Government run health care

[Puckstop31]

The Preamble says "promote then general welfare". Article 1, sec 8 says "provide".

Like I said to LH in one of the other threads... Promote is VERY different than provide.

Would a national, forced, healthcare plan work in the United States? I have not heard anybody come up with anything that would. Why not leave it to the states to decide? Our republic is kinda cool like that.

As usual, my issue with the whole healthcare thing is this... My government would FORCE me to surrender the fruits of my labor to support people who did not earn it, more than they do already. Government is force, there are no two ways about it. This country was founded on the concept of individual liberty and that government, especially on the federal level, was a necessary evil. So....


Why in world would we want to surrender something as personal and intimate as our health care to the federal government? Do we REALLY think it would get BETTER? Further, how do we pay for it? Knowing that government programs almost never come in at or under budget.

Its the highest level of insanity. We would, with the stroke of a pen, damn our posterity to effectual slavery to the government that is supposed to ensure our liberty.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.

[Cataholic]

I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.

I could not agree with you more. There HAS to be a better system then some claims adjuster (without any medical training whatsoever) determining benefits.

[lizbud]

I agree word usage changes over time. So many things have.

Medical care at the time the constitution was written was something you hoped to survive rather than something to help you survive. It consisted mostly of cupping, bleeding, some leaches now and then.

That is why I believe we need to look at the constitution not as a static thing but as something that has different meanings in different times just as words do.

When the constitution was written the men writing it had a distrust of the "rabble." Their intent was to keep control within the group of land owning white men. Senators were elected by the state politicians. Only the house of representatives were elected directly - by those who had the vote.

This did not include women, blacks - free or slaves, Native Americans or white men who did not own property.

That would not be acceptable today. The meaning of "we the people" has grown and changed with our country. And thankful, the constitution was written so it can grow and change as well.

And that includes the rather broad phrase - general welfare.

Well said. This description of the era when the Constitution was
written should be kept in mind when talking about what was the original
intent of the framers.

[Lady's Human]

blacks - free or slaves

Wrong. If you are going to make a comment about the history of the constitution, please, please fact check before you do.

Free blacks had the vote in many of the original states, including 2 slave states (Md and NC):

In 1790, free black men could vote on equal terms with whites in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Free black men were enfranchised in the new states of Kentucky in 1792 and Tennessee in 1796, although the right was removed in Kentucky in 1798 and in Tennessee in 1834.

The difference between enfranchising various groups over time is that it has been done within the frame of the constitution through the amendment process.

If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.

[RICHARD]

It's leeches, with a "C".

And check out the use of cautery.


Taking a saw, cutting of the offending limb, then taking a heated rod and burning shut the part that bled.


No deductibles or insurance worries!

[Edwina's Secretary]

It's leeches, with a "C".

And check out the use of cautery.


Taking a saw, cutting of the offending limb, then taking a heated rod and burning shut the part that bled.


No deductibles or insurance worries!

You are going to be in trouble! Correcting my spelling. I will await your chastisement...

[Edwina's Secretary]

Wrong. If you are going to make a comment about the history of the constitution, please, please fact check before you do.

Free blacks had the vote in many of the original states, including 2 slave states (Md and NC):

In 1790, free black men could vote on equal terms with whites in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Free black men were enfranchised in the new states of Kentucky in 1792 and Tennessee in 1796, although the right was removed in Kentucky in 1798 and in Tennessee in 1834.

The difference between enfranchising various groups over time is that it has been done within the frame of the constitution through the amendment process.

If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.

Okee dokee...I read it in a book the other day...about how Andrew Jackson in 1828 gave white men without property to ability to vote. Are you right and I wrong. Okay...how about the rest of it? Some of the disenfranchising came from things like poll taxes ,etc. Some Native Americans did not get the right to vote until the 1960's...unless again...evrything in the book was wrong.

I am not interested in adding the the powers etc. of the federal government. I am not sure what that is in reference to...

[Lady's Human]

As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

[RICHARD]

As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

See, that's what happens when you are too focused on the topic at hand.

You aren't easily distracted.

[Edwina's Secretary]

As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

You know...I have great respect and admiration for your constitutional knowledge. You and Grace. I may not agree with your application but I repect your knowledge.

Not sure why you are wanting a fight. You corrected me. I asked if the rest of what I wrote was wrong.


You must have missed where I wrote that I accept you are right and I wrong.???


I guess you don't want to discuss. That's okay too.

[Lady's Human]

Mea Culpa. That I misread.


The voting rights in this country have expanded in fits and starts over the centuries, and occasionally contracted, but the general progression has been liberalization.

It wasn't just a bunch of dead white guys voting from the onset.

Guys, yes. White, not necessarily.

(though, last time I checked, it was still illegal for a Native American to enter the City of Boston.....so much for the liberal, enlightened Commonwealth of Massachusetts....so how in heck are they supposed to vote?)

[RICHARD]

Mea Culpa. That I misread.


The voting rights in this country have expanded in fits and starts over the centuries, and occasionally contracted, but the general progression has been liberalization.

It wasn't just a bunch of dead white guys voting from the onset.

Guys, yes. White, not necessarily.

(though, last time I checked, it was still illegal for a Native American to enter the City of Boston.....so much for the liberal, enlightened Commonwealth of Massachusetts....so how in heck are they supposed to vote?)

So, Bo gets two votes?

So, What happens when Cleveland is on the schedule?

[blue]

If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.

This would be the proper way to address the issue of HCR.

Otherwise, lets have Health Insurance Reform. Health Care proffesionals are doing a good job. Rein in the HI co's, impliment tort reform, and most of the problems go away.

[Puckstop31]

I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.

So a underpaid and overworked government employee is better than what we have now? You really don't think cost will be a factor in decisions made by a government run plan?

A government run plan can be a LOT worse. But, as a compromise I, for example, think it would be interesting to let the states decide for themselves what to do. Let the results of a few states trying it decide. Just not PA please. LOL I worked for 2 years as a contractor to the PA State Medicade system. Specifically in the claims processing department. I had the "pleasure" of being able to kibbutz in on some phone calls.

Government should lay the groundwork/rules and then let the private economy actually do the work. Why not start with eliminating the "pre-existing condition" rules.... Tort reform.... If fedzilla gets a hold of something as huge as our healthcare... When it starts to suck, where do you turn?

I wish I could be an optimist when it comes to my government. But I form my opinions based on RESULTS and not "good intentions". Government is not very efficient or cost effective at what it does now... I cannot understand why anyone would want to entrust their health care to them.