It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Against Universal Healthcare?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Obama can keep his version of Health Care and stick it where the sun don't shine, and I don't mean London!

I would prefer the French system or the Swedish system, having far better results than the others. In France you pay and then you get a 70% re-imbursement through a government savings account, the doctors are still private and you still have private insurance and hospitals. And you mostly keep the government out of it while ensuring everyone gets what they need.

It’s allot like Ron Paul’s plan it’s just they aren’t an individual savings account but a public one.




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
Universal healthcare is unconstitutional.

Case closed.

OK, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, . Please cite the wording in the Constitution that says everyone cannot have healthcare. Make sure it says health "care" and not insurance.Thanks.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


The Constitution does not dictate what the people can nor cannot have, (The 18th Amendment not withstanding), but rather dictates what the federal government can or cannot do. The Constitution defines the boundaries of each branch of government, and no where in that definition of jurisdiction has Congress, nor the other two branches of government, been granted any authority over a persons health care decisions. Congress cannot force people to accept a health care solution.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Edit: I realised that my reply interrupted the flow of the thread. I apologise and encourage others to continue their discussion.

[edit on 13/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Where I live, it's against the law for a hospital to deny at least emergency treatment, regardless of whether or not the injured person is insured.

Just who do you think is picking up the cost of treating the uninsured now? FYI, it's the American taxpayer, that's who.

The way I see it, we are already providing health care to the uninsured at taxpayer expense. It's just that what we are providing is the most expensive and least productive form of health care possible, emergency room treatment.

I say it's high time that we, as a nation, at least make an attempt to get the biggest bang for our buck. Preventative health care and treatment outside of the hospital emergency room are far more effective and affordable, so it only makes sense that we at least explore some form of universal health care.

I truly believe that "Medicare For All" is the only true answer to the nations health care dilemma as it would remove the private insurance middle-man and the profit margin needed to sustain his existence in the industry and apply it to better health care for all on a Not-For-Profit basis.

IMO, the private health care industry should only be there for selective procedures and for those who desire more than basic health care coverage.

When it comes to health care, no person or industry should be allowed to profit from someone else's misery!

How funny, I never hear anyone bitch about publicly funded vaccinations for school aged children. Vaccinations which are mandatory before "your" children are allowed to go to school with "my" children.

Despite the more sinister reasons for creating them, the success of pre school vaccination programs should be an example of how well preventative public health care works at protecting us all.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by QuetzalcoatlAlien
 

I think poor people should die more/sooner than rich people.

Poor people as a group are less worthy/fit/intelligent/desirable than rich people...I hate to break it to you...

Universal health care thus has the effect of taking from the good, and giving to the bad...it's dysgenic...The nice article you linked to has thus not changed my mind.


This is so short sighted.

The poor built this world that you are so comfortable with. they did it through blood sweat hard labor and death. The "rich" or "elite" were and are just scumbags that will take advantage of others.

No one is more important than anyone ales in the grand scheme.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


Id say your the one short sighted rich people get that way through hard work and determination. Rich people were poor people why does everyone constantly start this poor against the rich crap. If you want money get out there and earn it or come up with an idea to market, but stop playing im poor and cant help it crap its old.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel

I am talking about overall aggregate statistical tendencies, not individual stupid rich persons or smart poor persons.


Throughout history the rich and overprivileged have loudly proclaimed their superiority and have even insisted that God made them rich because they are the "elect" by Divine decree and guaranteed a place among the saints in heaven. They have insisted that they are better not only because of their earthly goods -- which are merely the outward signs of God's favor -- but because they are of greater worth morally and spiritually (See "Calvinism" in the encyclopedia) than their less fortunate brothers and sisters.

It's a centuries-old publicity campaign which unfortunately even the poor have fallen for.

You are simply mouthing a worn-out old commercial brought to you by a long line of greedy, self-serving oppressors living on the fruits of other people's labor.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
There are enough Constitutional Scholars out there that could make a compelling case for the Constitutionality of Universal Healthcare, but who cares either way.

The Constitution's wording or specifics are not needed since we could parse definitions, phraseology, jurisprudence, etc all day and get nowhere fast.

The solutions are simple, yet we don't talk about different options.

What is to stop a State from having Universal Healthcare? Nothing.

What is to stop a State from disallowing insurance companies to have more than 1 risk group in their state? Nothing.

What is to stop a State from forcing insurance companies to be non-profit? Nothing.

What would be the difference between State mandates and Federal Mandates? Freedom.

That ends the case for National Universal Healthcare for me, but we get bogged down in the Constitution. It's a waste of time folks.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel

I am talking about overall aggregate statistical tendencies, not individual stupid rich persons or smart poor persons.




You are simply mouthing a worn-out old commercial brought to you by a long line of greedy, self-serving oppressors living on the fruits of other people's labor.


I was born in 1961.
I was raised to have a very egalitarian and socially appropriate worldview, similar to the sweet sentiments you express.
Over the years, though, I have been paying attention, and now I can write my own commercials, thanks.
Maybe something like...

" I have noticed that the people driving sports cars tend to be smarter than the people riding the bus...

I believe that the miserable talking head journalists I see on TV are still smarter than the people in line with me at the DMV...

I must have had a hundred jobs (I'm a troublemaker, oh yes), and I have noticed that the guy who owns the business is almost always smarter than his lowest-paid employee..."


Any of these sincere, commonsense observations ring untrue, in your life experience? Really?





(The poor are also greedy, self-serving oppressors...they're just kind of ineffective because they're less capable...It's a continuum, baby.)

[edit on 13-6-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 


I agree with you. The average wealthy/successful/powerful person is more intelligent than the average poor person.

Let's face it, most Americans couldn't point out Greenland on a map.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 


I agree with you. The average wealthy/successful/powerful person is more intelligent than the average poor person.

Let's face it, most Americans couldn't point out Greenland on a map.


I'm doing a yanking motion and I am considering asking you to donate to my wool collection for retarded, uninsured populace, or the retarded general populace
who work to provide as prescribed by this system of worship.

By your equate, that must mean all newly established wealthy/successful/powerful people have been divinely healed of their diminished capacities. I look forward
to the thread detailing this process or compound, wether it be mystical or mechanized
it is intriguing. I suspect you might not be wealthy/successful/powerful, per your miraculous calculation, which may contribute to the validity of your in depth diagnosis.

I do agree, basic facets of general welfare are at a premium and therefore liberty, or the condition to chase such, is prescribed a price by the holy word which constitutes the boundaries of liberty. We shall police eachother and ensure that equity and humanity is surprised, retrained and restrained in the name of constructed mathematical equity. One could see the duality in this, one practices the leveraging crime to ensure the free reign of some other brutality. Apply natures dictates, contrary to mans historic battle against nature, then protect the construct of this sojourn in spite of nature, only to decry you are 100% for nature, if it fits your human definition of nature.

The intellectual pitfalls of this political landscape ensure that 100% of participants are wanton fools, liars and hypocrites. A living saint could not wad through and retain
a sense of natural truth or sainthood for that matter.

we are screwed, if we were upon a giant spaceship in space (
) we would parish after a time, if under the care of this prescription. I only hope my descendants post monopoly on the kitchen and the armory, hopefully the rest do not realize they can nourish and fashion articles of war with the fixings of a weak failed dead man, that might be bad for the bottom line
The only certain thing is that one day the ship will have the ship to itself.

In closing I am lucky I was strong enough to crawl forth from my mothers womb, unassisted, on my own, while in the throw of my own death I will administer my own first aide, I will dress my corpse and place it in the cremator thank you very much, all tis but a luxury of craven lazy people.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sporkmonster

The problem with healthcare in America is the cost. It is freaking expensive. I know that. I feel that in my life, because I can't afford it. I'm close to 30 and have not seen a Dr since I became an adult. I should, I know that I have high blood pressure. The self tests at the store tell me so.


Seriously though. 3 days ago i tested 193 over 85 and a pulse of 63. That is serious. My BMI is only 20.1.


I don't want 'universal healthcare.' It is just a scam. I just want to be able to contract with a Dr and not have the gov't in the darn way, or pathetic losers and their frivolous lawsuits, driving up MY costs.


Go to a clinic. Get some blood pressure meds, dude. Many of them are very cheap. You can get a months supply from Walmart for $5 . 193 is high. It will damage your body,kidneys,heart,brain, and may kill you.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


There is a common misconception that because the federal Constitution only applies to the federal government that states can get away with doing certain things the federal government can't. The misconception of this lies in the tragic fact that few have any understanding of their own state constitutions.

You ask, and then ironically answer, what is to stop states from passing universal health care, (and presumably by "universal health care" you mean an insurance scheme), and then answer that nothing is to stop a state from doing so. You ask what is to stop a state from forcing insurance companies into becoming non-profit entities, and again answer your own question with nothing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Since there are numerous state constitutions, and I assure you each state has one, I will rely upon my own state constitution to refute your assertions that there is nothing to prevent the State of California from doing what you implicitly claim they have the authority to do, beginning with the California State Constitution's Preamble:


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


Here, just as it is well established in the federal Constitution, California's Preamble to their constitution makes clear who holds the inherent political power, and that is the people.

Now consider Article I; Declaration of Rights, beginning with:


SECTION 1.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


It is made clear by Section 1 that all people have the right to life, liberty and property, and that these rights are inalienable. They were not granted by this constitution, simply recognized as being inalienable. Take particular notice of the right to acquire, possess, and protect property. What is stopping the State of California from forcing insurance companies to be non-profit organizations? Well Article I, Section 1 of that State's constitution for one thing...but wait there's more!


SEC. 6.

Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.



SEC. 7.

(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws...



SEC. 8.

A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.



SEC. 9.

A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.



SEC. 19.

(a) Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.



SEC. 24.

Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.


What is stopping the State of California from shoving the policies you mentioned down the peoples throats? A whole lot more than nothing! Tragically, much like you, most people in California don't know a thing about their own constitution and instead look to the federal Constitution for guidance in matters that would be more prudently guided by the state constitution.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Couldn't the 'due process of law' in section 7 allow the people to legislate universal healthcare? I don't see a conflict there, though admittedly I'm not a lawyer.

Or terribly well versed in constitutional matters, at that.

Or even American.

But I'm still interested.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

There is a common misconception that because the federal Constitution only applies to the federal government that states can get away with doing certain things the federal government can't. The misconception of this lies in the tragic fact that few have any understanding of their own state constitutions.


The States do have quite a bit more wiggle room, generally, than the Federal Government. I wasn't aware that was contested as a matter of fact.

The range of powers both vary and are more than the Federal Government in terms of daily life, or at least that's the way it was intended to be. I guess one could make a case either way at this point though.


You ask, and then ironically answer, what is to stop states from passing universal health care, (and presumably by "universal health care" you mean an insurance scheme), and then answer that nothing is to stop a state from doing so. You ask what is to stop a state from forcing insurance companies into becoming non-profit entities, and again answer your own question with nothing.


Yes, exactly. Nothing is standing in the way of States creating their own health care solutions rather than having the Federal Government provide more blanket legislation that is a "one size fits few" approach.


Nothing could be further from the truth.


Kinda stretching that phrase don't you think?


Since there are numerous state constitutions, and I assure you each state has one, I will rely upon my own state constitution to refute your assertions that there is nothing to prevent the State of California from doing what you implicitly claim they have the authority to do, beginning with the California State Constitution's Preamble:


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


Here, just as it is well established in the federal Constitution, California's Preamble to their constitution makes clear who holds the inherent political power, and that is the people.


True, which is very close to the large majority of State Constitutions.


Now consider Article I; Declaration of Rights, beginning with:


SECTION 1.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


It is made clear by Section 1 that all people have the right to life, liberty and property, and that these rights are inalienable. They were not granted by this constitution, simply recognized as being inalienable. Take particular notice of the right to acquire, possess, and protect property. What is stopping the State of California from forcing insurance companies to be non-profit organizations? Well Article I, Section 1 of that State's constitution for one thing...but wait there's more!


This is kind of a weak argument since there are literally hundreds of examples of how your state (let alone all the others) require specific stipulations, rules, financial and ethical guidelines, etc to doing business in that state.

The reason each insurance company must hold licenses in each state is because each state regulates specific industry. Law, Medicine, Insurance, Real Estate, etc. This is the meat of what the state does, and as such they are well within their rights to regulate the insurance field (which they already do heavily btw).



SEC. 6.

Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.


Creating a Universal Health care system (which I do NOT endorse but could see a state wanting) is a far cry from slavery. First off no one is forced to live in that State nor did anyone speak of the manner in which it could be implemented.



SEC. 7.

(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws...


This would be no more in violation than is taxation (Ex. Education - which every land/property owner in most, if not all states, pays regardless of having children or not) and would apply universally to everyone (which sadly can't be said for most law these days).

I do not support laws that do not apply to all equally.



SEC. 8.

A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.


Not applicable.



SEC. 9.

A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.


Really? None of what I posted (merely as examples, not suggestions) would violate any writ of attainder, ex post facto, or contractual impairment stipulations.



SEC. 19.

(a) Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.


I fail to see how Eminent Domain applies.



SEC. 24.

Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.


What is stopping the State of California from shoving the policies you mentioned down the peoples throats? A whole lot more than nothing!


Who said anything about shoving? The point was that the people are generally free to create the kind of state they would like to live in. If what you suggest was true, we'd see a whole lot more uniformity in legislation from State to State.

As it stands there is quite a large margin of difference between our most liberal and our most conservative states, and rightfully so.


Tragically, much like you, most people in California don't know a thing about their own constitution and instead look to the federal Constitution for guidance in matters that would be more prudently guided by the state constitution.


You obviously know nothing about me. I'm a Virginian and a Libertarian who knows his Commonwealth and it's laws along with the Federal ones.

Quite a long reply you gave, though, while entirely missing the point of my post.

-States have power
-They should not keep selling it to the Federal Government for more handouts
-State power is mostly preferable to Federal Power for a variety of reasons.
-We can always change a State Constitution or a Federal one. It's the beauty of political evolution.

Anything else?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Where is my FREE HOME, Where is my FREE CAR, Where is my FREE HD TV?

When the hell does my paying 75% of my LABOR going to actually provide anything? Oh that is right, we FIRST have to pay for the government.


So....................first take my 75% AND remove 95% of that for the implementation, the government kickback so to speak, then we get to the meat of the matter.

Explain to me again!? How MORE management solved anything?!




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
The bottom-line is this:


Basically, the Federal Government should be protecting us from outside forces, not protecting us from OURSELVES. Most of us are capable of self-management and protection.

This bill will give the government the right to make decisions for us; while it specifically impedes our 'inalienable' (this thread's 'word of the day') right to make those decisions, ourselves.

As it stands (today), we currently have the right to get treatment for an illness. Whether we can pay for the treatment is something entirely separate from our 'birth' right to seek out and obtain medical services. The payment of services is not a RIGHT. It is a contract between parties.

I think many people are confusing 'right to health' with 'right to health care'. They are not one in the same.

BTW, this isn't Canada's health care, nor is it the UKs. It's very different. This bill has way more 'hands' in the pot and hence, will have way more 'hands' on us and control over our personal health care decisions.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Universal health care is just another form of Government seeking power through a label that sounds good. they should just try to pass a "Peace and Hapiness" bill so they can get more pork passed and send us further into debt.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
Universal healthcare is unconstitutional.

Case closed.


My daughter was recently diagnosed with Systemic Lupus. She has been very ill, in and out of the hospital for a couple of years. She was turned down by SSDI, she does not qualify for medicaid (which is supposed to help those with low income, but she has none), and our state health insurance turned her down because funds are too low right now. She is making another attempt for SSDI. Now, what the hell is she supposed to do? This disease prevents her from working on a regular basis, it is so unpredictable. When she falls ill, she goes to the ER as that is her only option. She is unable to purchase much needed daily medication. She has lost everything. She just moved in with me so she has a place to live. Universal health care is what she needs, and millions of others. Any suggestions?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join