The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

So you don't agree with the constitution.

You do know, of course, that the difference between a government like a monarchy and a constitutional government is that a constitution explains what the responsibilities of the government are, I hope.

It's not just anything Trump wants to do, and then whatever he wants to do, he points to the general welfare clause and says "see? right there is where it says I can lock up democrats! It's foir the general welfare, so just be quiet and get with my program!"

I know you want to give Trump virtually unlimited power thanks to the general welfare clause, but I'm just not buying it. I think he should have a few speed bumps in front of him.

 

Of course I do. The constitution was written by men. Where did I say I don't agree with it. Almost everything I've said was due to it.
Why are you so confused?
What about 'We The People' have you missed.

The General Welfare is what the people want at the time they want it to keep the nation strong and healthy.
What does it mean to you?

 

I have yet to hear a coherent argument in favor of a free market system for healthcare, wonder why republicans can't agree on a plan even though they control house, senate and white house? and after 8 years of talking big. THERE IS NO GOOD FREE MARKET SYSTEM for the consumer.

I would be in favor of a free market system if:

1. costs were affordable for everyone
2. no discrimination against pre-existing conditions
3. quality healthcare

problem is, free markets simply cannot accomplish this, it's an extremely inefficient system. People talk about bureaucracy of government but the admin, paperwork and bureaucracy of corporations (insurance companies vs hospitals etc..) is incredibly complex and inefficient. Even government would significantly reduce these complexities and inefficiencies.

Under this privatized system, we have a ton of uninsured people getting free care and hospitals working up schemes to make up for these costs. It's a system of free loaders and inefficiencies. A medicare of all funded by taxes (everyone chips in) is the best system, working closely with private sector.

The thing that people don't understand is that the free markets IS working well today, it's just that it works well for the suppliers, not consumers. The free markets is doing wonders for hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies... at the expense of the consumer. Imagine if a car manufacturer had two products - base model 30k, luxury model 120k. Since no-one really needs a car to remain healthy or stay alive, many simply decide not to buy a car..so what. Now imagine that in some mysterious way, people needed to buy a car to stay healthy and alive, then what? People would be forced to buy the 30k or 120k car to stay alive and would go bankrupt. This is the fundamental difference between healthcare and other industries, healthcare is not a choice, it's a basic need. If anyone thinks paying to stay alive or healthy is the same as paying to drive a nice car, it's just idiotic. We can all make the choice to die by neglecting healthcare but VERY FEW PEOPLE make this choice. It's like me saying 'why does everyone have to buy food? people can make the choice not to eat?' How many make this choice? eating is a basic need.

 

It's not the same.

H.B. 676 gives government de facto control of all hospitals, makes healthcare professionals de facto government employees, outlaws private health insurance and effectively eliminates for-profit hospitals.

 

You probably ought to tell this to the person who cited him.
But, again, than you for agreeing that nowhere does Jefferson imply, even remotely, that the means to exercise any of your rights be provided to you by others.

Can you cite an argument from -any- of the people who founded this country that the means to exercise any of your rights should be provided to you by others?
Just one?

 

None of this changes the fact you cannot cite the text of the Constitution or federal law that grants the right to free speech, as per your claim
You know this, and thus, you know your claim is false.

 

What provides the exercise of rights? Can you name it?

 

This question makes no sense.

 

That doesn't make sense. In a truly free market, goods and services are priced exactly as consumers will pay for it. The free market doesn't fail, it just "is". However, consumers make poor choices. They don't buy insurance and get sick. And they don't have $200K for heart surgery, what then? Then hopefully charity will help him or her out. The only other option will be death. That would be the true free market.

The average car payment in the US is nearly $500/month. I am sure many folks would pay for a new car and not buy health insurance, or life insurance for that matter. If the free market was permitted to be truly free in health insurance and health care - it would be a very different product.

 

But Mr. free market conservative, Ronald Reagan, signed the 'Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor act' into law. Due to this, we have probably millions of free loaders who choose not to pay insurance and then reap the benefits of free care when they need it. This cost of free care has been estimated at approx. 50 billion a year.

when conservatives want the individual mandate removed, they really are advocating for FREE care. You can't remove the individual mandate and allow free loaders to go into ERs to get life saving treatment. Now if the god father of conservatism signed this EMTALA into law, it's fair to say this law is here to stay. So then we either force everyone to pay insurance via an individual mandate or we charge taxes for a single payer system.

 

i don't agree with some of these provisions - for profit hospitals, private health insurance should remain and government should not take control of the system. A single payer can work with private sector to manage a good and more cost effective system.

 

How do you have any rights at all?

 

Actually what I know is that the answer I got to an elementary question was worthy of an Alzheimer's victim.

Where the hell people get this idea I don't know, but it's utterly preposterous, seeing everything in the Constitution has legal authority.

Given the contempt for the Constitution in today's Judiciary, I can't imagine why that would impress anyone who is constitutionally literate.

 

No, you're attempting to turn the general welfare clause from a descriptive to a legislative power, and in so doing, you ignore the constitution.

I think you know this because anything including putting you in prison for your ideas that somebody might assess to be against the general welfare would put you in prison.

By talking about the general welfare clause as something that has legislative powers, you disregard the entire constitution.

So sorry, but there you are. You despise the constitution, and I have shown you the exact way in which you despise the constitution. And of course, you will not address this, because I know you and your ilk.

I win.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

How many creator's are there? What words specifically have all these creator's given endowing these rights?
Is one creator have more pull than others?

 

Here is the difference. National Defense covers and protects everybody equally. Everybody pays in, and as a result, gets security.

Healthcare is not applied equally. Some people need it, others don't.

 

You'll have to ask Mr Jefferson.
But, again, than you for agreeing that nowhere does Jefferson imply, even remotely, that the means to exercise any of your rights be provided to you by others.

 

Well since we can't ask Mr Jefferson. We only have us, We the People, and what we allow the gov't. Thanks for agreeing.

 

At some point in everyone's life, they will need healthcare. Some more than others, yes. But there will be a need. So we can split the costs equally.
Everyone pays in, everyone will have the health care needs when needed.

 

The government cannot manage itself.

 

Everyone will need healthcare at some point in their lives but not national defense. When's the last time we needed the military to do anything for us? WW2? So what you say makes little sense. People need healthcare much more often than they need national defense.

as far as everyone chipping in to national defense but not healthcare, this can be addressed by having a medicare for all so everyone chips in. If everyone pays taxes for something they won't need in their lifetime (national defense), why not pay taxes for something they will most likely need throughout their lifetime?

It's unbelievable to me that people don't see how f'd up healthcare has been pre and post ACA. Not everyone chips in so there are millions of free loaders who run to ERs and don't pay a dime (at the expense of payers) and then those who pay, have to pay outrageous premiums with high deductibles. Pre-ACA, people with pre-existing conditions were discriminated against there were nasty things like lifetime limits etc... This largely privatized system has been a massive fail.

 

Everybody needs national defense. If you don't believe that, then secede from the union and go it alone because that's the federal government's main job. It's why it was created, so if you don't need that, then leave.

As for the rest of this, healthcare is a state issue at best. The federal government isn't there to give you whatever you want. It has a very distinct purpose, which is why the President is the CIC, and not the healthcare czar.

Talk to your governor, talk to your mayor, talk to your neighbors, but don't talk to the country.

 

Nonsense.
You cannot cite the text of the Constitution or federal law that grants the right to free speech, or any other right, as per your claim
You know this, and thus, you know your claim is false.

 

We can... if we want to... by choosing to buy insurance
You, however, seek to remove that choice.
Why do you hate the right to choose?