So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

[Bludogdem]

No, it's not. You can't take a national governmental program, ran by a national department, with all kinds of regulations as to how it works and who is eligible, and just say "everyone in this state is now in that program." Even greengrass, who's on YOUR side, said it wouldn't be legal.

You're the one saying it can be done, it's up to YOU to prove that it can. Of course, you can't, because you aren't smart enough to google things to show what the issues would be. You can't ever provide links to back up your assertion. You're the one making the assertion, you prove it can be done. Anything else is a deflection.
No, it's corporate health care that's the disaster, NOT ObamaCare. You can't get that cheese by me, Meat.

ObamaCare has done a great job of fixing the biggest flaws of the disaster that is the corporate health care system. Even YOU love it.

But our system isn't universal. It needs to be. You don't want to see a public option at all - because you know that everyone would buy it and you'd be out in the cold, your gravy train gone. Well, tough. If you haven't saved enough for your retirement that you need that blood money to make it, that's YOUR problem, not ours.

You want universal then you’d better get busy on that constitutional amendment.

And a public option would be channeled through health insurance companies just like ACA.

And Medicare is underfunded and a looming problem.

[Bludogdem]

Then why do conservatives attack both programs and wish to end them? People YOU and Joe vote for. The GOP tried to end ObamaCare without anything to replace it with. All you can do is destroy; you have no solutions of your own.
Why don't you explain how that would work so that insurance would be affordable.

Because that's why Medicare was developed in the first place - Most seniors were going without insurance because it was unaffordable. Employer-based care ended when the employee retired.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

I don’t attack or want those programs ended.

I don’t vote for those people.

[JoeMemphis]

No, it's not. You can't take a national governmental program, ran by a national department, with all kinds of regulations as to how it works and who is eligible, and just say "everyone in this state is now in that program." Even greengrass, who's on YOUR side, said it wouldn't be legal.

You're the one saying it can be done, it's up to YOU to prove that it can. Of course, you can't, because you aren't smart enough to google things to show what the issues would be. You can't ever provide links to back up your assertion. You're the one making the assertion, you prove it can be done. Anything else is a deflection.
No, it's corporate health care that's the disaster, NOT ObamaCare. You can't get that cheese by me, Meat.

ObamaCare has done a great job of fixing the biggest flaws of the disaster that is the corporate health care system. Even YOU love it.

But our system isn't universal. It needs to be. You don't want to see a public option at all - because you know that everyone would buy it and you'd be out in the cold, your gravy train gone. Well, tough. If you haven't saved enough for your retirement that you need that blood money to make it, that's YOUR problem, not ours.

Romneycare. Remember that. Individual mandates. Passed by a Republican gov working with Democrats. There is nothing in law that prevents a state from implementing its own solution in healthcare. As long as that solution doesn’t violate the US Constitution and as long as it exceeds ACA, it won’t have a problem. Again, just another excuse from the “we can’t” democrat. Show us the “yes we can”. Show us your own party true believers really believe the horseshit propaganda you’re selling. Truth be told, Biden himself knows M4A will bankrupt the country. He’s on record saying it’s a bad idea. People will not save money. Business will not save money. Healthcare will not be better for it. We will all pay more. It will explode the deficit. That’s just the truth and that’s why CA and no other blue state will touch it or attempt it. The numbers don’t work.

But prove me wrong. Sell it to your fellow Democrats in CA or some other blue state. Sell it there. Implement it there. Pay for it there. Show all us doubters how wrong we are.

[bradman]

Why does it have to be so complicated?


Is health care a right, or not?

[ProfX]

Some answers are simple. This one, too, is complicated.

(Right-)Libertarians would say it is a positive right, not a negative right, and no. ALL positive rights are not valid and should not be recognized. (That would include rights to work, or to housing, or to food and adequate nutrition.)

(I am not a Libertarian, just pointing this out).

https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Nega ... ive_rights

Within the philosophy of human rights, a positive right imposes an obligation on others and the state to do certain things, while a negative right merely obliges others and the state to refrain from certain activities.

Negative rights may be either moral or legal in nature and held to include such rights as the right to freedom of speech, property, habeas corpus, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and, in the United States, the right to bear arms. Positive rights are characterized as social or economic and held to include rights such as the right to force other citizens to pay for education, health care, social security. Negative rights require inaction, while positive positive rights require action. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists both positive and negative rights (but does not identify them as such). The constitutions of most liberal democracies guarantee negative rights, but not all include positive rights. Nevertheless, positive rights are often guaranteed by other laws, and the majority of liberal democracies provide their citizens with publicly funded education, health care, social security and unemployment benefits.

[snip][end]

Negative rights are usually essentially what we call civil liberties. Positive rights are social and economic.

I do believe in social and economic aka "positive" rights and they are spelled out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which as I said, we signed as a treaty signatory in 1948. Also, most European social democracies, including the UK, identify health care as a right.

... the devil is in the details, though, and I only do want to point out that those countries that say health care is a right might have a universal (UHC) system, but are not necessarily single payer societies. Most of the Scandinavian social democracies DON'T use single payer. Canada and the UK do, of course.

[gounion]

Romneycare. Remember that. Individual mandates. Passed by a Republican gov working with Democrats. There is nothing in law that prevents a state from implementing its own solution in healthcare. As long as that solution doesn’t violate the US Constitution and as long as it exceeds ACA, it won’t have a problem. Again, just another excuse from the “we can’t” democrat. Show us the “yes we can”. Show us your own party true believers really believe the horseshit propaganda you’re selling. Truth be told, Biden himself knows M4A will bankrupt the country. He’s on record saying it’s a bad idea. People will not save money. Business will not save money. Healthcare will not be better for it. We will all pay more. It will explode the deficit. That’s just the truth and that’s why CA and no other blue state will touch it or attempt it. The numbers don’t work.

But prove me wrong. Sell it to your fellow Democrats in CA or some other blue state. Sell it there. Implement it there. Pay for it there. Show all us doubters how wrong we are.

Again, prove it. Show some links that says that states can further implement provisions of Medicare across the population of a state.

You aren't bright enough to do so, are you?

[gounion]

You want universal then you’d better get busy on that constitutional amendment.

And a public option would be channeled through health insurance companies just like ACA.

And Medicare is underfunded and a looming problem.

Joe says nothing is needed. He's wrong, isn't he?

And I know, that's why your side wants to do away with Medicare and Social Security altogether.

[Bludogdem]

Why does it have to be so complicated?


Is health care a right, or not?

Not in the United States constitution.

[gounion]

Not in the United States constitution.

Only corporations have human rights, right?

[Libertas]

MOUNTAINS of rights NOT in the Constitution



Natural rights
Human rights
Implied powers
Letter and spirit of the law
Penumbra (law)
Positive law
Unspoken rule
Substantive due process

[ProfX]

9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which means, even if you're an originalist, and want to go by what the Founders said, well, they said, the people have rights they didn't necessarily and specifically mention in the document.

I get some people prefer to treat it more like a straightjacket than a framework. I believe it is there to restrain the government from tyranny and harming people. That's what a lot of civil liberties are about. I also don't think it was meant to be a straightjacket to get in the way of government helping the people.

[gounion]

9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which means, even if you're an originalist, and want to go by what the Founders said, well, they said, the people have rights they didn't necessarily and specifically mention in the document.

I get some people prefer to treat it more like a straightjacket than a framework. I believe it is there to restrain the government from tyranny and harming people. That's what a lot of civil liberties are about. I also don't think it was meant to be a straightjacket to get in the way of government helping the people.

Fact is that the "Originalists" on the right believes that the only rights the Constitution mentions are for white wealthy landowning males. Not women, people of color or anyone who isn't moneyed. If you had no rights in 1776, you shouldn't have any now.

[Bludogdem]

Only corporations have human rights, right?

That’s just so obviously stupid.

[Bludogdem]

Yes it's a red herring. First, even greengrass, your fellow conservative, says it's probably not legal.

Plus, we know Medicare is far more successful than any for-profit insurance. Also, similar programs work all around the world, as we're the ONLY first-world nation that doesn't ensure the entire populace of the nation.

Results matter now - and that's why we need to turn away from the disastrous for-profit health insurance industry, which is more expensive and delivers worse care than any other first-world nation in the world.

So you don’t understand the difference between “might” and “probably”. In your case I’m not surprised.

[gounion]

So you don’t understand the difference between “might” and “probably”. In your case I’m not surprised.

But Joe says of course it'd be legal. You know differently, you're just trying to piss backwards now. It's funny to watch.

[JoeMemphis]

But Joe says of course it'd be legal. You know differently, you're just trying to piss backwards now. It's funny to watch.

I know that the Federal government is limited in its powers by the US Constitution and its amendments. Rights not granted to the Federal government in the US Constitution are therefore vested in the states. in other words, the states have much more latitude in their dealing than the Federal Government. So unless state law violates the US Constitution and provided it doesn't conflict with Federal Law, the states can formulate whatever solution to health care they choose. Romneycare is just such an example. If as you claim, single payer or M4A exceeds the level of care required by Federal Law and further pays for itself, there is no reason in Federal Law that CA could do exactly what MA did with Romneycare.

Now if you know of a law or regulation that would preclude a state from providing and funding its own insurance solution, then by all means, cite the reference. I can't cite a reference because I don't believe on exists. I cannot cite that which is not there.

What is funny is to watch you squirm when asked why this perfect solution hasn't been done at the state level. Biden has said it isn't economically feasible.. IOW, the numbers don't work. States know it as well. If it gets done in this country, it will be financed by government printing the money to pay for it. You will never sell it to the public if you are honest about the cost.

[Bludogdem]

But Joe says of course it'd be legal. You know differently, you're just trying to piss backwards now. It's funny to watch.

No, your just too stupid to understand what the word might means.

[gounion]

I know that the Federal government is limited in its powers by the US Constitution and its amendments. Rights not granted to the Federal government in the US Constitution are therefore vested in the states. in other words, the states have much more latitude in their dealing than the Federal Government. So unless state law violates the US Constitution and provided it doesn't conflict with Federal Law, the states can formulate whatever solution to health care they choose. Romneycare is just such an example. If as you claim, single payer or M4A exceeds the level of care required by Federal Law and further pays for itself, there is no reason in Federal Law that CA could do exactly what MA did with Romneycare.

Now if you know of a law or regulation that would preclude a state from providing and funding its own insurance solution, then by all means, cite the reference. I can't cite a reference because I don't believe on exists. I cannot cite that which is not there.

What is funny is to watch you squirm when asked why this perfect solution hasn't been done at the state level. Biden has said it isn't economically feasible.. IOW, the numbers don't work. States know it as well. If it gets done in this country, it will be financed by government printing the money to pay for it. You will never sell it to the public if you are honest about the cost.

You just can't debate that for-profit insurance is better than Medicare. That's why you pull out this red herring.

[Libertas]

In UHC it might take 3 weeks to get a non emergency operation instead of 2 and some cons are willing to let people die in the streets not to be inconvenienced for that one week.

[JoeMemphis]

You just can't debate that for-profit insurance is better than Medicare. That's why you pull out this red herring.

Just what is there to debate. You claim it’s better in your opinion. I don’t buy it. Further, I am fundamentally opposed to giving the federal government a monopoly on health insurance and by extension control over the health care industry. I get that doesn’t bother you. I’m not asking you nor do I expect you to change your mind or your opinion. You are welcome to it. I just don’t happen to agree. I have given you my reasons why. Repeating them again serves no purpose.

As I said. I’m not the one you need to convince. You need to convince your fellow democrats that reside in states where you enjoy majority control. Convince them that your solution is better and more cost effective. But it doesn’t appear that you think you can do that. So why should anyone else buy into an idea your own party can’t implement or won’t implement in states you control?

Again. It’s all about the money. You can claim your plan is better and cheaper. But talk is cheap. Go do it in a state you control and demonstrate that it works as you claim in a friendly market. Do that before you attempt to cram it down on states that aren’t interested in another government solution. Do that or shut up and live with the last government solution you passed in health care. You remember the one that was going to offer full coverage at an affordable price and bend the cost curve. I’m still looking for the $2500 we were all supposed to save.

[carmenjonze]

I’m still looking for the $2500 …

You should have just posted this and left it at that.

All you guys care about is munntgrubbing.

[gounion]

Just what is there to debate. You claim it’s better in your opinion. I don’t buy it. Further, I am fundamentally opposed to giving the federal government a monopoly on health insurance and by extension control over the health care industry. I get that doesn’t bother you. I’m not asking you nor do I expect you to change your mind or your opinion. You are welcome to it. I just don’t happen to agree. I have given you my reasons why. Repeating them again serves no purpose.

As I said. I’m not the one you need to convince. You need to convince your fellow democrats that reside in states where you enjoy majority control. Convince them that your solution is better and more cost effective. But it doesn’t appear that you think you can do that. So why should anyone else buy into an idea your own party can’t implement or won’t implement in states you control?

Again. It’s all about the money. You can claim your plan is better and cheaper. But talk is cheap. Go do it in a state you control and demonstrate that it works as you claim in a friendly market. Do that before you attempt to cram it down on states that aren’t interested in another government solution. Do that or shut up and live with the last government solution you passed in health care. You remember the one that was going to offer full coverage at an affordable price and bend the cost curve. I’m still looking for the $2500 we were all supposed to save.

It's a lie that it's giving the government a monopoly. But that's all you got.

And yes, talk is cheap. Look in the mirror.

[JoeMemphis]

It's a lie that it's giving the government a monopoly. But that's all you got.

And yes, talk is cheap. Look in the mirror.

It’s not a lie. It’s an opinion you don’t happen to agree with but that’s how you deal with anyone who doesn’t agree with your point of view.

[gounion]

It’s not a lie. It’s an opinion you don’t happen to agree with but that’s how you deal with anyone who doesn’t agree with your point of view.

It's a falsehood. "Monopoly" isn't a an opinion; it's something that can be proven to be true or false. In the case of single payer, it's false. They would NOT control the entire medical system; You still have for-profit doctors, hospitals and Pharma companies.

It's funny how you have this college eddycashun but can't understand the difference between fact and opinion.

But you can't debate the facts, since the for-profit corporations have done so much damage to our once-great medical system.

[JoeMemphis]

It's a falsehood. "Monopoly" isn't a an opinion; it's something that can be proven to be true or false. In the case of single payer, it's false. They would NOT control the entire medical system; You still have for-profit doctors, hospitals and Pharma companies.

It's funny how you have this college eddycashun but can't understand the difference between fact and opinion.

But you can't debate the facts, since the for-profit corporations have done so much damage to our once-great medical system.

He who controls the cash controls the business. If you knew anything about business you would know this. So yeah, giving the government a monopoly on the payment system gives them to ability to control the underlying business. After all all those providers don’t work for free.