Gov healthcare
- Thread starter DS
- Start date
klein
Für Meno :)
Good article ! Totally makes sense.
Kinda odd, many of my points above were mentioned. Liked that part !
Up north here, we have 10 years patent on new drugs.
So, while you're still paying $10 a pill for Viagra (as an example), we get it for $3.00 (US, will need to wait another 10 years to get it at discount).
And it's not even a US drug, it's from France, but ofcourse they were smart enough to patent it in the US (with the 20yr max).
Lue C Fur
Evil member
wkmac
Well-Known Member
AV8,
Sometime back for a brief moment, we discussed the general welfare clause and for whatever reason the subject was dropped. However, I wanted to bring up the Necessary and Proper" clause of Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 18 which reads as follows:
You and I would read that and the terms "foregoing powers" would refer back to the previous delegated powers granted to Congress in Art. 1, sec. 8 but that changed in 1819' when the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland in which Maryland was attempting to tax the earlier created 2nd National Bank (Hamilton's Curse LOL!). (So much for the 9th and 10th amendments too) Our view (you and I) would be "here, here only and no further" but SCOTUS didn't see language construction in the same light as ourselves. LAWYERS! GEESHE!
Anti-Federalist proven correct again!
The McCulloch case gave us 2 foundational principles that have guided Congress and Washington DC ever since.
In the case of Social Security, see the earlier Alton Railroad case and then compare a couple of years later with the Seward Machine and Helvering cases where Social Security was upheld. In Alton Railroad, SCOTUS told Congress they had no authority to set up retirement accounts for citizens working for the railroad and under the authority of interstate commerce, another highly abused clause, but after revamping they came back with a pure excise/income tax that funds would go into the general treasury. It was in fact a direct tax enabled by the 16th amendment, thank you very much! It's also why the legal authority of SS is found in Title 26, Internal Revenue Code under Chapters 31 and 35. Remember part of tax is excise tax on employer and the other an income tax on employee. Congress has implied powers of direct taxation even before the 16th amendment and hopefully a Fed Reserve audit will explode the myth that the gov't needs the income tax to fund itself but that's another thread.
Then social security became just another funded program where funds are allocated from the general treasury. Yeah in a technical sense, SS is pure welfare. Why did they not, if it was true and above board, not explain to the American people, change the Constitution accordingly and then set up a true trust fund system that isolates all monies collected and it's just possible the mess of social security today might not be as bad if at all. Or was something else at work here? Again, a Federal Reserve audit just might reveal things not previously known or understood.
I still don't believe in this role for gov't but at least it's more honest and transparent and I've yet to see those who advocate this role of gov't really demand and hold feet to the fire with principle of our elected leaders when they advocate such expanding roles of gov't. If this were the case and we had such out of gov't, a lot of my arguements against gov't might become mute. Sunshine makes for a good disinfectant on so many levels.
Again, just some food for thought and nothing more concerning the discussion on the general welfare clause.
Here's a 2002' piece written for Mises by Gary Galles, professor of economics, Pepperdine University entitled, Taxes and the General Welfare which also gives food for thought.
c ya!
Sometime back for a brief moment, we discussed the general welfare clause and for whatever reason the subject was dropped. However, I wanted to bring up the Necessary and Proper" clause of Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 18 which reads as follows:
You and I would read that and the terms "foregoing powers" would refer back to the previous delegated powers granted to Congress in Art. 1, sec. 8 but that changed in 1819' when the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland in which Maryland was attempting to tax the earlier created 2nd National Bank (Hamilton's Curse LOL!). (So much for the 9th and 10th amendments too) Our view (you and I) would be "here, here only and no further" but SCOTUS didn't see language construction in the same light as ourselves. LAWYERS! GEESHE!
Anti-Federalist proven correct again!
The McCulloch case gave us 2 foundational principles that have guided Congress and Washington DC ever since.
- The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
- State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
In the case of Social Security, see the earlier Alton Railroad case and then compare a couple of years later with the Seward Machine and Helvering cases where Social Security was upheld. In Alton Railroad, SCOTUS told Congress they had no authority to set up retirement accounts for citizens working for the railroad and under the authority of interstate commerce, another highly abused clause, but after revamping they came back with a pure excise/income tax that funds would go into the general treasury. It was in fact a direct tax enabled by the 16th amendment, thank you very much! It's also why the legal authority of SS is found in Title 26, Internal Revenue Code under Chapters 31 and 35. Remember part of tax is excise tax on employer and the other an income tax on employee. Congress has implied powers of direct taxation even before the 16th amendment and hopefully a Fed Reserve audit will explode the myth that the gov't needs the income tax to fund itself but that's another thread.
Then social security became just another funded program where funds are allocated from the general treasury. Yeah in a technical sense, SS is pure welfare. Why did they not, if it was true and above board, not explain to the American people, change the Constitution accordingly and then set up a true trust fund system that isolates all monies collected and it's just possible the mess of social security today might not be as bad if at all. Or was something else at work here? Again, a Federal Reserve audit just might reveal things not previously known or understood.
I still don't believe in this role for gov't but at least it's more honest and transparent and I've yet to see those who advocate this role of gov't really demand and hold feet to the fire with principle of our elected leaders when they advocate such expanding roles of gov't. If this were the case and we had such out of gov't, a lot of my arguements against gov't might become mute. Sunshine makes for a good disinfectant on so many levels.
Again, just some food for thought and nothing more concerning the discussion on the general welfare clause.
Here's a 2002' piece written for Mises by Gary Galles, professor of economics, Pepperdine University entitled, Taxes and the General Welfare which also gives food for thought.
c ya!
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Can't miss video....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/...ning-Meeting-was-a-massacre-todaya-must-watch.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/...ning-Meeting-was-a-massacre-todaya-must-watch.
klein
Für Meno :)
Aint that the truth!!!
They can save medicare by raising it's age to 70.
And holding jobs, that keep the unemployed out of work and insurance.
Might be a few more people going in the un/under-insured group.
But, that's thier lazyness if the don't work until thier 70 or new jobs are harder to get by.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Lol, its Politically Incorrect all over again. Two liberals there to beat up on one conservative. She could not get a word in edge wise as every sentence she attempted to say would be interrupted by the "moderator" who would then argue with her. Why are they so afraid of her answers? I believe its because they fear she may make sense.
klein
Für Meno :)
That's nice to see, they got nice young people doing such a video (as above).
They will have a nice story to tell thier children one day, and it will sound like this :
Once upon a time, in the early 1900's , companies started to offer free health insurance, as an incentive to keep thier workers.
However, as costs of medical rose and rose, companies started to introduce partial payments in the early 2000's.
But, since healthcare costs were going up twice or tripple the inflation rate, Employers could no longer give away the benefit incentives , they introduced 100 years ago.
We did have several chances to let government handle healthcare and control costs, but we chose to trust Employers and private insurance companies instead.
We now need to pay for it ourselves, and can't live as well as our parents once did. We have atleast $1000 less per month to spend.
Anyways, my son, you just turned 18 today. You just fell out of my insurance. Get atleast a paperboy job for now, and pay your healthcare insurance. If you don't earn enough out of that, I might be willing to pitch in another couple of $100 for you.
Unlike the neighbors son, he needs 2 jobs to keep up.
They will have a nice story to tell thier children one day, and it will sound like this :
Once upon a time, in the early 1900's , companies started to offer free health insurance, as an incentive to keep thier workers.
However, as costs of medical rose and rose, companies started to introduce partial payments in the early 2000's.
But, since healthcare costs were going up twice or tripple the inflation rate, Employers could no longer give away the benefit incentives , they introduced 100 years ago.
We did have several chances to let government handle healthcare and control costs, but we chose to trust Employers and private insurance companies instead.
We now need to pay for it ourselves, and can't live as well as our parents once did. We have atleast $1000 less per month to spend.
Anyways, my son, you just turned 18 today. You just fell out of my insurance. Get atleast a paperboy job for now, and pay your healthcare insurance. If you don't earn enough out of that, I might be willing to pitch in another couple of $100 for you.
Unlike the neighbors son, he needs 2 jobs to keep up.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Host Dylan Radigan's background is Finance.....Bloomberg, CNBC, and even a frequent guest on Morning Joe (Conservative ) Scarborough's program. He deals with facts and finance Brett. You should be over him
.....Isn't facts and finance your forte? He will call out anybody on his show who'll try to pull the wool over his audience eyeshttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30602284
Last edited by a moderator:
brett636
Well-Known Member
Host Dylan Radigan's background is Finance.....Bloomberg, CNBC, and even a frequent guest on Morning Joe (Conservative ) Scarborough's program. He deals with facts and finance Brett. You should be gay over him
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30602284
Could have fooled me with that interview. He was obviously very partisan in favor of government health care and against any conservative point which contradicts that. Try getting something off of Fox news, you will find much more civil debate where both sides get to make their point.
Just for my own curiousity, what do you think of the Bacaus bill getting all the attention these days? From what I recall it does not include a public option, which I thought all you liberals wanted, and does include new taxes on "Cadillac" health insurance plans which I can almost guarantee you our health insurance plans will fall under. Even the latest Teamster magazine was bashing the idea of taxing these health insurance plans because obviously it would hurt companies like ours which are under contract to maintain these plans. I stand against this bill simply because it doesn't address the issue as I see it, but I cannot see how even yourself can stand in support of it considering it does not have in it what you expected, and even some things unexpected.
Last edited:
klein
Für Meno :)
I have no clue about that bill, but the sounds of it , (in your own words), it's no longer tax deductable.
Sounds like step 1 to me:
Pay part of your share of $7395.00 per person for your healthcare.
I believe you're a family of 4. Thats $30.000 the government subsidizes you every year.
The government can no longer handle that burden.
If you ever thought military spending was #1 cost, nope, your healthcare is way beyond that.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Brett,
I guess looking at the video having some aspect of partisan political party bias I might see where you may have some points but when it comes to Dylan itself, I have to disagree with you point. At around the 3 minute mark, Dylan makes the point about how the market is not a free market, lacks a real competitive environment and then uses the term, "corp. communism" which is a vey valid term IMO.
Now you and I might agree the proposed plans are not good but neither is the current system which is a socialist system if you really look at it with honest eyes. Now I don't pretend that you've taken an anarcho-capitialist position regarding healthcare so in the tradition and state of current 2 party politics, even your ideas of solution will fall within the framework of the American Socialist experiment as outlined at the link above. If Dylan had a point with the communism thing, it really relates to an almost monopoly status as achieved by both democrat and republican control intervention granted to the various major players in the current healthcare industry. Obviously in a planned economy designed for maximum tax revenues returns, maintaining political control of the ballot box and not for the benefit of providing the best options for the average citizen/folk.
I'd like to devolve the system and I'm not so sure you are truly willing to do that regardless of your declarations here when it concerns economics. I've seen to much from you that buys in the the fallacy of supply side economics and the myth making that has gone on around that even from bothsides again.
I can't say I remember you or your redstate friends demanding teaparties when Bush socialized medicine during his term. Not a peep of vocal protest came from you guys when Bush was shown a bigger spender than LBJ and yet now you scream like rapped virgins! At least the virgins have standing to scream!
However a democrat comes along who in fact is really further solidifying Corp. control and yes I think Dylan understands this too, and all you guys do is oppose. Had a republican done this, the silence would be deafening but the funny thing would be the democrats who then would be holding the teaparties!
You know, just like during the Bush years when democrats, even Kennedy was decrying the lack of fiscal responsibility and control in Washington only to throw it all to the 4 winds when they held the keys to the Kingdom.Ah, the hypocrisy of the 2 party system!
Dylan Ratigan and I probably part company in a lot of areas when it comes to gov't but I think you sold him part wrong in this case IMO. Also Dylan recently had Ron Paul on talking about the Federal Reserve and I personally didn't see Dylan as a shrill for a communist/socialist system although I wouldn't say some aspects of it called by another name he may not oppose either. Doesn't make him bad just an average American truth be told!
BTW: I don't think you can fix healthcare or anything else with a defective economic system and monetary unit. How do you control costs with a inflationary monetary unit that encourages growing debt and using inflation as a hidden means of taxation? And here's something else to consider, how can you appropiate and re-allocate resources to outside the country for the purpose of warfare (nationbuilding) and not have this re-allocation not have a negative effect on the economy at home? The only way then to maintain the economy is to either sieze gold and wealth from abroad, bring it back home and resupply the resources to the domestic economy or somehow create this wealth from thin air and then find mechanism of gov't intervention to introduce this wealth into the domestic economy to cover the shortage of resource allocation for the purpose of war.
HINT! HINT!
1989
Well-Known Member
It would leave 25 million people without healthcare. Which some will argue is more than the true uninsured now.
klein
Für Meno :)
Here's what would happen , basically daily, with wkmac's idea of healthcare and no regulations at all :
Health News
US doctor, minister who promised herbal cancer cure to faithful arrested on fraud charges
Provided by: The Canadian Press
Written by: Greg Risling, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Oct. 8, 2009
LOS ANGELES - Prosecutors brought fraud charges Thursday against a doctor accused of promising terminally ill cancer patients in their darkest hours that they would be cured with an herbal treatment.
Using her influence as an ordained Pentecostal minister, Dr. Christine Daniel enticed people from across the nation to try her regimen. She even appeared on cable's Trinity Broadcasting Network in 2002 touting her cancer cure and its 60 per cent success rate, according to federal investigators.
Authorities arrested Daniel, 55, at her San Fernando Valley home Thursday and charged her with two counts each of wire and mail fraud. If convicted, she faces up to 80 years in prison.
In court documents, authorities contend Daniel took advantage of patients who desperately sought alternative measures after enduring draining rounds of chemotherapy and radiation.
In all, federal prosecutors said Daniel siphoned about $1.1 million from 55 families between 2001 and 2004. Six patients ranging in age from 4 to 69 died within seven months after seeing Daniel.
"This is an example of a doctor who is preying upon the most vulnerable people in our society," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Johns. "These patients were told they were being cured, but they were being eaten alive by cancer."
Health News
US doctor, minister who promised herbal cancer cure to faithful arrested on fraud charges
Provided by: The Canadian Press
Written by: Greg Risling, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Oct. 8, 2009
LOS ANGELES - Prosecutors brought fraud charges Thursday against a doctor accused of promising terminally ill cancer patients in their darkest hours that they would be cured with an herbal treatment.
Using her influence as an ordained Pentecostal minister, Dr. Christine Daniel enticed people from across the nation to try her regimen. She even appeared on cable's Trinity Broadcasting Network in 2002 touting her cancer cure and its 60 per cent success rate, according to federal investigators.
Authorities arrested Daniel, 55, at her San Fernando Valley home Thursday and charged her with two counts each of wire and mail fraud. If convicted, she faces up to 80 years in prison.
In court documents, authorities contend Daniel took advantage of patients who desperately sought alternative measures after enduring draining rounds of chemotherapy and radiation.
In all, federal prosecutors said Daniel siphoned about $1.1 million from 55 families between 2001 and 2004. Six patients ranging in age from 4 to 69 died within seven months after seeing Daniel.
"This is an example of a doctor who is preying upon the most vulnerable people in our society," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Johns. "These patients were told they were being cured, but they were being eaten alive by cancer."
Babagounj
Strength through joy
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Sat Oct 10, 5:35 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Sixty years is how long Democrats say they've been pushing for legislation that provides health care access for all Americans. They'll have to wait another three if President Barack Obama gets a bill to sign this year.
Under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won't start flowing until 2013 — after the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.
The eat-your-vegetables-first approach is causing heartburn for some Democrats. Three years is a long time to wait for dessert, and opponents could capitalize on misgivings about the complex legislation to undo what would be a signature achievement for Obama.
"The real danger is that health reform could be vulnerable to what we see with the stimulus package," said Democratic health policy consultant Peter Harbage, referring to criticism that Obama's $787 billion economic plan hasn't stemmed rising unemployment. "There needs to be more focus on what can you do quickly so that real people will start seeing change sooner, rather than later."
Said Judy Feder, a senior health official in President Bill Clinton's administration: "Just as we are fending off ideological attacks to get the bill passed, we will be fending them off as we implement the law."
Obama administration officials and Democratic lawmakers say the reason for the three-year wait is the time it's going to take to set up insurance marketplaces, write consumer protection rules and reconfigure the bureaucracy to carry out the legislation. It took President George W. Bush's administration two years to phase in the Medicare prescription benefit, a more modest undertaking.
"It's very important to get the execution right," White House budget director Peter Orszag told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
There's another reason, less talked about: to make the costs of the plan seem more manageable under congressional budgeting rules.
Lawmakers use a 10-year accounting window to assess new programs. Starting the Medicare cuts and some of the taxes in the early years — and pushing the bulk of new spending into the latter years — helps keep the cost of the health care overhaul within Obama's $900 billion limit. Bush used the same kind of maneuver to push the Medicare benefit through Congress.
"It means that the full cost of the program is underestimated in the 10-year window that you are looking at," said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for former President George H.W. Bush. "It's not like we've never seen this before, but people need to understand what's going on."
Congressional Democrats are defensive about their slow-motion rollout.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., addressed the concerns in a recent news release captioned: "What You Get Right Away."
Among the major short-term improvements in his bill would be a benefit for people on Medicare, who already have insurance coverage. Starting in 2010, those who fall into the Medicare prescription plan's coverage gap would get a 50 percent discount off the price of brand-name drugs.
In 2011 and 2012, certain small employers with fewer than 25 workers could get a tax credit for up to 35 percent of what they contribute toward the cost of employee coverage. That could encourage some companies that don't offer coverage to do so, but it's more likely to shore up those who already do.
To answer Obama's call for an immediate end to insurance company discrimination against the sick, Baucus would set aside $5 billion from 2010-2013 to help states provide affordable coverage to people denied because of a medical condition. The money would be apportioned to high-risk insurance pools that many states have set up.
It may not go far enough. State high-risk pools now spend about $1 billion a year and cover only 200,000 people.
"With $5 billion and (other) improvements, they probably can double that enrollment, maybe a bit more, but that may not reach everybody who needs the immediate help," said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University research professor.
The House Democratic bill tries to provide some immediate relief. For example, insurance companies could not cancel coverage just because a policyholder develops an intractable disease such as cancer.
Yet all of that has failed to make much of an impression on the Congressional Budget Office, the umpire of the costs and benefits of legislation. The CBO estimates that under the Senate Finance Committee bill, the number of uninsured will stay stuck around 50 million from 2010 through 2012, until federal tax credits start flowing the following year.
If there's a silver lining in the three-year wait, it's that it will give individuals and families time to prepare for a new federal requirement to carry health insurance, starting in 2013. That won't be a problem for the majority who with employer or government coverage. But even with the tax credits that Democrats are proposing, many middle-class families that buy their own coverage still may be unable to afford it, and risk being assessed a penalty.
But lawmakers may have figured out how to use time to their advantage. The Senate Finance Committee voted to pare down the penalties and postpone them until 2014. Because the fines would be collected through income taxes, no one will get a bill until April 2015.
That would be a full two years after the government starts handing out carrots in the form of health insurance tax credits. Conveniently or coincidentally, it's also safely after the 2014 congressional midterm elections.
WASHINGTON – Sixty years is how long Democrats say they've been pushing for legislation that provides health care access for all Americans. They'll have to wait another three if President Barack Obama gets a bill to sign this year.
Under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won't start flowing until 2013 — after the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.
The eat-your-vegetables-first approach is causing heartburn for some Democrats. Three years is a long time to wait for dessert, and opponents could capitalize on misgivings about the complex legislation to undo what would be a signature achievement for Obama.
"The real danger is that health reform could be vulnerable to what we see with the stimulus package," said Democratic health policy consultant Peter Harbage, referring to criticism that Obama's $787 billion economic plan hasn't stemmed rising unemployment. "There needs to be more focus on what can you do quickly so that real people will start seeing change sooner, rather than later."
Said Judy Feder, a senior health official in President Bill Clinton's administration: "Just as we are fending off ideological attacks to get the bill passed, we will be fending them off as we implement the law."
Obama administration officials and Democratic lawmakers say the reason for the three-year wait is the time it's going to take to set up insurance marketplaces, write consumer protection rules and reconfigure the bureaucracy to carry out the legislation. It took President George W. Bush's administration two years to phase in the Medicare prescription benefit, a more modest undertaking.
"It's very important to get the execution right," White House budget director Peter Orszag told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
There's another reason, less talked about: to make the costs of the plan seem more manageable under congressional budgeting rules.
Lawmakers use a 10-year accounting window to assess new programs. Starting the Medicare cuts and some of the taxes in the early years — and pushing the bulk of new spending into the latter years — helps keep the cost of the health care overhaul within Obama's $900 billion limit. Bush used the same kind of maneuver to push the Medicare benefit through Congress.
"It means that the full cost of the program is underestimated in the 10-year window that you are looking at," said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for former President George H.W. Bush. "It's not like we've never seen this before, but people need to understand what's going on."
Congressional Democrats are defensive about their slow-motion rollout.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., addressed the concerns in a recent news release captioned: "What You Get Right Away."
Among the major short-term improvements in his bill would be a benefit for people on Medicare, who already have insurance coverage. Starting in 2010, those who fall into the Medicare prescription plan's coverage gap would get a 50 percent discount off the price of brand-name drugs.
In 2011 and 2012, certain small employers with fewer than 25 workers could get a tax credit for up to 35 percent of what they contribute toward the cost of employee coverage. That could encourage some companies that don't offer coverage to do so, but it's more likely to shore up those who already do.
To answer Obama's call for an immediate end to insurance company discrimination against the sick, Baucus would set aside $5 billion from 2010-2013 to help states provide affordable coverage to people denied because of a medical condition. The money would be apportioned to high-risk insurance pools that many states have set up.
It may not go far enough. State high-risk pools now spend about $1 billion a year and cover only 200,000 people.
"With $5 billion and (other) improvements, they probably can double that enrollment, maybe a bit more, but that may not reach everybody who needs the immediate help," said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University research professor.
The House Democratic bill tries to provide some immediate relief. For example, insurance companies could not cancel coverage just because a policyholder develops an intractable disease such as cancer.
Yet all of that has failed to make much of an impression on the Congressional Budget Office, the umpire of the costs and benefits of legislation. The CBO estimates that under the Senate Finance Committee bill, the number of uninsured will stay stuck around 50 million from 2010 through 2012, until federal tax credits start flowing the following year.
If there's a silver lining in the three-year wait, it's that it will give individuals and families time to prepare for a new federal requirement to carry health insurance, starting in 2013. That won't be a problem for the majority who with employer or government coverage. But even with the tax credits that Democrats are proposing, many middle-class families that buy their own coverage still may be unable to afford it, and risk being assessed a penalty.
But lawmakers may have figured out how to use time to their advantage. The Senate Finance Committee voted to pare down the penalties and postpone them until 2014. Because the fines would be collected through income taxes, no one will get a bill until April 2015.
That would be a full two years after the government starts handing out carrots in the form of health insurance tax credits. Conveniently or coincidentally, it's also safely after the 2014 congressional midterm elections.
