Universal Health Care

I do not believe the constitution should subject to overall change, we have the ability to ammend it when needed....for all the difference between today and the 18th century, whats right is still right and whats wrong is still wrong....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div>

Do you not think that the Constitution ought to be updated. It was written in the 18th Century (right?) and some of the things it says reflects that. The beauty of the UK's unwritten constitution is that it can be easily amended to change with the times. When the US Constitution was written, UHC would have been scoffed at. Now it is more viable and proven to work elsewhere. I understand that you fully believe in the Constitution, but perhaps that should be changed more drastically than ever in order to improve the "general welfare" of the country.
</div>


Easy amendments.

Yeah. Great idea.

Prohibition? Awesome idea.

Wonder what else they could eliminate with free passes at the Constitution. Hell, they nearly succeeded in eliminating the 2nd amendment in a much more difficult process.

It doesn't need to be updated.

It needs to be followed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 04:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Quote me on this one, too.

All the times I've had to deal directly with the government, I don't remember one being a good experience. Not a one.

Unless you think being pulled over for doing 30 in a 25 is fun. Or spending a day at the DMV. Or doing your taxes.</div>

I once (well, many times) spent a day at the DMV. I finally get through the line so that I can make changes to my drivers license. I give the guy my information. He wants to offer me a $12 option to do something kind of similar to what I had already intended to do. I declined the offer. He asks me if I'm "sure" that I don't want to do that. I tell him no, I want what I came to you for. Apparently, he didn't like my decision. When my driver's license arrived, my address was incorrect on it by one digit. One of the reasons I spent the day there, was to update my address. I had violent thoughts flash past me for a moment.

I once got a ticket for running a stop sign, in another state, three states away. I never paid that ticket. A year goes by. I am driving home from work one evening, and get pulled over for having a headlight out. I wait for 30 minutes while he runs my information in his car. A second car arrives behind him. They arrest me. Apparently, the $40 ticket I got in the other state caused them to suspend my license in my home state. They told me that they had mailed a letter to my home, that I had lived in 3 residences ago. Obviously, I never got the letter. What I learned from this, is that the government requires that you go and register with them, where you live when you move. It's not enough just to tell the post office, or have the address on your driver's license changed. They told me that I actually had to go to the local city hall and update my residence. Never knew that.

Turbo Tax makes it less painful.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If the federal budget is $3T and the population is 300M, it works out to $1,000 per man/woman/child in the nation. $4K for a family of 4. A small % of us get $1K worth of services, or even $4K. What a waste.</div>

you're intelligent enough to have a better understanding of the services everyone receives from the federal government. For example, what value would you place on the work by the FDA? The existence of the court system? They cost money, you know.

 

I like having highways if I'm driving. Who pays for those? What kind of clustermess would it be if they didn't keep building bigger interchanges?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div>

Do you not think that the Constitution ought to be updated. It was written in the 18th Century (right?) and some of the things it says reflects that. The beauty of the UK's unwritten constitution is that it can be easily amended to change with the times. When the US Constitution was written, UHC would have been scoffed at. Now it is more viable and proven to work elsewhere. I understand that you fully believe in the Constitution, but perhaps that should be changed more drastically than ever in order to improve the "general welfare" of the country.
</div>

The Constitution provides the basic framework for what the United States is supposed to be in the vision of its' framers.

If you change it, you change the framework. If you change the framework once, you're opening the door for the framework to be completely reworked, which leaves us without the vision of the country our founders had.

I'm all for discussion of a constitutional amendment once in a while, but the constitution should not be updated completely.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 29 2008, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You really have to emphasize the universal part of universal health care. I feel that people unfairly assume that it means government intervention when its not necessarily the case. UHC should, at its most basic level, refer to health care being accessible to anyone who is in need of it. How that's provided can differ from country to country. I don't think the US government should tack on a health care program to its responsibilities at this point, simply because its bloated and financially f'd up enough as it is. It might work for Canada and many European countries but different circumstances require different approaches. That doesn't, however, mean a system that consistently refuses people treatment that is essential to their survival is adequate.</div>

Well I certainly agree with this statement, the cost of health care right now is ridiculous and I hate insurance companies as well.

I can understand why some people may not want to fund government programs for the poor or "lazy", but my God we have certain rights in our country don't we? I don't think people should be suffering with deformities just because of some stupid hospital bill. It doesn't seem ethical and I do indeed believe part of my paycheck should somehow indirectly help TheBeef's wife.

Further, I know various legal immigrants (who went to college in South America etc.) but don't get jobs here for various reasons. They certainly aren't lazy and deserve more respect than they get. And I think there is no question that the Constitution is outdated on various issues.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 05:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was just wondering, why do you guys think that Universal Health Care is not the answer to health care problems in the USA. Yes, it is expensive, but surely it allows those who can't really afford private insurance to still get treatment for injuries. In the UK, yes, it is flawed but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have it. Anyone care to enlighten me?</div>

Has this discussion helped? I think it pretty well exemplifies the scope of the debate on the issue. Many people have a deep-rooted hatred and/or fear of the government and government run programs in the U.S., for better or worse, and would rather do things themselves. Many people also believe that the scope of government services should be limited to things like waging war and enforcing contracts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 29 2008, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I like having highways if I'm driving. Who pays for those? What kind of clustermess would it be if they didn't keep building bigger interchanges?</div>
Believe me when I say that you absolutely don't want highways to be in the hands of private companies. In the late 90's, Ontario's idiotic conservative government sold one of our major highways to a private company so that they could avoid a deficit (the economy being in a minor slump, trying to cover it up was f'n stupid). We're now stuck with a gas company-ish monopoly on one of our biggest highways (prices are constantly increasing), pushing even more traffic onto the rest of our already crowded highways.

 

So live under the pretense that this a land of opportunity when many of those opportunities are blocked by a medical bill?

 

What opportunites are blocked by medical bills? If you truely make so little that you cant afford insurance, you can get medicaid, which will pay for your medical bills....in addition, all government affiliated hospitals, and there are tons of them, will not refuse stablizing care in the case of an emergency....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My experience is somewhat different.

I went to a clinic with a mild fever (99.6). They asked if I had insurance, I said I was paying in cash. They gave me a 65% discount. They drew blood and told me to take it to the lab next door. I told them I'm paying cash, and I got a $200 discount.</div>

I don't want to add anything else to this thread, but I can't resist commenting on this. In the U.S., insurance companies will only cover a percentage of a subscriber's medical bills, depending on the type of service and the details of the plan itself. By agreeing to participate in the plan, medical service providers agree not to bill patients for the difference. The end result is that medical service providers will price their services based on whether a patient has insurance, and, if so, the percentage that they will recoup form the insurer. The rates that Denny was asked to pay were, in fact, the "true" rates; if he had insurance, they would have received a bloated invoice.

It is all a game.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 29 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My experience is somewhat different.

I went to a clinic with a mild fever (99.6). They asked if I had insurance, I said I was paying in cash. They gave me a 65% discount. They drew blood and told me to take it to the lab next door. I told them I'm paying cash, and I got a $200 discount.</div>

I don't want to add anything else to this thread, but I can't resist commenting on this. In the U.S., insurance companies will only cover a percentage of a subscriber's medical bills, depending on the type of service and the details of the plan itself. By agreeing to participate in the plan, medical service providers agree not to bill patients for the difference. The end result is that medical service providers will price their services based on whether a patient has insurance, and, if so, the percentage that they will recoup form the insurer. The rates that Denny was asked to pay were, in fact, the "true" rates; if he had insurance, they would have received a bloated invoice.

It is all a game.
</div>

You hit that right on the head....its not just a game, its a shell game

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What opportunites are blocked by medical bills? If you truely make so little that you cant afford insurance, you can get medicaid, which will pay for your medical bills....in addition, all government affiliated hospitals, and there are tons of them, will not refuse stablizing care in the case of an emergency....</div>
You dont need to be poor to have opportunities blocked. the condition doesnt necessarily have to be life threatening.


But dont confuse me for those that advocate universal health care. For this country, it is not the solution, but I dont believe the market should run most of this country's health care.