Health Care Reform - A View from a US Senate Candidate

[palemale]

Another "free market" fetishist, just what we need. The problem is that it is not based on reality. He hasn't said anything to indicate he has an understanding of the problem. Saying we should have affordable health insurance doesn't mean we will actually have it. What did he say he would do in the Senate that would lead to affordable health insurance for all?

 

[Seasoned]

As someone from the US who has had life saving surgery in the UK, I say bring on national health care.

 

[palemale]

I agree. I hope Senator Rubio is correct and the current health care reform efforts eventually lead to single payer system.

 

[NickCole]

"I think the goal should be to have an America where a vibrant private market, a competitve vibrant market allows people to buy health care coverage that they want at a price they can afford indepent of their employer. That's just a goal, I know it's not a plan, it's just a goal..."

Maybe he does not have an exact plan, I don't know. Perhaps it is better to have a goal than a preset plan to start implementing once you take on a new position. That way, it is easier to try to work with people instead of doing your own agenda, which is what is happening now.

No a goal is not better than a plan when we're in trouble and need solutions.

I mean, if you're on a sinking ship would you rather have a captain who says, "We need to reach shore," or "this is how we're going to reach shore"?

I have no problem with a private market health insurance that's totally free of government -- if it worked. But we've had that system and it's not working. So we need to fix it. If you or Mr. Rubio or anybody else has a plan that's better than a public option now would be a real good time to present it. But otherwise Rubio and other Republicans and Obama should please get out of the way because we're getting something accomplished.

 

[palemale]

My reason for framing the argument the way I did was to spark a debate about how this could be done. Moreover, I generally go by the motto "A job worth doing is worth doing right". One should not change something drastically lest we "die quickly" as Alan Grayson said, if we don't. I don't think this is a sinking ship and such legislation does not need to be rammed through just to get something done. It really seems that there are a few select individuals that are writing this legislation behind closed doors and nobody knows what's in it and it may be too late to reverse it once it begins. However, whatever happens, I hope that there will be legal challenges to any part that goes against the constitution.

Take a look at The Amish. Granted, most of us would not want to live their simplistic life but here is an interesting fact I found:


I believe this may have been brought up before, but I have never seen it on the MSM. The constitution does not have the authority to regulate health care, or for that matter, much of what else it tries to do. Here is a video clip from Judge Andrew Napolitano giving his view on this (yes, I know, another clip from the "evil" Fox News...actually Fox Business):



Do we really want our lawmakers doing what they think people want and then we can worry about the Constitution later? Maybe we could also take a lesson or two from the Amish and better arrange our priorities. This is just my two cents.

It's a good thing that Judge has a radio show, because if he had to ask where Congress has the authority to regulate health care, he isn't a very good judge. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution grants to Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to pass any laws necessary to carry out it's enumerated powers. What a stupid judge.

 

[Heliostat]

I'm firmly in the camp of a national healthcare system. My insurance company has repeatedly let me down.

I've got a very serious problem with the notion of "letting someone build a healthcare policy around their needs". You never know what is going to go wrong with your health, so you need to be insured for everything. If you let individuals choose a healthcare policy for "their needs" they will almost certainly be under-insured, which will not solve our national crisis. What good is it to buy insurance for some things, and gambling that you wont get other conditions? What do you do when you get an illness that isnt covered by your custom-tailored plan? You would go bankrupt, or die - and that's no better than what happens right now. We need one, all-encompasing plan available to everybody. If a public option does open the door to a future single-payer system, BRING IT ON! The single-payer systems are the most efficient, and broadest covering systems anyway, and that's what we need.

Nobody should have to pay out of pocket for healthcare - except maybe a small co-payment.

I hope the Republicans do get their chance to fillibuster the proposed healthcare bill. It will show the American people that the conservatives are heartless, selfish bastards who want everything for themselves and this "god" called the "Free Market" that they worship. To hell with peoples' lives and suffering, there's profit to be made!

 

[JB3]

I'm firmly in the camp of a national healthcare system. My insurance company has repeatedly let me down.

I've got a very serious problem with the notion of "letting someone build a healthcare policy around their needs". You never know what is going to go wrong with your health, so you need to be insured for everything. If you let individuals choose a healthcare policy for "their needs" they will almost certainly be under-insured, which will not solve our national crisis. What good is it to buy insurance for some things, and gambling that you wont get other conditions? What do you do when you get an illness that isnt covered by your custom-tailored plan? You would go bankrupt, or die - and that's no better than what happens right now. We need one, all-encompasing plan available to everybody. If a public option does open the door to a future single-payer system, BRING IT ON! The single-payer systems are the most efficient, and broadest covering systems anyway, and that's what we need.

Nobody should have to pay out of pocket for healthcare - except maybe a small co-payment.

I hope the Republicans do get their chance to fillibuster the proposed healthcare bill. It will show the American people that the conservatives are heartless, selfish bastards who want everything for themselves and this "god" called the "Free Market" that they worship. To hell with peoples' lives and suffering, there's profit to be made!

That's a very overly-simplistic view of the republican opposition, and one that discredits any argument you may have.

 

[NickCole]

My reason for framing the argument the way I did was to spark a debate about how this could be done. Moreover, I generally go by the motto "A job worth doing is worth doing right". One should not change something drastically lest we "die quickly" as Alan Grayson said, if we don't. I don't think this is a sinking ship and such legislation does not need to be rammed through just to get something done. It really seems that there are a few select individuals that are writing this legislation behind closed doors and nobody knows what's in it and it may be too late to reverse it once it begins. However, whatever happens, I hope that there will be legal challenges to any part that goes against the constitution.

Take a look at The Amish. Granted, most of us would not want to live their simplistic life but here is an interesting fact I found:


I believe this may have been brought up before, but I have never seen it on the MSM. The constitution does not have the authority to regulate health care, or for that matter, much of what else it tries to do. Here is a video clip from Judge Andrew Napolitano giving his view on this (yes, I know, another clip from the "evil" Fox News...actually Fox Business):



Do we really want our lawmakers doing what they think people want and then we can worry about the Constitution later? Maybe we could also take a lesson or two from the Amish and better arrange our priorities. This is just my two cents.

Well you're really neither here nor there.

Seems you just kinda want everything to be nice. Well sure, who doesn't. But that doesn't solve problems. Solutions solve problems. And health care coverage in this country right now is a huge problem that needs a bold solution.

Obviously health care reform should be done right. That's what I've been arguing for for a long time, with specifics. If you don't get down to specifics and fight for them, we end up with someone like Obama who doesn't fight for anything except a label that says Health Care Reform while failing to reform the biggest elements like drug and insurance price gouging. But you're too nice to criticize Obama -- I guess that makes you sane .

You like the way the Amish live, why aren't you living that way? Well the answer to that is the reason most other Americans aren't living that way and the reason our solutions to problems like health care coverage aren't similiar to solutions the Amish employ.

And there's nothing unconstitutional about health care reform. If you don't like it, say why you don't like it and suggest credible alternatives. But hiding behind nonsense like it's unconstitutional or the Amish have a better way is silly -- unless you're living like the Amish, in which case you'd have a principled position that deserves respect.

 

[palemale]

I did not say that I want to live like the Amish. I said that the majority of us would not want to live that way. I think that we sometimes take things for granted in our lives where others make it more of a priority. I was using the Amish to illustrate a point that when you make certain things paramount in your life, griping about what the government can or can't do for you seems trivial.

I am someone who likes to study other cultures and languages, even if for my own enrichment. Even if I may not want to live within the confines of a particular society, there is nothing wrong with trying to take something away from what I have learned. I do not have blinders on and know that specifics need to be shown. I am still waiting for that transparency we were promised. So far, I think most Americans have no idea what the government is cooking up behind closed doors.



So is what Judge Napolitano said not correct? Should we use the phrase "provide for the general welfare" for anything the government may want to do?

What Judge Napolitano said is not correct and in fact is stupid. No serious legal scholar, or any lawyer I know, believes as he does. It's right-wing silliness. Just look at the size of the federal government, and the needs it has addressed over the years. The courts have obviously not taken the view that Congress lacks the power to do what it did.

Of course, Judge Scalia said the other day he would have dissented in Brown v. Board of Education. Miserable bastard.

 

[NickCole]

I did not say that I want to live like the Amish. I said that the majority of us would not want to live that way. I think that we sometimes take things for granted in our lives where others make it more of a priority. I was using the Amish to illustrate a point that when you make certain things paramount in your life, griping about what the government can or can't do for you seems trivial.

If the conversation were about adding more parking lot space to the public high school because lots of kids like to drive to school, I'd agree. But health care is not trivial. And unless you have a better solution, the best one I've seen to the huge problem it's become in the US is for our government to step in and clean up some of the mess.

As an aside, to your point about the Amish, I agree that a life better lived is a life that's guided by principles, authenticity and well ordered priorities, which is a lesson the Amish can teach. It's possible to live that life within today's modern culture. It's more frustrating than being Amish in an Amish community because if you're Amish living among Amish the crowd is supportive, but today in mainstream American society things like principles and authenticity are not as highly valued as likability and good public relations. But it is possible.

So is what Judge Napolitano said not correct? Should we use the phrase "provide for the general welfare" for anything the government may want to do?

"The government" doesn't want to do anything. The government is a man-made institution that does what we tell it to.

We're a Democracy and the US Government is OUR government. Americans, by majority, want our government to step in with health care reform. So yes we should use the phrase "provide for the general welfare" for anything WE want OUR government to do.

 

[NickCole]

I am still waiting for that transparency we were promised.

Stop the presses!

Hold the phone!!

Nobody move!!!

That almost sounds like a direct criticism of the Obama administration!!!!

Did the Earth stop spinning?

Did hell freeze over?

Did the swallows not return to Capistrano?




Seriously: don't hold your breath. Obama is at least as secretive as Bush, and probably more so.

 

[Kulindahr]

What Judge Napolitano said is not correct and in fact is stupid. No serious legal scholar, or any lawyer I know, believes as he does. It's right-wing silliness. Just look at the size of the federal government, and the needs it has addressed over the years. The courts have obviously not taken the view that Congress lacks the power to do what it did.
.

No, he is correct -- we've just let things slide so long, and let Congress do any old thing it wants, that no one cares that the government is supposed to be limited.
Numerous chunks of the federal government have no basis in the Constitution: Education, Energy, HUD, and more. But the courts have decided that tradition outweight the Constitution, wo we're stuck.

"The government" doesn't want to do anything. The government is a man-made institution that does what we tell it to.

We're a Democracy and the US Government is OUR government. Americans, by majority, want our government to step in with health care reform. So yes we should use the phrase "provide for the general welfare" for anything WE want OUR government to do.

No, we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.

At least we were, once. This blind worship of the mob has led us down a path that is destroying belief in the real American dream, liberty.

Your view there is part of the problem: it says, Screw the laws, screw rights, screw checks and balances, let's just do what we like.

 

[hotatlboi]

Stop the presses!

Hold the phone!!

Nobody move!!!

That almost sounds like a direct criticism of the Obama administration!!!!

Did the Earth stop spinning?

Did hell freeze over?

Contrary to your ridiculous mental construction, not everyone on this forum is a blind follower of Obama that never can criticize anything he does just because we don't bash everything that comes out of his mouth and go to great lengths to associated him with anything negative no matter how tangentially related. There is a rational middle ground which sadly you can't seem to notice.

Seriously: don't hold your breath. Obama is at least as secretive as Bush, and probably more so.

Disagree 100% on a factual basis.

 

[JB3]

Contrary to your ridiculous mental construction, not everyone on this forum is a blind follower of Obama that never can criticize anything he does just because we don't bash everything that comes out of his mouth and go to great lengths to associated him with anything negative no matter how tangentially related. There is a rational middle ground which sadly you can't seem to notice.


Disagree 100% on a factual basis.

What facts? Obama said he would post all major legislation online for a review period, and has yet to do that with a single bill.

He has given special treatment to donors, without releasing information as requested:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/obama-gives-donors-specia_n_337096.html


He's just as secretive as Bush was, and has not fulfilled any of his promises with regards to transparency.

 

[palemale]

No, he is correct -- we've just let things slide so long, and let Congress do any old thing it wants, that no one cares that the government is supposed to be limited.
Numerous chunks of the federal government have no basis in the Constitution: Education, Energy, HUD, and more. But the courts have decided that tradition outweight the Constitution, wo we're stuck.







No, we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.

At least we were, once. This blind worship of the mob has led us down a path that is destroying belief in the real American dream, liberty.

Your view there is part of the problem: it says, Screw the laws, screw rights, screw checks and balances, let's just do what we like.

The constitution was written to stand the test of time, and it generally has. This nostaglia for operating the government as if we were still in the 18th Century is silly. The government has evolved to meet the challenges of the modern era. Had Roosevelt, not to mention presidents before him, not passed necessary legislation, there would likely have been social revolution and we would be living under a completely different constitution. Remember learning about the Articles of Confederation? That document was unworkable, and scrapped for the current constitution. Had the country done that during the depths of the Great Depression, there would have been a far different Constitution, one far more limiting of private property rights, states rights and vesting far more power in the federal government. The notion that the federal government could have continued to operate as if nothing had changed since the constitution was first drafted is ridiculous.

 

[JB3]

The constitution was written to stand the test of time, and it generally has. This nostaglia for operating the government as if we were still in the 18th Century is silly. The government has evolved to meet the challenges of the modern era. Had Roosevelt, not to mention presidents before him, not passed necessary legislation, there would likely have been social revolution and we would be living under a completely different constitution. Remember learning about the Articles of Confederation? That document was unworkable, and scrapped for the current constitution. Had the country done that during the depths of the Great Depression, there would have been a far different Constitution, one far more limiting of private property rights, states rights and vesting far more power in the federal government. The notion that the federal government could have continued to operate as if nothing had changed since the constitution was first drafted is ridiculous.

You really have no idea about constitutional law and philosophy, do you?

 

[Kulindahr]

The constitution was written to stand the test of time, and it generally has. This nostaglia for operating the government as if we were still in the 18th Century is silly. The government has evolved to meet the challenges of the modern era. Had Roosevelt, not to mention presidents before him, not passed necessary legislation, there would likely have been social revolution and we would be living under a completely different constitution. Remember learning about the Articles of Confederation? That document was unworkable, and scrapped for the current constitution. Had the country done that during the depths of the Great Depression, there would have been a far different Constitution, one far more limiting of private property rights, states rights and vesting far more power in the federal government. The notion that the federal government could have continued to operate as if nothing had changed since the constitution was first drafted is ridiculous.

There was a process provided for that, called amendments. Roosevelt could have easily gotten an amendment providing for Social Security -- not specifically, but for caring for the health and retirement of citizens in general.

Nixon might not have gotten one for the massively intrusive EPA, but that still would have been the route to go.

Otherwise, there's really no reason to have a constitution at all.

 

[NickCole]

There is a rational middle ground which sadly you can't seem to notice.

There's nothing inherently rational about the middle ground. Good reason and sound judgment exist where they exist. And I stand by mine.

For example, in discussing the Bush/Cheney administration over eight years, good reason and sound judgment did not reside in a "rational middle ground."

Not that your protection and defense of Obama has been remotely middle ground, it's much more like Bush Republicans were about Bush during most of those disasterous eight years.

 

[NickCole]

What facts? Obama said he would post all major legislation online for a review period, and has yet to do that with a single bill.

He has given special treatment to donors, without releasing information as requested:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/obama-gives-donors-specia_n_337096.html


He's just as secretive as Bush was, and has not fulfilled any of his promises with regards to transparency.

Yep.

Obama also tried to be secretive about his outrageous deals with PhRMA, a deal BTW that the media and Dems have never called him on. Also of course he's kept evidence of torture a secret.

And anybody who keeps secrets that are as egregious as those we know about Obama's, is keeping a lot of other secrets successfully.

 

[palemale]

You really have no idea about constitutional law and philosophy, do you?

For someone who generally doesn't know what he's talking about, you're quick to accuse others of ignorance.