Evangelicals least likely to support politicians & policies that reflect Jesus' msg.

[rbell]

Single payer is unquestionably constitutional.

By the way...if you were thinking "from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need" was the part of the Constitution you use to justify single payer, I have news for you.

It's not in the US Constitution.

It's in the Communist Manifesto.

 

[carpro]

By the way...if you were thinking "from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need" was the part of the Constitution you use to justify single payer, I have news for you.

It's not in the US Constitution.

It's in the Communist Manifesto.

To liberals, anything the government tells you to do, or does for you at someone elses expense, is constitutional.

 

[rbell]

To liberals, anything the government tells you to do, or does for you at someone elses expense, is constitutional.

Yeah...and I was thinking: since "unwanted babies" cost money, and often times are a drain on society....and since medical expenses for them and moms are economic transactions (vis a vis "commerce"), then aborting babies is perfectly fine, according to the "commerce clause" and "promote the general welfare" clause.

See what happens when you drift from an originalist perspective? You can kill babies, and have the Constitution justify it.


It's not just a slippery slope.

It's a 60-degree precipice, coated with Olive Oil, WD-40, and two inches of Murphy's Oil Soap.
And you're wearing shoes with no tread.
And it's raining.
And you've been pushed.
And your shoes have marbles on the bottom.
And you've been dipped in floor wax.

 

[InTheLight]

Then why don't we see this in government monopolies that already exist? Ask anyone who's had to deal with Social Security or Medicare or the VA on behalf of an ailing, elderly parent how "efficient" these things are.

Someone's personal stories are anecdotal evidence. You're not addressing the inefficiencies of the private health care system, just casting aspersions on the existing government run ones.

The overhead on Medicare is estimated to be 3%; the overhead in private insurance companies is much more.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_myths_singlepayer_facts.php

Anyway, it is estimated that streamlining payments through a single payer system would save $300 - $400 Billion a year. Saving from paperwork reduction would be $150 Billion a year.

http://www.pnhp.org/


http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_myths_singlepayer_facts.php



Estimates by right-wingers put Obamacare to cost $200 billion a year.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion

The problem is that these "savings" won't be passed on to us and, in order to have these alleged "savings", the government has to spend billions to nationalize healthcare in the first place.

Now you are projecting into the future on something that doesn't even exist.

I see. So then, because you don't like your insurance, rather than finding a better package, your solution is to take mine away so that I'll have lousy insurance coverage, too?

If you would have read my post you would have seen that it is impossible for me to "find a better package" because all three insurance companies licensed in Minnesota have identical coverages and rates within a percentage point or two of one another. There is no choice.

Two problems with this. The first is that private insurance carriers have to compete with other insurance carriers. That means that it is in their best interest to keep costs down in order to pass savings on to consumers.

Yes, but they are not competing. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between them. Remember there is no shortage of demand. People do get sick, people do need to go to doctors. There is no opting out of it. So the insurance companies just keep raising rates. Take another look at my rate increases over the past three years.

The second is that the government has no competition. Not only do they have no incentive to keep costs down, government agencies consistently spend more money and, in fact, must do so in order to get more funding.

Under a single payer system health care providers are given a global budget for the year. It's up to the hospitals and clinics to allocate the budget the most efficiently.

Could you please give us an example of any government agency that has ever been concerned with "keeping costs down"?

I think all government agencies are concerned with keeping their costs down. But since you asked I'll say NASA. Apparently you are asserting that all government agencies can run roughshod over their budget and there will be more next year?

Also, could you please tell us what you think of the "Complete Lives Program"?

Never heard of it. Is it relevant?

Actually, there are millions of people who choose not to have health insurance and do just fine.

I didn't say demand for "health insurance" I said demand for "health care". People without health insurance are a part of the population that go to ER's for treatment, which drives up the cost for all of us.

Could you please show us where in the Constitution we're told that the government has the authority to be involved in such private industries as health insurance or where it has the authority to force citizens to purchase a product that they do not want?

Non sequitur. I never argued that all people should be forced to purchase a product.

 

[Sonjeo]

So, sonjeo...since apparently we now live in a pure democracy (instead of a constitutional republic)--am I to assume that whenever 50% plus one is in favor of something, it should be so?

Third trimester abortions, maybe?


Look...America is getting dumber by the day. Fewer and fewer people have the intelligence and common sense to understand the unsustainability of socialized medicine, and the welfare state. More and more folks are on the public dole. Fewer and fewer people take responsibility for their own care. More and more people expect folks to take care of them.

I fully anticipate that at some point, a majority of Americans will be too lazy to provide the basics for themselves. That doesn't make it right.

The polling is primarily addressed to carpro when he elicited some “pure democracy” by addressing American opinion or objections. Evidently you need to talk to him about that.

In fact more and more people have the intelligence and common sense to understand that it is a matter of priorities. Instead of 700 billion dollar tax cuts to the very rich, 700 billion dollar misguided wars, mishandling of the economy that led to hundreds of billions in monumental losses across the board and overfunding a military that can destroy the world umpteen times people are beginning to understand and support keeping and funding the healthcare law in hopes that useless wastes of tax payers dollars can be avoided in the future and revenues better utilized by wiser leadership that believes in the purpose of government.

One thing is for sure, we cannot sustain the healthcare system as it is now.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Someone's personal stories are anecdotal evidence. You're not addressing the inefficiencies of the private health care system, just casting aspersions on the existing government run ones.

What I'm asking is, if what you're saying is true, then why does the evidence point to the contrary?

Anyway, it is estimated that streamlining payments through a single payer system would save $300 - $400 Billion a year. Saving from paperwork reduction would be $150 Billion a year.

And I've addressed this already.

Now you are projecting into the future on something that doesn't even exist.

You're the one saying how it's going to save money in the future.

If you would have read my post you would have seen that it is impossible for me to "find a better package" because all three insurance companies licensed in Minnesota have identical coverages and rates within a percentage point or two of one another. There is no choice.

OK. So how does that make taking away my family's insurance right?

Yes, but they are not competing. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between them.

Actually, there is a great deal of difference. As an employer who has to search different plans to cover my employees, I can tell you first hand that there is a huge difference.

There is no opting out of it.

Then how do you explain the millions of people who choose to opt out of it?

Under a single payer system health care providers are given a global budget for the year. It's up to the hospitals and clinics to allocate the budget the most efficiently.

Yeah...and?

I think all government agencies are concerned with keeping their costs down.

Then it shouldn't be any problem for you to answer the question.

But since you asked I'll say NASA.

OK. How so?

Never heard of it. Is it relevant?

Really??? So then you're ignorant of what the plan entails and yet, you're going to preach to me how great it is and how my family and I should abandon our coverage for it?

I didn't say demand for "health insurance" I said demand for "health care".

Which includes insurance.

People without health insurance are a part of the population that go to ER's for treatment, which drives up the cost for all of us.

How so?

Non sequitur. I never argued that all people should be forced to purchase a product.

But the plan you're promoting does, Einstein.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

That's not what I advocate. I think the individual mandate in ObamaCare is probably unconstitutional.

Could you please name the specific portion of the Constitution you believe justifies a government takeover of the healthcare industry?

Article I, Section 8.

OK...I'm a broccoli grower, and I think you should eat more.

I manage to get a law passed that the IRS can fine you (or worse) if you don't buy broccoli from me, or some other grower.

That's constitutional?

No. What would be constitutional is for Congress to use their authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause to buy broccoli and establish a single payer broccoli program. That would be a stupid law, but we have a legislature for a reason.

By the way...if you were thinking "from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need" was the part of the Constitution you use to justify single payer, I have news for you.

It's not in the US Constitution.

It's in the Communist Manifesto.

I'm not a Communist.

Yeah...and I was thinking: since "unwanted babies" cost money, and often times are a drain on society....and since medical expenses for them and moms are economic transactions (vis a vis "commerce"), then aborting babies is perfectly fine, according to the "commerce clause" and "promote the general welfare" clause.

See what happens when you drift from an originalist perspective? You can kill babies, and have the Constitution justify it.

I take a textualist approach to the Constitution and I think the Commerce Clause can be used to ban elective abortion.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

That's not what I advocate.

But the program you're telling us all we should abandon our insurance coverage for, does.

I think the individual mandate in ObamaCare is probably unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 8.

OK. Here is Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

As you can see, nothing in there about giving the government such authority. You have been caught in a lie.

I'm not a Communist.

Then why are you promoting a system that is consistent with Marxism?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

As you can see, nothing in there about giving the government such authority. You have been caught in a lie.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Then why are you promoting a system that is consistent with Marxism?

I'm not a Marxist. For example, Marxism is against religion, and I'm a Southern Baptist. Marxism also supports the establishment of Communism by revolution, and I oppose the violent overthrow of the government. I want to use the legislative process to establish social democracy.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So which part of this do you believe gives the government the right to mandate that citizens purchase a product or service under threat of fine or imprisonment?

I'm not a Marxist.

Then why are you promoting nationalizing a private industry in a way that is consistent with Marxism?

I want to use the legislative process to establish social democracy.

For those who are not familiar, social democracy is "a socialist movement supporting gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy" (Robertson. A dictionary of Modern Politics. 3rd edition. London, England, UK: Europa Publications, 2004. Pp. 212.)

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Then why are you promoting nationalizing a private industry in a way that is consistent with Marxism?

I'll answer after you address the things I've listed as obvious areas where I disagree with Marxism.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I'll answer after you address the things I've listed as obvious areas where I disagree with Marxism.

I don't really care what you disagree with Marxism about. We're talking about the nationalization of health care and your support of it.

Now could you please tell us where in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution we're told that the government has the right to mandate that citizens purchase a product or service under threat of fine or imprisonment?

 

[mandym]

Marxism also supports the establishment of Communism by revolution, and I oppose the violent overthrow of the government.

Revolution does not have to mean such. And in fact it can be as peaceful as anything else. I am sure some want to avoid such labels but if you are going to speak clearly on this issue you need to be willing to admit to facts. Someone can be a Marxist without agreeing to every single thought taught by Marx. Simply wanting government to control America's wealth places one in such a category. That is the key objective of Marxism.

 

[rbell]

I never argued that all people should be forced to purchase a product.

Reality is, that's what Obamacare does. So if you argue for a system such as this, that's the result.

I think all government agencies are concerned with keeping their costs down.

This is a joke, right? Government has no motivation to keep costs down. They get their money no matter what. In fact, they usually get built-in increases...and when the rate of increase is brought down, they call it a "cut." (only in government...)

Not to mention...when someone from govnerment is wasteful, they are much less likely to be reprimanded, fired, or demoted--particularly if they have connections, or are a part of a protected group/group likely to sue for "discrimination."

Certainly, you wrote the above sentence with a smile on your face. I couldn't type it with a straight face.

Anyway, it is estimated that streamlining payments through a single payer system would save $300 - $400 Billion a year. Saving from paperwork reduction would be $150 Billion a year.

This is absolute hogwash.

First of all, remember: "We had to pass this bill to know what's in it." It's a hopelessly complex jumble of bureacratic snafus and unmanageable red tape. It will cost our country billions in lawyers and consultants just to figure out if Company A is even in compliance. (Not to mention, Obama's thousands of waivers will allow SOME groups to simply ignore the law, leaving us unconnected people to foot the bill.

Secondly...remind me of ONE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM that cost less than projected, and ended up being simpler than first proposed.

*crickets*

This is a train wreck, plain and simple--and only those who are hyper-partisan, blind to facts, or intentionally ignorant of history will not see it.

 

[InTheLight]

Reality is, that's what Obamacare does. So if you argue for a system such as this, that's the result.

Obamacare and a single payer system are two different animals.

Have you ever worked on a government contract? I worked under government contracts for 9 years back in the 1980's. There were cost controls in place.

 

[billwald]

>Now could you please tell us where in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution we're told that the government has the right to mandate that citizens purchase a product or service under threat of fine or imprisonment?

Question demonstrates ignorance of the Constitution. It is mostly (except for maybe post office, navy, and roads) written as negative statements about what the government CAN'T do. So where does the Constitution deny a governmental interest in health care?

 

[rbell]

http://www.pnhp.org/

PHNP.ORG (Physicians for a National Health Program) is a non-profit research and education organization of 18,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance.

Asking these guys for info about Obamacare is like...

• Putting Hugh Heffner in PR director of "Focus on the Family."
• Asking Mo-Ammar Qaddafi to chair the next Franklin Graham Crusade Publicity Team.
• Having Cher to talk to your pre-teen girls about body image, and the silliness of silicone implants.

That is to say...any information you get from the source is not worth the free paper it's printed on.

 

[InTheLight]

That is to say...any information you get from the source is not worth the free paper it's printed on.

Here is 18 year old data from testimony before the Congressional Budget Office:

Under a single-payer system with copayment requirements (SPI), total
administrative costs would be about half of what they are under the current
system, reducing NHEIA by about 4.6 percent, or $34 billion in 1991. The
savings on insurance administration would be nearly as large as under SP2.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10383/1993_05_25reischauertestimony.pdf


Here is 12 year old data from the New England Journal of Medicine:

The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033

 

[FR7 Baptist]

So which part of this do you believe gives the government the right to mandate that citizens purchase a product or service under threat of fine or imprisonment?

For the third time, I don't.

Then why are you promoting nationalizing a private industry in a way that is consistent with Marxism?

Single payer would still have private delivery of healthcare, only public funding. There are other ways to being about socialism than government ownership of industry. For some things, that's fine. For the most part, I don't want the government to own industry. I think credit unions are a good way to look at democratizing industry. In my credit union, each member gets one vote at our annual meeting, without regard for wealth or fame. Credit unions are cooperative institutions and are not owned by the government.

For those who are not familiar, social democracy is "a socialist movement supporting gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy" (Robertson. A dictionary of Modern Politics. 3rd edition. London, England, UK: Europa Publications, 2004. Pp. 212.)

:thumbs:

 

[mandym]

>Now could you please tell us where in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution we're told that the government has the right to mandate that citizens purchase a product or service under threat of fine or imprisonment?

Question demonstrates ignorance of the Constitution. It is mostly (except for maybe post office, navy, and roads) written as negative statements about what the government CAN'T do. So where does the Constitution deny a governmental interest in health care?

It is called the 10th amendment