| American Politics Forum for political discussion that applies specifically to the United States. |
 | | 
15th April 2010, 12:35 AM
|  | Gumby
   
| | Join Date: 18th June 2008
Posts: 596
Blessings: 52,295
Reps: 2,081,327,532,471,454 (power: 2,081,327,532,475) | | Originally Posted by wpiman2  Better make sure they are overstaffed so that even a natural disaster could be easily handled.
Most hospitals do the best they can with the resources available. But even when resources are limited, having a right to health care does not guarantee you'll be cured each and every time you seek it.
And yes, in the event of a natural disaster, you may not even be treated if there are people with more serious injuries or health issues ahead of you.
-- A2SG, sometimes, triage is necessary..... |
15th April 2010, 12:54 AM
| | Gumby
| | Join Date: 18th June 2008
Posts: 596
Blessings: 52,295
Reps: 2,081,327,532,471,454 (power: 2,081,327,532,475) | | Originally Posted by Jesusfreak93 Apparently my friend, you have been misinformed. This healthcare bill has provisions to support abortion through taxpayer dollars.
Nope, that's incorrect. President Obama even issued an executive order on that. And provide mandatory healthcare to citizens.
The government does not provide healthcare to anyone. Doctors and nurses still do that. All the bill ensures is that people will have access to health care and health insurance. There isn't even a public option for government sponsored health insurance in the bill, let alone government provided health care services, which no one has ever even suggested. If you take time to research before posting, you may find you actually understand the topic.
I have, and I do. But, since you seem to have a grasp of facts that are not in evidence anywhere I can see, perhaps you would be so kind as to prove your assertions, as I've done above.
-- A2SG, rest assured, President Obama will not be taking out your gall bladder......  |
15th April 2010, 01:10 AM
| | Gumby
| | Join Date: 18th June 2008
Posts: 596
Blessings: 52,295
Reps: 2,081,327,532,471,454 (power: 2,081,327,532,475) | | Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen So people don't have a right to healthcare? Or they do have a right to healthcare?
I believe they should, but as it stands, there is no legal recognition of this, let alone protection of the right.
The health care reform bill is a step in the right direction, but only a step, as far as I'm concerned. Or they have a right to healthcare but it's not "guaranteed?"
Even if we acknowledged the right and did everything possible to secure it for all people, it could not be guaranteed. That is an unrealistic hope.
Even rich people, with the best insurance and access to the best doctors and hospitals, sometimes don't get the healthcare they need. See that's the problem with creating a right that creates an obligation on the part of someone else. Either it isn't a right, or you have to enslave someone to get it.
No enslavement is involved at any level here. Just as no enslavement is involved in police officers and fire fighters defending your property rights, or elected officals and government employees in providing your right to representation in government.
-- A2SG, you'd have to assume rights mean guarantees, and they never have, not even in the best of circumstances...... |
15th April 2010, 01:12 AM
| | Gumby
| | Join Date: 18th June 2008
Posts: 596
Blessings: 52,295
Reps: 2,081,327,532,471,454 (power: 2,081,327,532,475) | | Originally Posted by Wirraway you have a right to healthcare if your state says so. you don't have a federal right to something like obamaCare care under the federal constitution.
I'm curious, what part of the Constitution are you referring to here?
-- A2SG, and please, be specific about what part of the bill is unconstitutional, and provide evidence (citations, precedents) for your argument.... |
15th April 2010, 01:17 AM
| | Gumby
| | Join Date: 18th June 2008
Posts: 596
Blessings: 52,295
Reps: 2,081,327,532,471,454 (power: 2,081,327,532,475) | | Originally Posted by Jesusfreak93 The problem is that I have not simply Googled a topic to get a small idea of what it is about. I have talked to people, read literature, and seen news articles covering the bill. I would be happy to type up conversations, and yet, as it turns out, I have other things to do, such as homework, churchwork, and volunteer work.
Surely you have some of that literature and some of those news articles handy, just jot down where you got them (links would be nice, if possible) and what they say.
Also, the health care bill is available on line: Text of H.R.3200 as Reported in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
Feel free to quote any problemmatic parts to support these problems you seem to see, despite evidence to the contrary.
-- A2SG, and take your time, we'll be patient..... |
15th April 2010, 12:34 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
  
| | Join Date: 11th May 2005
Posts: 7,553
Blessings: 1,007,891
Reps: 1,495,147,958,621,932,544 (power: 1,495,147,958,621,946) | | Massachusetts has a form of the present Obamacare plan there. Insurance companies have to get permission from the government to raise rates.
The government says 'no', the insurance companies go bankrupt. Now we have some dink in Congress who sponsors a bill creating Government run health care.
__________________
For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of the incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it. - John Galt |
16th April 2010, 12:39 AM
| | Gumby
| | Join Date: 18th June 2008
Posts: 596
Blessings: 52,295
Reps: 2,081,327,532,471,454 (power: 2,081,327,532,475) | | Originally Posted by Steve Petersen
There is nothing in the article about anyone going bankrupt. The insurance companies may post losses for the year, but that's all it said. Now we have some dink in Congress who sponsors a bill creating Government run health care.
If you mean government run health INSURANCE, I'm all for it. I think a public option is necessary, it gives the insurance industry some competition and makes controlling costs a priority.
Also, the argument that health care costs are rising faster than insurance companies premiums may not be as honest as one would like to believe.
-- A2SG, insurance companies being less than absolutely honest, shocking, I know..... |
16th April 2010, 01:41 AM
|  | Senior Member
42  
| | Join Date: 6th October 2007 Location: Godless Massachusetts
Posts: 2,682
Blessings: 1,080,029 My Mood 
Reps: 10,191,232,619,729,428 (power: 10,191,232,619,736) | | Originally Posted by A2SG There is nothing in the article about anyone going bankrupt. The insurance companies may post losses for the year, but that's all it said.
If you mean government run health INSURANCE, I'm all for it. I think a public option is necessary, it gives the insurance industry some competition and makes controlling costs a priority.
Also, the argument that health care costs are rising faster than insurance companies premiums may not be as honest as one would like to believe.
-- A2SG, insurance companies being less than absolutely honest, shocking, I know.....
These are all nonprofit insurers- you want them to incur loses?
A public option will be like a GSE. It will create huge deficits and we will have to bail them out like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; except the numbers won't simply be in the hundreds of billions when we do. It will cost tens of trillions that we don't have. |
16th April 2010, 01:58 AM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 17th November 2008
Posts: 2,912
Blessings: 6,081,780 My Mood 
Reps: 437,939,671,773,099,904 (power: 437,939,671,773,105) | | Originally Posted by A2SG I'm curious, what part of the Constitution are you referring to here?
-- A2SG, and please, be specific about what part of the bill is unconstitutional, and provide evidence (citations, precedents) for your argument....
how do you want me to prove a negative? the right to health care is not among the rights found in the bill of rights or among the powers granted to congress in article 1. the "provide for the general welfare" clause has been discussed at length elsewhere in this thread (with case cites) and explained that it is part of the "tax and spend" clause that allows congress to lay taxes and spend money, but is not itself a source of any right.
state governments are not limited to specific grants of power and have general police powers which include the power to legislate on health issues. so if your state grants you a right to health care, you have it.
like most of congress, I haven't read the bill. blogs by constitutional experts talk about challenges based on arguments like I've outlined.
__________________
you say it best
when you say nothing at all |
16th April 2010, 03:11 AM
| | Gumby
| | Join Date: 18th June 2008
Posts: 596
Blessings: 52,295
Reps: 2,081,327,532,471,454 (power: 2,081,327,532,475) | | Originally Posted by wpiman2 These are all nonprofit insurers- you want them to incur loses?
Why not? Not like that's unheard of, they have reserves for that kinda thing.
Look, I understand that BC/BS is in a tough position, but there have to be answers that don't begin and end with double-digit rate increases. A public option will be like a GSE. It will create huge deficits and we will have to bail them out like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; except the numbers won't simply be in the hundreds of billions when we do. It will cost tens of trillions that we don't have.
Uh, wouldn't a public option be offered by the government? Why would they be bailing themselves out?
Also, if a public option is such a catastrophic idea, why hasn't Medicare, which has been a form of public option (albeit limited) for decades, brought on that kind of catastrophe yet?
As to the concerns about a large deficit, I have to ask: where was this concern over the past eight years when Dubya brought the deficit to unheard of levels to pay for a war we got into under false pretenses? The objection seems hollow coming from those who were silent during the Bush era.
-- A2SG, I say this generally, I have no idea what you, personally, have said on this issue during the Bush administration...... | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
