ordering a pizza in 2015

[Capt Worley PE]

Here's what I find puzzling...

Both sides of the aisle agree that everybody is on the same page with 80% of the bill. Issues like portability, pre-existing conditions, and cancellation during illness are universally (pretty much) agreed on.

The big sticking point seems to be single payer.

Soooo....my question is, why don't the Dems give up on single payer and just pass a bill with the 80% everyone seems to be OK with? My wife says it is because there is no way single payer would pass on its own without the 80% people agree on. I can see this, but why is single payer so dang important to them. So important that thye'd rather nothing get passed than a plan without single payer?

Incidentally, I've done research on this and every Democratic President since WWII (except Carter)has tried to get a single payer system passed. Again, why is this so important to the democratic party.

 

[benbo]

Incidentally, I've done research on this and every Democratic President since WWII (except Carter)has tried to get a single payer system passed. Again, why is this so important to the democratic party.

There are probably a lot of reasons (including, as Obama aid on Sunday, the age old arguent about the scope pf government) , but partly I think it is because of the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that's the way everybody else in the world does it. I say that because I always hear "THe US is the ONLY country in the world that does or doesn't do X or Y."

I think looking at systems in other countries may help shed light on the issue, but I cetainly don't think this is justification in and of itself.

 

[Chucktown PE]

So that they can permanently hold that over people's heads as a campaign promise, i.e. "Don't for the Republicans, they're going to take away your free healthcare." Single payer is all about power. The government will have the power to decide what health care you and your family recieve. When they control your health care they control you. At least with a private insurer, if you don't like what they do to you, you can find another company. Not so with the imperial federal government.

One more thing on this, the pre-existing condition thing is a bunch of ******** as well. That would be like me going and buying flood insurance after a damn hurricane that flooded my house. No insurance company would write that policy without someone holding a gun to their heads. Consequently, the government is going to use force to do this to health insurance companies. So someone decides that they don't want health insurance until they get cancer or some other disease that is going to cost a lot of money. The insurance companies are simply going to pass the costs off for this treatment to all the other policy holders, in effect raising the bill on all of the rest of us.

 

[udpolo15]

One more thing on this, the pre-existing condition thing is a bunch of ******** as well. That would be like me going and buying flood insurance after a damn hurricane that flooded my house. No insurance company would write that policy without someone holding a gun to their heads. Consequently, the government is going to use force to do this to health insurance companies. So someone decides that they don't want health insurance until they get cancer or some other disease that is going to cost a lot of money. The insurance companies are simply going to pass the costs off for this treatment to all the other policy holders, in effect raising the bill on all of the rest of us.

I agree with you that people shouldn't game the system to get insurance until they need it, but some pre-existing conditions aren't by choice where buying a house in a hurricane prone area is. Nobody wakes up and decides to go get leukemia.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

One more thing on this, the pre-existing condition thing is a bunch of ******** as well. That would be like me going and buying flood insurance after a damn hurricane that flooded my house. No insurance company would write that policy without someone holding a gun to their heads. Consequently, the government is going to use force to do this to health insurance companies. So someone decides that they don't want health insurance until they get cancer or some other disease that is going to cost a lot of money. The insurance companies are simply going to pass the costs off for this treatment to all the other policy holders, in effect raising the bill on all of the rest of us.

DISCLAIMER: I do not endorse the following stance, nor do I endorse government sponsored health care (or government sponsored anything, for that matter). This is simply FYI from what I have heard on NPR.

They are saying that the pre-existing condition clause won't be a problem with the proposed system because everybody is required to have insurance anyway. The only time that clause will come in to play is right after the bill is passed, and currently uninsured people with pre-existing conditions are getting their government mandated health care plan. After that, it will be theoretically impossible to dodge having a health care plan until you have a condition that warrants one.

 

[Chucktown PE]

I would like someone to point out to me where in the constitution it says that the government has the authority to make an insurance company insure someone or make someone buy health insurance.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I agree with you that people shouldn't game the system to get insurance until they need it, but some pre-existing conditions aren't by choice where buying a house in a hurricane prone area is. Nobody wakes up and decides to go get leukemia.

Very, very true

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I would like someone to point out to me where in the constitution it says that the government has the authority to make an insurance company insure someone or make someone buy health insurance.

"It isn't in the Constition" ceased being a valid complaint decades ago. That horse has left the barn. Best to accept that and move along.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

"It isn't in the Constition" ceased being a valid complaint decades ago. That horse has left the barn. Best to accept that and move along.

Hey, if politicians keep using the Constitution to back up some of their actions (I hear a sound byte like that every once in a while), and they continue to take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn in, then I think it is still a perfectly valid complaint. You are correct, though, that politicians routinely wipe their *** with the document, often with the complicity, if not outright request, of the populace.

 

[snickerd3]

One of my friends is a bankrupcy attorney, about 60% of their business is due to medical bills people can't afford since they have no health insurance.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

You are correct, though, that politicians routinely wipe their *** with the document, often with the complicity, if not outright request, of the populace.

I never said that.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

I never said that.

I extrapolated.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Yeah, but I don't feel that way at all. I think the Supreme court made a very bad call on the iminent domain thing a few years back, but even then, I don't believe that anyone 'wiped their a$$' with the Constitution.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Yeah, but I don't feel that way at all. I think the Supreme court made a very bad call on the iminent domain thing a few years back, but even then, I don't believe that anyone 'wiped their a$$' with the Constitution.

You don't think that TSA inspections constitute illegal search and seizure? You don't think that random wiretapping of American citizens without warrant violates the same?

All of the excuses that I hear about "times have changed" or "you can't expect the Constitution to cover every eventuality", I have a simple answer. The 10th Amendment explicitly says that anything not covered by the Constitution is left to the States or the People to cover. That means that if it doesn't say it in the Constitution, then the Federal Government has no right to govern it.

 

[benbo]

You don't think that TSA inspections constitute illegal search and seizure?

Where exactly is a "right to fly" in the constitution? As far as I'm concerned, the airplane business is commerce and that's interstate commerce. Plus, I don't want to be blown up because of somebody's interpretation of the 10th amendment.

If you don't want to be searched, drive or fly your own plane.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

You don't think that TSA inspections constitute illegal search and seizure?

No. It is a PITA

You don't think that random wiretapping of American citizens without warrant violates the same?

That only applies to overseas calls. Far as I'm concerned, once the call leaves the US, it is fair game for tapping.

The 10th Amendment explicitly says that anything not covered by the Constitution is left to the States or the People to cover. That means that if it doesn't say it in the Constitution, then the Federal Government has no right to govern it.

Yes, that has been overstepped, in my opinion. But, I will also concede that the loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause makes some of the places I think they overstepped perfectly legal, Constitutionally.

Interpretation of the law can be quite the gray area.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Where exactly is a "right to fly" in the constitution? As far as I'm concerned, the airplane business is commerce and that's interstate commerce. Plus, I don't want to be blown up because of somebody's interpretation of the 10th amendment.
If you don't want to be searched, drive or fly your own plane.

There isn't a right to fly in the Constitution, but there is a clause saying that the Federal Government is not allowed to search a citizen or seize property from them without probable cause that they are committing a crime, or are planning to. I don't have any problem being searched at the airport because it has always been part of the contract that you enter into with the airline when you purchase a ticket. What I have a problem with is the Federal Government "providing" those services to the airlines at the taxpayer's expense. Essentially, an implied, private contract between a citizen and an airline are trumping what is expressly written in the US Constitution. Ta address the last part of your first paragraph, countless studies have shown that since the TSA took over airport security from the private security firms hired by airlines and airports, the amount of contraband making it through checkpoints has either stayed the same, or increased, depending on which report you believe.

If you want to live under an overbearing, all-encompassing government, move to China. I'm tired of hearing that ******* argument, "If you don't like it, you can just leave" or "fly your own plane" (which, BTW, has it's own hurdles in the licensing process now courtesy of 9/11 and our government).

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Yes, that has been overstepped, in my opinion. But, I will also concede that the loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause makes some of the places I think they overstepped perfectly legal, Constitutionally.
Interpretation of the law can be quite the gray area.

I don't see how interpretation is necessary. Is Education in the Constitution? No. Therefore the 10th Amendment says that it is up to the States or People to handle. The same applies to Labor, Transportation, Agriculture, HUD and Energy. A case could be made for Health and Human Services under the right to "Life, Liberty, etc.", Commerce under the "Commerce Clause", "Justice" although the only part really mentioned is the Supreme Court, Defense because of the "raise and support armies...navy" clause, and Treasury because of the "coin money" provision. Even though some of those departments are justifiable based on the Constitution, all of the listed agencies are members of the Executive Cabinet although many of them cover powers that are given to the Legislative and/or Judicial branches of government.

 

[benbo]

If you want to live under an overbearing, all-encompassing government, move to China. I'm tired of hearing that ******* argument, "If you don't like it, you can just leave" or "fly your own plane" (which, BTW, has it's own hurdles in the licensing process now courtesy of 9/11 and our government).

How pleasant, resort to namecalling. Typical when your argument is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, I missed your swearing in ceremony. Things are what they are. If anybody is unhappy here, it seems like you.

 

[udpolo15]

There isn't a right to fly in the Constitution, but there is a clause saying that the Federal Government is not allowed to search a citizen or seize property from them without probable cause that they are committing a crime, or are planning to.

I don't think the 4th amendment states anything about crime, just prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. I don't see the TSA searching folks at the airport as unreasonable given the safety implications.