|
|
Post by True Patriot on Nov 25, 2016 22:53:52 GMT -5
How funny is it to hear people who supported and support Clintoncare and Obamacare saying that the people effected by health care legislation should have some input during the deliberations and writing of it?
I agree, but to hear it from the people who supported the authoritarian, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it." way of doing things and the purposeful deceit that was employed it seems quite amusing.
Where was the public input with regard to the Left's proposals?
Hell, they wouldn't even give legislators enough time to review Obamacare.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to manage healthcare.
If you disagree then please provide a reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 8:00:23 GMT -5
How funny is it to hear people who supported and support Clintoncare and Obamacare saying that the people effected by health care legislation should have some input during the deliberations and writing of it? I agree, but to hear it from the people who supported the authoritarian, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it." way of doing things and the purposeful deceit that was employed it seems quite amusing. Where was the public input with regard to the Left's proposals? Hell, they wouldn't even give legislators enough time to review Obamacare. The federal government has no constitutional authority to manage healthcare. If you disagree then please provide a reference. Of course, you are correct Truepatriot. The federal government has no skin in this game unless the Constitution is disregarded. That doesn’t mean the States cannot make some efforts in the Healthcare game. They can do so as individual States, or as States that voluntarily agree to work together. This a time to be creative. Where the federal government does have some authority to do something is with the Veteran’s Administration. That is, fulfill their contract to care for Veteran’s health. Here too this is an opportunity to be creative. One area where the federal government might be able to assist is through the use of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and that is to monitor those manufacturer of medical equipment which is sold across State borders to medical facilities, (i.e., doctors, clinics, Hospitals, etc.) to ensure that they are not artificially inflated as to retail price. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 8:06:51 GMT -5
How funny is it to hear people who supported and support Clintoncare and Obamacare saying that the people effected by health care legislation should have some input during the deliberations and writing of it? I agree, but to hear it from the people who supported the authoritarian, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it." way of doing things and the purposeful deceit that was employed it seems quite amusing. Where was the public input with regard to the Left's proposals? Hell, they wouldn't even give legislators enough time to review Obamacare. The federal government has no constitutional authority to manage healthcare. If you disagree then please provide a reference. Of course, you are correct Truepatriot. The federal government has no skin in this game unless the Constitution is disregarded. That doesn’t mean the States cannot make some efforts in the Healthcare game. They can do so as individual States, or as States that voluntarily agree to work together. This a time to be creative. Where the federal government does have some authority to do something is with the Veteran’s Administration. That is, fulfill their contract to care for Veteran’s health. Here too this is an opportunity to be creative. One area where the federal government might be able to assist is through the use of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and that is to monitor those manufacturer of medical equipment which is sold across State borders to medical facilities, (i.e., doctors, clinics, Hospitals, etc.) to ensure that they are not artificially inflated as to retail price. I think we have a bromance. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 26, 2016 8:12:06 GMT -5
 Perhaps there should be an effort toward an amendment to spicifically cover health care. A hard pull, no doubt, but maybe the people in this country (and the states in turn) would support it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 8:43:42 GMT -5
Perhaps there should be an effort toward an amendment to spicifically cover health care. A hard pull, no doubt, but maybe the people in this country (and the states in turn) would support it. There is no excuse that each and every person shouldn't have comprehensive health and dental care. We are wealthy enough. Hell, if we can spend 7 mil to protect Donald Trump on Thanksgiving, we can can certainly do something actually useful to people. It's also a disgrace that comprehensive dental is not included in any given plan. It's part of general, physical well-being and is overlooked in this country. I have seen the terrible dental problems amongst the homeless population. How are they supposed to work if they are in chronic pain? Yes, good, socialist values.  |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 10:06:25 GMT -5
Perhaps there should be an effort toward an amendment to spicifically cover health care. A hard pull, no doubt, but maybe the people in this country (and the states in turn) would support it. That would seem to be a reasonable idea Beth. At the very least it would empower a debate at all levels and it would force it to be out in the open. However it might be defined, it would result in making sure that the role of the federal government would fit the requirements of the Constitution. If it failed, then it should fall to the States to do what their people want in each State. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 26, 2016 10:54:16 GMT -5
Perhaps there should be an effort toward an amendment to spicifically cover health care. A hard pull, no doubt, but maybe the people in this country (and the states in turn) would support it. That would seem to be a reasonable idea Beth. At the very least it would empower a debate at all levels and it would force it to be out in the open. However it might be defined, it would result in making sure that the role of the federal government would fit the requirements of the Constitution. If it failed, then it should fall to the States to do what their people want in each State. Thank you for being open to the conversation, Randy. IMO, the states will never agree to anything in regard to comprehensive health care that the federal government doesn't subsidize, at least in part. In place of an all out protest against the government change .. that would probably turn into a lot of angry rhetoric and little else, why not concentrate on health care? It's something a great majority of the population just might agree on. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 12:10:31 GMT -5
That would seem to be a reasonable idea Beth. At the very least it would empower a debate at all levels and it would force it to be out in the open. However it might be defined, it would result in making sure that the role of the federal government would fit the requirements of the Constitution. If it failed, then it should fall to the States to do what their people want in each State. Thank you for being open to the conversation, Randy. IMO, the states will never agree to anything in regard to comprehensive health care that the federal government doesn't subsidize, at least in part. In place of an all out protest against the government change .. that would probably turn into a lot of angry rhetoric and little else, why not concentrate on health care? It's something a great majority of the population just might agree on. To me and those who believe the Constitution is significant, then anything the federal government does in total country healthcare will not be acceptable. To change that will require, as you noted, a Constitutional Amendment and that will take years even if it were to pass. The States are capable of doing all that is required for healthcare. There is nothing new to such State initiatives and between State cooperation. In the days prior to federal enforced control through the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the States worked together in developing road use rules and commercial carrier control and the taxes being collected for such road use varied in type from State to State. They have also worked together to the degree they deem necessary in gun legislation where laws in one State are recognized in another. The same is true as to marriage laws as well as all sorts of other laws. There are differences in some of these laws and their application from State to State as each State is responding to the unique needs of their citizens. Keep in mind, that each State is (in the context of the Constitution) a Free, Independent, and Sovereign, entity. Of course, the 14th Amendment in 1869, and the interpretation of it (beginning in 1869) has change these original Constitutional Concepts, but the 9th and 10th Amendments are still in force as the highest law of the land. Different localities can still handle things in ways they see fitting their areas without intrusion (acts outside of the Constitution) from the federal government. The posting made by Ariel relative to the needs of some of our population for dental care is recognizing a real need. In my area, this need is addressed as twice a year the medical community (mostly dentists) come together in a location where anyone can walk-in and receive any needed dental care. There is no charge and no involvement of government. In addition, anyone can go to free clinics and receive any required medical care all year long. They pay or don’t pay relative to their economic ability. This program does, where applicable, interface with governmental medical programs but is primarily funded by the State. When their (the patient) medical needs exceed the capabilities of the clinic (which has extensive capabilities), they are then sent to the State hospital facility in Iowa city where, for example, major operations are performed. When needed, transportation is provided. I realize that some will disregard these State efforts and advocate for full federal control. Such is acceptable as long as the amendment changes are made to the Constitution and at the current time that doesn’t exist. If the federal government is to be involved (without the necessary amendment), then we might as well cease lying to ourselves and drop the Constitution of the United States all together and as well remove all State Constitutions. |
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726 
|
Post by Jessiealan on Nov 26, 2016 12:20:46 GMT -5
You think "name calling" is the big evil? Perhaps it is simply what is necessary to get the attention of the fools who, as my father used to say, would gag at a gnat and swallow a camel. evil probably wasn't the best choice of word but the point was how quickly people are labeled for disagreeing name calling is far to common in our society....rather than discuss the issue, names are hurled and the chance of communicating is lost in the anger that can follow. It is a knee jerk reaction sometimes. In this case, I don't believe I'd call it "name calling" but rather labeling. Very tempting in this particular case. I agree with Beth that many who voted for Trump did not think it through. |
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Nov 26, 2016 12:29:02 GMT -5
Thank you for being open to the conversation, Randy. IMO, the states will never agree to anything in regard to comprehensive health care that the federal government doesn't subsidize, at least in part. In place of an all out protest against the government change .. that would probably turn into a lot of angry rhetoric and little else, why not concentrate on health care? It's something a great majority of the population just might agree on. To me and those who believe the Constitution is significant, then anything the federal government does in total country healthcare will not be acceptable. To change that will require, as you noted, a Constitutional Amendment and that will take years even if it were to pass. The States are capable of doing all that is required for healthcare. There is nothing new to such State initiatives and between State cooperation. In the days prior to federal enforced control through the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the States worked together in developing road use rules and commercial carrier control and the taxes being collected for such road use varied in type from State to State. They have also worked together to the degree they deem necessary in gun legislation where laws in one State are recognized in another. The same is true as to marriage laws as well as all sorts of other laws. There are differences in some of these laws and their application from State to State as each State is responding to the unique needs of their citizens. Keep in mind, that each State is (in the context of the Constitution) a Free, Independent, and Sovereign, entity. Of course, the 14th Amendment in 1869, and the interpretation of it (beginning in 1869) has change these original Constitutional Concepts, but the 9th and 10th Amendments are still in force as the highest law of the land. Different localities can still handle things in ways they see fitting their areas without intrusion (acts outside of the Constitution) from the federal government. The posting made by Ariel relative to the needs of some of our population for dental care is recognizing a real need. In my area, this need is addressed as twice a year the medical community (mostly dentists) come together in a location where anyone can walk-in and receive any needed dental care. There is no charge and no involvement of government. In addition, anyone can go to free clinics and receive any required medical care all year long. They pay or don’t pay relative to their economic ability. This program does, where applicable, interface with governmental medical programs but is primarily funded by the State. When their (the patient) medical needs exceed the capabilities of the clinic (which has extensive capabilities), they are then sent to the State hospital facility in Iowa city where, for example, major operations are performed. When needed, transportation is provided. I realize that some will disregard these State efforts and advocate for full federal control. Such is acceptable as long as the amendment changes are made to the Constitution and at the current time that doesn’t exist. If the federal government is to be involved (without the necessary amendment), then we might as well cease lying to ourselves and drop the Constitution of the United States all together and as well remove all State Constitutions. I am glad you wrote about this at length, Men an tol. It will help people to further understand the horror losing Medicare and Medicaid would be to the disabled and the elderly, as well as ordinary people who cannot afford the large premiums of Insurance companies unless good policies are offered by employers. Sometimes they are but often they are not. I sincerely hope the American public rises up and opposes cuts in great enough numbers that someone who can act will listen. If not, I fear this country will be in more trouble than some think. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 12:30:44 GMT -5
Thank you for being open to the conversation, Randy. IMO, the states will never agree to anything in regard to comprehensive health care that the federal government doesn't subsidize, at least in part. In place of an all out protest against the government change .. that would probably turn into a lot of angry rhetoric and little else, why not concentrate on health care? It's something a great majority of the population just might agree on. To me and those who believe the Constitution is significant, then anything the federal government does in total country healthcare will not be acceptable. To change that will require, as you noted, a Constitutional Amendment and that will take years even if it were to pass. The States are capable of doing all that is required for healthcare. There is nothing new to such State initiatives and between State cooperation. In the days prior to federal enforced control through the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the States worked together in developing road use rules and commercial carrier control and the taxes being collected for such road use varied in type from State to State. They have also worked together to the degree they deem necessary in gun legislation where laws in one State are recognized in another. The same is true as to marriage laws as well as all sorts of other laws. There are differences in some of these laws and their application from State to State as each State is responding to the unique needs of their citizens. Keep in mind, that each State is (in the context of the Constitution) a Free, Independent, and Sovereign, entity. Of course, the 14th Amendment in 1869, and the interpretation of it (beginning in 1869) has change these original Constitutional Concepts, but the 9th and 10th Amendments are still in force as the highest law of the land. Different localities can still handle things in ways they see fitting their areas without intrusion (acts outside of the Constitution) from the federal government. The posting made by Ariel relative to the needs of some of our population for dental care is recognizing a real need. In my area, this need is addressed as twice a year the medical community (mostly dentists) come together in a location where anyone can walk-in and receive any needed dental care. There is no charge and no involvement of government. In addition, anyone can go to free clinics and receive any required medical care all year long. They pay or don’t pay relative to their economic ability. This program does, where applicable, interface with governmental medical programs but is primarily funded by the State. When their (the patient) medical needs exceed the capabilities of the clinic (which has extensive capabilities), they are then sent to the State hospital facility in Iowa city where, for example, major operations are performed. When needed, transportation is provided. I realize that some will disregard these State efforts and advocate for full federal control. Such is acceptable as long as the amendment changes are made to the Constitution and at the current time that doesn’t exist. If the federal government is to be involved (without the necessary amendment), then we might as well cease lying to ourselves and drop the Constitution of the United States all together and as well remove all State Constitutions. You mentioned The Constitution eight times in that post. I value The Constitution just as much as you do. For me, however, it is not a weapon to subvert progress. In many places (NYC for example) there is no place for homeless and low-income people to get dental care. They simply do not exist, probably because there is an overwhelming demand and the cost-of-living is so immense. So, depending on the good will of the few is fruitless. The only way to get the desperately needed amendments to The Constitution is by making enough noise, signing enough petitions, civil unrest by the many, and holding the Republican's feet to the fire (who apparently don't care about anyone. But they'll lower taxes for the rich and waste their time on gun-rights.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 12:40:16 GMT -5
Perhaps there should be an effort toward an amendment to spicifically cover health care. A hard pull, no doubt, but maybe the people in this country (and the states in turn) would support it. There is no excuse that each and every person shouldn't have comprehensive health and dental care. We are wealthy enough. Hell, if we can spend 7 mil to protect Donald Trump on Thanksgiving, we can can certainly do something actually useful to people. It's also a disgrace that comprehensive dental is not included in any given plan. It's part of general, physical well-being and is overlooked in this country. I have seen the terrible dental problems amongst the homeless population. How are they supposed to work if they are in chronic pain? Yes, good, socialist values. The low income working people and seniors need good dental coverage also. I'm covered by a plan the state has BUT there are no dentists in the area accepting new patients so the closest one is a 135 mile drive one way...that is crazy. I wish hearings aids were covered under medicare. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 12:42:29 GMT -5
To me and those who believe the Constitution is significant, then anything the federal government does in total country healthcare will not be acceptable. To change that will require, as you noted, a Constitutional Amendment and that will take years even if it were to pass. The States are capable of doing all that is required for healthcare. There is nothing new to such State initiatives and between State cooperation. In the days prior to federal enforced control through the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the States worked together in developing road use rules and commercial carrier control and the taxes being collected for such road use varied in type from State to State. They have also worked together to the degree they deem necessary in gun legislation where laws in one State are recognized in another. The same is true as to marriage laws as well as all sorts of other laws. There are differences in some of these laws and their application from State to State as each State is responding to the unique needs of their citizens. Keep in mind, that each State is (in the context of the Constitution) a Free, Independent, and Sovereign, entity. Of course, the 14th Amendment in 1869, and the interpretation of it (beginning in 1869) has change these original Constitutional Concepts, but the 9th and 10th Amendments are still in force as the highest law of the land. Different localities can still handle things in ways they see fitting their areas without intrusion (acts outside of the Constitution) from the federal government. The posting made by Ariel relative to the needs of some of our population for dental care is recognizing a real need. In my area, this need is addressed as twice a year the medical community (mostly dentists) come together in a location where anyone can walk-in and receive any needed dental care. There is no charge and no involvement of government. In addition, anyone can go to free clinics and receive any required medical care all year long. They pay or don’t pay relative to their economic ability. This program does, where applicable, interface with governmental medical programs but is primarily funded by the State. When their (the patient) medical needs exceed the capabilities of the clinic (which has extensive capabilities), they are then sent to the State hospital facility in Iowa city where, for example, major operations are performed. When needed, transportation is provided. I realize that some will disregard these State efforts and advocate for full federal control. Such is acceptable as long as the amendment changes are made to the Constitution and at the current time that doesn’t exist. If the federal government is to be involved (without the necessary amendment), then we might as well cease lying to ourselves and drop the Constitution of the United States all together and as well remove all State Constitutions. You mentioned The Constitution eight times in that post. I value The Constitution just as much as you do. For me, however, it is not a weapon to subvert progress. In many places (NYC for example) there is no place for homeless and low-income people to get dental care. They simply do not exist, probably because there is an overwhelming demand and the cost-of-living is so immense. So, depending on the good will of the few, it is fruitless. The only way to get the desperately needed amendments to The Constitution is by making enough noise, signing enough petitions, civil unrest by the many, and holding the Republican's feet to the fire (who apparently don't care about anyone. But they'll lower taxes for the rich and waste their time on gun-rights.) We are just ending eight years of a democratic president who sat on his thumbs doing nothing about dental care. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 13:08:16 GMT -5
You mentioned The Constitution eight times in that post. I value The Constitution just as much as you do. For me, however, it is not a weapon to subvert progress. In many places (NYC for example) there is no place for homeless and low-income people to get dental care. They simply do not exist, probably because there is an overwhelming demand and the cost-of-living is so immense. So, depending on the good will of the few, it is fruitless. The only way to get the desperately needed amendments to The Constitution is by making enough noise, signing enough petitions, civil unrest by the many, and holding the Republican's feet to the fire (who apparently don't care about anyone. But they'll lower taxes for the rich and waste their time on gun-rights.) We are just ending eight years of a democratic president who sat on his thumbs doing nothing about dental care. He hardly sat on his thumbs. What he did was almost miraculous, given the Republican Congress. How can you even say that? |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 13:19:59 GMT -5
To me and those who believe the Constitution is significant, then anything the federal government does in total country healthcare will not be acceptable. To change that will require, as you noted, a Constitutional Amendment and that will take years even if it were to pass. The States are capable of doing all that is required for healthcare. There is nothing new to such State initiatives and between State cooperation. In the days prior to federal enforced control through the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the States worked together in developing road use rules and commercial carrier control and the taxes being collected for such road use varied in type from State to State. They have also worked together to the degree they deem necessary in gun legislation where laws in one State are recognized in another. The same is true as to marriage laws as well as all sorts of other laws. There are differences in some of these laws and their application from State to State as each State is responding to the unique needs of their citizens. Keep in mind, that each State is (in the context of the Constitution) a Free, Independent, and Sovereign, entity. Of course, the 14th Amendment in 1869, and the interpretation of it (beginning in 1869) has change these original Constitutional Concepts, but the 9th and 10th Amendments are still in force as the highest law of the land. Different localities can still handle things in ways they see fitting their areas without intrusion (acts outside of the Constitution) from the federal government. The posting made by Ariel relative to the needs of some of our population for dental care is recognizing a real need. In my area, this need is addressed as twice a year the medical community (mostly dentists) come together in a location where anyone can walk-in and receive any needed dental care. There is no charge and no involvement of government. In addition, anyone can go to free clinics and receive any required medical care all year long. They pay or don’t pay relative to their economic ability. This program does, where applicable, interface with governmental medical programs but is primarily funded by the State. When their (the patient) medical needs exceed the capabilities of the clinic (which has extensive capabilities), they are then sent to the State hospital facility in Iowa city where, for example, major operations are performed. When needed, transportation is provided. I realize that some will disregard these State efforts and advocate for full federal control. Such is acceptable as long as the amendment changes are made to the Constitution and at the current time that doesn’t exist. If the federal government is to be involved (without the necessary amendment), then we might as well cease lying to ourselves and drop the Constitution of the United States all together and as well remove all State Constitutions. You mentioned The Constitution eight times in that post. I value The Constitution just as much as you do. For me, however, it is not a weapon to subvert progress. In many places (NYC for example) there is no place for homeless and low-income people to get dental care. They simply do not exist, probably because there is an overwhelming demand and the cost-of-living is so immense. So, depending on the good will of the few, it is fruitless. The only way to get the desperately needed amendments to The Constitution is by making enough noise, signing enough petitions, civil unrest by the many, and holding the Republican's feet to the fire (who apparently don't care about anyone. But they'll lower taxes for the rich and waste their time on gun-rights.) Thank you, Ariel, for counting my mentioning of the Constitution. While it has changed both in word and in interpretation since it was first ratified, it is the highest law of the land and it is the common ground which holds the national government in check. In my opinion the only real solution for medical care, is to have it provided as working benefits. To make such an approach possible requires the number of available jobs to exceed the supply of available workers, that is, competitive demand for workers. Such a solution is possible with an expanding economy, which, I believe is doable. I have no confidence in realistic healthcare being supplied through the national government. At the same time, there is a role for government. If you go to some type of medical care facility and asked for an itemized billing, you will find charges for items that are beyond the pale. There are several reasons for this, but in part, it is because the medical care facilities are being charged way beyond reasonable prices for these items. There is also the factor that demand on these medical facilities are more than is reasonable because to minimize potential liability medical practitioners use medical testing when they do not require them. There is also the factor that significant effort must be applied responding to government requirements of reporting and, these costs, and far more, are passed on to the patient. That role for government is small as a form of monitoring and is constitutional through the Commerce Clause for those medical field relationships cross State borders. I’ll also mention that I agree with you that the Constitution ‘is not a weapon to subvert progress.’ Neither is it a tool to wedge an intruding government into the private lives of the people. It is the highest law of the land and in that role, defines our national government, and delegates to that national government its entire and complete role. When any governmental program is considered, that Constitutionally defined role of the national government is a guide to maintain the equilibrium of the relationship of that national government to the States and to the people. Healthcare is important to the lives of the people, so too is the methodology of providing that healthcare. The federal government is an answer only when it fits the delegated powers. To define a function for the federal government which does not fall within these delegated powers is ‘repugnant’ to the Constitution and can be, should be, resisted. |
|
Omega
