Originally Posted by
hyteckit 
If Right to bare arms can mean everyone has the right to own a gun.
I say provide for the common defense would mean protection against outside enemies including bacteria/viruses that can kill you.
bacteria/viruses that can kill you have always existed, but the notion of health care for all is a recent anomaly.
Our forefathers intent? Surely if they wanted Blacks and Women to have full voting rights, they would have that in the initial Constitution. No?
No. Of course they did not initially intend on blacks having equal voting rights as they were not even considered one full person. We've discussed how the amendment process is used to change aspects of the document considered antiquated or lacking in clarity.
Strange don't you think? Come to think of it, there were absolutely zero proposals for a "woman's voting rights" provision until the 1900s. You might not be familiar with the concepts of "positive rights" and "negative rights", but some reading may be in order for you to clear up what I can only describe as a severe misinterpretation of our founding documents.
Merely copying me might help you look back on your post in amazement at how well it was crafted, but it doesn't mean you've made a cogent argument yourself. The voting rights provision of which you speak (19th Amendment) was ratified in 1920 so... yes. The Constitution has been tolerant of attributed statuses and when this is found antiquated, changed through the Amendment process. What's happening here is most definitely different, but again; some reading is in order for you to understand how this works.
You might not believe it, but it doesn't make it so.
You're welcome to produce anything at all to support your view.
Means of getting to and from work? Sure. Highways. The airspace. Federal minimum safety for cars.
I use a vehicle to get to work. The laws governing roadways are not Federal and they are not identical from state to state.
You mean the government won't take control of our airspace and ground all flights after 9/11? Oh right, the government did ground all flights after 9/11.
They did so because Congress barred state control over airlines through the Commerce Clause. It could do so easily with health insurers as well by the way, but of course that option is not on the table.
In case of severe shortage of food and water, the government not only should and does regulate/control the consumption of food and water. In California right now we can only water our lawns during certain days of the week.
Can you only
drink three cups of water a day?!?
In case we are being attack by smallpox, polio, and other deadly infectious diseases, the government should and does require its citizens to get vaccinations or protection against these foreign agents or outside enemy, so they can build up a "national defense" against these foreign agents that can kill you.
There is no such mandate and in the case of H1N1 for example, they wouldn't have the resources on hand to carry out such a mandate. This is poppycock. Again, there is no Federal mandate on vaccinations. There are State laws, but they acknowledge religious and/or philosophical exemptions and are granted a permit or "waiver". Generally, these are requirements to enter into the public system be it the public school system or government programs including day care.
Should the US government force people to get vaccinated for the common good?
They don't and by law they can't. Next?
Oh right, the US government does mandate immunization of its citizen for the common good.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
I keep reading from you that it will not cover 1/3 of those who need it. Care to provide some evidence to back up that claim?
cbo-releases-estimates-on-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/
Per the CBO director;
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.
The same reason why most hospitals only accept 6 or less HMOs when there are 47 HMOs in California.
Care to provide some evidence to back this claim?
So you are for big federal government? You want the federal government to regulate healthcare on federal level rather than have states regulating their healthcare system?
I've proposed that they can already do this. They've already done it with HIPAA, they've already done it with COBRA. The have the power to break up monopolies. Remember the divestiture in the 80's?
Guess you haven't been listening to Pres. Obama and the public option plan have you?
Every painfully long-winded word of it yes. With every speech, I support the FUD and misinformation even less.
No, you believe in 1000 insurers. I believe in having just 1 universal healthcare plan. But for now, it's the public option. It's my believe that Increasing the number of HMOs in California from 47 to 1000 will have little effect on health insurance premiums.
I disagree and can show you countless examples to the contrary.
There are 47 HMOs in California. Why is it that 6 HMOs dominate 90% the market? Why do most hospitals only accept 6 or less HMOs when there are 47 HMOs in California?
I've already explained this in multiple threads, in exhaustive detail. Government regulation, laws, and State-by-state requirements facilitating State-by-State insurance monopolies.
The HMOs have to negotiate with each hospital on the contract. You make it sound like accepting insurance from different HMOs is like accepting different forms of payment, when it is not.
It most definitely is. You think they receive the same payment and adhere to the same payment methods from Medicare and Medicaid as they do other insurers?
Hospitals don't have the time, manpower, or ability to manage 1000 different contracts with 1000 HMOs, each with their own agreements, their own paperwork, their own list of drugs and medical operations covered, and so forth.
This is so easily rectified it's not even funny. You have laws governing minimum guidelines. Clinics that need patients will have to attain them through more insurers as more insurers become available to the market.
Negotiating with a HMO, a distribution channel for your healthcare services, is like negotiating with Walmart to distribute your products.
Right. That's why HMOs are a dinosaur in the country.
Hell, I can only get the iPhone from one cellular network which is AT&T because of contract agreements between Apple and AT&T because AT&T wanted exclusive distribution rights.
Sure and now that the contract is up you will see Apple exploit numerous other opportunities for distributing their product. People want a choice in their cellular delivery.
So the problem in not that they are ineligible, it's because they are not enrolled. They are eligible though right? They would be covered if they took the effort to enrolled right?
So millions of US citizens are eligible to vote, but they have yet to register to vote. Do we need to reform our voting rights, or do we just need to encourage them to register to vote?
We were talking about who the "uninsured" are. The "uninsured" have been used as the measuring stick of success or failure. The fact is that a great number of the uninsured in this country are eligible for coverage, but simply don't want it-government or otherwise.
Well, insolvency is your argument not the provide a public option. I would use the same argument of insolvency to get rid of capitalism and democracy and model the USA after China.
I guess insolvency isn't a good argument after all? Or maybe it is?
Of course you would use China as a model. That's why I'm arguing against you. Of course insolvency is a necessary part of the debate. I'm not sure why you'd buy something that holds the promise of quick failure.
Top