why do you want government running health care?

[avatar4321]

With all the things that the government screws up, why do you want government to run health care? (If you do). It just doesnt make sense to me.

[April15]

Only GOP run government gets things wrong and screwed up. The government would be funding health care not administering the care.

[hjmick]

Only GOP run government gets things wrong and screwed up. The government would be funding health care not administering the care.

:lmao:

[Hobbit]

Only GOP run government gets things wrong and screwed up. The government would be funding health care not administering the care.

You mean like it does with education?

[April15]

You mean like it does with education?So far education has been very screwed up with NCLB, yes! Prior to that education was a state by state situation.

[Hobbit]

So far education has been very screwed up with NCLB, yes! Prior to that education was a state by state situation.

Then what was the purpose of the NATIONAL Education Administration and why have our schools been on a constant downhill slide since long before NCLB (which, by the way, was the dumbest idea to hit education since some neanderthal said, 'Hey, we should make everyone go to the school closest to their house or else pay thousands in tuition on top of their property taxes.').

[April15]

Then what was the purpose of the NATIONAL Education Administration and why have our schools been on a constant downhill slide since long before NCLB (which, by the way, was the dumbest idea to hit education since some neanderthal said, 'Hey, we should make everyone go to the school closest to their house or else pay thousands in tuition on top of their property taxes.').As I have never known about a national education administration I can not answer your question.

[Mr. P]

As I have never known about a national education administration I can not answer your question.

Does the U.S. Department of Education ring a bell? Pretty National and a dismal failure don't ya think?

[avatar4321]

So far education has been very screwed up with NCLB, yes! Prior to that education was a state by state situation.

You are honestly claiming that Education was perfectly fine until Ted Kennedy wrote the NCLB act?

Oh, and education hasnt been a state by state issue since the Department of education was created. By the Carter administration I believe.

[Joe Steel]

Only GOP run government gets things wrong and screwed up.

The single, most important reason Republicans seek office is to destroy government. That's because government, properly constituted, is a barrier to exploitation of the weak by the strong. That's anathema to Republicans. They believe the poor and the sick and the weak are fair targets for exploitation.


You mean like it does with education?

Public education is run by local school boards. Strictly speaking, they're not part of the general government.


With all the things that the government screws up, why do you want government to run health care? (If you do). It just doesnt make sense to me.

What do you think government has "screwed-up?"

You might be able to think of a few things but, for the most part, government does a very good job of producing good results for the vast majority of citizens. Medicare, for instance, is a resounding success. Beneficiaries love it because it works. Expanding it to cover everyone would be a better idea than relying on the mess we have now.

[5stringJeff]

Regardless of performance (which the federal government almost always fails at), the federal government has no authority either to pay for or administer health care for the population at large.

If you want to "fix" health care in America, eliminate the tax deduction for businesses to provide health benefits to employees, and give that deduction to the individuals. That gets rid of the "third party payer" system that we have now, and makes the individual receiving benefits the billpayer (of insurance, at least). That means that health providers will once again have to start competing on both price and quality, which will lower health care costs immediately.

[Joe Steel]

Regardless of performance (which the federal government almost always fails at), the federal government has no authority either to pay for or administer health care for the population at large.

Nonsense.

The national government has the authority to do whatever it wishes: "provide...for the general welfare."


If you want to "fix" health care in America, eliminate the tax deduction for businesses to provide health benefits to employees, and give that deduction to the individuals. That gets rid of the "third party payer" system that we have now, and makes the individual receiving benefits the billpayer (of insurance, at least). That means that health providers will once again have to start competing on both price and quality, which will lower health care costs immediately.

1. If you were ill and feared death, how much would you be willing to spend for health care?

2. Do you think health care providers know it?

[5stringJeff]

Nonsense.

The national government has the authority to do whatever it wishes: "provide...for the general welfare."

Wrong. The federal government has enumerated powers, not enumerated limits on power.


1. If you were ill and feared death, how much would you be willing to spend for health care?

2. Do you think health care providers know it?

Regardless of how much I would be willing to pay, in a competitive environment, prices will be determined by market forces. If, for instance, I have a rare but treatable form of cancer, and there are two hospitals nearby that could treat me, I could (under a free-market system) compare services and prices and choose which one I preferred. That may be the cheaper one, and that may be the more expensive one. But the more competition there is, the lower prices will go. On the other hand, in a monopolistic market, such as the one proposed by universal health care advocates, there is no incentive to lower prices; thus, a broken system.

[avatar4321]

Nonsense.

The national government has the authority to do whatever it wishes: "provide...for the general welfare."

Do you know anything about the Constitution? The federal government has limited authority and jurisdiction. Its the first thing anyone learns about the Federal Government in any sort of class.




1. If you were ill and feared death, how much would you be willing to spend for health care?

2. Do you think health care providers know it?

I am not afraid of death. Even when sick, death comes when it comes. If you've lived your life right, you have nothing to fear.

Health care providers have the right to charge whatever the market requires for their services. Who the hell am I to tell them that they have to be my slaves because the work they provide is too expensive and its not fair?

[Hobbit]

Every pill you take costs billions to develop. Hospitals cost millions apiece. Doctors have to pay off the cost of their educations. Nurses, too. Operating rooms cost a fortune to keep sterile. Suture costs money, IVs cost money, MRIs cost money, CAT scans cost money, medicine costs money. That money must come from somewhere, and to claim you have the right to health care is to claim that you have to right to the effort and resources of another human, a right which NO ONE SHOULD EVER HAVE. Also, if you think it's expensive now, just wait until nobody has to pay for it directly. It'll be just like the UK and Canada, where cancer patients who would have lived perfectly normal lives with even a cheap health insurance plan in the U.S. have to undergo chemo or even die due to to health care rationing. I'm not just making that up, either. A woman in the UK spotted an unhealthy looking mole which was later diagnosed as melanoma. The thing was tiny and hadn't spread anywhere. A scalpel and a quick outpatient surgery would have cured it, but it took her months to get to see a specialist, by which time the cancer had spread. Now, she's undergoing chemo and may not survive. Skip across the pond to Canada, the liberals' fairy land of how 'good' our health care system should be. There's a teenage girl with a budding brain tumor. She has to wait 5 weeks for an MRI, but that's short compared to the four or five months it will take to get an appointment with a specialist to actually read the MRI and figure out what to do about it. In the meantime, she's having blackouts and can't go to school. I'd take even money that she even survives this nonsense without traveling to the U.S. for care, much less the chance of avoiding permanent brain damage. Now back to the UK. There's a 61 year old woman who has, you guessed it, been diagnosed with cancer. Her problem isn't that the waiting list is too long, it's that she can't get on it. She's been told that there's only so much health care to go around and that it would be better spent saving somebody who has longer to live.

But you go ahead and give the federal government the power of life and death, because they've already done such a good job with everything else they do.

[red states rule]

Only GOP run government gets things wrong and screwed up. The government would be funding health care not administering the care.

So you want the same people who oversee Social Security and Medicare to oversee our healthcare system?

I see many folks coming from Canada and the UK, who have government run healthcare, come here to get their treatments. The waiting time for treatments, government paper work, and the conditions of the hospitals force them to come here where they know they wioll get good care

[Little-Acorn]

Prior to that education was a state by state situation.


Only GOP run government gets things wrong and screwed up.
Wow. Two flagrant lies in one thread. With no attempt to support them with any evidence or links, of course.

Has this person ever said anything about government that was even close to being true?

:cuckoo:

[Little-Acorn]

The national government has the authority to do whatever it wishes: "provide...for the general welfare."

This has been debunked repeatedly, of course. But little joe persists in clapping his hands over his ears, shrilling "I can't hear you, I can't hear you, it's not so, no it isn't, no it isn't!!!!" and then repeating the same tired fibs as though anyone thought they were true.

Poor little joe. If he couldn't tell these lies, he'd have nothing to say at all to bolster his "arguments".

[DragonStryk72]

Only GOP run government gets things wrong and screwed up. The government would be funding health care not administering the care.

Oh yes, that's why everything been running just dandy since the Dems have taken control of the Senate. Come on, who the hell are you kidding?

[Joe Steel]

Do you know anything about the Constitution?

Yes.


The federal government has limited authority and jurisdiction. Its the first thing anyone learns about the Federal Government in any sort of class.

Then "anyone" should stop attending Bubba's Constitution School and Bar-B-Que.

Read and learn.

The Founders said "provide...for the general welfare" in Art. 1, Sec. 8. of the Constitution to give Congress unlimited power. However, they knew the term was somewhat unclear and that legislators could have good faith disagreements about what constitutes the "general welfare." To preclude any misunderstanding about certain necessary powers, they listed them. These listed powers "provide for the general welfare" because the Founders said they did. That, however, doesn't mean other, unlisted, powers don't "provide for the general welfare." It just means they have to be discussed and debated. Conservatives have perverted the Founders' intentions by saying the so-called enumerated powers are all the Founders intended and the power of government is limited.


Health care providers have the right to charge whatever the market requires for their services. Who the hell am I to tell them that they have to be my slaves because the work they provide is too expensive and its not fair?

The People are sovereign. The People tell the providers to do whatever the People wish them to do.

[Joe Steel]

This has been debunked repeatedly, of course. But little joe persists in clapping his hands over his ears, shrilling "I can't hear you, I can't hear you, it's not so, no it isn't, no it isn't!!!!" and then repeating the same tired fibs as though anyone thought they were true.

Poor little joe. If he couldn't tell these lies, he'd have nothing to say at all to bolster his "arguments".

Little nut thinks making stupid assertions about things he doesn't understand is "debunking."

I can understand his ignorance but his insistence on displaying it has me baffled.

[Little-Acorn]

Little nut thinks making stupid assertions about things he doesn't understand is "debunking."

I can understand his ignorance but his insistence on displaying it has me baffled.

This "I know you are but what am I" defense is common among people of little joe's ilk, as are the usual namecalling. Most drop it after they leave the third grade, but not little joe.

Those interested in re-reading the explanations that have been given time and again, might start with the thread http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16038&highlight=general+welfare&page=3 , posts 26, 31, 41, and 42, for starters. These ideas and explanations have come up in many other threads, too.

If anyone wants to read them to little joe, be my guest. But be kind. If you do that, he won't be able to pretend he's never heard them, any more.

[theHawk]

Yes.



Then "anyone" should stop attending Bubba's Constitution School and Bar-B-Que.

Read and learn.

The Founders said "provide...for the general welfare" in Art. 1, Sec. 8. of the Constitution to give Congress unlimited power. However, they knew the term was somewhat unclear and that legislators could have good faith disagreements about what constitutes the "general welfare." To preclude any misunderstanding about certain necessary powers, they listed them. These listed powers "provide for the general welfare" because the Founders said they did. That, however, doesn't mean other, unlisted, powers don't "provide for the general welfare." It just means they have to be discussed and debated. Conservatives have perverted the Founders' intentions by saying the so-called enumerated powers are all the Founders intended and the power of government is limited.



The People are sovereign. The People tell the providers to do whatever the People wish them to do.

Sure we can add to the list. Its called Amending the Constitution. We all know that liberals must alter the Contitution in order to further their agenda. As it stands now, the idea of government controlled health care is flatly unconstitutional.

[MtnBiker]

why do you want government running health care?

Why not? Doesn't everybody love long waits, reduced comstomer service, and a bloated bureaucracy?

[MtnBiker]

Here is a question, should rich people have the oppurtunity to live in more expensive houses than people who are not rich?

[Joe Steel]

This "I know you are but what am I" defense is common among people of little joe's ilk, as are the usual namecalling. Most drop it after they leave the third grade, but not little joe.

Those interested in re-reading the explanations that have been given time and again, might start with the thread http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16038&highlight=general+welfare&page=3 , posts 26, 31, 41, and 42, for starters. These ideas and explanations have come up in many other threads, too.

If anyone wants to read them to little joe, be my guest. But be kind. If you do that, he won't be able to pretend he's never heard them, any more.

As I said, his insistence on displaying his ignorance is baffling.

[avatar4321]

Yes.



Then "anyone" should stop attending Bubba's Constitution School and Bar-B-Que.



I didnt realize you consider the Supreme Court of the United States Bubba's constitutional School and Bar-B-Que.

[Joe Steel]

I didnt realize you consider the Supreme Court of the United States Bubba's constitutional School and Bar-B-Que.

I don't. They're probably no good at brisket either.

[5stringJeff]

The Founders said "provide...for the general welfare" in Art. 1, Sec. 8. of the Constitution to give Congress unlimited power. However, they knew the term was somewhat unclear and that legislators could have good faith disagreements about what constitutes the "general welfare." To preclude any misunderstanding about certain necessary powers, they listed them. These listed powers "provide for the general welfare" because the Founders said they did. That, however, doesn't mean other, unlisted, powers don't "provide for the general welfare." It just means they have to be discussed and debated. Conservatives have perverted the Founders' intentions by saying the so-called enumerated powers are all the Founders intended and the power of government is limited.

Once again, you are wrong. To wit: in Supreme Court Decision 17 U.S. 316, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall (neither a "conservative" nor a "Republican") stated:

"This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise so long as our system shall exist."

In other words, while it would seem to be obvious to all that the federal government has only enumerated powers, the Supreme Court had to spell it out for people who refused to concede that point - such as yourself.

[Yurt]

Here is a question, should rich people have the oppurtunity to live in more expensive houses than people who are not rich?

no way, i want the same size house and just because i sit at home all day and watch soaps doesn't mean i'm not a productive member of society....without me, tv would not exist because no one would by advertising, ergo, i need a big house to house my big screen tv that you should all buy me as i keep the economy running like a well greased fried chicken wing...

[DragonStryk72]

Yes.



Then "anyone" should stop attending Bubba's Constitution School and Bar-B-Que.

Read and learn.

The Founders said "provide...for the general welfare" in Art. 1, Sec. 8. of the Constitution to give Congress unlimited power. However, they knew the term was somewhat unclear and that legislators could have good faith disagreements about what constitutes the "general welfare." To preclude any misunderstanding about certain necessary powers, they listed them. These listed powers "provide for the general welfare" because the Founders said they did. That, however, doesn't mean other, unlisted, powers don't "provide for the general welfare." It just means they have to be discussed and debated. Conservatives have perverted the Founders' intentions by saying the so-called enumerated powers are all the Founders intended and the power of government is limited.



The People are sovereign. The People tell the providers to do whatever the People wish them to do.

Okay, building on Jeff's point, you aren't really looking at the "general welfare" turning medical care over to the government. See, this wouldn't help the public in general, only those unable to afford insurance currently. the problem is that the service provide will degrade due to lack of profits to the medical companies, because frankly, they're not cutting their own paychecks.

With funding comes regulations, and no, it won't be free. Sadly, those costs will hurt the overtaxed middle and lower classes, not just the people who are making use of services.

Now, we already have medicare and medicaid, and those two are both complete cluster fucks in service (I'm sorry your son died from those bullet wounds, but we're not covering the ambulance ride), and yet, despite showing themselves to be incompetent to the very task they are set with, you want to put together a bigger potential cluster fuck?

Look, we have welfare, medicare and medicaid. How much more damned opportunity do you need? And don't act like the founders you speak of were putting in an argument about insurance, since there was no health insurance back then. It's like when people try to use the bible to speak against RPGs, like Jesus knew what a D20 was.