Mandatory but affordable health insurance.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind The charities don't reach everywhere. What if they don't get the money. Do you mean the man shouldn't be treated, or the hospital just takes the hit and moves on?

Well look, more transparency.


It seems you just want to take my money, and give it to everybody but me, don't you. How completely benevolent of you.

Quote by: Winter wind Most hospitals in California would go bankrupt.

How is that "my" problem in Ohio?

Quote by: Winter wind Where is the solid flow of money?

Since you do not know, it should be safe to assume it's not yours, and that you should keep your greedy little hands off of it.

Quote by: Winter wind If that were true, we would have solved world hunger, and given out free aids medicine to every pot-bellied child you could snap a picture of. It isn't as much as you think. Charities don't have the influence political bodies do.

You mean the power to coerce.


And yet, still no validation for the hypocrisy, just more whining, and attempting to guilt the opposition.


Shame on you.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind Question! is health a human right?

No, it is not a right. It is a responsibility for you to maintain for yourself to the best of your ability.

Doesn't general welfare include health?

Damn it! When the hell are you people going to learn how to read the words in the Constitution?????????? It says "general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" and not "of the people." It's about the general welfare of the geopolitical entity and not the general welfare of the citizens.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa No, it's not totally irrelevant. If it were, no one would be having this discussion. I'm not saying relevancy can be measured adequately, but let's not pretend something is irrelevant merely because it contradicts your narrow interpretation of the Constitution, or that the Constitution trumps everything else. It doesn't. Grandpa h.

It is irrelevant because the issue here is whether people should be forced to have health insurance. And, yes, the Constitution does trump everything else.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind Situation: guy gets shot in front of you. He's alive but not for long if he doesn't get help. Now you didn't infringe on his rights, but as he's bleeding out onto the pavement, does he have the right to expect you to call 911 or administer CPR?

No, he has no right to expect anything. My calling 911 or administering CPR would be an act of mercy or benevolence on my part.

Sure it doesn't. But when medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, the government isn't doing enough to promote the general welfare.

No, actually, "general welfare" has nothing whatsoever to do with health care or anything else other than the "general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES." I wouldn't expect you to know that but I sure as Hell (Michigan) expect Americans to know this.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind We're not there yet. Ok, so should the government pay to have an ambulance sent over to save him?

If the taxpayers vote for the local government to provide this service, yes. If not, then (as in some communities) the individual can be billed for it.

That's not all. It's part of it, but medical care in America is expensive. The equipment is expensive, the doctors are expensive and the legal section is expensive. As quality goes up, so do costs.

And do you know why it's expensive? Not so much because of equipment or doctors but because the costs of giving mandated treatment to the poor and the uninsured and the people on Medicare/Medicaid is passed on to the people with insurance.

People will still go bankrupt mostly from medical bills.

So what? Health care is a commodity. If you can't afford it then you don't get to have it - get the kind of job that provides health insurance as a benefit or that pays you enough to buy your own insurance.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Maryjane Techno: I don't mind paying taxes. I for one do not like the idea of a mandatory health care plan. I'm having a hard enough time dealing with the bureaucratic red tape of the IRS sorting out my federal taxes from 02 & 04 and now the state is starting to hound me. One hand has no idea what the other is doing, even my tax payer advocate can't figure out what the hell they are doing. The last thing I want is the goverment sticking their hand out for more of my hard earned money and putting my finances on hold. I think a better solution would to be for them to give citizens an tax break on insurance premiums just like they do for businesses. That said...I'm not going a damn place. Let those that don't want to support themselves go live in a commune and support each other. I got where I am today by hard work and smart planning. And I did it without a college education or by asking anyone else for their help. It took years to reach the American dream, I'll be dammed if you are going to sit on your ass all day and take what I rightfully earned. I'm not being selfish...I'm being self sufficient. It's not my fault you didn't plan for your future. Why should I be punished?

First off I was not directing my comment to you in particular, if you do not want to live on an island where capititalism rules and socialism is a dreaded desease then you can settle down somewhere else, or go with the flow where you are now at.

I agree that this health care system could become tangled up in red tape and I have posted those down-sides already, I would hope that such will not be the case and that likewise the whole system now used for taxes can be simplifed to where it makes sense to the people.

I agree with mandatory health care but not mandatory health based on mandatory check ups and mandatory prevention measures to reduce the risk of poor health. Health care is not for the healthy, it is for foolish people who allow their self to get unhealthy, to cover accidents, and also for the simple fact that anyone can get sick, and we cannot yet prevent old age.

Likewise we live in a would where a terrorist could start a bio-chemical attack in a poor neighborhood where people cannot afford medical attention and by time the rich people get the virus the thing has spread too much to get it under control. A mandatory health care system would greatly enlarge our collective ability to catch such a problem in time to deal with it.

How come you did not repley to the better parts of my post instead of picking that last part out of context? Cherry picking the part done in jest?



Of course no one must move away. I was responding to the concept of the other poster but your out of context responce puts the that remark out in limbo without showing the background for it.

You worked hard to gain your dream and are secure now in our economical status. And do not want them to take more from you in taxes, and no doubt you would like even less taken then what they currently are taking from you pocket book. Again you do want to live on your own island inside of this larger landmass of people, but do you and have you created your personal situation by getting their money from the rest of the Americans so that it ends up on your private island?

If you are going to live in this culture and profit off this culture to create your personal domane that you call your dream house then how can you remain isolated from paying your fair share of taxes to keep that culture in good standing. I am not sure about Obama but Hillary Clinton does not want to raise taxes for anyone to pay for her health care idea. The plan is to re-construct the federal budget so that we get rid of useless expendatures and use that money saved to do this. Her plan is to reduce the cost of the war in Iraq and so that does not break the budget and prevent us from doing needed domestic improvements. And yes, the unfair tax breaks and shelters provided to the top status (wealthy) will be canceled so they will once more pay thier share like lower income brackets must do. That will also make filling out those tax forms that allow more deductions much more easy to fill out, based on the actural percentage of income.

So if you do not want to live on that island then help support the whole culture you live in and the programs that it needs to survive. No gated comunity with guards will really make the rest of the world vanish, sooner or later you must come out to be among the real world.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor It is irrelevant because the issue here is whether people should be forced to have health insurance. And, yes, the Constitution does trump everything else.

In your view it does. In reality, though, it does not.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul First off I was not directing my comment to you in particular, if you do not want to live on an island where capititalism rules and socialism is a dreaded desease then you can settle down somewhere else, or go with the flow where you are now at. I agree that this health care system could become tangled up in red tape and I have posted those down-sides already, I would hope that such will not be the case and that likewise the whole system now used for taxes can be simplifed to where it makes sense to the people.

I believe in not carrying burdens alone but with other people. It's a fairly simple principle, conducive to civil society. If we are to have a nation-state, we should have a health care system that includes every American. Of course, I don't think we need ruling elites to have such a system, but Americans insist on it.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa I believe in not carrying burdens alone but with other people. It's a fairly simple principle, conducive to civil society. If we are to have a nation-state, we should have a health care system that includes every American. Of course, I don't think we need ruling elites to have such a system, but Americans insist on it. Grandpa h.

Let's look at this realistically. I agree that in a healthy economy where finding jobs is no big problem that the other viewpoints are perhaps better. But that is not where we are right now.

Two poor people cannot get rich off of each other. Is that realistic?

The poor, in this case the unemployed and those with incomes that cannot afford the cost of living ( the price of oil just went up again today), must get rich off of those who have money to spend, they must be able to merge into the middle class economy or depend on hand me downs to survive, we must of course overcome that hand-me-down sistuation and make it easyer for them to merge into the middle class status. And of course many in the middle class would like to merge upwards to become super wealthy, which would reduce some of the wealth now enjoyed by people already in that status group.

But what about "meanwhile"? What about "before" the enconomy can be uplifted? No one really wants to be a charity case if they can help it, that is what we must also believe is the case.

Originally the free market allowed for that merger, but no more.
( or not as much anymore ).

For the poorer people to merge into better jobs then need what? Good health, affordable transportation that is independant of taking a bus, a home or affordable apartment with a home phone, (aka affordable rent).
And food to maintain the family while they go job hunting. In other words, the basics.

Who would hire a smelly bum in dirty clothing that is homeless? Not what you would call your best selection for that office job.

With one exception, one group of elites will hire them. The Military.

Those who need people to fight in Iraq will accept poor people who otherwise end up on welfare. We no longer have an actural draft but poverty sort of forces people into the military because they see no other option to get a paycheck, more education and training, health care and food to eat. The Miitary becomes their Nanny. Offering them a chance to gain respect and to get out of their urban areas of poverty.

That is where we are at right now. But I ask you, realistically, is that how it should be? Will the military really imporve the overall economy here in the USA? When they finally come back home are they really mentally and physically better able to merge into the middle class economy with all that education they got form the military? Or will we find them sleeping under bridges? Or with those G.I. loans that we once offered the Vets so they can buy a house and get more education? Or decent Vet hospitals that are not overrun with rats and bad plumbing?

Option #2 - They can take advantage of the underground economy, sell drugs to the rich kids. But that income is not taxed. So will that add too or improve the overall economy of the USA?

Realistically can poor people build up their economic chances from the bottom up? I do not think so. It takes money to make more money, or at least a good job to get that nest egg built up.

So it must be built form the middle-class outwardly, not from the bottom up, and from the top down.

The earth does not support the sun, it is the sun that supports life on earth. Construction starts at the top, realistically.

[xyzer]

I know of no provision in our constitution that says the Federal Government should provide healthcare, do you?
Here are some results from a 2007 Gallup Poll in the USA:

My physical health is good or excellent....81%
Satisfied with the quality of:
my healthcare...77%
Satisfied with the cost of my health care...43%
The quality of the healthcare I receive is excellent/good...83%
My healthcare coverage is excellent/good...70%
How good a job would the government do in providing medical coverage:
Better job 30%
worse job 44%Same 3%
Dont know 23%

This convinces me that Healthcare, while not perfect in the US is pretty good as is. The public is more interested in improving it than going to an entirely new government run system. There is considerable evidence from UK and Canada that a government run system is cumbersome, full of delays and costs more overall than our current system which already has Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug benefits, and free emergency service?

[Maryjane]

First off I was not directing my comment to you in particular...

I typically don't respond to political OP's. I don't know all the ins and outs, but I do learn from reading here. My response wasn't directed at you, unless you actually believe what you wrote. It would not be the first time I've heard someone say..."If you don't like the way the majority wants such and such... move." That's no solution for this situation. I personally don't think health care is a number one priority. Getting our government back on track first before we can even attempt something of that magnitude is. MHC is a pipe dream at the moment. I seriously doubt it will happen in the next four years.

I agree that this health care system could become tangled up in red tape and I have posted those down-sides already, I would hope that such will not be the case...

You would hope is right. What I gave was just one example of our inept government in action. I had issues with DMV getting my car re-titled after my husband died. I was co-signer on the loan and co-owner on the title (with survivor rights) yet it took me three+ months and 70+ hours on the phone with the bank and DMV to get it straight. With the bank, I had the option of suing them for breech of contract or I could have told them to repossess the car when they insisted I re-fiance at a higher rate. Meanwhile I'm paying car payments, taxes, and insurance on a car I'm not legally allowed to drive. What recourse do I have when the government screws up?

Between an inept public school teacher failing to turn in the proper paper work, the court system mishandling it once they received it, and DMV not knowing what either of them were doing, it took me a year to get my son's temporary drivers license issued as permanent. In both cases, if either of us had been issued a ticket for failing to have the proper paperwork, guess who would have had to take more time (and money) to go to court to get it sorted out? I'm one of the lucky ones who can financially afford to sit at home on the phone. (on hold for 45 minutes at a time) Your average working Joe would be shit out of luck.


I don't want to deal with the government any more than I have to, especially when it comes to my health care. They have yet to prove to me they can handle any more responsibility that what they already have on a grand scale. That's one of the great things about capitalism. I can take my money elsewhere. Right now, I'm hostage until the Federal and State government releases me. (and my money) Do you know the IRS doesn't even have a phone number where my paperwork is being investigated so I can call to find out what the hell is going on? Legally they were supposed to send me notification as to why they are holding it...yet they haven't. Guess what? My next step if this isn't settled is to hire a lawyer $$$. I'm positive the problem is tied up somehow with my husband's business and his partner. My advocate relays to me the IRS insists it's not. You go ahead and let the government take over your health care...don't say I didn't warn you.

I agree with mandatory health care but not mandatory health based on mandatory check ups and mandatory prevention measures to reduce the risk of poor health. Health care is not for the healthy, it is for foolish people who allow their self to get unhealthy, to cover accidents, and also for the simple fact that anyone can get sick, and we cannot yet prevent old age.

I think I should be able to buy hard liquor on holidays and Sundays. Guess who owns the liquor stores in my state? What you want and what you get are two different things.

Preventative health care is part of health care, ask any physician or dentist. It's cheaper to treat an illness before it gets out of hand. Once the government gets involved, who are you to tell them how to run it? Ever had to deal with the mountains of paper work when it comes to social security benefits? You become part of their system.

Likewise we live in a would where a terrorist could start a bio-chemical attack in a poor neighborhood where people cannot afford medical attention and by time the rich people get the virus the thing has spread too much to get it under control. A mandatory health care system would greatly enlarge our collective ability to catch such a problem in time to deal with it.

Like Katrina?

How come you did not repley to the better parts of my post instead of picking that last part out of context? Cherry picking the part done in jest? Of course no one must move away. I was responding to the concept of the other poster but your out of context responce puts the that remark out in limbo without showing the background for it.

I've only followed a page or so of this thread. I'm against it and I didn't know your comment was in jest. An emoticon would have helped. What you said jumped out at me because it's been my experience that people who make bad life decisions always want a safety net to save them. Sorry, it's a mean cruel world out there. I don't feel a sense of entitlement, nor should anyone else. When I see someone brag about spending $1,500 a month on their looks, while working a minimum wage job, and their parents are supporting them thru school, yet they want the government (The People) to take care of their healthcare too, it gets my ire up. And yes Techno, as one who advocates MHC, I have to ask...what did you do to financially prepare yourself for the future?

You worked hard to gain your dream and are secure now in our economical status. And do not want them to take more from you in taxes, and no doubt you would like even less taken then what they currently are taking from you pocket book. Again you do want to live on your own island inside of this larger landmass of people, but do you and have you created your personal situation by getting their money from the rest of the Americans so that it ends up on your private island?

Again, I do not have a problem paying taxes to support our infrastructure, parks, education, the arts, medicine, the military that protects us, (to a certain point) and people that are physically and mentally unable to take care of themselves. What I do have a problem with is laziness and people that take and take and give nothing back. I've been on both sides of the fence. I cleaned toilets for 8+ years @ 30 hours a week while holding down a full time job. My three kids were born in a state hospital. I didn't have insurance with two of them. I worked to pay back what I owed while supporting a lifestyle I could afford and all the while prepared for my financial future. I look back with pride that I've come as far as I have despite the struggle (which feel made me a better person) and attained the American dream. No one gave me anything, I worked for it. My private island is one I built, anyone can do it...if they have ambition, a work ethic, and live within their means.

If you are going to live in this culture and profit off this culture to create your personal domane that you call your dream house then how can you remain isolated from paying your fair share of taxes to keep that culture in good standing.

That's a question you should ask the lazy folks that can't take care of themselves who want a government handout.

I am not sure about Obama but Hillary Clinton does not want to raise taxes for anyone to pay for her health care idea. The plan is to re-construct the federal budget so that we get rid of useless expendatures and use that money saved to do this. Her plan is to reduce the cost of the war in Iraq and so that does not break the budget and prevent us from doing needed domestic improvements. And yes, the unfair tax breaks and shelters provided to the top status (wealthy) will be canceled so they will once more pay thier share like lower income brackets must do. That will also make filling out those tax forms that allow more deductions much more easy to fill out, based on the actural percentage of income.

Corporations get tax breaks. As a person that ran a corporation, you'd be amazed what we paid just to be in business and the regulations put on us. The paperwork is overwhelming. I'm not one for bail outs though. Let them fail if they aren't well managed. (but that's for another thread)

Back on topic...When they figure out how to do that and get it implemented, then they can then talk about a health care plan for the citizens of USA.

So if you do not want to live on that island then help support the whole culture you live in and the programs that it needs to survive. No gated comunity with guards will really make the rest of the world vanish, sooner or later you must come out to be among the real world.

I do support the programs but I don't support the materialistic culture. Having grown up poor, I understand that hard work and living within my means is what got me to where I am...comfortable and secure. You keep dissing the rich as if everyone with money should anti up to pay for those that have less. I could introduce you to some very wealthy people and you'd never know it unless you saw their bank statements. These are the people providing jobs. They didn't get that way by ripping others off. Not everyone that owns a business or has money is evil. Of course there are people like that. I've scrubbed their toilets...some of them were notorious for bouncing checks. Those were the ones I made pay in cash. Those are the people that won't hold on to their money long for various reasons, two being they are horrible financial planners and live beyond their means.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: xyzer I know of no provision in our constitution that says the Federal Government should provide healthcare, do you? Here are some results from a 2007 Gallup Poll in the USA: My physical health is good or excellent....81% Satisfied with the quality of: my healthcare...77% Satisfied with the cost of my health care...43% The quality of the healthcare I receive is excellent/good...83% My healthcare coverage is excellent/good...70% How good a job would the government do in providing medical coverage: Better job 30% worse job 44%Same 3% Dont know 23% This convinces me that Healthcare, while not perfect in the US is pretty good as is. The public is more interested in improving it than going to an entirely new government run system. There is considerable evidence from UK and Canada that a government run system is cumbersome, full of delays and costs more overall than our current system which already has Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug benefits, and free emergency service?

Did the poll ask the millions of uninsured people the same questions?

I doubt it.

Yet, 30% percent were not happy with what their insurance covered, that would add up to many millions of people nation wide.

Did they ask if they thought the costs of prescription drugs were fair or affordable?

But anyway this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one is suggesting that our health care system cannot provide state of the art treatments. We got one of the most advanced abilities in the world for providing health care. Some of the best doctors and best technology.

No one wants to change that. We are interested in the cost factor and interested in making it really affordable to those who can hardly afford it and for those who cannot afford it. So we are only talking about the aspects of the insurance policy and not about the doctors, etc. Affordable insurance would not change the quality of care offered.

The cost of a policy goes down if more people sign up for that coverage, because the insurance company always has a large flow of incoming money to work with. If the Hillary plan is put into effect then if you now have medical insurance your cost could be lowered because it would be mandatory that more people buy such coverage (with exception of a small minority who cannot afford anything). Plus, all those people who go to a emergency room for problems that could be treated by a normal doctor's visit will be reduced, and currently taxpayers foot that emergency room expendature. So it would not acturally cost you more if you do the math.

Obama's non-madatory coverage would mean that we still have uninsured people clogging up the reception rooms of hospitals seeking free treatment that could have been taken care of by a private doctor. Meaning more taxes spent for those kinds of hopsitals and the less chance you got of getting in for a emergency need that needs promt attention.

Also, what Obama said he would do is talk to every single insurance provider at every workplace to encourge them to lower the costs of their policy to workers. And he said he can do all those visits the first year of his term in office. Then, if the insurance company does not agree he would pay the difference out of the Federal budget which comes from you the middle class taxpayer. Which might not be a practical idea with finding ways to raise taxes, which he never denied he would not do.

So Hillary's mandatory approch sounds better because that would force down the cost of medical insurance for everyone in the long run, reduce needless tax expendatures, get more people involved in paying for medical coverage which is good for both the selected insurance company and for doctors who need a dependable way to bill for their work, and with more people paying for coverage the less you would need to pay if you now have insurance, as the company would have more of a fund to work with. To inforce those who can pay to be as responsible as you are for getting such coverage so you do not drain money from taxpayers at some emergency room. It makes all around sense. The few who cannot afford this could be asorbed by the additional profits being made by the company spearheading that affordable service. None the less, if you feel such a insurance would have too much red tape for your taste then you still have the right to buy a independant insurance policy of your own liking, as long as you are in fact insured. What is wrong with that?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul Let's look at this realistically. I agree that in a healthy economy where finding jobs is no big problem that the other viewpoints are perhaps better.

Whether one works or not should have nothing to do with healthcare.

My view is basically Occam's razor: Find the simplest way to address the problem. I think I've done that.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chancellor No, it is not a right. It is a responsibility for you to maintain for yourself to the best of your ability. Damn it! When the hell are you people going to learn how to read the words in the Constitution?????????? It says "general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" and not "of the people." It's about the general welfare of the geopolitical entity and not the general welfare of the citizens.

I do not agree. The country is the people not just some land. Otherwise Walmart and other chain stores were be an enemy of the Consitution, in fact any constuction progress that endangers the welfare of the land as a gaint national park would be unconsitutional.

The United States is a group of people. The USA citizens.

You are trying to present some by-the-book "word for word" interpretation which cannot give true meaning to the consitution anymore then it could for the Bible.

Indeed everyone would be responsible if everyone had health care insurance and none were prevented from assuming that responsibilty due to over rated costs to get it.

You need to rethink your obsolete fundamentalistic interpretations and listen to the people.... the answer is a blowin' in the winter wind.

The drug companies are pumping up the costs of presciption drugs to the sky, just like the gasoline companies. At today's rates the USA will spend one trillion dollars on oil a year, and Ford motors must lay people off because they are stopping production on SUVs and trucks because sales are dropping on those gasoline consuming products.

Today the oil industry is on the hot seat in Washington DC trying to answer questions in front of Congress. No doubt they will drag the drug companies in to Capital Hill for questioning " are you now or have you ever been a capitalistic pig" - reminds me of the old days when they questioned Hollywood about commie cells.

The welfare of our nation's ecnonomy is endangered and a cancer is spreading throughout the every fabric of our body politics. Polution is effecting our landmass as well.

Our people have become like the wayward sons in a muddy pig penn feeding the fat pigs who just want to turn and trample on our perils of wisdom. Time to elect a government that is for the people and of the people, and no one just serving the elite and the porky pig interest groups.

You cannot just stick you head in some landfill and pretend not to see the people, we are not going to stand by anymore as the unsung voices of our country.

We got two strong canidates to represent us now, and we will reclaim this country in our names.

Of course the drafters of the Consitution did not include health care in those writtings. Insurance was not even known about back then. They did not have a monopoly back then called the medical industry, they had a few doctors who went around on horseback to make house calls.
And of course, active mid-wives. People paid the doc what they could afford, even if it was just some fired chicken for a meal.

This is no longer the days when circus people sold snake oil from town to town. Times have been a-changin'.
Wake up to 2008 and you might notice that it is no longer the 1700s.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well look, more transparency.

What do you mean more transparency? You mean the hospital should say who they get the government to pay for and for what reason. Well that's valid, but is not mutually exclusive from nationalized health care.

How is that "my" problem in Ohio?

It was an example from personal experience. But I'm sure the hospitals in Ohio wouldn't be able to pull money from a hat either.

Since you do not know, it should be safe to assume it's not yours, and that you should keep your greedy little hands off of it.

sigh, I still don't see how this is different then other governmental agencies, such as the ones meant to stop anti-trust, enforce laws or other things. They use their greedy little hands to take your money and put it into needed agencies. It's the cost of living in America.

You mean the power to coerce.

The power to function as a body. A consistent whole. Why do you think we rely on a national military and not state militias.

And yet, still no validation for the hypocrisy, just more whining, and attempting to guilt the opposition. Shame on you

Shame on your face! <_< >_>

(ahem) but seriously, you say people with a life threatening condition shouldn't be turned out at the door (you stated as much in the first part of your post I quoted). But that means they get treated for free, and I've proved that charities can't pay for it. So who pays for the treatment?

That's my validation. Charities don't have enough to pay for the life saving treatments that you agree should be done on stat. So who pays?

Quote by: Chancellor No, it is not a right. It is a responsibility for you to maintain for yourself to the best of your ability.

As well as national defense? When the Canadians invade and are at your doorstep, it's your responsibility to avoid being run over by tanks, not the governments.

Damn it! When the hell are you people going to learn how to read the words in the Constitution?????????? It says "general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" and not "of the people." It's about the general welfare of the geopolitical entity and not the general welfare of the citizens.

But the citizens make up the geopolitical entity of the United States. People make up the United States. So the general welfare of the United States is the general welfare of the people. I don't see how you could keep them seperate.

No, he has no right to expect anything. My calling 911 or administering CPR would be an act of mercy or benevolence on my part.

I meant the 911 service itself. Should it exist as a government service?
I mean, that's a component of national health care is nationwide phone number you can dial in emergencies.

If the taxpayers vote for the local government to provide this service, yes. If not, then (as in some communities) the individual can be billed for it.

What's the difference? The tax payers vote elected officials into congress to provide this service as well. In local governments, its not like those who were against the provision can just not pay the local tax.

And do you know why it's expensive? Not so much because of equipment or doctors but because the costs of giving mandated treatment to the poor and the uninsured and the people on Medicare/Medicaid is passed on to the people with insurance.

I don't think that's a valid connection. I live in Hong Kong, which is based on the British, national health care system. The treatment is of great quality, and free when necessary. But I pay for a private doctor who is fantastic. No doubt, though, that general practice is cheaper, and not only does Hong Kong have a medicare/medicaid system. We have nationalized health care.

picture perfect evidence that costs are not because of government control.

It's expensive, mostly because of law suits.

So what? Health care is a commodity. If you can't afford it then you don't get to have it - get the kind of job that provides health insurance as a benefit or that pays you enough to buy your own insurance.

It's isn't always that cut and dry. Do you think the people who died of small pox should have died because they couldn't afford the cure? The only way to eradicate small pox was to have a massive, government run effort, to systematically wipe out the illness. This is what health care should do, not just because the normal human being things people should be treated at least for life-threatening ailments, but also because it's a public health hazard.

[xyzer]

Techno..This is an insulting and untrue statement!

Who would hire a smelly bum in dirty clothing that is homeless? Not what you would call your best selection for that office job. With one exception, one group of elites will hire them. The Military. Those who need people to fight in Iraq will accept poor people who otherwise end up on welfare. We no longer have an actural draft but poverty sort of forces people into the military because they see no other option to get a paycheck, more education and training, health care and food to eat. The Miitary becomes their Nanny. Offering them a chance to gain respect and to get out of their urban areas of poverty

It defies truth.And I challenge it off hand. According to the data I read the militray enlists a greater percent of High School Grad than there are percentage wise in the entire population!
It is ignorant and insulting because neither you nor I have any data on what the economic status was of the average enlistee. I think from the youth involved it would be pretty low, simply because most leave the support of their parents to enlist and have no source of income... but that doesn't consider the income status of the parents. Nor do we have any inkling whether enlistees showed up smelly and dirty off the street? Go down to your local military recruting offices and verify the appearance and smell of the kids enlisting!...



These kids are a damnsite more honorable than those who make such scurrilous comments?
Can you offer some evidence for this or is it just dredged off the Blogs and other inane nonsense on the internet!