Health Care

I believe it's covered in the Preamble, with the words "Promote the General Welfare."

I am pretty certain that "the general welfare" of the People of The United States would include their health, wouldn't you?

So would providing them with free food, free transportation, free housing, etc., etc. "General welfare" is a loaded term that was hotly debated during the Founding because they feared it would be used precisely the way you are suggesting.

Also, who gets to decide what is best for MY welfare if not ME?
 
When Governor Bush of Texas pushed through TARP,

where in the Constitution was that authorized?

Nowhere, which is why it was wrong. Part of the reason that his approval numbers went so low is because he pulled off liberal crap like this while claiming to be a Republican.

I didn't see much of a groundswell of liberal opposition to the idea, either...

Nice "Two wrongs make a right" argument, though. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not buying the libertarian line of less government is better. There is a certain point at which you must enforce a common set of minimum living standards. We have vagrancy laws to keep people from setting up home in public spaces because otherwise some would (and clearly demonstrate in many places), making public spaces less safe. At this point, I think it is proven that a certain set of the population needs governement rules to keep them from becoming vagrants in our healthcare system, setting up camp in our ERs and making the healthcare system unworkable from a financial standpoint.

Everything is a shade of gray.

I agree. Let's face it, while a libertarian ideal is great, in reality we do need SOME boundaries.

However, enforcement of "a common set of minimum living standards" is something to be approached with extreme caution. To begin, "minimum" is highly debatable, as is "standards".

Our problem with lack of governmental restraint is a bigger problem. I would suggest that the root causes there are a poorly educated populace (there is no reason for a government to educate its citizens in the ideas of rational reasoning much less limiting government and a lack of visibility of their actions). That is another topic for another debate.

I agree with you 100%. :smile:
 
Nowhere, which is why it was wrong. Part of the reason that his approval numbers went so low is because he pulled off liberal crap like this while claiming to be a Republican.

I didn't see much of a groundswell of liberal opposition to the idea, either...

Nice "Two wrongs make a right" argument, though. :rolleyes:

No way, you can't re-write history.

I recall he expanded Medicare and doubled the size of the Department of Education in his first term, And he was re-elected in 2004.

His approval ratings went south when the country saw his incompetence in Hurricane Katrina and Iraq, and when he tried to push through an UNPOPULAR Social Security initiative... (which is why the Party of No lost the 2006 and 2008 elections hands-down). Rick Santorum and George Allen were as conservative as it comes, and they got stamped out.

Oh, and can you also let me know where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the right to fund covert coups in other countries?
 
Last edited:
Have you seen what hospitals charge and what insurance pays, the difference in crazy.

Oh, I agree! But there are several reasons for it:

1) To begin with, a lot of the technology involved in medical care isn't cheap. I know, as I work for a medical device company and know what's involved in the background and what the costs are.

2) Frivolous malpractice suits drive up doctor costs and hospital visit costs.

3) Uninsured/nonpaying freeloaders drive up the costs.

4) The fact that someone ELSE (be it insurance, government, employer, etc.) is paying means that there is no reason for the consumer to press for lower rates, and no reason for the provider to offer them,

If any other industry had 2 tiers of charges, the would be in jail.

Not sure how that applies to your example, but companies provide tiers of charges all the time. Compare Business Class to Coach next time you want to fly somewhere....

That is why minute clinics are thriving 65 bucks for strep/UTI then out the door.

Which proves my point. Clinics mostly charge cash, so you are in, out, bill paid, and services rendered. If it works in a clinic, it will work in a hospital.

The other issue is Drs carrying sh*% loads of student debt, they are going into speciality practices to gain higher pay to cover the debt loads. So now we have a shortage of Family Practice, General Practice and Peds docs.

And? What do you propose, forcing medical students to stay where they don't want to be? Would you be willing to have your salary artificially restricted because someone else thought you should be a janitor instead of a manager?

Businesses and states are now coming on board that something has to be done.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done. All I am saying is that everything being proposed these days as a "fix" is simply a repackaging of the same garbage that has caused our current problems. Doing more of the same isn't going to solve anything.
 
No way, you can't re-write history.

Who's rewriting history? Bush was horrible when it came to fiscal policy. With the exception of tax cuts, he was decidedly liberal, and the results show it.

As for being reelected, it was your side that chose an obnoxiously arrogant hypocritical POS northeast liberal career liar to be your candidate. Deal with the results.

Oh, and can you also let me know where in the Constitution it gives the federal government to fund covert coups in other country?

Show me what covert coup has been funded, and I'll explain it to you.


You really are a liberal-talking-point regurgitation machine, aren't you? :yllol:
 
A little reminder

Okay everyone....

Just a reminder to everyone (new members and old alike) to stay on topic and try and avoid any personal attacks of other members.

This is a hot-topic and can create heated debate as we are having. As long as the debate is kept civilized I'll leave the thread open. If it continues down some of the paths the thread has tried to take I'll be more than happy to close the thread.

Play nice in the sandbox with everyone and the boat can keep sailing.
 
No, it isn't.
by lawyers who want to get rich by suing it.

This is so true. Malpractice insurance is a HUGE cost for healthcare providers, and it is one that gets passed on to the consumer. And most malpractice suits are frivilous attempts to get rich for the lawyers and the plaintiffs. Its essentially a lottery.
 
All of this is just another power grab. Once the .gov pays for yourt healthcare, they've got you by the short and curlies from birth through death. They will be able to madate your diet, your habits, your employment, your recreation, everything. If you don't comply, they'll cut you off and you'll be screwed because you will have NOWHERE ELSE to go. This is interesting because that's exactly the sort of thing all the free-healthcare-for-everyone idiots are constantly decrying the insurance companies of doing, when they DON'T!
Soooo true
 
Back
Top