The Constitution Separates Church And State,except For Healthcare

[r2Dtoo]

I know what you said. Since it was a bizarre thing to say, I made sure there was a clarification.

 

"Nominal price" doesn't mean "a nominal amount of money".

Splitting hairs now are we?

[Winchester]

Splitting hairs now are we?

 

No, just pointing out that you're not remotely close to what I was saying. I wasn't talking about the amount of money being spent.
 

[r2Dtoo]

No, just pointing out that you're not remotely close to what I was saying. I wasn't talking about the amount of money being spent.
 

So what were you talking about?

[add]

I've already addressed this.  Market failure occurs in much of the health care system.  I most instances markets do drive down costs.  And that is true for some perepherial, elective aspects of the health care system, things like lasik eye surgery.  It is not true for most of the health care market and that is why countries that run effective single payers systems have dramatically less expensive health care.  

You obviously don’t have much experience dealing  with catastrophic health insurance or you would know that Insurance providers are highly competitive.  I/E: blue cross-blue shield negotiates just how much it will pay out for a particular treatment or procedure and gets huge discounts. 

Believe it or not competition does exist.

 

 One thing that I have noticed is many medical specialist practices are not accepting new Medicare patients, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.

LINK:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?_r=0

 

Medicare is glimpse into the future of  Single-payer health that is slowly being implemented under obamacare and why it is destined to fail

 

 

 

 

[4588686]

You obviously don’t have much experience dealing  with catastrophic health insurance or you would know that Insurance providers are highly competitive.  I/E: blue cross-blue shield negotiates just how much it will pay out for a particular treatment or procedure and gets huge discounts. 

Believe it or not competition does exist.

 

 One thing that I have noticed is many medical specialist practices are not accepting new Medicare patients, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.

LINK:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?_r=0

 

Medicare is glimpse into the future of  Single-payer health that is slowly being implemented under obamacare and why it is destined to fail

 

 

 

I never said that competition doesn't exist.  

[Winchester]

So what were you talking about?

 

Hasan asserted that single payer reduces costs. I rejoined that it might reduce nominal price, in my skepticism that declarations by a third party can reduce the costs associated with healthcare. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible, it's just that all people really discuss is price, not cost.

[add]

I never said that competition doesn't exist.  

 

then  what did you cotton-picken mean by "most instances markets do drive down costs" ????

I've
already addressed this.  Market failure occurs in much of the health
care system.  I most instances markets do drive down costs.  And that is
true for some perepherial, elective aspects of the health care system,
things like lasik eye surgery.  It is not true for most of the health
care market and that is why countries that run effective single payers
systems have dramatically less expensive health care.

Edited February 21, 2013 by add

[GregorMendel]

Rant all you like, but it will be single payer once fully enacted.

 

Firstly, this unconstitutional law, redefines full time employment at 30 hours. So, workers are being cut to 28 hours. This forces them onto the future single payer system.

 

 

If we are going to have an open and honest conversation about healthcare, we need to stop saying that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. 

[add]

If we are going to have an open and honest conversation about healthcare, we need to stop saying that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. 

HONESTLY -  The Mandate Violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in pertinent
part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This provision for religious freedom was—as evidenced by its place of
prominence in the very first Amendment to the United States
Constitution—near and dear to the hearts of America’s Founding
 Fathers.  Having witnessed the disastrous consequences in England that
resulted from the monarch’s control of the established church, the
drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted to ensure that the United States
government would neither establish a state-run religion, nor trample on
the right of the people to worship as they saw fit.

Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has long recognized “a spirit of
freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular
control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free
from state interference, matters of church government as well as those
of faith and doctrine.

 

[Winchester]

If we are going to have an open and honest conversation about healthcare, we need to stop saying that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

So no open and honest conversation.

[4588686]

So no open and honest conversation.

It was passed by the legislature, signed by the President, and affirmed by the courts. In our system that makes the law constitutional.

[Winchester]

It was passed by the legislature, signed by the President, and affirmed by the courts. In our system that makes the law constitutional.

I'm familiar with that novelty.

[4588686]

I'm familiar with that novelty.

That's not a novelty. That's been the legal process for hundreds of years.

[Winchester]

That's not a novelty. That's been the legal process for hundreds of years.

 

Yes, that's the simplistic argument taught in schools. The Federal government decides whether it's obeying the document that created it, and we're just a bunch of little servants. I believed that for some 36 years, or so. Took a lot of reading to win me away. It's what all respectable citizens believe. Do you really want to be respectable?

 

There are at least two parties to the Constitution. You're proposing that only one side decides whether or not an action falls within that contract.

[r2Dtoo]

Yes, that's the simplistic argument taught in schools. The Federal government decides whether it's obeying the document that created it, and we're just a bunch of little servants. I believed that for some 36 years, or so. Took a lot of reading to win me away. It's what all respectable citizens believe. Do you really want to be respectable?

 

There are at least two parties to the Constitution. You're proposing that only one side decides whether or not an action falls within that contract.

This is a great point.  If the Supreme Court makes some decision that the states (or at least a majority of them) think is poo they have no legal recourse. 

 

The Supreme Court is the only branch of government with almost no real check to it's power.  There is that whole amendment thing, but really those things rarely ever pass.  Perhaps the states should have some authority in deciding whether Supreme Court decisions are final.