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

Which isn't altruism at all.

None of this is about altruism. The only thing "progressives" care about is power and control. Once they have power and control over your healthcare they have power and healthcare over your life.

No thanks. I don't need their "help".

 

My wife has breast cancer. That's why we work! To keep our health insurance! To hell with Medicaid! She wouldn't be getting the treatment she is under Medicaid!

 

Are you aware that Medicare requires you to pay a premium? And that it only pays 80% of medical costs? And that is going to go down to about 60% a decade from now? So you *have* to either carry supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket?

My guess is that you don't have a clue about medicare!

 

I'll go slow. An entity that has total control over what products it makes, what the price of those products will be, what costs they pay to produce those products, and how much product will be made available is called........ wait for it........ A MONOPOLY. If you think this is not applicable for single payer national health, can you tell me what happens when a doctor decides to charge 20% more for his services because he and his patients think he is better?

 

nope. If health is a governmental interest, healthcare is part of that. Healthcare is part of the general welfare.

 

Rather amusing how many Republicans scoff at the concept of government while they bow down and kiss the feet of corporate bureaucracy.

 

LOL....and where does that 80% medical costs come from? magic fairies?

 

Thank you for adding exactly nothing to this conversation.

 

LOL - That's like saying you're a "hypocrite" for getting your Social Security witholdings back from the government that took them from you in the first place.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751.html

Of course, I'm assuming that SS and Medicare will be solvent by the time the government permits me to reach for my own money...

 

The Constitution is our, the people, delegation of powers to the federal government. All rights and privileges flow from the people, not from the government. If you will the Constitution is a contract between the people and the federal government.

That contract is not with society, it is with a multitude of sovereign individuals. You *truly* need to read John Locke and his 2nd Treatise on Government!

That contract SPECIFIES the exact powers and responsibilities of the federal government. Anything the government does outside those powers and responsibilities is a direct violation of the terms of that contract.

If your *society* wants to do something about healthcare then there all kinds of private methods to become involved in that, clear down to volunteering at an inner city health center.

IF IT ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION THEN IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE. Just as laid out in Amendment 10.

Again, Medicare was instituted as an INSURANCE program. You pay a premium into your insurance and then, at need, your insurance pays. The fact that it isn't operated the way it was sold is not the fault of the people but of government itself. It did *not* meet the promises it made. Even when I or any one is making use of that insurance we will *still* pay premiums to Medicare just like with any insurance plan. True insurance companies keep reserves on hand to pay out of. The government spends it all and keeps no reserve. That is why, in a decade, Medicare benefits will be cut to only paying 60% of medical costs. All the IOU's the government put in place of the reserves will be gone.

People who think Medicare for all is the answer are going to be totally surprised when they find out in a decade that they are going to be responsible for almost half of their medical bills!

 

Sorry to read about this. My best to your wife. However, the Government health care program would cover her, whereas
she would not be able to get private insurance due to her pre-existing condition. And you pay for that, also. And this is my point.

 

The right wingers say, go to ER, as if that is free. The right wingers say the gov CANNOT do that which is in the general welfare, EVEN if OVERALL it is cheaper.

 

You're obviously a sociopath for taking responsibility for yourself and your family. Shame on you.

We need less people like you. We've got too many givers and not enough takers and that's bad for America.

/sarc

 

Nope. A concern for health would be like the government putting out PSA's against smoking, drinking, and use of a cell phone while driving. It would be in regulating those activities.

Those regulation are for the *general* welfare.

Paying for individual health care is *NOT* general welfare.

 

Really? When Hillary was the one taking all the corporate money last year? Tell me again who was kissing the feet of the corporations?

 

From my FICA taxes and from Medicare premiums.

 

single payer health care system promotes the general welfare of the citizenry.

 

general welfare is laid out in the constitution. Healthcare is general welfare.

 

Thanks! I'll let her now.

She wouldn't be able to see the doctor she is seeing under a government plan. He's already told us he would retire if government intrusion gets any worse than it has under Obamacare.

And she *would* be able to get private insurance. It would just cost a lot more. A driver in our actions of today.

 

really dumb argument. This is like saying the concern against Nazi attack on the US is to send them flowers and sending US citizens flyers warning of impending invasion.

health care is general welfare.

 

The Founders and Framers refuted that argument centuries ago. The General Welfare Clause was never intended to be taken or used in a "literal and unlimited" sense.

 

No, the conservatives say it is INDIVIDUAL welfare and not general welfare. And it *won't* wind up being cheaper if the government takes it over!

It would require raising the FICA tax up to the levels of the income tax. That would literally ruin the working poor and would drive many small businesses into bankruptcy. And the rich don't make enough in earned income to generate that kind of money through an increase in the income tax.

There *is* a reason why you never hear a Marxist Democrat talk about how to pay for this!

 

uh, the founders never mentioned health insurance or single payer, so they of course did not refute it. lol

I agree. This has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

 

Now you are trying to conflate national defense, which *IS* in the Constitution, with single payer healthcare which is *NOT* in the Constitution.

 

it is demonstrably cheaper, as evidenced by every single other first world country that spends a fraction of what we do, and gets more/better care.

Raising the tax is more than offset by getting rid of insurance premiums, and deductible/copays/coinsurance.