Health Care Reform - A View from a US Senate Candidate

[Jack Springer]

I find it sad that there was little or no discussion about what healthcare / health insurance reform could look like.

All you hear about is the public option (now consumer option) and how much it will or not cost.

There is so much that needs reform regarding health care -- so much that could have been addressed and discussed. Now we will probably have a bill that will help very few and end up costing all of us much more in taxes and health insurance bills.

Too many closed doors, too many agendas, too many special interest groups.

 

[naked gent]

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

Maybe not but He has a firm grasp of politics, especially the politics of the 1930's.

 

[palemale]

Maybe not but He has a firm grasp of politics, especially the politics of the 1930's.

And maybe you and Droid will some day have a grasp of constitutional law and politics of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries. Let us know when you do.

 

[naked gent]

And maybe you and Droid will some day have a grasp of constitutional law and politics of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries. Let us know when you do.

Hey palemale why are you pickin on me......I was defending you.

I thought your post #21 was absolutely correct and just sidestepped the question of constitutional law in my post.

As I've said before I have as much respect, and am willing to use The Constitution, just as its author James Madison did when as Jefferson's Sec. of State he participated in the Louisiana Purchase which was very good for the country but the power do so has absolutely no basis in The Constitution.

It was not set in stone in 1803 and, given how the world has changed, should not be set in stone today.

 

[Kulindahr]

I find it sad that there was little or no discussion about what healthcare / health insurance reform could look like.

All you hear about is the public option (now consumer option) and how much it will or not cost.

There is so much that needs reform regarding health care -- so much that could have been addressed and discussed. Now we will probably have a bill that will help very few and end up costing all of us much more in taxes and health insurance bills.

Too many closed doors, too many agendas, too many special interest groups.

He'd have done better to take a few simple things and push them through, like:

• Put an end to lifetime coverage limits when it comes to ordinary care.
  
• Make Medicare free to all those on disability (private or SSI).
  
• Make the cost of an annual physical and the first three doctor visits (per person) a refundable tax credit.
  
• Provide matching funds for the establishment of fraternal, not-for-profit associations.
  
• Required all profits over 3.5% to be plowed into a fund for catastrophic care.
  
• Require all fixed incomes to have annual COLA adjustments (I've met a number of elderly folks who refuse to go to a doctor because their fixed incomes grow steadily effectively smaller) based on a poverty-level-plus $5k income (so everyone gets the same adjustment).
  
• Make employer-provided insurance portable.

Those are all simple items it would be hard to oppose. With them in place, after a couple of years the picture could be re-assessed. As it is, it's looking like we may get a mess.

 

[Kulindahr]

I thought your post #21 was absolutely correct and just sidestepped the question of constitutional law in my post.

As I've said before I have as much respect, and am willing to use The Constitution, just as its author James Madison did when as Jefferson's Sec. of State he participated in the Louisiana Purchase which was very good for the country but the power do so has absolutely no basis in The Constitution.

It was not set in stone in 1803 and, given how the world has changed, should not be set in stone today.

They should have asked for a constitutional amendment providing the authority to purchase land for addition to the country.

I've heard it argued, though, that the Purchase comes under the authority for making treaties, and should have gone through the Senate....

 

[NickCole]

Hey palemale why are you pickin on me......I was defending you.

In response to Droid's comment,

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

You responded:

"Maybe not but He has a firm grasp of politics, especially the politics of the 1930's."

I'm guessing the "maybe not" sounded like agreement with Droid's assessment that palemale has no idea about constitutional law and philosophy.

Just a guess.

 

[palemale]

Sorry Naked Gent, Nick is correct, I thought you were agreeing with Droid.

Only Droid's knowledge of constitutional law and politics hasn't progressed beyond the 18th Century.

 

[naked gent]

They should have asked for a constitutional amendment providing the authority to purchase land for addition to the country.

I've heard it argued, though, that the Purchase comes under the authority for making treaties, and should have gone through the Senate....

Whatever they should have done the point is those who favor rigid interpretation of The Constitution don't do so out of any reverence for the Founding Fathers but out of a narrow political interest all their own.

Just a guess.

And a good one it was.

Sorry Naked Gent, Nick is correct, I thought you were agreeing with Droid.

Nope........maybe means maybe. I didn't want to get into the constitutional law argument because I really don't think there was a time when The Constitution was held above pragmatic politics of the day (except maybe very early in the 20th century and briefly during FDR's first term) and some who are ever ready to scream unconstitutional don't seem to be aware of that fact.

 

[Kulindahr]

Whatever they should have done the point is those who favor rigid interpretation of The Constitution don't do so out of any reverence for the Founding Fathers but out of a narrow political interest all their own.

Politicians, maybe. I figure if it's what's supposed to constitute our nation, it ought to, well, constitute our nation.

I'd have no problem with someone introducing amendments to take care of some things fringe folks complain about: national parks, Social Security and Medicare, and the EPA, for starters. I can't see where anyone would vote against any of it, and it would tidy up the landscape a bit.

 

[JB3]

Sorry Naked Gent, Nick is correct, I thought you were agreeing with Droid.

Only Droid's knowledge of constitutional law and politics hasn't progressed beyond the 18th Century.

Constitutional law and politics are two very different things. With your argument in your previous posts, you showed that you have very little understanding of either constitutional law or the philosophy behind interpreting the constitution. I don't wish to get in an argument here, because it could go on for pages and pages. But, the fact of the matter is that your interpretation of the constitution is not one that is supported by the intentions of our founding fathers and not one that would find much support with experts in constitutional law and interpretation.