Repeal and Replace
- Thread starter Winter_123
- Start date
Define "working". When it comes to health, I consider "working" to mean "less people are dying". By that measure, single payer works, and works better than private. Of course, there are other stats you can point to, like wait times, that make single payer look like it's far behind private.
(I'm playing devil's advocate at this point.)
Yes, GreenSky and rcduggan, I want everyone to have access to healthcare. In this system, access requires insurance because no normal person can afford it out of pocket. I can't fix the problem, but I believe everyone should have access to the solution.
- 15,319
Once again you are confusing healthCARE with health insurance. Medicaid isn't insurance, it's single payer. Help me here. How great is the treatment under that program and how many quality doctors are available.
How's the VA single payer working? I'm tired of hearing the stories about how well that works.
And if you want Medicare for all, it's broke now. The trust fund was already raped by Congress years ago. They now count the money moved out of the fund as an asset and IOU as an asset. It's "how to double your money without even having to print more."
I'm all for everyone having access to healthcare. But to say health insurance is a Constitutional right is absurd.
Rick
- 599
You're absolutely right. Health insurance is not a constitutional right. Healthcare should be. In the US, there are at least six major sides (and millions of minor sides) pushing and pulling on the current system trying to manipulate it to their best interest. This is the greatest benefit and greatest flaw of capitalism.
Providing health insurance is a patch that is meant to pull the system to a place where everyone has the right to healthcare. Is it the best solution? Not by itself, but it is the easiest to administer.
- 248
Here is a good pro/con study on your statement above:
Right to Health Care ProCon.org
The Constitution is basically what the latest Supreme Court says it is. One court held that in matters of public accommodations 'separate but equal' was legitimate while a later court reversed that.
No doubt that a case could be made under the "due process" and/or "equal protection" clauses that healthcare IS a constitutional right.
The last time I looked there was no mention of gay rights (marriage) in the Constitution, but look at what has happened in the past five years? Same with Social Security.
@Somarco You say single payor will never happen?
I was watching old episodes of The West Wing on Netflix last weekend and in one episode President Bartlet says something which I found rather profound:
"Decisions are made by those who show up."
If you look at the recent history of health agent commissions, obviously agents didn't show up... but the carriers did and agents got the shaft.
And my guess is that when the proposal is again raised for some form of single payor health perhaps coupled with universal (government required) life insurance and/or LTC (which was in the original draft of ACA) that neither life nor LTC agents will show up either.
For those who think or hope that ACA will be repealed, well once an entitlement is given, it "sticks."
"Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in" -- Bob Haldeman
- 599
"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."
Is it covered in the preamble to the Constitution? Then it is a Constitutional right. We have the right to general Welfare. That means food, shelter, healthcare, etc... It doesn't mean that everyone should be given a house or a steak dinner, but it does mean that the government should provide shelters and food pantries.
- 15,319
I just love how people think the reason for the constitution as stated in the preamble gives the idiots in DC the right to do anything.
The preamble gives no rights. The Constitution was designed not to tell us what we can have, but to limit what the government can do to screw us.
I wish libtards would learn how it works. Oh yeah, and then teach the republitards.
Rick
----------
You really don't understand the Constitution.
Why doesn't it mean we all get houses? Why doesn't it mean we all get a steak dinner? Why are you defining general welfare?
This is why government education sucks. And just proof that even insurance agents are "low information voters."
Rick
The preamble gives no rights. The Constitution was designed not to tell us what we can have, but to limit what the government can do to screw us.
I wish libtards would learn how it works. Oh yeah, and then teach the republitards.
Rick
----------
You really don't understand the Constitution.
Why doesn't it mean we all get houses? Why doesn't it mean we all get a steak dinner? Why are you defining general welfare?
This is why government education sucks. And just proof that even insurance agents are "low information voters."
Rick
That's the history so far, but entitlements can be changed once the govt finally realizes they have run out of money. Look at France, UK, Greece just to name a few.
The Constitution is almost 230 years old and somehow we managed to survive for most of those years without a govt handout.
I really don't think the framers of the Constitution envisioned a country where everyone whined about their situation and expected the govt to provide for their every need.
Similar threads
