Socialize Medicine

[JoeTheJuggler]

You do realize we do have a court system... if an insurer makes certain promises and breaks them, they would still be subject to lawsuits.

I suggest you read up on the practice of rescission and post-claim underwriting. In particular, the "supplemental memo" which more or less summarizes the findings of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's hearings on the subject.

Under current law, these practices are legal.

ETA: So too are the anti-trust exemptions that exist in some states.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Relative to what? Insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries out there. In many states, health insurance companies have to get approval from the Department of Insurance for the rates they charge in the individual market. Imagine if Coke had to submit justification to each state, and get approval, before changing the price on a 12 pack.

The difference is that when insurance companies do their shenanigans (see my previous post on rescission and post-claim underwriting), people die or are financially ruined.

The insurance industry is not under-regulated. It's poorly regulated. A problem Congress had an opportunity to fix with this legislation, but instead got sidetracked with pointless debates over abortion coverage and the public option.

OK--I'd agree totally with that.

My only reply is that what you call "pointless" is simply how our political system works. Even with the most favorable congress for healthcare reform we're likely to see for a long time, real and meaningful healthcare never stood a chance. Even this bill with all its problems just barely got enough votes to make it through the Senate. (And I don't buy the notion that Republicans in Congress would go for something if it were better on point x, y or z since they didn't so much as offer any reform plan when they controlled Congress and the White House.)

Given that politics is the art of the possible (and what many of us would consider the right kind of healthcare reform is politically impossible in a country where the Catholic bishops must be appeased openly--not to mention the sort of back-scratching that goes on out of sight), do you think this bill is worth it? I think so--if for no other reason than putting an end to rescission and allowing another 30 million or so people decent access to healthcare.

 

[King of the Americas]

It's a misunderstanding of "rights."

If I have a right to bear arms, does that mean if I am not provided a gun by the government, then it's an unconstitutional breach of my rights?

What IS the "Right to Life, ..."

You have the Right to "Live"...so that, no one is allowed to kill you...?

Why wouldn't that Constitutional Protection include disease, accident or assault?

Why isn't this about protecting "Life" with proper Health Care?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What IS the "Right to Life, ..."

A quote from the Declaration of Independence? (Which itself is more a justification of violent revolution than anything else.)

I grant you that the Lockian idea of natural rights is the philosophical underpinning of at least parts of the Constitution, but I don't think the "right to life" appears in the constitution.

Just doing a quick search, the word "life" only appears once in the Constitution. Article 3 Section 3 Clause 2: "Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

I don't think it applies.

ETA: Again, though, I think the "general welfare" clause in Article 1 should apply.

ETA (again): It's neither here nor there, but I was just thinking about the Missouri State motto "Salus populi suprema lex esto" (The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.) That word salus can mean security, welfare, well-being and even health. I think the English word welfare probably has or at least once had similar connotations.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

What IS the "Right to Life, ..."

You have the Right to "Live"...so that, no one is allowed to kill you...?

Why wouldn't that Constitutional Protection include disease, accident or assault?

Why isn't this about protecting "Life" with proper Health Care?

Yes. You have a right to live. You have the right to life-saving treatment.

Life saving treatment cannot be explicitly forbidden by any law.

That doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with that life saving treatment.


Like I said before, if we have the right to bear arms, that doesn't mean that we have a right to have those guns supplied to us by the government, and if we aren't supplied those guns proactively, our rights aren't being violated.

A right is something that you can opt out of as well, but you always have that option.

 

[King of the Americas]

A quote from the Declaration of Independence? (Which itself is more a justification of violent revolution than anything else.)

I grant you that the Lockian idea of natural rights is the philosophical underpinning of at least parts of the Constitution, but I don't think the "right to life" appears in the constitution.

Just doing a quick search, the word "life" only appears once in the Constitution. Article 3 Section 3 Clause 2: "Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

I don't think it applies.

ETA: Again, though, I think the "general welfare" clause in Article 1 should apply.

ETA (again): It's neither here nor there, but I was just thinking about the Missouri State motto "Salus populi suprema lex esto" (The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.) That word salus can mean security, welfare, well-being and even health. I think the English word welfare probably has or at least once had similar connotations.

Good stuff...

 

[King of the Americas]

Yes. You have a right to live. You have the right to life-saving treatment.

Life saving treatment cannot be explicitly forbidden by any law.

That doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with that life saving treatment.


Like I said before, if we have the right to bear arms, that doesn't mean that we have a right to have those guns supplied to us by the government, and if we aren't supplied those guns proactively, our rights aren't being violated.

A right is something that you can opt out of as well, but you always have that option.

I'll concede this point.

 

[leftysergeant]

Like I said before, if we have the right to bear arms, that doesn't mean that we have a right to have those guns supplied to us by the government...

But that actually was the case at one time.

 

[King of the Americas]

But that actually was the case at one time.

Where the "Minute Men" issued firearms if they had none, or were they a glorified gun club?

 

[leftysergeant]

Where the "Minute Men" issued firearms if they had none, or were they a glorified gun club?

Originally, they were expected to provide their own weapons, but, as new firearms, in a variety of calibers, were developed, steps were taken to provide a standard for each unit. Eventually, people started shirking their duties to such an extent that the National guard and a standing army had to replace the militia.

The results, in my opinion, were not ideal, but better than the anarchy that had arisen.

 

[King of the Americas]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

...

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"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."


---

So, establish justice = develop a court system, insure domestic tranquility & provide for the common defense = Army, Navy, Aircorp, and National Guard. So what 'institution' is supposed to = promote the general welfare...?

General welfare just screams, "promote/support normal health" to me...

Article 1 section 8 says how they have the authority to pay for it, and that the State(s) being 'rewarded' with free Medicare payments WOULD be unconstitutional.

Why isn't THIS being made the point? Would this Supreme Court slap down a law making health care a right afforded by the Constitution, if passed?