• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

health care reform q.'s

Migrated topic.

Spock's Brain

Rising Star
recent news is that the AARP is in support of Obama's health care reform plan, and many seniors are saying they'll tear up their membership cards in disagreement.

What I don't get is: Old people allready get government health care coverage, ie. medicare, so why would the AARP be for expanding that coverage to all citizens? 'All citizens' are not the focus and constituency of the AARP.

Any Ideas?

What else I don't get about the health care reform proposal is:

Where in the Constitution's list of enumerated powers of government, is the government given the authority for spending on medical care? I can't find it listed.

It's not the "general welfare clause," as it would be a major slice of government expenditure, can't interpret the constitution to broadly grant any and all spending in that provision.

Any ideas?
 
The federal government has no authority to set up a government health care program. Constitutionally. The states however have ever authority to do so. So yes the federal government technically has no business getting involved in most of what it gets involved with including health care.

Old people just don't want to lose cash they see it as if medicare gets expanded to everyone that they will have to lose something. So its pure selfishness.

The general welfare clause is in reference to everything that is listed after. I think it goes something like "congress has power to provide for general welfare" and then it goes on to list what that means. At least thats one way of looking at it. I doubt the founders would have been so unclear as to just say general welfare as they themselves were against such kinds of vague arbitrary powers.

The whole healthcare debate is so polarized and confusing that nothing about it really makes any sense. I think we need more competition in the healthcare industry and less monopolizing by HMO's insurance companies and pharm companies. We need legislation to promote that kind of competition and remove some of the corrupt practices. It wouldn't be that hard and it wouldn't over stretch the governments power. Plus it would free up money to take care of those who really need it without increasing tax burden on rest of us.
 
burnt said:
The federal government has no authority to set up a government health care program. Constitutionally. The states however have ever authority to do so. So yes the federal government technically has no business getting involved in most of what it gets involved with including health care.

From what lawful provision(s) would you say the (federal) government garners the authority to get involved in what it "technically has no business getting involved in?"

What would you say the motivation of the AARP is in supporting "healthcare reform," not catering to their constituent demographic?
 
Hey Spock
Good post man I dont have a elaborate response at this time but its good to see people thinking about things. We should all be posting things that seem important to us. All change begins with a thought in the mind. Keep thinking and keep posting. Thanks for your post.

PEACE
MV
 
I don't know why so many people in the states are against general healthcare. It's a good thing. It still costs you an arm and a leg in taxes or membership fees, but at least you won't go bankrupt after having your appendix femoved.
 
Its mostly fear mongering that makes so people afraid. Personally I don't see much of a problem with a dual approach. Remove most of the anti competition regulations that make private health care so messed up and at the same time provide a fair public program that you don't have to join if you don't want. If you don't join you get a tax break so that way its fair. I think its the most fair and free approach. That way competition can bring down prices. But it requires a number of other shifts in legislation for example patent law needs to change. Companies value shouldn't be based on how many patents they own it keeps drug prices really high.

From what lawful provision(s) would you say the (federal) government garners the authority to get involved in what it "technically has no business getting involved in?"

Well its 100% within state authority to set up programs like this. America was not meant constitutionally to have such a powerful federal government. The federal government does what ever it wants it doesn't care about its own rule of law. It applies to everyone else except itself.
 
investment in prevention is the key to any country's health care system....

health care has become big business and is treated as such, with measures being taken always to maximize profit instead of to optimize the other different variables (such as the health of the people involved and so on). How much of the health problems nowadays are because of bad eating/lack of exercise/unhealthy habits ? A lot, thats for sure..

People in any health care system, public or private, should be assigned to some general doctor and specialists as needed, to help them create a plan of becoming healthier. It shouldnt be just: 'when you have a symptom call one of these doctors on a list that you think has more to do with the symptom'.

A change in health system would also mean a bit more of sanity.. For example, mcdonalds advertisement in sports competitions is absurd! It goes to show how insane and based only on money this whole thing is made.

We need a change in paradigm fast fast... Investment in education, prevention and development of healthy habits would be rewarded tenfold in no time
 
do you think one way to make people be healthier is to force them to accept the reality that healing costs money? if people never have to pay directly for their health via employer based insurance or a government program what do they care? what is the other option? Force people to eat a certain way or to not smoke or drink? who decides whats healthy and whats not? i can eat hamburgers and fat and not gain any weight. now of course i know when i get older ill have to be more careful but thats my responsibility not someone else.

now of course there are many many health conditions that are not caused by unhealthy habits. that you can't always prevent. how do you distinguish between the two types of diseases and how should resources be directed to treating or preventing one or the other?

my main objection to government run healthcare is that its not really run by people and their doctors its run by beaurocrats who just look at numbers. its the same with private health insurance though and the health management organizations. they just drive up costs. healthcare needs to be more personal and between doctors and patients not a slew of middlemen who really just drive up costs (thats all HMO's and health insurance companies are really doing). they have no way of really knowing what works and what doesn't. they have no way of really knowing where resources need to be directed. hospital managers and doctors and the people they interact with do even if there is a profit motive.

is the problem with the entire concept of insurance? should insurance encompass all of healthcare? i don't think so, what so wrong with paying for a drug out of pocket? if you can't afford then you get insurance or some other kind of deal through public support. i think insurance should be geared more towards emergencies and towards people who have difficult conditions.

healthcare is a complicated issue all around. ive gone back and forth on looked at many view points. also in my work i see the problems in the drug industry i could go on about how deep it runs but thats a long story. i think we need more healthy competition and then people will be better able to afford helping out the less fortunate.
 
burnt said:
do you think one way to make people be healthier is to force them to accept the reality that healing costs money. if people never have to pay directly for their health via employer based insurance of a government program what do they care? what is the other option? Force people to eat a certain way or to not smoke or drink? who decides whats healthy and whats not. i can eat hamburgers and fat and not gain any weight. now of course i know when i get older ill have to be more careful but thats my responsibility not someone elses.

now of course there are many many health conditions that are not caused by unhealthy habits. how do you distinguish between the two?

my main objection to government run healthcare is that its not really run by people and their doctors its run by beaurocrats who just look at numbers. its the same with private health insurance.

is the problem with the entire concept of insurance? should insurance encompass all of healthcare? i don't think so, what so wrong with paying for a drug out of pocket. i think insurance should be geared more towards emergencies and towards people who have difficult conditions.

healthcare is a complicated issue all around. ive gone back and forth on looked at many view points. also in my work i see the problems in the drug industry i could go on about how deep it runs but thats a long story.


Nobody said anything about forcing people.. It should be optional....

But point is, in the, so-called 'health care', public or private, the health itself is simply left at the mercy of luck, because what it is is a 'disease care'. It is only focused on the symptoms, on pointing people out when something shows up and give the according medication, with the most ingenious ways of making the most profit or least costs in the process.

One can sign up to a health insurance without ever talking to a single doctor.. They just sign and pay. Where is the health part? I think it would pay off if one would invest in having more personal doctors that would get to know the people, talk about their habits, advise, give the opportunity of checking up if the person so desires..

Think about it, one problem may show up as a skin eruption and the people go to a skin doctor, but maybe it is actually caused by a liver disease which they started having some time before. A more personal 'family' doctor that would be accompaning this person would have seen the evolution of things, would connect the symptoms, would suggest more open minded paths to take, where to go next.

But medicine has become the medicine of the specialist, which people consume just like they consume anything else. They look at a catalogue, choose what pleases them the most, go to the doctor, and of course the doctors are happy with their 'clients' and will do just about anything to make the most out of your shopping.

Its all twisted
 
Hello all. I came on here specifically to see if someone had started a thread like this, because I wanted to post this UK article:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/55620/ said:
Why I'll never understand Americans
Fri Aug 14 10:15AM
The hatred the American right has shown the NHS in recent days is just one more reason why I'll never understand our cousins across the Atlantic.

By Ian Dunt

I took an American cousin of mine to Paris once and as we walked around I asked if she thought Britain, where she'd stayed for most of her trip, was more like America or France. 'France,' she replied instantly. It was a far cry from when I had travelled around Latin America, and had French students tell me how they found Brits and Americans interchangeable.

It's one of the effects of Britain's weird, charming relationship with the world. We're a third European, a third American and third something else - something unique to ourselves. But every so often you take a look at what one of your American or French cousins are doing and think: what the hell?

If you've been paying any attention to the debate on President Obama's healthcare reform on the other side of the Atlantic, you'll know what I mean. Personally, it only came across my radar once American right wingers started mocking the NHS.

The charismatic, but extraordinarily foolish Tory MEP Daniel Hannan has been on US television saying he wouldn't "wish the NHS on anyone". Presumably that doesn't include sick, poor people. Or even sick people with some money stashed away. Adverts have been prominently shown making the NHS out to be some sort of death factory, casually condemning people if they fail to meet certain age criteria. Sarah Palin, whose idiocy is so vast she needs no introduction, has branded the NHS "evil". And town hall meeting after town hall meeting - all free to watch on the internet - have seen irate American right-wingers harangue speakers as they describe any move (and Obama's moves are very tentative) to universal healthcare as a Communist coup against the republic.

Watching these debates is like reading National Geographic. It's just impossible, from a European perspective, to understand what these people are on about. Their political views seem as backwards and removed from the world we live in as a shaman casting magic spells.

The angry opponents of Obama's reforms would do well to actually have a debate, rather than spew out foolish lies. The death panel accusation is not politics. It is just a lie. That's all it is. It has no place in political discourse. It's not even worthy of childhood discourse. It should be considered outside of acceptable debate, like racism or physical violence. That right-wing pundits and insurance companies are free to promote this nonsense is a damning indictment on the entire system. Personally, I'd be fairly indifferent, and wouldn't deign to comment on another country's way of doing things, were it not for the fact that they're now telling lies about the NHS, and that is intolerable.

Upsettingly, I have some sympathy for the philosophical origin of many of the argument used by Obama's opponents, in that they originate from a suspicion of government. Government and the state (which are not as distinct in reality as academics will tell you) are together the most dangerous organisation in the world. The American mentality lies in a never-ending attempt to limit government to the smallest possible size. Quite right too. Unfortunately, I'm equally suspicious of the private sector, which, by definition, does not allow for democratic control of power. It's my suspicion of the state and the private sector which ensures, by the way, that I have no political allegiances whatsoever.

But the philosophical argument for limiting government is based on freedom - freedom from state intrusion into our lives. To apply this to universal healthcare is very sloppy thinking.

Freedom applies to all, not just the rich. The freedom of a rich man to pay less tax does not overrule the freedom of the poor to live. This is such an obvious point that no civilised human being should ever need to have it explained to them. It appears they do.

Besides, basic human decency makes a debate over 'socialised healthcare', as the American right calls it, utterly irrelevant. If healthcare isn't a right - rather than a privilege - then I don't know what is. Healthcare isn't a Turkish delight chocolate bar, or a Jacuzzi. Healthcare is life.

Britons are a grumpy and irritable lot. I'm just the same. Whenever I sit in a dinner in America, I end up visibly shuddering in the wake of the meaningless, friendly noises churning endlessly from the person serving me. But we should occasionally take a little look around and realise the things that are great about our country. The NHS is one of those things. It is the cornerstone of Britain. It is the beating, human heart of this country.

The American right is correct. It is socialist. Nothing could be more socialist. It suits Marx's moral maxim perfectly: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In this case, the ability is the ability to pay, and the need is the need of care. It is not, in actual fact, the state or the government which is responsible for the NHS. It is us. We pay for it. We use it. The state is merely a prism through which the money and the care must pass. The NHS is us taking care of each other.

We live in a mixed economy. We aim to have enough free market to control the state, and provide the things we want. But we also need enough socialism to ensure we do not live like savages, the weakest amongst us starving to death on the street while a rich woman buys a Gucci handbag. Socialism without capitalism turns to tyranny. Capitalism without socialism turns to barbarism.

The sooner Americans realise the truth of a mixed economy, the better their world will become. In the meantime, their right-wing pundits should learn from the NHS, not mock it.

I also thought it was funny how he talks about shamans casting magic spells, haha added interest for us on the Nexus!

I have no idea what Obama's reforms entail, but I just wanted to give a European (well a UK) perspective on the argument. Basically, most people here use state healthcare. Some rich people or particular people of lower incomes use private healthcare.

There is no opt-out clause over here as Burnt suggests where you don't pay your healthcare taxes if you don't want the cover- on the one hand I think that's a good idea, but on the other I think it's dangerous because some optimists will end up dying because they thought they were healthy and didn't need cover. What kind of society lets someone die of cancer untreated because they didn't pay their healthcare taxes? Better and simpler the way it is, with everyone contributing. And I imagine that often complicating things just increases taxes for everyone due to the army of bureaucrats required, which is exactly what the government wants. You could go into things like charging people more when they make themselves unhealthy through lifestyle choices like eating junk that makes them fat, smoking and drinking etc, but I bet the bureaucracy and suspicious form-filling would outweigh any benefits. The only opt-out clause I want is for war. Healthcare should be shared for all, believe me it makes for a more stable society.
 
One can sign up to a health insurance without ever talking to a single doctor.. They just sign and pay. Where is the health part? I think it would pay off if one would invest in having more personal doctors that would get to know the people, talk about their habits, advise, give the opportunity of checking up if the person so desires..

Think about it, one problem may show up as a skin eruption and the people go to a skin doctor, but maybe it is actually caused by a liver disease which they started having some time before. A more personal 'family' doctor that would be accompaning this person would have seen the evolution of things, would connect the symptoms, would suggest more open minded paths to take, where to go next.

i agree very much. but its important to realize that in the U.S. HMO companies force doctors to see a specific amount of people and only spend specific amounts of time with each patient. they also force them to treat disease in a certain way. how is it a free market in anything if companies control doctors? so the government creates legislation to force people to use HMO's and other similar groups but all they do is force doctors to do things in a way that maximizes profits for insurance companies. it makes no sense its not freedom and its not helping anybody except insurance companies. it also make doctors want to be specialists instead of general practitioners. because general practitioners are the most brutalized by these rules and system. they can't practice medicine the way they want.



concerning the article oyahocoo posted. i agree with the author that the american right is basically insane and deluded and paranoid. but i don't agree that capitalism without socialism is barbarism. the government has a role to protect people from the evils that a business can do. it also has a role to help the less fortunate. but that doesn't mean it knows whats best for peoples health. it doesn't no one does.

many people seem to equate free market systems in anything especially healthcare to a kind of evolutionary survival of the fittest. i don't agree with that. in capitalism people must cooperate to survive and prosper. in socialism the government just controls the means of production which it may or may not do a good job but it will always do a worse job then an unrestrained market. by unrestrained it does'nt mean business can do whatever it wants there must be limits and controls. but those limits and controls should NEVER discourage competition.

There is no opt-out clause over here as Burnt suggests where you don't pay your healthcare taxes if you don't want the cover- on the one hand I think that's a good idea, but on the other I think it's dangerous because some optimists will end up dying because they thought they were healthy and didn't need cover. What kind of society lets someone die of cancer untreated because they didn't pay their healthcare taxes? Better and simpler the way it is, with everyone contributing. And I imagine that often complicating things just increases taxes for everyone due to the army of bureaucrats required, which is exactly what the government wants. You could go into things like charging people more when they make themselves unhealthy through lifestyle choices like eating junk that makes them fat, smoking and drinking etc, but I bet the bureaucracy and suspicious form-filling would outweigh any benefits. The only opt-out clause I want is for war. Healthcare should be shared for all, believe me it makes for a more stable society.

i don't think they should get a full 100% tax break rebate but a fair portion they get back.

but people miss the whole point. we need healthcare and that doesn't mean we need health insurance. why is healthcare so expensive? because of insurance companies and middle men and restrictions that discourage competitivenss that lowers costs.



i guess the entire crux of my argument is that YES we should take care of the less fortunate. but the best way to have less unfortunate people is to have a market that is striving to increase quality of healthcare and lower costs at the same time. in a public system there is no real way of doing this. sure public systems can work but they are far slower to improve and be innovative. so that way the normal everyday person can afford to stay in a hospital and to buy drugs and see doctors. and then those who are less fortunate we will be better able to care for. that doesn't mean we leave them out until we can afford it i think thats wrong. public healthcare isn't free nothing is free. but i do think there should be a pool of money to help people who can't afford healthcare. there is nothing wrong with that. but to me there is something wrong with socializing the means of production in all aspects of the healthcare system. i can explain in detail why but thats another story i guess. my head is a bit foggy right now so i may not be very coherant.
 
I don't understand why in the USA, the states themselves don't organize a good health program.

This would innevitably lead to different programs in different states and after a ten year period everybody can see wich programs are very effective and cost-efficient and wich programs aren't.

From this side of the atlantic it sometimes looks like some americans are so obsessively afraid of communism, that they rather have an extremely expensive non-functional healthcare system than to have an effective government. An effective government is something americans seem to fear deeply, because it would make the USA look a tiny, little bit more like a communist state.

I think if the states themselves would start a good healthcare program, you could expect the very civilized and liberal states to adept a good system that would probably be superior to even most european systems, and the bible-belt states would be equipped with totally inferior systems, wich is what the people over there passionately claim they want anyway, so that way everybody get's what they want.
 
Spock's Brain said:
burnt said:
The federal government has no authority to set up a government health care program. Constitutionally. The states however have ever authority to do so. So yes the federal government technically has no business getting involved in most of what it gets involved with including health care.

From what lawful provision(s) would you say the (federal) government garners the authority to get involved in what it "technically has no business getting involved in?"

So, do we need a constitutional amendment to implement an national healthcare program since it's not in the government's list of enumerated powers listed in the constitution?

Wouldn't that require a 2/3's vote of the legislature, and a ratification process by the 50 states?
 
Technically if it was federal then yes spock I think you do. Of course I am not an expect in constitutional law but just from reading the document it seems thats the case.

I don't understand why in the USA, the states themselves don't organize a good health program.

This would innevitably lead to different programs in different states and after a ten year period everybody can see wich programs are very effective and cost-efficient and wich programs aren't.

I agree but federal government strangles states funding.

From this side of the atlantic it sometimes looks like some americans are so obsessively afraid of communism, that they rather have an extremely expensive non-functional healthcare system than to have an effective government. An effective government is something americans seem to fear deeply, because it would make the USA look a tiny, little bit more like a communist state.

The U.S. doesn't need its government to become more communist to work. The US govt needs to stop meddling and protecting large industries while at the same time draining money from its people and squandering it on war and idiocy.
 
burnt said:
The U.S. doesn't need its government to become more communist to work. The US govt needs to stop meddling and protecting large industries while at the same time draining money from its people and squandering it on war and idiocy.

I think I'm starting to catch on as to why burnt is an "infinite being."
 
Why are some people making such a big deal out of this 'public option'?

Seriously; the fact that some people at fox compare obama with hitler because he wants to give everybody and not just the rich and famous, acces to good healthcare is so ridiculous that every reasonable person just has to see that these rightwing dudes in the USA are completely crazy and out of touch with reality.

I don't understand that you cannot say 'fuck' on american national television, but that you can openly infect people with this demonic, carcinogenic, poisonous, rightwing slander and lies.

There will always be 'joe-the-plumbers' who do not have more brain capacity then a cockroach, who're just bitter and dissapointed in live because of their own misserable existence, the white trash, with their fat asses and ugly faces that realy do look like potatoes. And ofcourse society needs those people, since someone has to pick up the garbage, so others can perform brain surgery, design airplanes or write novels.
But when the political culture starts to twist everything around and loath the intellectual elite and everyone who's got a degree and when the dumbest segment of the population becomes the elite, things are bound to end in a pool of stinking shit and piss.

Stalin also did this; putting the 'joe-the-plumbers' in charge of the country, the least educated, the lowest of the lowes lowlives.

We know these people are dissatisfied with live and that they hate everything that lives and breathes. But putting them in charge is not going to make anyone happier.
We know this, because it has been tried before.
Even in the USA, with the previous administration.

Even in a civilised space like america, it immediately leads to illegal prisons (how, ironic that now the right wings are accusing obama of building concentration camps) torture and rape, illegal war's based on lies, massive censorship of the (supposedly free) media and massive corruption and the stealing billions of dollars of taxpayers money.

Can the ugly people of the earth not simply accept that as because of generations of subsequence inbreed, they are not suited to have a say in anything?

EDIT:
Excuse me, i sometimes say a little outrages thibgs when i'm realy angry.
Let me defend myself here. The fact the of all people, those who've always enthousiastically defended the bush administration, dare to compare of all people obama and his administration with hitler, and accusing him and his administration of secretly building concentration camps just makes me feel..... as if all reason is meaningless in dealing with these people.
I realy think that the fox channel is nothing but nazi propaganda and i can say this confidently, because if they think it's alright to call obama hitler, it's definately alright for me to accuse them of the same thing, given the fact that the administration they supported HAD build illegal concentration camps, while there are not even slight indications that the obama administration is doing the same.
 
Polytrip in many ways I agree. The conservatives are going all out with fear mongering and delusion and hysteria. Its actually pathetic to watch. Its also pathetic to watch how many people are duped into irrational fear. Calling Obama a fascist is absurd.

Many countries have fine healthcare systems that utilized public option and it covers everyone which is great.

My main argument is not against the public option but rather to encourage competition and innovation via market forces. This can work in a public versus private and private versus private situation. The U.S. health industry is very innovative because of this and some treatment options far out beat other nations. But they are too expensive. So the market is encouraging innovation but not cutting costs. This is because laws are set up and the government is protecting very specific industries from competition. Just look at big drug companies and patents and the argument about generic drugs to see what I mean.

Also constitutionally it is legal for states to make public health care options and I think this is better then a federal program. Mainly because some states will find the best system and the ones that mess up won't effect the entire country and will have a change to adapt their system. In other words I don't think a one size fits all will work in a country as big as the U.S. while in smaller EU countries it works much better.
 
But I'm still asking as in my original question, how public healthcare could be legal, as it's not listed in the constitution's list of the governments enumerated powers. I'm still asking if we need a constitutional amendment. I'm reading all what you say about your political opinions, but that's not what I'm asking.
 
If the constitution doesn't say that anything the constitution doesn't say is illegal, then i don't see why i would be illegal.
Also, if there would be a public option, then all the hysteria about civil rights being at stake is bullshit, since then the public actually would have a choice, so nothing is forced upon anybody.

The constitution may say something, but the fuzz is about what it means. Never what it literally says.
It means that the government should not interfere with all kinds of civl liberties, unless...
Interference in civil liberty's is not what health reform is all about.

But i'm not an american, so i may not be most suited explaining the US constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom