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

Democrats do not believe that.

 

health is very much a general issue, which is why the clause covers it.[/QUOTE]

You need to examine your state constitution further to see if your state will cover your doctors bills. But the Feds have no such instruction to them.

 

delete duplicate post

 

already shown otherwise.

 

This is simply not the case.

 

Says the dude using gov't healthcare.
If you can use it, why can't everyone?

 

Are you controlled by the fed gov't? As you are on said gov't healthcare.

 

The judiciary seems to think you are wrong.

 

Amendment X
Power not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states.
That is, if the constitution doesn't grant the power, the federal government cannot do it.
Else, there's no reason to enumerate powers.

 

It is no where in the constitution of the European Union, and yet all countries have a National Health Care system (which is uniformly cheaper than total health-care per capita) in the US. And, as a bonus, the European countries have longer life-spans - both prime objectives of all health care:


Those who work in the national health-care systems are NOT BUREAUCRATS filling out paper forms. They doctors, nurses, etc. And, as I said above, their total-costs are well below that of the America's "private HC-system" that has been "ObamaCized".

Prior to ObamaCare, 16% of the population had no healthcare coverage whatsoever. The sick went to "ERs" across the country hoping for help - which, often enough, was simply too late. (The real-world of American health-care is not what Hollywood may think it is.)

That was no way to run a national HC-system. Nowadays, thanks to ObamaCare, that number has been reduced to around 8% - and with a bit of luck it could be reduced to 4%.

But to get costs down, like Europe, America will have to "set prices". Meaning astronomical "free-market" fees (both medical and pharmaceutical) must be lowered by the state. (Which is why, for instance, a GP in the US earns on average - according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics - $190K a year. Whilst in France they make about half that amount.)

So, shall we go back to our old-ways and sack ObamaCare (just because Donald Dork hates Obama)? Or shall we also adopt (like the rest of the world) a national health care system that is able to control prices in a market that is monopolistic for a service that essential to living especially in a country with galloping obesity ... ?

 

The correct thing to do is amend the constitution. Doing wrong by Obama does not make it right.

You want to make income demands on doctors and pharma. If you must follow that path, amend the constitution.

 

The constitution is quite clear. As you report.

 

I don't see any proof the judiciary singles me out to call me wrong.

 

I have medicare and medicaid. Yes, my health care is watched and kept in check by the Feds. For some reason, the state pays less attention. I have had my doctor do recommended procedures to learn later the Feds said no.

 

The European Union does not have a Constitution.
Setting prices equates to rationing unless providers are conscripted.
How much does the average GP in France pay for liability insurance?
How many new drugs, procedures, or medical equipment have come out of France recently?

 

PS: Here the link to the TopTen nations in terms of obesity.

 

A single payer national health care system is the epitome and definition of monopolistic.

 

general welfare, and what it means.

 

And a country does not need a Constitution to institute a world-class National Health Care service.

So, what is your point?

Rationing does not exist in Europe, and - I repeat - it has some of the finest Health Care systems in the world. For that, see the ranking from a study of the Commonwealth Fund (1- highest, 11-lowest):

 

Yes indeed, that right there was a way to make big corps kill smaller ones. And make self employment too dangerous for the masses.

Don't pay attention to the beancounters{DEATH PANELS}, or the I dot t cross proofreaders.

Or lifetime caps. Or what have you. Any trick would do.

The general welfare is simple to institute, if it saves money overall. The mechanism that pays for it, is the transportation clause. Which Roberts court alluded to.

The right wingers would PREFER unfunded federal mandates, and uses them as a talisman to ward off healthcare progress. You can just go the the ER, is their excuse against pragmatism.

 

There is no liability insurance since the National HealthCare will pay for all disability costs. Of course, as a result of a court case, any guilty practitioner will lose their license to practice. (We have no million-dollar liability court decisions.)

As for the drugs, companies make little profit since they are negotiated on bulk national basis. (But the revenues to help offset the development costs.)

Pharmaceutical companies go to the US to make their profits - and they are astounding ...

 

No, get a dictionary.

Monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

No one doctor nor any "company of doctors" have exclusive control of either pricing or distribution of medical services. They all agree to accept the prices of the National HC System, and they make comfortable salaries as well. (Not nearly as "rich" as American practitioners, however.)

Their salaries in France are half that of American healthcare practitioners who are being paid (easily) twice what their services are worth. OTOH, in the EU, getting a degree in medicine costs one Nada, Nichts, Rien, Niente, Nothing, Tipota.

So, graduating doctors don't have a monumental debt to pay off. Because medical students all attend tuition-free universities ...

 

I disagree. The National Health Service can be formulated in exactly the same was as Medicare is for the retired in the US. Except that the government assumes total cost of all hospital-care.

We need only expand Medicare to the general population and reduce the fees. This will come as quite a shock to the Medical Profession - but, so what.

That shock will diminish when students are educated and trained nearly for free (tuition is less than a kilobuck in any European country*) in a National HealthCare System.

It's been working since the end of WW2 in England - which was one of the first countries in the world to adopt an NHS. The rest of Europe inevitably followed suit ...

*The sole exception might be the UK where it costs about 3000£ a year.

 

Those not on Medicare or Medicade are totally in the dark as to how it works in the USA.

I was long in the dark but once on the system, and receiving reports, I now know the system.

Both systems rock the doctors and hospitals charges by slashing them deeply. I am amazed either now take patients.

Cities fund hospitals with the help of counties. Doctors do not get such protection.

It is similar to auto mechanics making $35 per hour but when paid by a Medicare equivalent, being paid $10 per hour or in the case where the Feds tell the mechanic no service was needed, forcing him to forfeit any fees.

This is wrong.

We could do all of this were we to amend the constitution.

This I do not advocate since by studying the Federal budget closely, one sees where this failed idea is leading us.

 

You haven't shown anything except you don't know the Constitution and you can't differentiate between individual and general welfare.