Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

... and yet, you stay here and troll about a system you do not truly believe in.
Why haven't you left for Canada, Australia or Cuba?

 

I gave you the opportunity to offer an alternative that you deem ideologically correct to the proven inclusive, more economical systems of advanced nations and you apparently have nothing to offer beyond your blind faith.

Common sense will lead to the incremental lowering of the Medicare eligibility age to incorporate less costly demographics into the risk pool, eliminate the astronomical salaries of insurance company executives, political lobbying budgets, marketing, advertising, profit margins, payroll, repeatedly duplicated clerical functions, and benefit from economy of scale in many other respects.

I have no idea how long it will take to overcome all those special interests to get there, but progress is inevitable.

In the meantime, you'll have to endure McConnell and his jamokes tweaking the ACA.

 

Nope. You just troll on and on about a system you clearly do not honestly believe in.
I know -- it doesn't make any sense for you to do that, but here you are.
Here. Not Canada, Australia or Cuba, but here.
Says all that need be said.

 

http://pollingreport.com/health.htm

"Senate Republicans have unveiled their proposed health care plan to replace Obamacare. Do you support or oppose the GOP plan, or don't you know enough to have an opinion?"

Support: 12% - Oppose: 45% - Don't Know Enough: 40%

"When it comes to health care, whom do you trust most to protect the interests of you and your family: President Trump, congressional Republicans, congressional Democrats?"

TRUMP: 19% - CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS: 10% - CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS: 43%

"Do you think that an expansion of Medicare that would make it available to any American who wanted it, also known as universal health care, would be a good idea or a bad idea?"

GOOD IDEA: 60% - BAD IDEA: 33%​

The democratic will shall eventually prevail.

 

what part of my post confused you?

 

the constitution, the judiciary etc.

 

Your pathetic attempt to avoid just admitting that you cannot cite a single real example of your ideological confection is apparent.

Medicare for All is very likely.

 

Why do you have to lie about your support for single-payer?

 

no you cant

no it isn't. its equal access.

and are considered volunteer by insurance companies, and higher premiums are charged

not that. and single payer isn't government owning healthcare

 

nope. its protecting s korea.

I accept your concession here, since you cant answer from who.

and would be just as wrong as you are

and the answer is no.

I need you to form a coherent and relevant argument.

asked and answered

lol

this one.

im pointing out why your argument is defeated, using your own example

nether does a post man. lol

 

So you think that you can hide your arbitrarily redefining "entitlement" by arbitrarily redefining "enslaving".?

Do you read what you send? Other than redefining word after word arbitrarily, nothing has any relation whatsoever to the real world.

Exactly. And by allowing Insurance companies to make healthcare decisions for us, it is not securing our right to healthcare.

Think reality! You keep talking in this "ethereal"... "theoretical" ...."ideological" world, and don't come down to the real world. This is why you have convinced yourself that redefining words is a valid argument. It's not, I'm afraid. Not in reality.

Sure they did. They gave the government the responsibility of preserving life. And to preserve the general welfare.

But don't get too carried away with what the framers wanted or didn't want. It's irrelevant. Our world today is different from 300 years ago. Back then life expectancy was 40 years. Do you know anybody over 40 years today who would be alive today if not for some medical treatment? Very few (if any). Which means that to live over 40 years, the large majority of people will need medical treatment. And the right to life is most definitely a right.

More redefining words arbitrarily won't help your argument. Of course health care is individual. No doctor will treat patients "collectively". So your statement and word re-definition make no sense.

Oh, Man!.... Now is the time that, if I were you, I would be ranting in flashy large colorful letters "Stop putting words in my mouth!". Fortunately for the reader, I'm not you.

So I will just point out that neither I, nor anybody, have ever wanted others to pay for our healthcare. This is the type of conclusions you reach when you live in your fantasy world, in which you make up your own language, and never come down to reality.

But I do have a question: How does it feel to oppose a position that doesn't exist?

 

You know what... You might not believe this but when I wrote that it occurred to me that maybe you would write this. But I quickly dismissed it thinking "Nah... he can't be that ridiculous!". I guess I was wrong.

So now you are saying that the only people who have rights are those who live in Alaska.

And don't start screaming that you didn't say that, because you are saying that! It's the only possible conclusion that anybody can draw from this statement. The only reason you don't realize that you are saying it is that you have carried out this whole discussion in an "ethereal ideological" world and refuse to come down to see how it would apply in the real world.

In the real world, people don't live in Alaska. They don't live 500 miles away from each other. They don't even live a mile from each other. People live in cities... and I don't feel like preceding these statements with "the majority of..." because that is obvious to any moderately intelligent person who is seeking an honest discussion.

.
Oh... I have never shied away from responding to a clear, direct and legitimate question (even if the answer is "I don't know") in my life. Go ahead. Shoot! What is your question?

 

Some do.

Some do.

 

It's a job! They get paid. Just like any job. If they fail to perform their job and somebody dies they are punished by the government. Same as everybody. But this is irrelevant. It was just an example You got lost because you are not dealing with the real world.

Everybody becomes a ... whatever... voluntarily. The fact that you see any relevance in it is what makes no sense. One thing they don't become voluntarily is homeless or poor, though. I know that this last is irrelevant. But it's preemptive because, I know it's obvious... but after your "Alaska" remark... you never know.

You are trapped in this idiotic concept pushed in right-wing-radio nut-world, that when we call for "Universal Healthcare" that it's because we want it for "free"

That is beyond idiotic!

 

No they dont

 

Doesn't say the federal government should provide healthcare at all! Back to a free market system is the way to go. I wish they would just repeal obamacare, not replace, and let it naturally go back to a free market. It will happen in the end anyway, so save ourselves a lot of time and money.

 

Nice shift, but the small increase in employer sponsored plans is because they are little under ACA rules (yet) and operate in mostly pre-ACA rules. The "small number" of double digit premium increases (not to mention the 2 to 5 times deductible increases) is actually the majority.

 

The General Welfare means to make the environment conducive to the happiness and success of the individual; it does not mean to provide stuff. With a stretch the CDC might be constitutional as a broad-based activity that the federal government is best at.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to regulate healthcare. The constitution prevents the federal government from doing anything that is not listed.
The regulation they are allowed to do is interstate commerce, and the intent and meaning was to enhance and mitigate any interstate barriers to effective commerce among the states, not to put roadblocks in the way. However since the 20th century or so the government has used that clause to prohibit lots of stuff, and has often been upheld by SCOTUS, but SCOTUS has become a body of authoritative dictatorial opinions, not interpretations of the law.

 

Oh... That's your question? I don't remember you asking it before, but if you did, I probably thought that it was rhetorical. Because the answer is obvious.

The answer is no!. Very simple. When protecting a right (any right... not just healthcare) the government is obligated to do what is reasonable. No more. But also no less...

You can do better than that!

Way too easy and doesn't illustrate anything. Here is a better one. "Are you being denied your right to healthcare if the government refuses to pay for an experimental treatment that costs millions of dollars?"

And the answer is still no. No universal healthcare system in the world covers this type of treatment.

The government doesn't provide any right. The right exists. And the government is obligated to protect it. How they do it is their business. But the system that has worked best is the one-payer system. The old "Insurance Corporation death-panel" system did not do that. And even Obamacare doesn't. .

Right! And the right to healthcare has been limited by relegating to second place behind the right of Insurance Corporations to make profit. And, in my opinon, the only way to secure the right is to eliminate the part of the healtchare system that doesen't contribute anything. A patient pays taxes or fees or co-pays, a doctor provides a service, a hospital provides facilities and equipment, pharmacies provide medications.... Insurance Corporations provide nothing! And yet, they get one of the biggest chunk of the profits.

Nope. I believe that it's a burden on others. And I gave examples...

In what follows you seem to just be repeating the same things I said.

If it's a right (any kind) its application needs to be protected. And you can't care for health "collectively". You can only do that individually. So you statement is meaningless.

The rest is this ludicrous idea that right wingnut media has implanted in your head that we want "free" healthcare". We don't. There isn't even such thing as "free healthcare" anywhere in the world. But we do want universal healthcare.

 

One more time!... The right to healthcare is not given by the government. But the government obligated to safeguard it. Just like any other right.

 

of course they do.

 

healthcare isn't a commodity, and can't operate in a free market system. It's why our healthcare costs are out of control.

 

No they do not

 

yes it is and it operated better in a free market.

Costs are out of control due to government interference and attempts at control