04 Nov 19
@averagejoe1 saidUnlike whodey and yourself, I don't think Americans are too stupid to implement an efficient health care system.
I'm getting that Kazet is of a different opinion, he is preaching govt coverage, so as long as there is a govt,, that govt will decide what in the hell coverage will be, which works just fine, according to him(!) in little bitty countries. I wish he would close his suggestion by telling us which country of 330Million people, which we should copy , has pulled off such wo ...[text shortened]... I can do just about anything in that regard, easy peasy. Kazet is a Pollyanna in Marxist clothing!
@averagejoe1 saidI would be less upset with states running health care instead of the all powerful federal government.
I'm getting that Kazet is of a different opinion, he is preaching govt coverage, so as long as there is a govt,, that govt will decide what in the hell coverage will be, which works just fine, according to him(!) in little bitty countries. I wish he would close his suggestion by telling us which country of 330Million people, which we should copy , has pulled off such wo ...[text shortened]... I can do just about anything in that regard, easy peasy. Kazet is a Pollyanna in Marxist clothing!
Before Obamacare became the law of the land, the citizens of Massachussetes elected Scott Brown, the first Republican elected in a very long time to the Senate, specifically to stop Obamacare. Well it should have worked, but Democrats bypassed the Constitutional democratic process and used Reconciliation to bypass the Senate to ram it through.
This is because they had their own health care in Romneycare and were OK with it.
At least if something went wrong, which it always does, perhaps people could run to the Federal government for help.
I would say that state run health care is comparable to the smaller European country style health care. The Federal government running health care, however, would be like the EU running it, and look at how the UK to retreating from the EU like a Frenchman.
Very telling indeed. God speed people of the UK.
05 Nov 19
@kazetnagorra saidQuick answer......, if the govt. would stay the hell out of it, and allow many insurance companies to prosper and compete for business, and let the doctors do what they do, you would find bargains all over the place. There is not one niche that would not be filled. Something for everybody. VIP (Concierge) doctors for richer people, and clinic type care for the less rich people, and all stuff in between. Capitalism at work. Been working for 250 years. So, you are correct. Industrious, entrepreneural, risk-taking, creative Americans, who invent just about everything anyway, would easily fill all the gaps and make money doing it. To me, it would be total nirvana. You say you dont think we are stupid.....we are not stupid. But when gov steps between us and the market, we sure do have a hard time filling the aforementioned demand for inexpensive, great healthcare.
Unlike whodey and yourself, I don't think Americans are too stupid to implement an efficient health care system.
Libs promote government control of all resources and means of production, so libs will eventually be the death knell of our medical care system which you mention above. Guess I will go to Cuba to get my other knee replaced!
05 Nov 19
@whodey saidwhodey: but Democrats bypassed the Constitutional democratic process.
I would be less upset with states running health care instead of the all powerful federal government.
Before Obamacare became the law of the land, the citizens of Massachussetes elected Scott Brown, the first Republican elected in a very long time to the Senate, specifically to stop Obamacare. Well it should have worked, but Democrats bypassed the Constitutional democratic ...[text shortened]... UK to retreating from the EU like a Frenchman.
Very telling indeed. God speed people of the UK.
This is complete and utter BS. Where in the Constitution is wording which suggests a minority in the Senate can block ordinary legislation?
@averagejoe1 saidUnrestrained capitalism never did and never could provide any degree of quality health care to the majority of Americans. You are completely ignorant of history and economics to claim otherwise.
Quick answer......, if the govt. would stay the hell out of it, and allow many insurance companies to prosper and compete for business, and let the doctors do what they do, you would find bargains all over the place. There is not one niche that would not be filled. Something for everybody. VIP (Concierge) doctors for richer people, and clinic type care for the less ric ...[text shortened]... edical care system which you mention above. Guess I will go to Cuba to get my other knee replaced!
05 Nov 19
@no1marauder saidNo1Marauder.....where in the Constitution is wording which suggests ANYTHING about health care? Whew. You libs could make a moon-eyed man go blind.
whodey: but Democrats bypassed the Constitutional democratic process.
This is complete and utter BS. Where in the Constitution is wording which suggests a minority in the Senate can block ordinary legislation?
05 Nov 19
@no1marauder saidYour first sentence is totally unfounded. Next you will be telling us that there should be a Federal Department of Education, when anyone with a brain knows that that is not in the constitution , and that education is best left to each individual state.
Unrestrained capitalism never did and never could provide any degree of quality health care to the majority of Americans. You are completely ignorant of history and economics to claim otherwise.
05 Nov 19
@averagejoe1 saidAll your ifs, buts and whens cannot change the cold hard facts on the ground, which clearly show the American system delivers inferior results at higher cost. Deal with it.
Quick answer......, if the govt. would stay the hell out of it, and allow many insurance companies to prosper and compete for business, and let the doctors do what they do, you would find bargains all over the place. There is not one niche that would not be filled. Something for everybody. VIP (Concierge) doctors for richer people, and clinic type care for the less ric ...[text shortened]... edical care system which you mention above. Guess I will go to Cuba to get my other knee replaced!
05 Nov 19
@averagejoe1 said
No1Marauder.....where in the Constitution is wording which suggests ANYTHING about health care? Whew. You libs could make a moon-eyed man go blind.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
05 Nov 19
@kazetnagorra saidThe next pill you take was likely invented in Kansas City, Missouri. Deal with that!
All your ifs, buts and whens cannot change the cold hard facts on the ground, which clearly show the American system delivers inferior results at higher cost. Deal with it.
05 Nov 19
@averagejoe1 saidHealth care expenditures take up 17.07% of the country's GDP; it is a vast interstate business, so:
No1Marauder.....where in the Constitution is wording which suggests ANYTHING about health care? Whew. You libs could make a moon-eyed man go blind.
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3
05 Nov 19
@averagejoe1 saidI think the Framers would be astonished and pleased with the vast expansion of educational opportunities available to the People now as compared to their time. That something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't authorized by the Constitution; this matter was settled by the debate regarding establishment of a national bank in 1791. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/1791_First_Bank/
Your first sentence is totally unfounded. Next you will be telling us that there should be a Federal Department of Education, when anyone with a brain knows that that is not in the constitution , and that education is best left to each individual state.
See also the "Necessary and Proper clause" in the US Constitution at the end of Article I, section 8
05 Nov 19
@no1marauder saidA bit far afield from this thread.
I think the Framers would be astonished and pleased with the vast expansion of educational opportunities available to the People now as compared to their time. That something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't authorized by the Constitution; this matter was settled by the debate regarding establishment of a national bank in 1791. https: ...[text shortened]... See also the "Necessary and Proper clause" in the US Constitution at the end of Article I, section 8
05 Nov 19
@averagejoe1 saidThe inefficient provision of health care services is not a requirement for research into improved medicine.
The next pill you take was likely invented in Kansas City, Missouri. Deal with that!