gives Congress the power to collect taxes and implement programs for the public good. So yes, a healthcare program is constitutional.

Taking from one that has in order to give to one that doesn't have does no one any good.

 

[CFM]

'Medical care' is a national security issue as well as a human right.

To deny such is an emotional appeal.

To claim such is emotional nonsense.

Stop begging for someone else to fund you healthcare.

 

[CFM]

I sure would love to hear you argue your case before your county tax collectors, who tax you thousands every year for County Hospital expenses, along with your property taxes- to pay for all those hundreds of thousands of people who use your County Hospitals because they don't have insurance.

Trust me dude- You are paying out the nose for people who are not insured now- as you are just overlooking it!

There's an easy fix. Stop using tax money for the uninsured. If they can't pay, send you the bill. If you refuse to personally pay, let them go without.

 

[jimmymccready]

Nope, Into The Night, your interp of how the Constitution and the law works and interacts is wrong. Period.

ACA is constitutional. The Fed Reserve is constitutional. SCOTUS can review the constitutionality of laws.

Period.

 

[CFM]

Nope, Into The Night, your interp of how the Constitution and the law works and interacts is wrong. Period.

ACA is constitutional. The Fed Reserve is constitutional. SCOTUS can review the constitutionality of laws.

Period.

Where does the Constitution mention healthcare?

 

[stoned]

No, I didn't say anything about being illegal. These are all programs Americans accept and generally want to pay for. These are programs Americans support and they are not paid because somebody claims they are human rights people are automatically entitled to.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all entitlements but that is a budgetary term meaning Congress does not appropriate an amount but it is paid to everyone who is eligible. We have not yet made the political decision to provide medical care for all--largely because of the huge cost people are unwilling to pay for with an already $22 trillion debt and $1 trillion deficits. Also, because of the $60 billion fraud Medicare reports.

Gee, wonder who got us back to the trillion dollar deficit?

 

[Into the Night]

You make no sense. Hamilton backed the clause ,

So do I. It is NOT, however, a power or authority given to the federal government.

We do have a responsibility to the people.

Yes. The responsibility to support the Constitution of the United States and to not allow the Supreme Court or anybody else in the federal government to change it.

The Supremes have used the clause in many cases. That gives it more weight than just an appearance in the constitution.

WRONG. The Supreme Court does NOT have authority to change the Constitution.

However, universal healthcare does not cost you money.

Yes it does. It also makes you a ward of the state.

it is half the cost of our medical care that leaves millions without and many more with substandard care.

WRONG. It is MORE expensive than health care through a private system. Government care is substandard care (just look at VA healthcare nightmares, Medicare nightmares, and Medicaid nightmares).
Universal healthcare (which is to say nationalized healthcare) must ration healthcare. You are also trying to justify that which is unconstitutional.

Universal care would take the cost of medical care out of companies hands.

Yes. It would take your choice of care out of your hands too. See the Canadian healthcare system. You don't GET healthcare at all unless you go around it and pay for privately funded care.

That would help their ability to compete across the globe.

Healthcare doesn't have to globally compete.

It would free them from record keeping

WRONG. It would ADD to it. Federal forms are notorious for how inane they are.

and constant negotiations as prices go up over and over.

Price controls don't work. They ALWAYS cause shortages.

It would give them money they could return to employees in higher wages.

WRONG. It would put them out of business.

 

[jimmymccready]

Into The Night, your interp is crap, period.