Is Health Care a Right?

[The Irish Doggy]

Part of your problem is your insurance company's maximum they are willing to pay . Now you can blame the insurance company on that, but you would be wrong in doing so. The problem like discussed in previous threads is the way people view insurance. In order for insurance companies to offer anything close to affordable insurance, and still provide doctors visits for less than the cost of an oil change, they have to cap the overall amount they pay out. The better solution would be to make people actually have to pay to go see the doctor, and have insurance truly be insurance for catastrophic occurrences, not of stitches, and not for a for going to the doctor and getting drugs for the sniffles.

 

This is completely contradictory.

 

How can you say an insurance company isn't to blame for wanting to pay above a maximum and then say insurance should only be for catastrophic occurrences? Aren't occurrences which go above a maximum catastrophic enough? What if homeowners insurance worked like that? Oh, sorry, My Smith, you've reached your lifetime maximum on fire damage. Too F'n bad for you. Go have a bake sale.

 

The very purpose of all insurance is to spread the risk of catastrophic events to the entire population so that no one family is taken out by it. Do you honestly think health care is broken because people have a 10 minute doctor visit for the sniffles? Can you hear yourself?

[Pope Flick]

Then why did you stiff Spain out of that hundy you lost to him ?

 

Ouch.

[yo mama]

I'm thinking that is a no.

What is this, freshman year debate class? The Constitution doesn't say that Dallas can have a football team, either. You gonna argue we should shut the Cowboys down because of it? The absurdity of the "it isn't in the Constitution" argument should be obvious.

 

The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. And it shouldn't HAVE to say that government exists to serve and protect us. Because the alternative is that the founders intended for the government to either oppress us, or stand idly by while others do so.

[Big John]

Then why did you stiff Spain out of that hundy you lost to him ?

That was OIA that did that.

[muck]

This is completely contradictory.

 

How can you say an insurance company isn't to blame for wanting to pay above a maximum and then say insurance should only be for catastrophic occurrences? Aren't occurrences which go above a maximum catastrophic enough? What if homeowners insurance worked like that? Oh, sorry, My Smith, you've reached your lifetime maximum on fire damage. Too F'n bad for you. Go have a bake sale.

 

The very purpose of all insurance is to spread the risk of catastrophic events to the entire population so that no one family is taken out by it. Do you honestly think health care is broken because people have a 10 minute doctor visit for the sniffles? Can you hear yourself?

 

I changed to a high deductible plan a year or so ago; all I know is that my family and I go to the doctors a lot less now because we elect to not pay the $200 office visit charge if we have the sniffles. Personally, I probably averaged 4 or so office visits a year before changing; I've probably been once in the last 18 months.

 

If my situation is similar to other peoples, then, yeah, the costs should go down a ton across the board.

[Azazello1313]

I will agree with you on this point perch. We need to sever the connection between employers and health care. It strangles businesses and insulates the average person from the true cost of health care. And pretty much no one has put forth a plan that attempts to do this. Because remember, business as usual mean all the right people make the money.

 

not really true. wyden (D) and bennett ® did. so did john mccain during his presidential campaign. it's not like this is some far-fetched idea that can never come to fruition. it is the most basic thing that should be included in ANY meaningful health reform. the only reason it's not is that the current bills is the people driving the bus don't want it in there.

[yo mama]

I changed to a high deductible plan a year or so ago; all I know is that my family and I go to the doctors a lot less now because we elect to not pay the $200 office visit charge if we have the sniffles. Personally, I probably averaged 4 or so office visits a year before changing; I've probably been once in the last 18 months.

 

If my situation is similar to other peoples, then, yeah, the costs should go down a ton across the board.

The Mrs. complains that people abuse the system because they either don't have a co-pay or the co-pay is very cheap. What do they care how much things cost if it doesn't impact them? Make co-pays more substantial and you'll Josh Gordon out a lot of the nonsense visits. She analogizes the situation to a college kid having a credit card that mom and dad pay for. Why would the child EVER care what things cost, as long as someone is paying the bill? (And the merchant is all to happy to leave things be under those circumstances).

[whomper]

That was OIA that did that.

 

 

Isn't zeke OIA ? Finkel is eihnhorn ?

[Big John]

Isn't zeke OIA ? Finkel is eihnhorn ?

Nope.

 

zeke 1982 from Pittsburgh, OiA from Chicago for instance.

[yo mama]

Nope.

 

zeke 1982 from Pittsburgh, OiA from Chicago for instance.

Pffft. Close enough.

[whomper]

Pffft. Close enough.

 

Exactly

[Pope Flick]

What is this, freshman year debate class? The Constitution doesn't say that Dallas can have a football team, either. You gonna argue we should shut the Cowboys down because of it? The absurdity of the "it isn't in the Constitution" argument should be obvious.

 

The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. And it shouldn't HAVE to say that government exists to serve and protect us. Because the alternative is that the founders intended for the government to either oppress us, or stand idly by while others do so.

 

 

 

We might find 34 states to go along with this.

[Big John]

We might find 34 states to go along with this.

Or 38 needed to ratify an amendment (after it passes congress with a supermajority)?

[Ursa Majoris]

it is the most basic thing that should be included in ANY meaningful health reform. the only reason it's not is that the current bills is the people who vote for the people driving the bus don't want it in there.

Fixed

[Perchoutofwater]

This is completely contradictory.

The limits

How can you say an insurance company isn't to blame for wanting to pay above a maximum and then say insurance should only be for catastrophic occurrences? Aren't occurrences which go above a maximum catastrophic enough? What if homeowners insurance worked like that? Oh, sorry, My Smith, you've reached your lifetime maximum on fire damage. Too F'n bad for you. Go have a bake sale.

 

The very purpose of all insurance is to spread the risk of catastrophic events to the entire population so that no one family is taken out by it. Do you honestly think health care is broken because people have a 10 minute doctor visit for the sniffles? Can you hear yourself?

 

If you raise the deductible, you could raise the limits, and keep your premiums where they are, and possibly reduce them. I don't see the contradiction. Maybe you didn't think it through.

[Perchoutofwater]

What is this, freshman year debate class? The Constitution doesn't say that Dallas can have a football team, either. You gonna argue we should shut the Cowboys down because of it? The absurdity of the "it isn't in the Constitution" argument should be obvious.

 

The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. And it shouldn't HAVE to say that government exists to serve and protect us. Because the alternative is that the founders intended for the government to either oppress us, or stand idly by while others do so.

 

Stupid analogy. The government isn't forcing the cowboys on an electorate that doesn't want them, and your tax dollars aren't paying Romeo's salary

[Big John]

Stupid analogy. The government isn't forcing the cowboys on an electorate that doesn't want them, and your tax dollars aren't paying Romeo's salary

Crennel?

Edited March 16, 2010 by Big John

[The Mucca]

hear, hear!!

 

 

It is the Governments job to keep a balanced budget.

[Perchoutofwater]

Crennel?

 

Auto word finish on hand held.

[yo mama]

Stupid analogy. The government isn't forcing the cowboys on an electorate that doesn't want them, and your tax dollars aren't paying Romeo's salary

Its not a stupid analogy at all. You're just changing the subject in order to retreat from a stupid argument.

 

Initial argument: you can't do that... its not in the Constitution. (Easily disproved)

 

New argument: you can't do that... its not in the Constitution *and* costs taxpayer money. (Also easily disproved).

 

- Step 1. Power to lay and collect tax is explicitly given to Congress per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

- Step 2. Power to spend: United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) says Congress' spending power (also found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) is NOT limited to Congress' specifically enumerated powers because Congress is specifically authorized to spend on the "general welfare," which means exactly that.

 

I don't like the President's health care proposal. But let's not pretend Congress lacks the Constitutional power to enact it.

Edited March 16, 2010 by yo mama

[Perchoutofwater]

Its not a stupid analogy at all. You're just changing the subject in order to retreat from a stupid argument.

 

Initial argument: you can't do that... its not in the Constitution. (Easily disproved)

 

New argument: you can't do that... its not in the Constitution *and* costs taxpayer money. (Also easily disproved).

 

- Step 1. Power to lay and collect tax is explicitly given to Congress per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

- Step 2. Power to spend: United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) says Congress' spending power (also found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) is NOT limited to Congress' specifically enumerated powers because Congress is specifically authorized to spend on the "general welfare," which means exactly that.

 

I don't like the President's health care proposal. But let's not pretend Congress lacks the Constitutional power to enact it.

yo ill respond tomorrow when I have a keyboard

[Perchoutofwater]

Its not a stupid analogy at all. You're just changing the subject in order to retreat from a stupid argument.

 

Initial argument: you can't do that... its not in the Constitution. (Easily disproved)

 

New argument: you can't do that... its not in the Constitution *and* costs taxpayer money. (Also easily disproved).

 

- Step 1. Power to lay and collect tax is explicitly given to Congress per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

- Step 2. Power to spend: United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) says Congress' spending power (also found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) is NOT limited to Congress' specifically enumerated powers because Congress is specifically authorized to spend on the "general welfare," which means exactly that.

 

I don't like the President's health care proposal. But let's not pretend Congress lacks the Constitutional power to enact it.

 

US vs Butler was decided by a highly intimidated court, and I question it's validity and think it should be argued by the current court without the executive branch threatening to fundamentally changing the make up of the court. Still, this legislation requires everyone to purchase insurance or face fines, how is that in any way constitutional? You and I both know the car insurance argument doesn't hold water, as driving a car on public roads is a privilege not a right, but breathing is a right.

[Caveman_Nick]

Initial argument: you can't do that... its not in the Constitution. (Easily disproved)

 

It is only easily disproved if you allow for 2 factors:

 

1) The federal government oversteps it's constitutional bounds

 

and

 

2) The People put up with it.

 

In fact, It is expressly written into the US Constitution that if the power is not granted to the Fed Gov in that document then the power is reserved to the states.

 

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

 

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.

 

Your willingness to put up with government agencies and officials over stepping their bounds does not mean that the agency or official in question is acting within it's truly legal mandate.

 

Edit to add:

 

- Step 2. Power to spend: United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) says Congress' spending power (also found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) is NOT limited to Congress' specifically enumerated powers because Congress is specifically authorized to spend on the "general welfare," which means exactly that.

 

This is an enormous stretch of an interpretation of the powers of Congress, somehow imposing the wording of the Preamble into the specifically enumerated powers of Congress.

 

That also fits quite neatly into:

 

1) The federal government oversteps it's constitutional bounds

 

and

 

2) The People put up with it.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Caveman_Nick

[cre8tiff]

Can you point out where it says that? I missed it.

 

Only in the first paragraph.

 

promote the general Welfare

 

And just in case you needed the official term explained:

 

Welfare

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

 

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Edited March 16, 2010 by cre8tiff

[Caveman_Nick]

Only in the first paragraph.

 

 

 

And just in case you needed the official term explained:

 

Ah yes...in the Preamble, which specifically grants no legal power, but merely defines the scope of the granted powers. Gotcha.