87 million uninsured, 30 thousand dying a year, 500 thousand going bankrupt. Time for a change to a broken system.

This_person

Well-Known Member
Happy to have you show me where, in the constitution, the right to force taxpayers to fund health care for others is shown.

Prescription drug prices are what they are because of regulation, not the other way around. Allow - nay, FORCE - Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate prices. Allow the cost of medicines to be tax deductible to the consumer. Allow the full cost of R&D into medicines to be tax deductible to companies, or, use the constitutional authority to fund "the useful arts" to do the R&D at the government level.

People are not uninsured because of someone else, they are uninsured because they choose other things on which to spend their money. Now, if Congress wants to make insurance more likely, they need to change the laws on that, too, to be LESS restrictive, not more. For example, a company can write off of its taxes the cost of health insurance premiums, but an individual is far less likely to be able to do so. Therefore, if they want more people to have insurance, make the cost of insurance a deductible on taxes. And, I don't mean a deductible from one's income, but a deductible off of the tax owed. Everyone will have "Cadillac plans" that will pay for everything they want. Well, everyone who pays net taxes, not receives other people's tax money.
 

Burnthings

Active Member
Works for every other first world country and we end up spending more for less care.

What part of yourself enjoys paying more to the middleman.


"The U.S. has spends more on healthcare than any high-income country, yet Americans have poor health outcomes and a worsening life expectancy when compared with other countries, according to a report from the The Commonwealth Fund.

For the study, The Commonwealth Fund assessed the healthcare systems of 11 countries, including the U.S., based on these five areas: care process, access, administrative efficiency, equity and healthcare outcomes. Data was collected using international surveys of public and physicians, from 2015-2017.

Here are the three things to know:

1. The U.S. ranked last place among the 11 countries for health outcomes, equity and quality, despite having the highest per capita health earnings.

2. The U.S. also had the highest rate of mortality amenable to healthcare, meaning more Americans die from poor care quality than any other country involved in the study.

3. Poor access to primary care in the U.S. has contributed to inadequate chronic disease prevention and management, delayed diagnoses and safety concerns, among other issues."

141691


You might pay slightly higher taxes but end up spending less overall since you're no longer paying for health insurance and premiums.
 

Burnthings

Active Member
The Department of Health and Human Services also measures the total amount spent on healthcare in the US, including by states, private citizens, the federal government, businesses, and more. This all-encompassing number is known as the national health expenditure, or NHE.

According to the Mercatus model, total health spending would actually come in about $303 billion lower in 2031 than under current projections, with $7.35 trillion going to healthcare that year versus $7.65 trillion expected now. Total national health spending would be $2 trillion lower from 2022 to 2031 under the plan, the report found.


All I'm seeing is better access to health care for everyone for less money spent overall.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Works for every other first world country and we end up spending more for less care.

What part of yourself enjoys paying more to the middleman.


"The U.S. has spends more on healthcare than any high-income country, yet Americans have poor health outcomes and a worsening life expectancy when compared with other countries, according to a report from the The Commonwealth Fund.

For the study, The Commonwealth Fund assessed the healthcare systems of 11 countries, including the U.S., based on these five areas: care process, access, administrative efficiency, equity and healthcare outcomes. Data was collected using international surveys of public and physicians, from 2015-2017.

Here are the three things to know:

1. The U.S. ranked last place among the 11 countries for health outcomes, equity and quality, despite having the highest per capita health earnings.

2. The U.S. also had the highest rate of mortality amenable to healthcare, meaning more Americans die from poor care quality than any other country involved in the study.

3. Poor access to primary care in the U.S. has contributed to inadequate chronic disease prevention and management, delayed diagnoses and safety concerns, among other issues."

View attachment 141691

You might pay slightly higher taxes but end up spending less overall since you're no longer paying for health insurance and premiums.
None of your post answers the question - where in the constitution is the authority for the federal government to take money from some citizens to pay for health insurance for other citizens?

There's a reason you didn't answer that; [actually, I suspect there are two reasons: The first is, you've never read the constitution, the second is...] because it just ain't there. The government doesn't have the authority.

The costs you bring up would be negated by the solutions I offered that do NOT force one person to pay for other people's health insurance. There are other ways to lower the cost as well - cap medical malpractice awards, limit what can be considered malpractice, etc. Improve training requirements to maintain a doctor's license.

But, if your last sentence were true (and it's not), then government-controlled anything would be less expensive. It's not. It's ALWAYS more expensive and worse quality. Ask Bernie why he got his stents in so quickly and well. Research, for example, what some of those countries pay in tax rates compared to the US.

And, what about those who choose to not have insurance? Should that not be an option?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The Department of Health and Human Services also measures the total amount spent on healthcare in the US, including by states, private citizens, the federal government, businesses, and more. This all-encompassing number is known as the national health expenditure, or NHE.

According to the Mercatus model, total health spending would actually come in about $303 billion lower in 2031 than under current projections, with $7.35 trillion going to healthcare that year versus $7.65 trillion expected now. Total national health spending would be $2 trillion lower from 2022 to 2031 under the plan, the report found.


All I'm seeing is better access to health care for everyone for less money spent overall.
Someone should offer that up as a private plan, optional to join. That's what we call liberty.
 

Burnthings

Active Member
Someone should offer that up as a private plan, optional to join. That's what we call liberty.
That's not how it works, everyone has to be in. Collective bargaining power. That's how countries like Canada are able to negotiate such low prices for drugs.
 

Burnthings

Active Member
.... And still people are coming from ALL of those countries to the United States for medical procedures because... What? Their "Free" systsms are so much better? :rolleyes:

There's a reason that the description "Free" is almost ALWAYS synonymous with "Sucks"
It's not Free, you are still paying for it. We're just cutting out private health care insurers. I didn't know people were coming here in masses from Denmark. Sweden, The UK. Canada, Australia. This is not some wild concept, it's the norm.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That's not how it works, everyone has to be in. Collective bargaining power. That's how countries like Canada are able to negotiate such low prices for drugs.
They can because the law allows them to. Our laws prohibit the largest single purchaser of drugs (Medicare/Medicaid) from negotiating.

Remove that limit, and then the negotiations will inevitably lower the cost of medicines. Oh, and limit research into new medicines because the profit won't be there, making it far less likely a drug company will do the R&D to create new life-saving drugs.

I'm not sure if people like Bernie see that as a bug or a feature, since he's also for population control.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That's not how it works, everyone has to be in. Collective bargaining power. That's how countries like Canada are able to negotiate such low prices for drugs.
None of your post answers the question - where in the constitution is the authority for the federal government to take money from some citizens to pay for health insurance for other citizens?

There's a reason you didn't answer that; [actually, I suspect there are two reasons: The first is, you've never read the constitution, the second is...] because it just ain't there. The government doesn't have the authority.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It's not Free, you are still paying for it. We're just cutting out private health care insurers. I didn't know people were coming here in masses from Denmark. Sweden, The UK. Canada, Australia. This is not some wild concept, it's the norm.
None of your post answers the question - where in the constitution is the authority for the federal government to take money from some citizens to pay for health insurance for other citizens?

There's a reason you didn't answer that; [actually, I suspect there are two reasons: The first is, you've never read the constitution, the second is...] because it just ain't there. The government doesn't have the authority.
 

Burnthings

Active Member
Where is the liberty when you are tied to a job for health insurance. Where is the liberty in being raked over the coals by crazy premiums. Where is the liberty in watching children die because care is cutting into some CEOs profit margins.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
It's not Free, you are still paying for it. We're just cutting out private health care insurers. I didn't know people were coming here in masses from Denmark. Sweden, The UK. Canada, Australia. This is not some wild concept, it's the norm.
It's not the norm.

You didn't answer TPs question either.

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS CONTROL OF HEALTHCARE AUTHORIZED?
 

Burnthings

Active Member
None of your post answers the question - where in the constitution is the authority for the federal government to take money from some citizens to pay for health insurance for other citizens?

There's a reason you didn't answer that; [actually, I suspect there are two reasons: The first is, you've never read the constitution, the second is...] because it just ain't there. The government doesn't have the authority.
The constitution doesn't say anything about wiping your ass after you crap but I bet you still wipe. It's a living document, we're not beholden to some 200 year old document when it makes good sense not too.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
Where is the liberty when you are tied to a job for health insurance. Where is the liberty in being raked over the coals by crazy premiums. Where is the liberty in watching children die because care is cutting into some CEOs profit margins.
Liberty is Freedom... Not Other peoples $$$ for free.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Where is the liberty when you are tied to a job for health insurance. Where is the liberty in being raked over the coals by crazy premiums. Where is the liberty in watching children die because care is cutting into some CEOs profit margins.
The liberty is in the freedom to choose.

What you seek is a serfdom. What you seek is to be a pet of the government, owned and controlled with the government promising to take care of you. You seek to be a child, with government being your mommy (thus the term nanny-state).

Freedom, liberty - these are unsecure. These are dangerous. These are far better options for someone who does not want to be a slave of the government.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
The constitution doesn't say anything about wiping your ass after you crap but I bet you still wipe. It's a living document, we're not beholden to some 200 year old document when it makes good sense not too.
Which means they have no jurisdiction on regulating your ASS or selling it to others to use for free. ( Unless youre into that sort of thing. )

And it's NOT a "Living Document" it's a ****ing contract, a set of rules, laws, spelling out what the federal government is allowed to do and in select cases "REAFFIRMING" what it is NOT supposed to do.
 
Top