Health care: Going from broken to broke

[johnsmith]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What part of this do you not understand?

Looks like YOU'RE the one who doesn't understand the Tenth Amendment.

Your highlighted part of the amendment only proves oladub's point to be valid.

Federal gov't not delegated the power. - Check
States not prohibited the power by the Constittuion. - Check
Powers are then reserved to the States or to the People. - Check.

Oladub -1
ghettopalmetto - 0

[oladub]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States...

What part of this do you not understand?

I would say that regulation of the financial sector, e.g. subsidizing the student loan industry, most definitely falls within the purview of the federal government.

Read on just a little further. The next clause is,

"are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You have to read the whole sentence to understand it. The second clause you highlighted refers to powers the Constitution specifically forbids states from having such as having their own import taxes on other states' products. Put it all together, and it says that the states and the people have power over everything not already delegated to the federal government or specifically forbidden of state governments.

"Subsidizing the student loan industry" is not a power delegated by the Constitution to the Federal government nor is it a power fodbidden of the states. Therefore, states, rather than the federal government, may "subsidizing the student loan industry". As an aside, President Obama claimed his student loan putsch was to save taxpayers money rather than create more spending subsidies.

edited to add - the quote at the top is what ghettopalmetto has since edited from this thread. My response it to what has been already removed.

[ghettopalmetto]

I think what drives me the most bonkers is that you somehow think the federal government is entering new ventures with this health care bill. The federal government has been spending our tax dollars for years on health insurance [[Medicare, Medicaid) and as a direct provider [[VA, active military). Yet somehow, we're supposed to believe that an effort to reduce health insurance premiums and enact regulations on the health insurance industry is "a giveaway"?

The federal government also used to have this thing called Direct Loans, otherwise known as the Ford program, that administers Stafford Loans and Perkins Loans. Why should the government pay Citibank, for example, to disburse and collect these federal monies when the federal government already has a mechanism in place to do so? To me, this is just responsibile stewardship of our dollars. Or, if you prefer me to put it in your terms, Oladub, the Constitution does not explicitly permit the federal government to ensure easy profits for private sector financial firms.

[Papasito]

we're supposed to believe that an effort to reduce health insurance premiums and enact regulations on the health insurance industry is "a giveaway"?

They are only forcing everyone to pay for health insurance, or give it away to people that cant afford it. Health care costs will be as high as they can possibly make them on covered and non covered items in order to make up for the industry's losses as a result of all the changes. There will be no 'reduction of premiums' or 'cut in the cost of health care', the industry is going to be starving and they will be going for the jugular at every opportunity they can

[ghettopalmetto]

They are only forcing everyone to pay for health insurance, or give it away to people that cant afford it. Health care costs will be as high as they can possibly make them on covered and non covered items in order to make up for the industry's losses as a result of all the changes. There will be no 'reduction of premiums' or 'cut in the cost of health care', the industry is going to be starving and they will be going for the jugular at every opportunity they can

Your nightmare scenario was already happening in the "free market", Papasito. Because of unemployment and cost-cutting, healthy people have dropped health insurance out the wazoo, forcing the insurers to skyrocket their premiums that they charge to their remaining, mostly sick [[and expensive) customers. California is seeing increases to the tune of 39% over one year alone.

So, remind me how shitty the new health care law is for everyone???

[Papasito]

Question:

So, remind me how shitty the new health care law is for everyone???

Answer:

Because of unemployment and cost-cutting, healthy people have dropped health insurance out the wazoo, forcing the insurers to skyrocket their premiums that they charge to their remaining, mostly sick [[and expensive) customers.

So, in other words, let the Government pay for it.
Question is, our government, or China's? Since they are the ones providing all the money...

Obviously the people can't afford health insurance. These are hard times, and if given the choice between putting food on the table, making the mortgage, paying child support, or buying health insurance,
health insurance is gonna get cancelled

[ghettopalmetto]

Food...medicine...food...medicine...food...medicin e...house payment...medicine...food...medicine...clothes...m edicine.

Decisions are tough, you know?

Maybe when some kid dies because his parents had to cancel their health insurance in order to put food on the table, you can give us all a nice lecture on "responsible parenting".

[johnsmith]

Maybe when some kid dies because his parents had to cancel their health insurance.....

You seem to think that a lack of health insurance is actually a disease unto itself. What a warped perspective you have.

Q: "Hey, what did your child die of?"

A: "lack of health insurance"

Stupid.

[johnsmith]

So, remind me how shitty the new health care law is for everyone

Oh, OK, you do know it's shitty but just don't remember why. Main reason, it's unconstitutional.

[ghettopalmetto]

You seem to think that a lack of health insurance is actually a disease unto itself. What a warped perspective you have.

Q: "Hey, what did your child die of?"

A: "lack of health insurance"

Stupid.

I know you're just brilliant and all, but see, let me let you in on a secret:

If you have health insurance, you can see one of these guys called a doctor, and maybe even get a prescription for medication!

No health insurance? Whoops, too bad! Stop being so lazy and just work harder!

[johnsmith]

I know you're just brilliant and all, but see, let me let you in on a secret:

If you have health insurance, you can see one of these guys called a doctor, and maybe even get a prescription for medication!

I don't need health insurance to see a doctor. I've done it. I can get prescriptions without having insurance pay for it too. I've done that too.

So what's this big secret you supposedly are letting me in on?

Thanks for the compliment, by the way, but I'm not one who get's much out of ass-kissing.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't need health insurance to see a doctor. I've done it. I can get prescriptions without having insurance pay for it too. I've done that too.

Ah, so you've done the ER thing too, huh? You're welcome for that, considering those of us with health insurance premiums ended up paying for your care.

Maybe you care to share your revolutionary health care plan with the rest of the world?

[johnsmith]

Ah, so you've done the ER thing too, huh? You're welcome for that, considering those of us with health insurance premiums ended up paying for your care.

I see, you're actually bitter for subsidizing other people's health care costs? What do you think happens when a person has a $100,000 surgery and only pays a small deductible for it? They don't pay for it, and you're actually admitting that you're bitter for paying part of the surgery that the patient who received it didn't. looks like you're confused and arguing against yourself there.

And your supposed secret is that one can't see a doctor or get a prescription without health insurance. Hogwash. I've done it, $40 office visit, $6 antibiotic. Cash out of pocket. You said it can't be done without insurance.

[ghettopalmetto]

I see, you're actually bitter for subsidizing other people's health care costs? What do you think happens when a person has a $100,000 surgery and only pays a small deductible for it? They don't pay for it, and you're actually admitting that you're bitter for paying part of the surgery that the patient who received it didn't. looks like you're confused and arguing against yourself there.

And your supposed secret is that one can't see a doctor or get a prescription without health insurance. Hogwash. I've done it, $40 office visit, $6 antibiotic. Cash out of pocket. You said it can't be done without insurance.

I'm bitter when we all have to subsidize items that are needlessly expensive. I'd rather the public foot the bill for someone's insurance than for a $100,000 medical bill, or worse--to have that person become a bankrupt, noncontributing member of society as a result of having no insurance.

I'm interested to know where one can see a doctor for $40 and get a $6 prescription. Is it still 40 bucks to remove a tumor, or to get a colonoscopy done? What about lab tests? What if I need surgery? Still 40 bucks?

It sounds like you would have suggested your personal health care plan to your member of Congress when the law was being crafted. I wonder why you're the only person who ever thought of this?

[maxx]

oladub: the clause allowing Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Those are existing delegated powers.

maxx: That looks like the case for government loans for education.

[maxx]

oladub: Of course, corporations don't have free speech. They are inanimate. However, People who work for corporations have as much right to lobby for their interests as do representatives of unions, religious, and other private organizations.

maxx: You'll find in a court of law that corporations have as many rights as any person, and some extra ones. Everyone has a right to lobby Congress, but no one should have the right to lobby more simply because they have the money to hire lots of lobbyists. Therein lies corruption.

oladub: If the campaign contributions are used for ads, that is speech and/or the press.

maxx: The problem arises when political messages give false information about opposing candidates. You can certainly take the liar to court but if the liar is a corporation, it will be hard for an individual to outlast it in court. And meanwhile, the other candidate wins the election while the victim spends his/her time in court trying to get satisfaction for the lies. The decision was made by rightwing activist judges who took a narrow case and broadened it to the detriment of our democracy.
Holmes's example of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre as an example of the limitation of free speech can refer to this latest SCOTUS decision since the danger to the democracy and ultimately to its citizens far outweighs the danger Holmes cited.

[maxx]

You seem to think that a lack of health insurance is actually a disease unto itself. What a warped perspective you have.

Q: "Hey, what did your child die of?"

A: "lack of health insurance"

Stupid.

The problem is that when people get sick, they go to the hospitals whether they have insurance or not. And a lot of healthy young people have not been buying health insurance which destroys the way insurance works. Coupled with for-profit insurance companies with high admin. costs, and you've got disaster.

I don't see how the high-risk pools are going to work for people with pre-existing conditions. Who will be able to afford the premiums? A public option would have been much better.

[maxx]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
So, remind me how shitty the new health care law is for everyone


Johnsmith; Oh, OK, you do know it's shitty but just don't remember why. Main reason, it's unconstitutional.

maxx: How about reading the Preamble. I think "promote the general welfare" can be interpreted to refer to health care.

[oladub]

I think what drives me the most bonkers is that you somehow think the federal government is entering new ventures with this health care bill. The federal government has been spending our tax dollars for years on health insurance [[Medicare, Medicaid) and as a direct provider [[VA, active military). Yet somehow, we're supposed to believe that an effort to reduce health insurance premiums and enact regulations on the health insurance industry is "a giveaway"?
The federal government also used to have this thing called Direct Loans, otherwise known as the Ford program, that administers Stafford Loans and Perkins Loans. Why should the government pay Citibank, for example, to disburse and collect these federal monies when the federal government already has a mechanism in place to do so? To me, this is just responsibile stewardship of our dollars. Or, if you prefer me to put it in your terms, Oladub, the Constitution does not explicitly permit the federal government to ensure easy profits for private sector financial firms.

Neither Medicare, Medicaid, nor federal Direct Loans are supported by the Constitution either although a great case could be made for providing benefits to vets if their maladies are military related because the federal government has the responsibility of providing a military. Did I say that the " effort to reduce health insurance premiums and enact regulations on the health insurance industry is "a giveaway"?" I don't recall doing so although I expect to see an additional transfer of wealth from the middle class to major corporations to pay for this.

The government shouldn't pay Citibank anything because the Federal Government has no power delegated to it to even mess around with student loans. If your state wants to do it; fine. You are correct that "the Constitution does not explicitly permit the federal government to ensure easy profits for private sector financial firms." Thank you for making the case for not providing the insurance and pharmaceuticals with 30 million additional, and sometimes involuntary, customers.

maxx, Actually, there is probably wiggle room to provide science merit loans and scholarships and some other things if it promotes the progress of science and engineering. Having just squashed NASA programs, the President would have a difficult time explaining why subsidizing college science students promotes the progress of science more than NASA. "Useful arts" are concerned with the skills and methods of practical subjects. I don't suppose the 'useful arts' would include law degrees, liberal arts, a DOA costing $68B/year, or monopolizing the student loan industry.

Your problems with corporations being 'legal persons' have to do with powers given to corporations by courts. Sometimes corporations lobby together with unions when the issue is something like protectionism in which jobs are at stake. Restricting such free speech would threaten the well being of both employees and union members. My point was that NO abridgement of speech or the press is allowed by the Constitution. No means no exceptions. Otherwise, whose speech will be attacked next? It is a slippery slope argument. Shouting fire in a theater is Constitutional although idiots who do so will probably be sued, jailed, or fined for tresspassing, causing damage to a business, causing injury, disturbing the peace of paying customers, and a host of other local ordinances. I congratulate the recent ruling as it recognizes the far greater dangers of limiting free speech. Limiting seech in Germany, for the common good, eventually harmed democracy there like anywhere else it has been tried.

added-

maxx: How about reading the Preamble. I think "promote the general welfare" can be interpreted to refer to health care

.

Is that what your 9th grade civics teacher said? Why not eliminate the rest of the Constitution then because, with your take, the general welfare clause supercedes the rest of it and allows you to do whatever you say promotes the general welfare? Try this instead. The general welfare clause could also be trying to say that everything in the Constitution provides for the 'general' welfare rather than providing for elites or special interest groups.

[johnsmith]

Why not eliminate the rest of the Constitution then because, with your take, the general welfare clause supercedes the rest of it and allows you to do whatever you say promotes the general welfare?

According to the socialists here and elsewhere, the "general welfare" statement in the preamble and the interstate commerce clause basically allow the federal government to do anything it wishes, with no limits. Stalin could be running this country just like he did the USSR with those two misconstrued arguments.