Conservatives, under what conditions would you allow universal coverage?

[TragicMonkey]

I knew my plan of "not getting rich" was ill-conceived.

The best way is to simply arrange to be born into a wealthy family. Since you failed to do that you'll have to fall back on Plan B, which is "win the lottery". Simple, really, when you think about it.

 

[lomiller]

This is one of the most idiotic things about healthcare in the US. We create arbitrary risk pools based on who your employer is. Its makes no sense at all. Why not create one giant risk pool?

What would that cost? I don't know.

It wouldn’t. US health care administration is vastly more expensive than anyone else’s, and most of this cost is in some way associated with having multiple risk pools and making sure people don’t slip into risk pools they don’t qualify for.

This is also the root of the problem with people being rejected due to pre-existing conditions. Essentially the insurance company is saying they didn’t qualify for the risk pool their policy was covering, and form the insurance companies perspective you can’t stop them from denying people based on pre-existing conditions without destroying their risk pools altogether.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Why not create one giant risk pool?

The Constitution does not delegate the power to Congress to create one.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The Constitution does not delegate the power to Congress to create one.

Oh really?

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

ETA: Are you going to call the Air Force and let them know they are unconstitutional, or should I?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Oh really?

Yes, really. A lot of uninformed people like to point to the general welfare clause and claim it as something that supports their position. This would be reasonable were it not for the enumeration of bunches of stuff immediately after the clause that would not need to be listed unless they were not covered by an expansive general welfare clause. I don't know about you but I think establishing a post office, establishing patents, and coining money (to name but a few) are certainly things that would fall under an expansive general welfare clause. In fact, all of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 would be covered so far as I can tell.

So you are left with two choices:
1: Drop the ridiculous notion that the general welfare clause is meant as a grant of power instead of a restriction upon the powers enumerated after it, or
2: Assert, as Thunder has implicitly done in the gun control/al-Qaeda thread, that a whole swath of the Constitution was pointless and unneeded because all the enumerated powers were already granted under another clause.

ETA: Are you going to call the Air Force and let them know they are unconstitutional, or should I?

You can. I don't see why I should waste my time talking to the Air Force about the constitutionality of its existence because they, as an institution, have even less power over the consideration of that point than I do as a voter.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yes, really. A lot of uninformed people like to point to the general welfare clause and claim it as something that supports their position. This would be reasonable were it not for the enumeration of bunches of stuff immediately after the clause that would not need to be listed unless they were not covered by an expansive general welfare clause.

That a rather naive way of viewing the document. If I grant all of my belongings to my wife in my will and then go on to enumerate some specific items would you then assume all items not enumerated were not covered by the general grant?

Enumeration adds clarity, in both the constitution and my will.

I don't know about you but I think establishing a post office, establishing patents, and coining money (to name but a few) are certainly things that would fall under an expansive general welfare clause. In fact, all of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 would be covered so far as I can tell.

Yep, and still the general grant stands. If they had meant for the list to be exclusive, as you suggest, then it would have been written as such.

So you are left with two choices:

I feel a false dichotomy coming on . . .

1: Drop the ridiculous notion that the general welfare clause is meant as a grant of power instead of a restriction upon the powers enumerated after it, or
2: Assert, as Thunder has implicitly done in the gun control/al-Qaeda thread, that a whole swath of the Constitution was pointless and unneeded because all the enumerated powers were already granted under another clause.

Or maybe:

3. View the enumerated list as clarifying that the grant includes these particular things, among others. This does not imply a waste of words, only the importance of those things at that time, and that the more general grant would include them.

You can. I don't see why I should waste my time talking to the Air Force about the constitutionality of its existence because they, as an institution, have even less power over the consideration of that point than I do as a voter.

And yet you feel fine pontificating about the Constitutionality of an unnamed UHC system . . . .

But, returning to your point, there is no enumeration for an Air Force in this section why there is clearly enumeration of both the Army and the Navy. Therefore, the Air force would be unconstitutional under your analysis. The constitution only provides for a Navy and an Army when providing for our defense, no Marines, no Air Force, and really, no CIA or FBI, but then you may be happy about getting rid of them . . . I don't know.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But, returning to your point, there is no enumeration for an Air Force in this section why there is clearly enumeration of both the Army and the Navy. Therefore, the Air force would be unconstitutional under your analysis. The constitution only provides for a Navy and an Army when providing for our defense, no Marines, no Air Force, and really, no CIA or FBI, but then you may be happy about getting rid of them . . . I don't know.

The Marines are, and have always been, part of the Navy. No hint of a Constitutional issue there.

The Air Force was originally part of the Army. At some point, it was deemed to make more sense to spin it off into a separate branch.

Clearly, the Constitution delegates to the federal government, the duty of defending the nation as a whole from foreign attack. At the time it was written, that meant an Army and a Navy, and that is what is mentioned in the Constitution. It doesn't seem at all clear to me that the Constitution, in mentioning those two branches, is intended to state that all national defense functions have to be covered in just those two organizations.

I suppose, if it were established that the Constitution really does require all national defense to be covered by these two named organizations, then it wouldn't be a terribly great problem to reorganize the military to put the Air Force back under the Army, along with the CIA, and any other organizations that are part of national defense, but not currently part of the Army or the Navy. But if you deem it necessary to do this, then you're straining over meaningless organizational semantics rather than function.

And as the federal government clearly has the authority to enact and enforce laws, it follows that it has the authority to operate an agency which has the duty of enforcing these laws, hence the FBI.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Don't forget the elastic clause.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

That a rather naive way of viewing the document. If I grant all of my belongings to my wife in my will and then go on to enumerate some specific items would you then assume all items not enumerated were not covered by the general grant?

No, I would assume you enjoy being repetetive because you had already explicitly stated you were giving everything to your wife.

Article I, Section 8 doesn't state that anything in the general welfare may be done. It states that the powers enumerated after it must be exercised in the general welfare. To assert otherwise is to make a mockery of the fact that they were designing a government of limited and enumerated powers. To grant a power to do anything considered to be in the general welfare is a grant to do pretty much anything. That is most decidedly not a government of limited and enumerated powers.

Enumeration adds clarity, in both the constitution and my will.

Is something about "the federal government can do things in the general welfare" somehow unclear?

Yep, and still the general grant stands. If they had meant for the list to be exclusive, as you suggest, then it would have been written as such.

They did. It's not their fault you can't read.

I feel a false dichotomy coming on . . .

Or you simply don't understand the document...

Or maybe:

3. View the enumerated list as clarifying that the grant includes these particular things, among others. This does not imply a waste of words, only the importance of those things at that time, and that the more general grant would include them.

Yup, you don't understand the document.

And yet you feel fine pontificating about the Constitutionality of an unnamed UHC system . . . .

Well, you're here and I'm here. If the Department of the Air Force were to register an account we could perhaps take up the discussion.

But, returning to your point, there is no enumeration for an Air Force in this section why there is clearly enumeration of both the Army and the Navy. Therefore, the Air force would be unconstitutional under your analysis. The constitution only provides for a Navy and an Army when providing for our defense, no Marines, no Air Force, and really, no CIA or FBI, but then you may be happy about getting rid of them . . . I don't know.

This is sufficiently addressed by another poster.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Don't forget the elastic clause.

In what regard?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd favor any revenue neutral universal coverage plan that does not result in me personally experiencing longer wait times and does not prevent me from choosing to go private and does not cost me more for going private than I pay now.

For the bolded part: is there any UHC system that would prevent you from paying for your own private insurance if you please? Or do you mean you want the taxpayer to pay for your healthcare coverage upgrade?

 

[rustypouch]

So if I am reading things correctly, a constitutional amendment is all it would take...

And here I thought saving money would be enough to convince conservatives.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

For the bolded part: is there any UHC system that would prevent you from paying for your own private insurance if you please? Or do you mean you want the taxpayer to pay for your healthcare coverage upgrade?

Well there is the one that Kucinich keeps offering up, last I knew it was HR 676 a couple Congresses ago, called the Medicare for All Act, and it explicitly banned private insurance.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well there is the one that Kucinich keeps offering up, last I knew it was HR 676 a couple Congresses ago, called the Medicare for All Act, and it explicitly banned private insurance.

If that's what he's arguing against, I would call that an Extreme Man Argument (a subset of the Strawman).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What percentage of jobs in the USA provide healthcare as part of the remuneration package?

Almost none of the part time jobs, which are all that are available for a growing number of people.

 

[TraneWreck]

Well there is the one that Kucinich keeps offering up, last I knew it was HR 676 a couple Congresses ago, called the Medicare for All Act, and it explicitly banned private insurance.

If that's what he's arguing against, I would call that an Extreme Man Argument (a subset of the Strawman).

Setting aside Grizzly's questionable Constitutional analysis, no matter how extreme (I find it to be quite mild--take an existing program, expand it) you find Kucinich's proposal, it's a million times better than anything the Republicans have offered, both economically and in terms of better health coverage, and significantly better than the health reforms we just passed.

Medicare for all would immediately make this country a better place.

 

[bikerdruid]

Medicare for all would immediately make this country a better place.

except, of course, almost immediately,
-all americans would be commies.
-all dissenters would wind up in fema gulags.
-christians would get sent to death camps.

....did i miss anything?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So if I am reading things correctly, a constitutional amendment is all it would take...

And here I thought saving money would be enough to convince conservatives.

A Constitutional amendment would make it legal.

Good luck getting enough support to pass such an amendment.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Most people get healthcare insurance from their empoyers.

And people that get health insurance provided by their employers aren't the problem in getting closer to UHC in the U.S.

FWIW, more and more people have to pay all or a larger part of the premiums even for this insurance that is supposedly provided by their employers.

And this still doesn't address the issue of people making their living on part time jobs, the self-employed, or people working for small-time Mom & Pop employers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Setting aside Grizzly's questionable Constitutional analysis, no matter how extreme (I find it to be quite mild--take an existing program, expand it) you find Kucinich's proposal, it's a million times better than anything the Republicans have offered, both economically and in terms of better health coverage, and significantly better than the health reforms we just passed.

Medicare for all would immediately make this country a better place.

I've long been a proponent of a single-payer system, but to the point in question, there's no reason the system should outlaw the rich buying whatever private insurance they want or otherwise not using the public benefits they could use.

I believe under the UK's UHC system, private insurance is allowed. (As are private hospitals and other providers.) I guess the point I'm making is there's no reason to see UHC as a threat to the fact that the U.S. has the best medical care money can buy. We could still have that, and have universal access to adequate healthcare.

The public school system, for example, doesn't need to prohibit private schools.