Doesn’t healthcare for all “promote the general welfare” as prescribed by the constitution?
February 3rd, 2009 Posted by: admin
For reasons of National Security isn’t providing medical care necessary to protect the citizens of the country from plagues and pandemics?
Things like AIDS and this new “Superbug” that’s being spread in our schools?
If the same amount of money is taken out of your pay as a tax that is equal to or less than what you are paying now for monthly insurance premiums so everyone can be covered for every medical procedure prescribed by a physician, what is the problem?
The government wouldn’t decide what is covered doctors would.
If administrative costs were removed because of all of the various insurance policies and practices and we had a unified paper system wouldn’t the cost be radically reduced?
By: Kelly B
Tags: Citizens, Medical Procedure, Plagues
February 4th, 2009 at 09:28
Yes, I would say it certainly does.
February 6th, 2009 at 01:50
Yes. Now watch the cons spin it!
February 8th, 2009 at 15:35
We pay for people not having insurance through lost wage and SSI when we could have spent less to prevent it. I agree with you.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:47
Yes, absolutely. But not for the evil Republican Neocons. They will oppose anything and everything good. That is their nature and that is how they are. It is time for America to finally wake up and to get rid of all those Neocons once and for all.
February 11th, 2009 at 20:20
First off, administrative costs wouldn’t be removed—they would just transferred to a level of governmental bureauracy.
Secondly, if there was a plague or pandemic medical care would be provided——–heck, I can already get a flu shot at the health department for $10.
Thirdly, when has the government ever imposed a tax that was equal too or less than what someone could pay to receive the same service?
February 14th, 2009 at 12:27
Not when only some are paying for all….. There in lies the problem. I think if you libs really wanted Government Run National Health Care, then you would agree that we go to a flat tax and then see how they run……………. because when the proverbial shvt hits the fan, you libs don’t want National Health Care, you want FREE health care. Pony up your share, let’s say EVERYONE pays 1k per family, now watch how the liberal support heads for the exit.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:57
The concept is good but execution lacks. By saysing things like AIDS for example. A child born with it sure blood transfusion sure. But do I want to pay for healthcare of someone who has chosen prostitution as their life goal, or someone who spent all of their money of heroin and cant afford health I think not. So the only it would make sense is to segregate by how acquired, how far do you think that will fly. Probably to steps of my house from my kitchen…
February 17th, 2009 at 17:44
The “spending for the general welfare” clause of Article I Section 8 is the justification for Congress being able to have a universal healthcare program — and the goal of “promoting the general welfare” in the Preamble is one of the many justifications used by proponents of that plan.
But, even having a mandatory universal health care system — where everyone most pay into it — doesn’t guarantee that diseases won’t spread — so, national security really isn’t an issue in the debate.
Personally, I object to any mandatory program by the govt — even mandatory universal health care — because there is nothing that requires anyone to actually use it, and if they don’t use it, it’s one more thing they’re paying for and getting no benefit from.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:36
PROMOTE, dear.
Not PAY FOR nor PROVIDE
February 21st, 2009 at 03:22
Just by looking around the world and through history, we can see that socialized medicine doesn’t work. It isn’t the government’s responsibility to take care of people. When they try to, they never provide nearly as good of care as private businesses. My health is the last thing I want the government trying to take over.
February 21st, 2009 at 16:32
Yes, and Bush is a total tard.
February 24th, 2009 at 21:28
No.
The “promote the generalwelfare” clause does allow the governmetnt to provide ealth care–it doesn’t imply it is a requirement–or even a goood dea.
There is a legitimate role for public health agencies (which has zero to do with “national security”)–but it should be in the context of a public/private partnership. Our current system is a mess and is corrupt. but simply turning it over to the govenrnment is not the best way to solve the problems
Unfortunately, that’s probably what’s going to happen. there are a host of alternatives–but the right has chosen to resort to political rants about “socialized medicine” instead of acknowledging that there are problems and offering concrete policy alternatives. Consequently, they’ve left the whole issue of what should be done to the libera.s–and while some of their ideas are good, others are not. We need real ideas from BOTH sides–and that’s not happening.
February 28th, 2009 at 01:34
You bet. Everyone pays in a certain percentage of what they earn each week, matched nby the employer, just like social security is now. It’s fair and simple; national health insurance POLICY. All the other industrialized countries have it and we should too.
March 1st, 2009 at 18:09
At the risk of sounding like a “Liberal”, yes… I would be happy to pay for both healthcare and education for ALL legal citizens of the United States.
I am paying through the nose now for NOTHING, I would rather see my tax dollars spent on “we the people” rather than; billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars disappearing into the dust of Iraq.
March 3rd, 2009 at 20:38
You are wrong on every point. Your comments look like liberal rationalization to me. In the US, we have health care available to everyone. You are trying to put something in that is not in the Constitution. It is not the responsibility of government to provide health insurance. It is private enterprise.
If the US government ran health care industry, there would be no guarantee against plagues and pandemics that are greater than our present protections. When health problems come up, health care professionals treat or solve the problems.
If you have money taken out of your pay for health insurance premiums, it could mean your employer is paying for the bulk of the costs. Many employers do. Also, you are paying premiums with pre-tax dollars.
The government take over would mean no more employer subsidies and no tax deductions.
Finally, there is the matter of “loss ratio.” The insurance industry uses it to compare payments to premiums. It is possible that an insurance company can pay more in benefits than it takes in, in premiums and still operate at a profit.
The US government bureaucracy will add 50% to the direct cost of health care, just to run the bureaucracy.
March 6th, 2009 at 22:06
Yes welfare! that is the people that always want your money!
Aids and a super bug aren’t the same as Socialism!
March 7th, 2009 at 15:18
Please stop redistributing my wealth to everyone else in the country who earns less money than me…I don’t want to live in a communist state. Please take you leninsit views and move to venezuala or cuba….America needs more individualism, not more collectivism…stand up on your own two legs and take responsibility for yourslef and your family, don’t expect the govt. to take care of you cradle to grave…that makes for a lazy unmotivated population. Where would this country be had people like you been in charge of things in 1776…I cringe to think.
March 10th, 2009 at 17:26
What you’re saying makes sense to me. And apparently to the other folks that answered. I would much rather that the insurance companies and the greedy doctors would be dragged away from the udder of the cash cow that they are milking dry right now.
March 13th, 2009 at 13:45
That`s one of the reasons i`m so happy being Canadian.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:16
Yes, a healthy society does promote the general welfare of that society. If some in the society cannot afford health care insurance and thus are not able to get quality health care except in dire emergency situations is not good for the society as a whole.
Sadly, there are people in America losing their savings, homes and everything they own because they lose their jobs dut to fighting some disease like cancer. How is that benificial to society? It isn’t. We want everyone to have an opportunity to live the American Dream. When that dream is smashed because of a disease one cannot help getting and because they have no insurance to help cover the costs of treatment it is despicable.
Unfortunately some among us, those on the right, are so selfish and greedy that they don’t care about the well being of others. They think only of themselves. This is why we need to support the Democrats and their plan for AFFORDABLE health care.
March 13th, 2009 at 20:18
the problem is the quality and the wait time. in england people are pulling their own teeth because drs’ are either refusing the gov insurance or people cannot afford to go to a private dentist. also, why should anyone pay for someone else? if your best friend got an “F” and you got an “A” would you split your grade so that they could pass. even though they did not study. i am all for the gov helping 17 and under, the infirmed and the elderly but why can,t someone who is able take care of themselves. do you really think it is the job of the gov to take care of you on a day to day basis. and yes, the gov will control what dr’s you see. why else do yopu think people from around the world come to the USA for medical treatment? to get the best care. my son likely qualifies for the s-chip program but i work and do not want the gov in my life like that. and the plague and things of that nature are different. hence the free flu shots and shots kids have to have before they start school.the gov can’t run itself yet you wonder why we can’t let them run healthcare.