Just something to think about:

The term "universal healthcare" has been brainwashed into conservatives to be something bad. When hearing the term, most conservatives automatically think of government medicine, ala Great Britain.

However, when you use the term "universal health insurance" most conservatives are very supportive of the concept. Many are willing to support such an issue. Even they believe that all Americans are entitled to that. Even tax subsidized insurance.

I think this is an issue that could gain widespread bi-partisan support if it is worded correctly.

I'm all for universal coverage, but I'm hesitant to support a plan that doesn't eliminate private health insurance.

If we'll be paying for healthcare for all why should we allow 15% to 20% to be siphoned off for shareholders of a company whose only purpose is to deny people health care?

Medicare has less than 3% overhead. Let's just make everyone eligible for medicare.

Can anyone find how smokers are treated under this plan? Just curious as smokers will require greater long term care for their health - so am wondering how this is conpensated for in Wydens plan vs. someone who is a non-smoker.

Thanks, Sean

"...why should we allow 15% to 20% to be siphoned off for shareholders of a company whose only purpose is to deny people health care?"

because it is a plan that is better than what we have now, and also has a chance, politically, of happening.

eliminating the health insurance industry is a great idea. we will not see it happen in our lifetimes, or at least not for decades at the minimum. their political lobby is too strong. that is something that we have to acknowledge and accept, or we will never see any positive change in our system.

Dave, I'm with you. How is Wyden's plan not "Government guaranteed 100% market share for private health insurance companies"? Talk about enforced inefficiency.

Plus, how does it work--if everyone is required to purchase private health insurance, but insurance companies can still set their own rates, then sicker people either have to pay more than most can afford--a lot more--or American taxpayers will have to subsidize the insurance companies. A lot. Right?

Wyden-backers, help us understand why this isn't what it seems!

Insurance premiums have risen by 73.8% from 2000 to 2006, while the U.S. median income has increased 11.6% during that same period, according to a study released by Families USA. http://www.familiesusa.org

Let me get this straight--Wyden proposes asking employers to give employees a raise so they can go out and buy their own insurance. So how much of a raise will the employer give every year as the costs continue to skyrocket?

How does he propose to enforce this?

What about people who are turned down for coverage? People with diabetes, cancer, or other chronic or pre-existing conditions? Will they get more money from the employer to defray costs of buying insurance, assuming they can find a carrier to insure them?

How will this plan help lower prescription drug costs?

Why not look at the highest rated systems for healthcare in the world, like in France, and emulate them instead offering to save employers money and a boon to the for-profit insurance companies?

trishka, you wrote:

eliminating the health insurance industry is a great idea. we will not see it happen in our lifetimes, or at least not for decades at the minimum. their political lobby is too strong. that is something that we have to acknowledge and accept, or we will never see any positive change in our system.

Are we to accept that American is really that backward? That we "have to acknowledge and accept" that we cannot have the same quality and efficiency of care as the rest of world's richest nations? That something that a large majority of Americans want (a single-payer health care system, per a recent poll, the specifics of which escape me) doesn't have "a chance, politically, of happening"? That the lobbyists of a private, (mostly) for-profit industry speak louder than our nation's infant mortality rate? (Last among rich nations, I believe.) That those who denounce single-payer systems for ideological reasons can (often) at the same time call themselves "pro-life" without being laughed off the ballot, or run out of town on a rail?

That sounds an awful lot like those who say we have to "accept" that corporations run American, that war criminals cannot be impeached, or that watering down the assaults of the ruling class on the vast majority of the people is the most we can expect from our most progressive leaders.

THAT sounds an awful lot like a victim who has given up and will no longer fight back.

Since they'll get rid of the tax deduction for companies and will simply give employees a "raise" how much will actually be left to buy insurance with? After Social Security, unemployment, disability, state and local tax withholding, what kind of insurance will employees be able to afford?

Will people with kids get more of a raise than people without kids?

This plan sounds unworkable. Kucinich's plan sounds far more reasonable.

Why does no coverage of Wyden's health care plan from the Oregonian (or anyone else) ever mention that Gordon Smith refuses to support it?

I assume this will require some sort of tax support, even if only for regulation and enforcement.

Where does our Constitution provide for Wyden's Health Care Plan?

I case anyone is interested, I live in Japan and participate in their national health care plan. While there are many ways to implement such a system, I'm pretty sure that Americans would like something along the lines of Japan's version of national health care. It features:

1. Universal, mandatory coverage. Employers pay 1/2, Employees pay 1/2. Unemployed people can go enroll themselves at their local government office. Rates are charged on a sliding scale (like social security) and top out at around US$100,000 (again, like social security in the US). The cost is the same for a single person or a family - it's family friendly. For someone with minimal earnings, the cost is around $70/month. For someone who makes $100,000 or more, the cost is about $600/month.

2. Once enrolled in the system, you pay between 10~30% for care out of pocket. I don't use it too heavily, but a trip to the dentist generally costs about $10.

3. The hospitals/clinics in Japan are generally private though they have things like University hospitals, etc. like we have in the US. You can go to any hospital or doctor you want to go to. Moreover, I have never had to wait for anything. My girlfriend needed an MRI scan a few months ago and got it within days of making the appointment.

4. If you want additional insurance, it can be purchased on the private market. In fact, American insurance companies, AIG (Aflac?) in particular, pioneered the field of cancer insurance.

5. The Japanese government negotiates directly with the drug companies and as a result, drugs generally cost much less than in the US. And you know what? American pharmaceutical companies have not withdrawn from the market - in fact, they have big offices here.

6. National health care in japan doesn't cover everything. For example, dental braces, abortions, viagra, etc. are not covered. However, most general procedures are covered and the system is totally transparent - the doctor will tell you immediately if your procedure/medication is not covered.

7. As a business person, it's dead-easy to enroll my staff in the plan. It takes one page, a signature and I just go submit it at the local office and it's all over with in about 30 minutes. It's a perfect system for entrepreneurs. I can't imagine what a nightmare it must be to manage employee health insurance in America.

In summary, there is so much misinformation about national health care in America that I think Americans owe it to themselves to learn the truth. I'll have to read up on Wyden's plan for national health care. National health care is long overdue in America.

By the way, even with National health care Japan still only spends about half of what the US spends on healthcare (approx. 16% of GDP in the US vs. approx. 9% of GDP in Japan). And Japanese people live longer, to boot, which I think can at least be partially be explained by the simple fact that everyone has affordable access to medical care.

Costs are lower because they drive down drug costs by having the gov't negotiate directly with the drug companies. They also don't have hundreds of thousands of paper pushers duplicating each others work at hundreds of private health insurance companies like we have in the US with our hodgepodge of insurance providers (Blue Cross, Humana, blah, blah, blah). No millionaire (billionaire?) CEOs of said insurance companies in Japan, either.

The only health care related adverts you see on teevee are for the private industry supplemental insurance mentioned in my previous comment. You also see far less drug marketing directly to consumers than in the US.

The great irony of the debate about national health care is that Americans think it will take their freedom away, and all sorts of other nonsense. In fact, it increases individual mobility (because you're not tied down to a job you hate just to keep your insurance, for example) and it will probably costs substantially less than what we have now, if structured correctly (gov't negotiates directly with drug companies, etc.).

Gee that's real nice for Japan Mike. Doesn't mean much here...we have a different system of government. I think you're on the right track though. It's a smart thing to pick and choose things that work, kudos to them....but it still has to fit in the framework of our own society...no?

I hope it works out for them...there's not a chance in hell it will, long term, but heck...why be negative all the time. It's their country right?

Bill,

Would you care to expand upon your assertions? Why would it not work over the long term? It's worked for the past 40 years or so. Is there ANY program/policy that has worked over the long term without occasional adjustments to reflect changing realities?

Of course every country does it their own way and has their own laws and constraints. I'm glad we have you around to state the obvious. it doesn't mean we should just throw ourselves at the mercy of our current, broken system, which, as far as I can tell since you have yet to offer anything constructive, is what you're advocating.

I've heard (though I'm not sure if it's true or not) that Germany actually uses private insurance to deliver universal healthcare so it seems to be possible. I'm not an idealogue saying Japan is the best, I'm simply saying it works better than in the US. I was trying to share with people my actual experiences participating in such a system. Based on what I've heard from my friends over here who are from other countries (England, Australia, France, etc.) they are reasonably happy with their own national health care systems, as well.

I have an idea. Why don't you find some people in Oregon who come from other industrialized countries and ask them what they think of US healthcare and what they think of their own system back in their country. I'm sure you can make up your own mind based on the evidence. You could also read/research how other countries deliver healthcare, too, if you're feeling ambitious. It's all online and often you can go straight to the source because many English speaking countries already have national health care systems.

I'd be interested in hearing you explain why you think our system is so great or, if not, what needs improving and how you propose to do it. You pointed out your own negativity, which I agree with, but no one is stopping you from bringing your own ideas to the table. Please do share.

I'm no expert on medicine Mike. I have an excellent nose for socialism though and a thorough understanding of the basics of our Constitution and why it is like it is in structure and intent.

I'm of the firm belief that socialized programs only drive the costs of things up...they create a captive public, a guaranteed customer base for whatever service they are 'providing'...when that happens the 'geniuses' of social engineering are trapped...they must make some hard choices.
There really are only two or three plain choices I can see...cut back on services to everyone or cut out services for specific classes of people or increase the tax burden in some manner. That works for a while but inevitablty the same spiral returns...it is driven by the human condition. Try wading thru "Road to Serfdom" He'll tear you apart.

I keep hearing our system is "broken"; why? What makes it broken? Is it that every citizen is not automatically provided with womb to tomb medical care? Is that why you guys think it's broken?

As for the rest: I have an idea. Why don't you guys put up or shut up. You're all real magic in everybody elses pocket...why don't you guys form your own little program...make it voulnteer. You can have a national pilot program. Everyone who joins get free health care..you set the limits, you set the burden. Show America what your made of...lead the way and you won't need to pass a single law.

I'll wait while you gather volunteers from the righteous.

PS...I don't give a Tinkers damn how they do it in China, Japan, or France. I live in America. If something works there and it appears to be Constitutional. I'm willing to try it. If not, I'll have it for dinner and make good use of it later.

Thanks for your input, Bill. It's still long on rhetoric and short on specifics.

I think the operative phrase in your rant is "I'm of the firm belief that socialized programs only..."

I don't care what your 'firm belief' is. What does the evidence suggest about national health care, Bill? As I said, Japan does it for half as much as we do, in a much more business friendly manner and everyone is covered. That's reality. As I said in my previous post, it actually drives prices down, which may seem counterintuitive to a libertarian/conservative, but not if you really think about it. Americans deserve a debate that occurs outside of the confines of a libertarian fantasy world.

So basically, if we could pass a constitutional amendment proposing national health care, you'd support it?

Using your logic, should I be proposing that you organize your friends to fund Star Wars, the Iraq War and the borrowing we've had to do to pay for Bush's tax cuts since I don't want to pay for them? It's not very practical, is it?

I think the answer to your 'proposal' above is self evident. National health care only works when everyone is enrolled. If you let people decide whether or not to participate, you can't control costs and you lose economies of scale.

As I said earlier, it's counterintuitive, but you actually have more freedom under a national plan, not less. In Japan and England (two countries I know about for certain), you can pay for special treatments, etc. if you have the money. I'm not aware of any restrictions on service for the wealthy if they want premium coverage. I have only heard of 'provider networks' and whatnot in America, where the market system (as it exists) prevents people from going to any hospital they want to. If you pay for medical insurance and they restrict you to their 'network' is that Freedom, Bill? Perhaps you can explain to us - in detail - how our system offers us more freedom than what people have in other industrial countries? I personally don't consider the 'freedom to be denied health care' to be a desirable freedom.

Our system is broken because many people CANNOT get coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Other times, people have to battle their insurance companies to get their care paid for. there's almost zero transparency in the US system, also. The fact that the government's hands are tied when it comes to negotiating drug prices (except for the 'socialistic' VA!), basically means that consumers are subsidizing pharmaceutical companies. I think the Republican term for that is 'wealth redistribution'. I'd say these are signs that a system is broken, wouldn't you? what's your coverage like, anyway?

FWIW, I'm not proposing a system that covers everything 100%. But I think people would like a system that covers general care & that is transparent & predictable because they have the added benefit of being pretty much stress free. It also allows doctors to focus on caring for their patients instead of wasting their time fighting with insurance companies. Working systems exist in the real world. Maybe you could take off your ideological blinders and learn about them? Talk about 'socialism' only misinforms the debate.

trishka wrote a ways back: "eliminating the health insurance industry is a great idea. we will not see it happen in our lifetimes, or at least not for decades at the minimum."

That's what they said about communism when I was a kid. Then, kaput, the Soviet Union fell apart.

Right now, if we could have a free and fair election on whether to have universal health care, it could pass. By free and fair, I mean that people get to decide on their own, without a barrage of rhetoric and lies from industry and other special interest groups. Yeah, there are people like Bill, who believe their logic is so impeccable that it withstands substantial evidence to the contrary. But right now, people are ready to try for something better.

The majority of our elected officials, however, aren't listening to their constituents. Only the people who pay for their campaigns.

Wyden's bill may sound like the real deal, but it's just another plastic blow up doll.

So basically, if we could pass a constitutional amendment proposing national health care, you'd support it?

Bingo Bubba!

If you can modify our Constitution to make National Health Care, or any other socialist program fit with our Constitution.
I'll be the first one on the block to kiss Kucinich's ass at high noon on Front Street at the address of your choosing. Not a snowballs chance...so until that happens. I'm here to help.

Did you want me to address the other points or should I just shut up for the night? I think I'll do that one.

Cheers.

Gil,

I'm certain that the vast majority of Americans would prefer a universal health care system. We just need to get the word out about how they actually work in the real world. There are too many cartoonish, fantastical notions about 'socialism' floating around in the minds of many that have no basis in reality and that prevent a serious debate about health care in the US.

If a political party could successfully introduce an effective universal health care program, I'm pretty sure it would guarantee them a lifetime majority because Americans would love it. It would also unleash a wave of entrepreneurialism in America because people would have the freedom to start new businesses without having to worry about how they'll pay for medical care.

Bill,

Don't cut-and-run. Tell us about your health care. Who provides it? Does it offer you the freedom to use any doctor you want? Can you go to any hospital you want? Does it cover your whole family? How much is it per month? What are the deductibles, co-pays and all of that other nonsense?

Don't just come in here, make a bunch of absurd assertions and expect to walk out without being asked to back them up.

Cut and run…ha…good one. Your funny. Although I’m not the one running here. I am standing my ground.

Thank you for the floor…although I sense some insincerity. No matter. I’m here for my own entertainment, a little education for your fringe lurkers and as confirmation that the work I do elsewhere is on the correct path…it surely is.

I don’t see where I’ve been absurd. I see where you have ignored what I say or mock my implications. But, and I checked this a couple times…I don’t see anything absurd. You clearly don’t get it Mike. Surprising? Sadly, no.

My health care plan is…guess what? No plan. Yes Mike, no plan. My health care is my business. You don’t belong in my health, you don’t belong in my church, you don’t belong in my bedroom, you don’t belong anywhere near me or my family with your interfering “I know what’s best for everybody” attitudes…it’s none of your affair.
Stick that in you little co pay and suck on it…mmkay?

My doctor is perfectly capable of taking care of my medical needs. My insurance company is entirely capable of figuring out what rates they need to charge to stay in business and take care of my medical bills if I accrue them as well. All this entirely without government support.

So you see…from my perspective nothing is broken. Things work.
Now I know I know you bleed for your fellow man and fret over their well being with the tyranny of low expectations. “Please….we must help these people…they can not fend for themselves!”
Pap. Mental salve for you. I don’t see you out there bringing homeless into your house. I don’t see you out there ferrying people to the hospital and paying their bills for them. But you have no problem insisting that I do it for you.

Government has already driven the cost of medicine thru the roof with captive business, outrageous clerical requirements, and unprecedented levels of stupid government interference. You should try talking to a doctor some time. What’s your response? More government...it’s always more government with you guys.
Now I know your reflex is the std, “racist/uncaring/unfeeling/greedy conservative” appellation.

Well that’s just a lie as well. Conservatives donate more than caaaaaring liberals. Just the facts maam. So let me be clear, I am not required to take care of those who suffer from lifes misfortunes.
Read that again. I am not required to take care of those who suffer from lifes misfortunes.

Now hold that reflex…read carefully. I am not required.
It does not mean that I do not care.
It does not mean that my God does not insist that I help.
It does not mean that I will not lift a finger in support. It means I am not required.

That means there is no Constitutional precedent for you to try and require me to do your bidding. No matter how well intentioned.

…Unless you can convince this nation that amendment to our Constitution to socialism is a good thing. I wish you luck with that. There is no Constitutional precedent for that….ask Davy Crockett. He’d have put you in your chair 200 years ago. Even grade school kids understood it then. You are less than them.

Does my “program” sit well with you Mikey?

As somebody already pointed out, but the Blue Oregon management can't quite seem to grasp, it is a dishonest to call Wyden's plan "health care for all" and the corporate health care industry. It is "private health insurance (premiums) for all" that will result in significant windfall for insurance companies. Wyden is becoming an embarassment to Oregonians and Democrats with this welfare program for the insurance industry.

Lost in fine print that Blue Oregon editors don't quite have the brainpower to study, apparently, is the finding by the Lewin Group that much of the savings under Wyden's plan would be because enrollment in HMOs would increase from about 30 percent under current law to about 70 percent under the Act. No wonder he has more Republican sponsors now than Democratic sponsors, most of us have a pretty clear understanding how the purpose of HMOs is to deny health care rather than provide health care, as we were vividly reminded by the story about Kaiser and Nixon in Sicko.

For comparison, people might want to study the recent reform efforts in Colorado and the Lewin Group's findings about the real savings Colorado would realize if they adopted the "Colorado Health Services Single Payer Plan":

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=BlueRibbon%2FRIBBLayout&cid=1178305890619&p=1178305890619&pagename=RIBBWrapper

Out of five proposals, this single-payer plan was the only plan that would actually save money. This plan would offer Coloradans choice in all aspects of their health care and achieve genuine savings (it was the only plan studied that would, would be through genuine administrative efficiencies, rather than through HMO-style capitation and the attendant HMO approach of thwarting access to actual health care.

I think the only thing that really needs to be said about the Wyden plan is the final quote from Sicko:

Who are we that our sick elders, the most vulnerable among us, are left to the mercies of for-profit corporations? What does that say about us? What does it say about this nation’s unquestioning adoration of the free market at the expense of human beings?

Bill,

You didn't establish anything using actual evidence. You didn't dispute the fact that other countries provide care for all of their citizens at less cost than we do - and we don't even manage to cover everyone. You ignore my statement that in other countries you still have the freedom to choose your private doctors, go to the private hospital of your choice and so on. I can only speak for Japan, but I have never been put on a waithing list and don't know anyone who has. Medication is still sold by the same private firms (at less cost to consumers no less) and if you really want it and want to pay for it, supplemental private insurance is available.

where is the socialism in this, exactly? Because the government uses it's buying power to help it's citizens?

You basically ducked the question about your own health care and didn't give us any details about how great it is. Can you go to any doctor? Can you go to any hospital? Is your insurance portable? Can you move out of the state and still be covered? Do you even know? I know that in Japan (along with every other industrialized country in the word), I can answer 'yes' to all of these. That's 'freedom'.

In your case? I guess we'll never know.

Lest you get the wrong impression, I wasn't trying to get into your bedroom. I could care less about your church. (I must say, you conduct yourself like a true Christian). I was simply asking an anonymous nay-sayer (you) to tell us some details about your superior, non-'socialistic' health care plan. I wasn't asking you how the world should work. It's a pretty straightforward question from my side, I think.

Your answer was useless. Largely fact-free, in fact. I guess anyone else who reads this trail will realize that you have failed spectacularly to describe with any meaningful degree of specificity about how your own health care plan is actually better. Frankly, it's not even clear if you have coverage. On one hand you say you have 'no plan' and on the other hand, you're telling me how great it is that your insurance company can tell you to take a flying leap.

Hopefully the readers will see thru the fact that you basically cut-and-ran from answering every single point I raised.

Oh right, they'll also see that you're a rugged Christian who has a Christ-like me-first attitude towards others. Hey Bill, you'll really win a lot of converts!

Bill has some strong feelings and that is his right. However, basing public health policy on strong feelings without evidence doesn't make sense to me. He wrote:

I'm no expert on medicine Mike. I have an excellent nose for socialism though and a thorough understanding of the basics of our Constitution and why it is like it is in structure and intent.

I'm of the firm belief that socialized programs only drive the costs of things up...

So I'd like to know if Bill has any evidence to back up his "firm belief that socialized programs only drive the cost of things up". I'd also like to know what Bill's explanation is that we spend so much more (e.g. 16% GDP versus less than 11% in Switzerland and Germany). Does he believe their health service to be inferior to ours? How does Bill account for that fact that the so many bankruptcies are caused by medical costs, and over 68% of them for people who have health insurance. To my knowledge, the term "pre-existing condition" is a strictly US health system concept (please correct me if I'm wrong). Stats above taken from the non-partisan National Coalition on Health Care: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Bill is fortunate, and I wish him or anyone no ill. But to condemn a family to financial ruin for the audacity of having a child who gets Leukemia, or a person who gets hit by a drunk driver, etc. etc. rather than to look for ways to manage costs and care for our society seems insular and inhumane. Why is it that we only debate these questions in the US whereas every other 1st world nation doesn't even consider it controversial?

For all those who believe that they should not have to pay a penny for their neighbor's health care, I suggest that you already do. If someone has no health insurance and they end up in the emergency ward, who do you think pays in the end? And do you think this is the cheapest solution?

tl,

I can't speak for other countries but I have never heard of anyone being turned down for a 'pre-existing condition' in Japan. Not that they check - everyone is required to enroll and there is no physical exam, but if they tried, it would probably be against the law.

You're correct, in the real-world, Americans already pay for the uninsured. It seems more practical and cost effective to ensure a basic standard of universal health care rather than wait until an uninsured person gets so ill that we end up paying for their emergency care.

An ounce of prevention....

If we pay more per capita (by far), every year, for far less - or no - care, then I'd say the system is either broken or at least in severe disrepair, BY DEFINITION. What say you Bill?

Hi Mike,

Thanks for sharing your experience from Japan. I lived for a semester in W. Germany, and a semester in E. Germany (yes, genuine bogey-man socialized medicine) as an exchange student the last year before The Wall came down. In either case it didn't matter that I wasn't a citizen. What mattered was that I was a human being in need of medicine and medical care.

For all those who fear the perception of a nanny state, paying for their neighbor's care (regardless of the reality), or skyrocketing costs, I can assure you no one was telling me how to live my life, what choices to make, and denying me care based on those choices or my abiliy to pay (or lack thereof) that year abroad.

Mike | Nov 14, 2007 8:36:50 AM Bill, You didn't establish anything using actual evidence. You didn't dispute the fact that other countries provide care for all of their citizens at less cost than we do - and we don't even manage to cover everyone. You ignore my statement that in other countries you still have the freedom to choose your private doctors, go to the private hospital of your choice and so on. I can only speak for Japan, but I have never been put on a waithing list and don't know anyone who has. Medication is still sold by the same private firms (at less cost to consumers no less) and if you really want it and want to pay for it, supplemental private insurance is available. where is the socialism in this, exactly? Because the government uses it's buying power to help it's citizens?

Ok…for the third time. I do not need to dispute your ‘facts’. Your ‘facts’ are irrelevant. Talk about ignorant. What part of my plan did you not understand? What part of ‘my plan’ did you see where I referenced anything except that your assertions are baseless. That means they are without foundation and do not apply to America. That means that I don’t care how they do it in Japan. It does not mean that I don’t think “Hey, great for them”…it means that they don’t appear to have the same governmental structure and therefore, do not apply in this nation.

Now you can gloss over all you like. You can attempt redefinition and redirection all you like. But I will continue to drag your sorry ill formed leaps of association of somebody elses (Japans?) ideas onto the floor of Constitution Hall longer than you can form them. Why? Because…as I have said for like the 4th time. They don’t fit. You don’t fit. You and your socialist buddies are anathema to American society and I will stand here and point it out as long as you and your buddies stir this swill in our pot.

You basically ducked the question about your own health care and didn't give us any details about how great it is. Can you go to any doctor? Can you go to any hospital? Is your insurance portable? Can you move out of the state and still be covered? Do you even know? I know that in Japan (along with every other industrialized country in the word), I can answer 'yes' to all of these. That's 'freedom'.

I didn’t “basically duck” anything. I clearly and boldly set the correct ground rules for any socialist proposals. You just balk at them. Might take some hard work…and you would most assuredly lose. But I don’t blame you for balking, half a brain is better than none I suppose.

In your case? I guess we'll never know.

See NOW we’re getting somewhere. An admission.

Lest you get the wrong impression, I wasn't trying to get into your bedroom. I could care less about your church. (I must say, you conduct yourself like a true Christian). I was simply asking an anonymous nay-sayer (you) to tell us some details about your superior, non-'socialistic' health care plan. I wasn't asking you how the world should work. It's a pretty straightforward question from my side, I think.

Lest I? Heeee hee hee hee. Lest i….. No…believe me I understand you don’t really want in my bedroom (shiver)…it was an example of interference. You didn’t grab that eh? I know you guys don’t like going in to others bedrooms, usually….I just wish you’d stay entirely out of my life. And come on…really….you wouldn’t know a true Christian if he kicked your ass to the gutter.

Your answer was useless. Largely fact-free, in fact. I guess anyone else who reads this trail will realize that you have failed spectacularly to describe with any meaningful degree of specificity about how your own health care plan is actually better. Frankly, it's not even clear if you have coverage. On one hand you say you have 'no plan' and on the other hand, you're telling me how great it is that your insurance company can tell you to take a flying leap.

Largely fact free? My example was supposed to be fact free. Do you still not get it. Do you still not see my health care is none of your concern? Geez, you guys can be so obtuse when you’re getting you butts handed to you.

Hopefully the readers will see thru the fact that you basically cut-and-ran from answering every single point I raised. Oh right, they'll also see that you're a rugged Christian who has a Christ-like me-first attitude towards others. Hey Bill, you'll really win a lot of converts!

Dang Mikey…do you hate everything? You make SO much sense I’m positive you’ve won many converts.

Bill,

I am always reluctant to join in these frays and I assure you regardless of you response this will be my last post as I have important things to do, but I find your post so disturbing that I simply must comment. First, government is in your life and there is nothing you can do about it. In fact I think if you really thought about it you wouldn’t want to remove it from your life. Let’s walk through it together. When you went to the sink to get a drink of water to re-hydrate after your typing rampage did drinkable water come out? Guess what, government built the dam to create the reservoir, laid the pipes to get it to your house, and treated the water to make it safe to drink. Do you think we would have a safe water supply if private corporations with no regulation were in charge? Perhaps you went to relieve yourself after drinking the water or eating your breakfast. When you flushed your toilet was your waste not transported away through a government built and maintained sewage system rather than backing up into your house or dumped into your street outside? How about that interstate system to get you around? God forbid your house catches on fire. Will you send the fire department away to keep the government out of your life? Have you taken a domestic flight lately? If so you probably didn’t even think of the government agency that made sure your plane didn’t run into another mid air or the one that made sure the wing didn’t fall off because the private company puts profit first not safety. From your rants you sound as though you might have high blood pressure. How about that government agency that makes sure the drugs you may or may not take are safe. Do you really think unregulated profit driven companies would make sure it is safe for you? I could obviously go on and on here but the point is government is in all of our lives and that’s a good thing. I work for an agency that is responsible for regulating private companies and protecting millions of lives and believe me from my own experiences I would not want us or any other government regulatory agency to go away. Though many companies are responsible, I have witnessed many more that will put profit above all safety considerations. As far as things being in the Constitution, well as far as I know none of the items above are required in the Constitution, but would you really want to live in a country without those things? Some things are just common sense and ensuring your population is provided affordable healthcare is one of those things.

anyone who is interested in beating their heads against the wall that is the corporate insurance lobby and the politicians who do their bidding is by all means welcome to go ahead & knock themselves out.

sure, if we had free and fair elections that weren't influenced by corporate lies and industry rhetoric, it would be a very different situation. i would love to have that. while you're at it, can you arrange for world peace at the same time? oh, and a pony, too, please.

in the meantime, i think wyden's bill will actually accomplish SOME change for the better. i'm just being realistic, that's all. i personally don't want to wait around for a solution that eliminates the insurance industry to get passed before we make some changes that improve the current broken system.

and why is it broken? simply, because we pay more money for worse outcomes than any other nation on the planet.

as to the valid questions concerning how wyden's plan works, there are detailed answers in the short paper on his website. every single concern raised above is actually addressed.

insurance companies can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, for example, and their rates are regulated by gov't (similar, i believe, to the way the PUC regulates utility rates). there are mechanisms to contain costs, and the tax structure will get re-worked to make the whole thing feasible.

the details are on his website:

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/content/healthy_americans_act

Some things beg for fisking Justin. You seem like a nice enough guy. You treated me reasonably and without condescension.

Let me just say up front to you: I don’t have high blood pressure. I think you mistake passion for America and what she stands for as high blood pressure.

I want you to hang with me here even when you think I’m being mean..I’m not, I’m being direct. I save meanness for those who can’t see and refuse to acknowledge even the simplest of logical constructs. …and believe me, simplest is about the best I can do. If a Hanson or Thornton or Sowell were in here swinging everyone would be ducking, because the truth wins.

Before you let these people drown you I ask you to read F Hayeks ‘Road to Serfdom’. It can be tough slogging at times and is dry as hell. It is also inescapable. Enough.

Justin | Nov 14, 2007 9:58:21 AM Bill, I am always reluctant to join in these frays and I assure you regardless of you response this will be my last post as I have important things to do, but I find your post so disturbing that I simply must comment. First, government is in your life and there is nothing you can do about it.

True enough

In fact I think if you really thought about it you wouldn’t want to remove it from your life. Let’s walk through it together.

Again true enough. America is responsible for the pinnacle of human achievement extant.

When you went to the sink to get a drink of water to re-hydrate after your typing rampage did drinkable water come out? Guess what, government built the dam to create the reservoir, laid the pipes to get it to your house, and treated the water to make it safe to drink. Do you think we would have a safe water supply if private corporations with no regulation were in charge?

Again, true enough. But I can see we’re beginning to diverge. 1) I absolutely can have a private firm/corporation supply my water. Lived on a well most of my life. 2) True, government built dams for drinking water, for irrigation use, for enjoyment, and for transportation. Now hang with me here: They also have Constitutional authority for doing this.

Perhaps you went to relieve yourself after drinking the water or eating your breakfast. When you flushed your toilet was your waste not transported away through a government built and maintained sewage system rather than backing up into your house or dumped into your street outside?

see my last

How about that interstate system to get you around?

see my last

God forbid your house catches on fire. Will you send the fire department away to keep the government out of your life?

see my last

Have you taken a domestic flight lately? If so you probably didn’t even think of the government agency that made sure your plane didn’t run into another mid air or the one that made sure the wing didn’t fall off because the private company puts profit first not safety.

see my last…I’m not the one ranting now Justin…and just to play capitalists advocate…how long do you think an airline would stay in business if wings fell off planes? …just a comment by observation about how the system works. Not a comment on this perspective

From your rants you sound as though you might have high blood pressure.

see top of post

How about that government agency that makes sure the drugs you may or may not take are safe. Do you really think unregulated profit driven companies would make sure it is safe for you?

To be honest I don’t know about this one…are you saying regulating drugs is inherently unconstitutional; and therefore is support for the argument that nationalized health care is acceptable even though it is unconstitutional as well?

I could obviously go on and on here but the point is government is in all of our lives and that’s a good thing.

I think you probably could. I think you’re right. Within limits….that’s what the Constitution is about limits on our government, limits on their intrusion into our lives.
I am sometimes stunned that liberals, you ‘champions for the downtrodden’, will complain loudly for years over something like Katrina (which affected what, 1,000,000 people?) and then turn around and demand that same government rule our health care.

I work for an agency that is responsible for regulating private companies and protecting millions of lives and believe me from my own experiences I would not want us or any other government regulatory agency to go away.

Really? I gotta tell ya Justin…personal anecdotes about where you work and what you do are nice and all. They have zero to do with the constitutionality of socialist proposals.

Though many companies are responsible, I have witnessed many more that will put profit above all safety considerations. As far as things being in the Constitution, well as far as I know none of the items above are required in the Constitution, but would you really want to live in a country without those things? Some things are just common sense and ensuring your population is provided affordable healthcare is one of those things.

True…none of the above listed items are required of the Constitution. They are all allowed by the Constitution. They are all within the limits set by our Constitution. National Health care is most assuredly NOT.

Bill writes: My insurance company is entirely capable of figuring out what rates they need to charge to stay in business and take care of my medical bills if I accrue them as well. All this entirely without government support.

The logical fallacy in your "nothing" health care plan argument, Bill, is that you're ALREADY paying the cost of the uninsured. It's a tax on your insurance premiums that you pay with your own money. The tax isn't levied by the government, though, it's levied by the insurance companies. And that tax is HIGHER than it would be if we had a rational, universal coverage health care system.

So I'm having a hard time grasping your position. You're essentially saying that you are happy paying for the uninsured to get emergency room care under our current system. And even though you would pay less if we gave them insurance coverage up front, you're willing to pay more for . . . ideological reasons? Is that correct?

Gil writes: Right now, if we could have a free and fair election on whether to have universal health care, it could pass. . . .

No, Gil, it wouldn't. There is a big difference between poll questions that ask "Would you support a single payer, universal health care program?" and asking people to give up their current coverage for something unknown. The flip side of the 45 million uninsured Americans is the 250 million (between 80-85%) who have coverage. Conversion to a single-payer, Medicare-style national health plan would require those 250 million to give up their existing coverage.

That is highly unlikely, and Wyden knows that. He is one of the top experts on health care in Congress. I would politely suggest that those ripping into him spend a little time really learning about the complexity of the health care industry and the issues surrounding health care reform before advocating simplistic -- and probably unworkable -- solutions.

Wyden's plan builds on the system we have in place and still achieves universal coverage. There are good reasons to dislike the existing system, but those advocating for the elimination of the insurance industry are arguing for the deconstruction of an industry worth three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars, with how many millions of employees? Never before in US (and likely human) history has any government shut down an industry of that size. The economic toll on all of us would be devastating.

Insurance, as we know it, is here to stay. The question is how it will be regulated. Wyden's plan would regulate premiums and co-pays, eliminate discrimination on pre-existing conditions, make insurance coverage portable between jobs, ensure a minimal level of coverage, and provide subsidies to families making up to $82,000. That is a dramatic improvement over our current system.

And if you're a diehard, ideological supporter of single payer, guess what? Moving towards a Wyden-like health care plan enrolls more people in government programs and gets everyone under a single "system". In 10-20 years, it will be a lot easier to move from that kind of system towards single payer.

The logical fallacy in your "nothing" health care plan argument, Bill, is that you're ALREADY paying the cost of the uninsured. It's a tax on your insurance premiums that you pay with your own money. The tax isn't levied by the government, though, it's levied by the insurance companies. And that tax is HIGHER than it would be if we had a rational, universal coverage health care system. So I'm having a hard time grasping your position. You're essentially saying that you are happy paying for the uninsured to get emergency room care under our current system. And even though you would pay less if we gave them insurance coverage up front, you're willing to pay more for . . . ideological reasons? Is that correct?

Geez Miles….Beyond the basics…can you simply not grasp the Constitutional argument; that there is no Constitutional foundation for your insistence that I pay for your health care?

I’ll walk down the Road to Serfdom with you briefly. Let me ask brief pointed questions based on you comments above.

1) If I am already paying for the uninsured…then the uninsured must be getting health care already….is this correct? And I ask what do we change anything for?

2) You assume that government involvement will drive the costs for medical insurance down….down. Wow, and people here think I am a ranting delusional….You’ll forgive me if I think you’re crazy if you hold that government involvement will drive the cost of doing business down. Do I really have to defend that notion? I think you need to show me exactly how that will hapenn...it's way too easy, way too broad and way too vague.

2a) If those costs do not go down with government…they will go up correct? Unless you argue that they stay the same…in which case I say why bother changing anything.

Do you think the owners,managers, and/or stockholders of insurance companies will accept a lower standard of living and have lower expectations for themselves…simply because the government say they should?

No. Clearly they will not. So we still have these increased costs…where do they go? That’s right….they get accounted for in several ways…increase taxes, reduce service, increase rates or some combination of those 3 things.

So I think your claim that (forgive me while I chuckle at the hubris) government involvement and mandates will actually force prices down is…let’s just say not right.

Now you might have an argument if you want federally mandated price controls (aka Communism) but you could literally watch the medical industry go into the tank…and we all know how communism/socialism ultimately ends up. (see Hitler, see Stalin)

Chris Lowe | Nov 14, 2007 11:38:21 AM

Can I suggest we not waste any more time on "bill"? He's said his piece, he's wrong, & it isn't going to change.

I think Mike is right about saying "universal health insurance" -- in addition to his point, it is more accurate, and it would also help to combat rightwing nonsense about "socialized medicine."

You surely may suggest. You're correct about one thing. I won't be changing...and this thread will become bedrock fodder for any reference you socialists use when referenceing our Constitution.
I'm not going any where.

Sad to see an American consider insisted adherence to our Constitution as "right wing nonsense". But, that's how bad it has gotten.

Like I have said...I'm not here for the zealots; you are lost. I'm here for the lurkers. Those to whom you appear to make some semblance of sense but who have not yet swallowed the bait.

I'm here to expose you and teach them.

Bill

I have a question for you: Do you believe everyone is entitled to basic health care, or do you believe it is only for those who can afford it?

Here's a question I can't find the answer to.

Say you have twelve employees. You offer health care, for "families" but some employees use their spouses insurance so they opt out. Some are only singles and some are singles with a child. So everyone is actually a different cost. But they all make the same salary. (I know, socialism)

If The company spends a total of $6,000/month on health care, is the company required to give everyone a $500 increase? (which would still be a cut in compensation for a family who had to go out and buy their insurance) Or an increase equal to what their health care costs to the employer (which would then mean the employees who were single would complain and perhaps quit) or what???

I found how the Wyden plan deals with this after the two year phase in, but what about what happens immediately?

there is no Constitutional foundation for your insistence that I pay for your health care?

Given that payroll taxes for Medicare and Medicaid (combined coverage: about 70 million Americans) are constitutional, I don't see any validity to your constitutional argument.

In answer to your questions: 1. Yes, the uninsured are already getting "health care" in emergency rooms. I trust I don't have to explain why this is bad, both for the human toll it takes and the impact it has on your wallet.

1. Yes, I believe more government involvement in this industry will reduce costs, given the state of the industry right now. It's kind of like if we hadn't regulated phone and power companies early on and had just let all of them build wired infrastructure. Maintaining redundant networks all across the country would cost billions. If the government came in and forced them to share the infrastructure, costs would come down.

If ideologically you believe that government involvement can never be beneficial, then we should just agree to disagree and be done with it.

the other MIKE | Nov 14, 2007 1:33:42 PM

Bill

I have a question for you: Do you believe everyone is entitled to basic health care, or do you believe it is only for those who can afford it?

First....Good one! I saw your moniker and got a good laugh...no lie. ...the OTHER Mike.......... LOL

Those are two unrelated questions but I'll answer. I get your drift.

I believe everyone is entitled to the very best health care they can provide for themselves. Without limit.

While I it is an admirable goal for everyone to have enough for him/herself to provide for that very best care...it is unrealistic at best. Life is simply not fair.

I draw the line in the sand at YOU requiring ME to pay for social donations YOU see fit. There are excellent reasons for that.

And, since I'm far from being above beating a dead pony, I know you're aware that I believe I have the Constitution at my back saying you have no right to require otherwise of me.

I have a tendency to ramble on so I'll leave it at that.

lestatdelc | Nov 14, 2007 1:58:13 PM

LOL

Bill thinks that a single-payer insurance program would somehow be unconstitutional. A red (state) flag that the person saying that is in Fright-Wing dogma-land (i.e. dementia).

I don't see where you're getting that? Did I say insurance companies were unConstitutional?
So I'm left wondering just who's seeing things....sorry tiger.

Fright wing...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHahahahahaha. You guys are fuuuunny.

If those trends keep developing the politics could change.

I agree, Chris. The problem of "underinsurance" seems to be what is driving the renewed calls for health care reform. And support could eventually build for a single-payer revolution. But right now, I believe there is enough political support for a Wyden-style reform, but not enough for a single-payer reform.

[For the record, I wouldn't be upset if I was wrong on this point. Academically, I see some real advantages to single payer. But I still haven't seen any single payer plan that adequately addresses the economic disruption it would cause.]

One thing that is not so clear to me about it is that [Wyden's plan] might actually greatly reduce the number of healthcare insurers.

It's possible. My guess is that states would certify all the big plans that want to play -- although some may find it hard to stay in business under the new rules. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

I think Wyden's idea is that insurers will compete to gain status as subsidy-eligible & that will keep excess profits down, but I am not sure it won't evolve into a sort of "cost plus" situation that will require rate regulation a la public utilities.

I think one key idea in Wyden's plan that will keep costs down is that employees would buy insurance with their own money, rather than having the employer do it for them. Over time, people will become more demanding in terms of what they're getting for their money. It's a conservative idea -- that increasing individual responsibility will lead to better consumer choices. But I think it has real validity. Most employees with good family coverage have no idea that their employer is spending as much as $20,000 a year on them. When you start sending that check from your own bank account, your going to be more demanding in terms of what you're getting in return, and you're going to shop around.

lestatdelc | Nov 14, 2007 2:18:33 PM

bill, you don't seem to have a clue one about what the Constitution is and isn't from the incoherent rants about having to pay for "social donations".

So do you think Social Security is unconstitutional as well?

I find it bemusing though that you think something that is "socialized" is bad, as an article of faith. Guess you hate "socialized" roads that allow almost all our nations commerce to function as well. Do you think that "socialized" police and fire departments are unconstitutional as well? After all, why should I be forced to pay the "social donation" for firemen to be ready to respond to put out the fire in your home if there should be a fire?

You really need to move beyond the Bazooka Joe level of Constitutional understanding.

I don’t know where you’re getting your info or why you think my understanding of the Constitution is less scholarly than you. I’m no Constitutional scholar…maybe you are? Perhaps in your inspired brilliance you could show us all just where the Constitution lines up behind your pedantry? You know, instead of flapping you gums. Could you show us all where our Constitution provides for your nonsense?

lestatdelc | Nov 14, 2007 2:54:35 PM

What "nonsense" is that bill?

I asked you numerous questions (admittedly snide ones) on whether you think Social Security is unconstitutional, or police, highway/road construction and so forth, which are socialized programs.

You are the one claiming that a single-payer insurance system would somehow not pass Constitutional muster.

I asked a simple enough question...been asking a simple enough question all day around here. Are we talking about Social Security or are we talking about national health care? I don't play the redirection game.

You want me to shut up?

Show me where the Constitution allows for national health care. You call it what you want. I know what it is.

That too tough? YOU are the ones wanting legislation. YOU are the ones who must pass the Constitutional test.

Show me.

Show me where the Constitution allows for national health care.

The same place is allows for Medicare, Bill. The same place.

kari - congratulations on the new arrival. a good friend of mine gave birth at 5:09am today.

it's raining babies!!!!

lestatdelc | Nov 14, 2007 3:33:02 PM Bill, the Constitution doesn't specify that we can build police stations or fire houses either. Social Security does, as would a single-payer insurance program, pass Constitutional muster even though they are not enacted through Constitutional amendment (just as most state level programs like building firehouses and police stations). I may be taking a wild guess here, but it most certainly does appear that you have the typical wing-nut dementia that if it isn't called for specifically in the Constitution it isn't Constitutional. There are thousands of laws, programs, etc. on the Federal level which are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution but which are non-the-less Constitutionally sound, which are passed via legislation by Congress (you know, that body the Constitution empowers to do such things). I suspect you will never acknowledge the fact the Social Security is both Constitutional and is a "socialized insurance program" because to do so, would completely destroy your own the assertion that you think that a socialized Federal level single payer health insurance program would not be Constitutional. In short, you don't seem to have a clue about what is and isn't Constitutional, and instead trout out typically dishonest arguments like "show me in the Constitution where it says we have health insurance" as if that is even a legitimate point to argue. If it seems I am being belligerent to your (thus far) vapid posts, it is because it is not the first time I have encountered Fright-Wing hacks trotting out some lame variation on the "show me in the Constitution" canard, in a weak attempt to derail through sophistry and blather anything remotely progressive or liberal (ooh scary word that).

You needn't worry about my opinion of your belligerence…it's lowball, sophomoric stuff. You're just a piker…nothing more, nothing less. Only a fair one.

I'd even tolerate it for a single clear answer.

“Constitution doesn't specify that we can build police stations or fire houses either.” True true…No…it doesn’t. That’s because you are looking at the Constitution like a socialist. It is a construct for what our government is limited to…the things it may do. It clearly states that any right not specifically given are retained by the people. They meant me...someone who understands what they said...not you. But it is entirely about the Federal government.

You know about Federal firehouses do you? Where are they? Federal Police stations? Where are they? It doesn’t say we can build interstates, or cities, or even form additional states either. But we have no Constitutional problems with these constructs. Do you want to get into thousands of laws programs etc on a fed level…or do you want to justify national health care? I think you should focus as it will help our little discussion movce forward.

So..I ask you again oh thick one….what is the construct? For all your blowhard blustering, for all your hand waving and tongue wagging and thin vaudevillian theatrics…I ask you; what is the windmill do you tip at…what are the article and section of the Constitution do you hang your pointy little tin hat on when you say that your national health care program is Constitutional?

I wouldn’t think a man as erudite…a man of such strength and character, would continually evade such a basic question for all Americans….

And yet you do.

Shorter Bill:

• I'm "no expert on medicine"
• I'm "no Constitutional scholar"
• Universal Health care is unconstitutional but I refuse to say why, even though I'm the one who brings it up.

• I refuse to let facts to get in the way of my ideology. I will refuse to address any issues - especially facts - that contradict my ideology including, but not limited to:

• Every other industrial country with universal health care in the world pays less per capita for health care and yet they cover everyone.

• In other countries with universal health care, like Japan, people are FREE to go to whatever private doctor or hospital they want to.

Additional notes of interest:

• Read 'Road to Serfdom'. It's the only book I've ever read and it's AWESOME.
• My heroes would kick your ass. I wish they were here:

If a Hanson or Thornton or Sowell were in here swinging everyone would be ducking, because the truth wins.

Article?

Section?

Come on Mikey?

You don't want me to think your proposed legislation won't pass a simple Constitutionality test....do you?

Yeah, we both know don't we.

Bill, I've noted three times that the existence of Medicare -- a national health program for all citizens over the age of 65 -- disproves your bizarre theory that a national health program wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Your lack of response indicates that you don't have one. I guess Lars and Rush didn't cover that on today's talk shows, eh?

You're wrong, the lurkers now know that, so please go troll somewhere else.

Miles | Nov 14, 2007 10:59:42 PM

Bill, I've noted three times that the existence of Medicare -- a national health program for all citizens over the age of 65 -- disproves your bizarre theory that a national health program wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Your lack of response indicates that you don't have one. I guess Lars and Rush didn't cover that on today's talk shows, eh?

You're wrong, the lurkers now know that, so please go troll somewhere else.

Miles

I did not ask about about Social security, not about Medicare, not about Medicade, not about the New Deal, not about the Great Society...and laughably, it's not about the 'scoialized military' That's all redirection away from the argument. You know it, I know it.

Further....programs, elsewhere in our government (no matter what Constitutional approval they are based on), do not constitute approval for errors in new legislation.
I've asked well over 6 times for one specific reference to where national health care is allowed in our constitution.

So I ask again...Constitutional authority?

PS You should make sure lestat gets his approvals before he speaks...I am embarrassed for you.

Hi Bill,

Are you ever planning to explain the real-world contradiction that PROVES universal health care systems deliver more care for less money and that people who live under such systems somehow manage to live longer than Americans, under systems that allow them to go to any hospital and use any doctor? A more 'free' system, in other words... At this point, I assume you don't have the balls to explain your own, personal superior plan. I expect you to keep cutting and running. I doubt you'll deliver at this point... We're already beyond the 60 comment mark and you're still shooting blanks.

After you explain the contradictions betweeen your libertarian assertions and the REAL WORLD, yes, please tell us the relevant Constitutional articles and sections that explain why it's illegal. I'm sure you'll find it in teh Google. I assume you spend the rest of your days raging on right wing sites explaining why the Iraq War is unconstitutional and so on, but then again, I don't.

Hopefully your lurker friends will jump to your defense. I don't imagine your butt-buddy, Thomas Sowell will subject himself to an open forum. So far, he's MIA.

Hi Bill, Are you ever planning to explain the real-world contradiction that PROVES universal health care systems deliver more care for less money and that people who live under such systems somehow manage to live longer than Americans, under systems that allow them to go to any hospital and use any doctor? A more 'free' system, in other words... At this point, I assume you don't have the balls to explain your own, personal superior plan. I expect you to keep cutting and running. I doubt you'll deliver at this point... We're already beyond the 60 comment mark and you're still shooting blanks. After you explain the contradictions betweeen your libertarian assertions and the REAL WORLD, yes, please tell us the relevant Constitutional articles and sections that explain why it's illegal. I'm sure you'll find it in teh Google. I assume you spend the rest of your days raging on right wing sites explaining why the Iraq War is unconstitutional and so on, but then again, I don't. Hopefully your lurker friends will jump to your defense. I don't imagine your butt-buddy, Thomas Sowell will subject himself to an open forum. So far, he's MIA.

Dang…”butt buddy”? I thought that was you guy’s ‘alley’, so to speak…not mine, and surely not an old fellas like Sowells. Kinda harsh there Mikey.

I have explained my ‘plan’ over and over again. As a parallel to a humorous quip circulating nowadays “Further explanation of my plan does not constitute understanding on your part”; I think it fits don’t you?

I am not the one proposing legislation. I am not the one required to provide Constitutional authority. You are.

Clearly you are not going to admit what I think we have demonstrated…too sick and twisted by your own propaganda to think for your selves. Too reliant on blustering, name calling and buffoonery to win the day. Your logic, always weak and based on vapor…crumbles. It is the logic of ill formed thinking and twisted understanding with an agenda for socialism. You do not know of the rule of law…ultimately yours is the rule of whim and fancy; and finally the rule of the jungle.

Lurkers:
Rest assured, by now these …people…would surely have come up with chapter and verse if they could. What they propose is un Constitutional. We could review it together were they but to offer it. They can not.

Further, they believe that if you just intimidate, redirect and wave your hands angrily and loudly enough you will be cowed by their self evident broad knowledge. Do not be intimidated. Men like Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Henry…they knew these men hundreds of years ago, and had their number. These men are not clear thinking and must not be trusted with power. Follow the Constitution and these men are well bound.

Don’t be fooled…it is all a patriot can ask.

There is no Constitutional foundation for national health care. None.

Make no mistake…this thread will be a constant thorn in your side. Every high sounding reference to our Constitution will point right back here. Every attempt to spindle and mutilate the logic and intent of our Founding Fathers…will point right back here.

Bank on it.

I've asked well over 6 times for one specific reference to where national health care is allowed in our constitution.

The answer to Bill is quite simple: A national health insurance program is allowed under the Constitution precisely because it's not prohibited by the Constitution.

Bill is playing a game in which he is claiming one needs an actual statement in the Constitution affirming something is constitutional for it to be so. If that were the case, the Constitution would have to be infinitely long to authorize everything we have a right to do as free people. In fact the Constitution is finite because it is a statement of limitations on what government can do. If something is not prohibited, which national health insurance isn't, it is our right as a free society to enact such a system and it is quite constitutional.

(By the way, note how Bill refers to "national health care" rather than "national (public) health insurance". He may be right about "national health care", but who wants to waste time arguing over for "national health care" when what we need is "national/state public health insurance" as Canada has?)

But right now, I believe there is enough political support for a Wyden-style reform, but not enough for a single-payer reform.

Miles, you seem to quite misunderstand Wyden's plan in the context of the history of health care reform. His proposal continues the failures of our current system and is not a stepping stone to anything but further degradation of health care in our country. It is one last attempt to revive the "managed competition" approach in a last ditch effort by an inefficient private health insurance industry, in league with the corporate health care and pharma industry, to continue their ripoff of the American public.

As the Lewin Group states in the very report Wyden cites, if Wyden's Republican-style plan were to be enacted, it would result in most (70%) of Americans being ending up in HMOs where corporate providers make health care decisions for individuals on the basis of what is in the best financial interests of the corporate provider. There is NO way that we through the political process will possible be able to put a system of regulation in place that would redress that total corporate control over our very lives when the politicians making the decisions, like Ron Wyden, are in the pocket of the industry. (It's kind of sad that Kari still believes he himself to be a Democrat when he backs and works for so many things that aren't even close to being what we stand for as Democrats.)

[For the record, I wouldn't be upset if I was wrong on this point. Academically, I see some real advantages to single payer. But I still haven't seen any single payer plan that adequately addresses the economic disruption it would cause.]

Specifically what "economic disruption"? This is a canard put out by the industry that mainly, supposedly, focuses on displaced workers. Some of those workers would be re-deployed in a public insurance system because they are trained, some of that work is off-shored and we would actually benefit economically from discontinuing that practice, and some of it is a misuse of resources that would be better used if we re-balanced the economy by reducing the amount of money inefficiently diverted into private health insurance industry so that they are freed up for other kinds of economic activity. Wyden's plan compounds our current inefficient and broken system with the deception that somehow, magically, we are going to get regulation of a private industry in the name of efficiency and equity by elected officials that have brought us to this very point by working cozily with the industry. Yea, right.

anonymous | Nov 15, 2007 8:26:31 AM

I've asked well over 6 times for one specific reference to where national health care is allowed in our constitution.

The answer to Bill is quite simple: A national health insurance program is allowed under the Constitution precisely because it's not prohibited by the Constitution.

please anony...this is just dumb.

Constitutional powers are specfically enumerated, they are specifically outlined...that means if they are not listed on that old hunk of paper...the Fed can not just assume them.

I know it's thorny for you guys...but there it is.

It limits the power the Federal govenment may assume. I know you get that...that's what makes you guys all the more dangerous, you're not just stupid. You think we are.

please anony...this is just dumb.

Constitutional powers are specfically enumerated, they are specifically outlined...that means if they are not listed on that old hunk of paper...the Fed can not just assume them.

Sorry Bill, but you're wrong if you think I think you are stupid. I'm debating here a very subtle point and challenging your assumption --- which implies I think you actually are pretty smart because, unlike many of the people here whose really aren't as smart as THEY believe, you know it is about assumptions.

I would start by setting the Bill of Rights alongside Article I to get a full picture of what "enumerate powers" actually mean. They BoR clearly establishes the principle the constitution must be interpreted in part as a set of limitations on government power. My three favorite amendments being:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The BoR clearly illustrates how, as you correctly point out, the Constitution limits the power the Federal govenment may assume.

The onus is on you to find a limitation in the Constitution that would specifically prohibit the people, through their representatives assembled, from exercising their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the form of a national health insurance plan. As Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically enumerates the people through their Legislative representatives are empowered

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

and Article I, Section 9 places no specific restriction on the right of the people to enact a public national health insurance system.

Funny thing is, I agree totally with you that Wyden's plan is repugnant to most of what the Constitution (and the Democratic Party by the way) stands for: It implicitly continues our wrong-headed and dubiously constitutional approach of empowering corporations as people because it assumes they have certain rights. It gives them a protected legal position in matters they have no business being involved in, to the detriment of the people. And yet at the same time it interferes heavily in private business transactions between individuals and corporations. It is bad health care policy AND bad constitutional and social policy at the same time.

Which is why "single-payer" is the solution. There are shades of grey in the Libertarian movement, but it would seem only the fringes would claim the government has no right to prohibit certain KINDS of businesses if those are inimical to protecting the welfare of the people: For the sake of illustration, I assume you don't want someone opening up a chain of nuclear weapons retail stores. It's a matter of perspective, of course, whether we can agree the health of our people is so important to our national and state welfare that we should prohibit certain kinds of business activities that endanger our health and therefore our welfare. I do, and believe that private insurance companies should be prohibited from marketing products which interfere with our ability as a people to most efficiently accomplish that.

At the same time, a single-payer plan only is involved in lubricating the financial transaction between us as individuals, and providers as private businesses. It makes good sense for we the people to pool our resources --- if we want to -- to more efficiently provide basic health care for those we feel a moral duty to not leave behind (risk pooling), and to do that by using our group buying power efficiently.

Nothing in any sane single-payer plan would prohibit anyone with more resources to buy supplementary, luxury coverage. (You want a whole private hospital floor and medical staff to yourself when you check into a hospital? Fine, buy a policy that provides that extra coverage by putting enough resources into the system to meet that excess demand.) To the extent that a single-payer plan limits what is covered in this basic system, we arrive at that through an equitable political process that doesn't violate constutional limitations in which everyone --- providers and patients alike --- are involved equally regardless of their social or financial status.

I submit single-payer is not nearly as repugnant to the bulk of libertarian values, and in fact is largely compatible with them, contrary to Wyden's plan. Which is why as a Democrat with small-l libertarian values I oppose Wyden's plan and support a single-payer solution.

And by the way, I don't care if it is a national single payer health insurance plan (although I think that makes the most sense because it is most efficient), or the feds simply make it possible for the people to create equitable regional or state-level solutions like in Canada. If people are dumb enough to believe they can achieve the most market efficiency by fragmenting their buying power that way, let them. In that case, I'll just concentrate on making sure they don't do it by disadvantaging those who are least able to defend themselves, and I think all will quickly come around to the money savings to be achieved through a more unified national public health insurance system.

I agree with you Wyden's plan is misguided, and perhaps even dangerous to the well-being of we the people. So I, and most single-payer advocates I know, reject being lumped in with those you fairly criticize thusly: I know you get that...that's what makes you guys all the more dangerous, you're not just stupid. You think we are.. Agree with you on the first point, plead "Not Guilty" on the second point.

Miles said "those advocating for the elimination of the insurance industry are arguing for the deconstruction of an industry worth three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars, with how many millions of employees?"

What are we getting for our three-quarters of a trillion dollars? A bunch of ads that tell us how great this or that insurance company is and millions of employees whose job it is to deny as much health care as possible.

Kari said a single payer system "would likely require a decade or so to phase in." Maybe, but that doesn't mean we would have to wait ten years to start covering everyone.

Bill, Congratulations, you were able to draw me out of retirement for one last post. I do this only to point out that you have officially shot yourself in the foot. In response to my one and only previous report you wrote the following:
“True…none of the above listed items are required of the Constitution. They are all allowed by the Constitution. They are all within the limits set by our Constitution. National Health care is most assuredly NOT.” You are asking everybody else to specify where in the Constitution there is a foundation for a national health care system, but it seems from your own logic you should be the one searching the Constitution for where a national health care system is specifically disallowed. Show us this and you will win the argument hands down.

anonymous

Well see! Even, (how did the ‘not-so-well trained’ so eloquently put it?)…‘Fright Wing hacks’ have something in common with reasonable perspectives. Embarrassing for them and their trainers. I digress.

I want to boil your response down here to a few points. I’m sure you’ll sing out if I missed something major after reading my response. ...Bill of Rights along side the Constitution (article 1) OK….confirms (not establishes) that the principle the Constitution must be interpreted in part as a set of limitations on government power. OK: agreement

The BoR clearly illustrates how, as you correctly point out, the Constitution limits the power the Federal govenment may assume.

OK: agreement

The onus is on you to find a limitation in the Constitution that would specifically prohibit the people, through their representatives assembled, from exercising their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the form of a national health insurance plan.

Nope: you lost me. How can you say this? If I decide that, for example, I want to build a new bridge between Portland and Vancouver…is it up to you to prove I can or can not build at my chosen site?

Of course not. I must make the first effort to prove I meet all reasonable minimum requirements for those things it takes to build a new bridge…consideration of traffic patters, impact on traffic flow, how will the fishy’s like it, is there a mud worm who will be adversely impacted or go extinct if I choose to build where I plan, does the soil have enough shear and compressive strength to hold the load, how deep is bedrock…I could go on but you get the notion.

No, the burden of minimal proof is for you. If you want me to come up with it…I tell you there is none. Then what? You must dispute my claim and show me where there is Constitutional tolerance…or you must accept what I say and let it die. I know what the limits are on our Constitution…it’s laid out there in black and white. If it’s not listed there…you can not assume it for Federal power.;no matter how the argument is framed.
Wyden and the Kool Aid Cru want to step around that pesky problem. I just think it’s troubling for my America that there are so many willing to sit up and beg at the socialist plate.

From there, your argument continues by redirection toward evil corporations so I let it go at that point as not applicable here except to those who like the redirection/equivalency tactic.
For me it’s a lalalalala kinda thing. (there you go gents…another C&P opportunity, a gimmee)

You seem to have well thought and considered the implications and workings of a national health care plan. Good for you. I’m much simpler. I demand that the basics are adhered to. They have been largely ignored for far too long. Prove Constitutionality first…then we can move to your area.

But at least we have agreement that Wydens plan is repugnant…there’s that! I have seen nothing here to change my mind that the proposal is inherently un Constitutional. I stand by that.

Justin | Nov 15, 2007 10:46:57 AM

Bill, Congratulations, you were able to draw me out of retirement for one last post. I do this only to point out that you have officially shot yourself in the foot. In response to my one and only previous report you wrote the following: “True…none of the above listed items are required of the Constitution. They are all allowed by the Constitution. They are all within the limits set by our Constitution. National Health care is most assuredly NOT.” You are asking everybody else to specify where in the Constitution there is a foundation for a national health care system, but it seems from your own logic you should be the one searching the Constitution for where a national health care system is specifically disallowed. Show us this and you will win the argument hands down.

OK Justin...I know you were posting while I was writing so you had no chance to read what I said.

Let's take it this way then.

I say there is no Constitutional allowance for national health care.

Now what?

Do you accept my assertion? Or do you find where that support lies and prove me wrong?

For some reason I'm really getting a thrill out of thrashing Bill's arguments, repeatedly. So I apologize to those of you reading this for substance.

Here's the argument, Bill, and I'll try to keep it at the 5th grade level. If national health care for all is unconstitutional, then national health care for seniors would be unconstituional as well. Since you're the one making the absurd argument, why don't you explain to all of us how an unconstitutional program has been in existence since 1965?

Answer: Because it's not unconstitutional. And if you really need a citation to understand what everyone else in this country already understands, try Article 1, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to levy taxes to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United State.

Anonymous writes: if Wyden's Republican-style plan were to be enacted, it would result in most (70%) of Americans being ending up in HMOs where corporate providers make health care decisions for individuals on the basis of what is in the best financial interests of the corporate provider.

I think it's probably true that most would end up in managed care because those plans are relatively affordable, and people will start comparing plans based on cost. I think where we disagree is whether that individual freedom is good or bad. My work, where we have very good health insurance, offers a choice between Kaiser and an ODS PPO. The premium cost to the employee is very similar -- but the out-of-pocket costs are much higher in the PPO. I'm in the PPO because I want the freedom to choose my own doctors and not worry about referrals to specialists, or the other hassles that come from Kaiser. The birth of my son, however, cost us about $2,000 out of pocket (20% copay on all pre and post-natal services). My colleague loves Kaiser, and here's why: In the last year, her spouse had a heart attack, an amputation due to diabetes, and cancer. Total medical bills well over $500,000. Her out of pocket? Less than $500.

Wyden's plan allows people to make that choice. The plans will also be heavily regulated. Finally, the fact that consumers will have that choice every year will dramatically alter the way insurance companies operate. Right now, if your insurance company screws you, you can fight it but your employer isn't going to change insurance companies because you're upset. Under Wyden's plan, you just switch to a new one, and they lose your money. They're going to be falling all over themselves to attract customers, and they won't stay in business by denying services to people.

Ahh Bill… This is just too much fun to stop now. You still haven’t shown us how the Constitution disallows national healthcare, but I’m going to go ahead and let that one go since it is obvious you are incapable of backing that claim up. I am going to hit you on something else though. You assert that the person passing the law has the burden to prove that it is not unconstitutional. That is actually not how our system works. Laws get passed by our legislative and executive branch. Once the law is passed anyone can challenge the constitutionality of that law through our judiciary branch. It is up to the person or group challenging that law to prove that it is unconstitutional. Therefore the burden of proof here is on YOU not the rest of us since you are trying to claim this is unconstitutional. Now since Medicare and other similar social programs laws have been passed and have never been judged to be unconstitutional by or judiciary I’d say your argument holds no water whatsoever. However, you have every right to hire a lawyer and challenge these or a new national healthcare program if you truly feel you are right. I do suggest you come with more than “this is unconstitutional” when you go in front of the Supreme Court because the burden of proof will be on you.

Specifically what "economic disruption"? This is a canard put out by the industry that mainly, supposedly, focuses on displaced workers.

Just because the industry cites it doesn't mean it's untrue. Given the size of the industry and the millions of workers, it just doesn't seem credible to suggest that it won't have a massive economic impact. Like, depression-style impact. Can you name a single example in all of human history where the government put an entire industry of this size out of business? Half this size? One-quarter?

Some of those workers would be re-deployed in a public insurance system because they are trained, some of that work is off-shored and we would actually benefit economically from discontinuing that practice, and some of it is a misuse of resources that would be better used if we re-balanced the economy by reducing the amount of money inefficiently diverted into private health insurance industry so that they are freed up for other kinds of economic activity.

This sounds suspiciously like the NAFTA argument -- that even though there would be some disruption for some blue-collar workers, the economy would be better off overall if those jobs were outsourced and those workers were freed up for higher-level economic activities.

And the argument that they can all be reemployed in the public sector doesn't make any sense since we're doing this to save money, which means reducing administrative costs. The bulk of those costs aren't in CEO paychecks, they're in insurance company labor costs.

But in the end, I still come back to political support. Even if you could minimize the economic disruption that would result from any shift to a single-payer system, you still have to convince 250 million people to give up their current insurance plans for a one-size fits all government plan. I don't see that happening in the next 10-20 years. But I do see support for a Wyden-style reform, and I'm willing to forgo the revolution that you're calling for in order to get health coverage to those 47 million without.

Sorry ladies and gentlemen. I had other things to do elsewhere to take you guys down. I’m back. I’ll take you in turn.

Miles | Nov 15, 2007 11:58:59 AM For some reason I'm really getting a thrill out of thrashing Bill's arguments, repeatedly. So I apologize to those of you reading this for substance. Here's the argument, Bill, and I'll try to keep it at the 5th grade level. If national health care for all is unconstitutional, then national health care for seniors would be unconstituional as well. Since you're the one making the absurd argument, why don't you explain to all of us how an unconstitutional program has been in existence since 1965? Answer: Because it's not unconstitutional. And if you really need a citation to understand what everyone else in this country already understands, try Article 1, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to levy taxes to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United State.

Again…5th grade level…ouch. I don’t think it’s me that argues from there, but I’ll make an attempt to expose your “thought” for what it is.
Miles, you should never apologize, even smarmily, for bashing another mans arguments. You should stand up like a man and bash away…not apologize like some prissy nanny. However, you should apologize for being consistently wrong. I bring that to the table for you directly. Health care for seniors > national health care > who cares?
I keep telling you guys…you keep not hearing me…I’ll show you again where you’re wrong but I gotta make a little comparison of my own paralleling a humorous quip blown thru the digital world these days “explaining the logic again on my part, does not constitute understanding on your part” , kinda fits don’t it?

to Miles : I did not ask about about Social security, not about Medicare, not about Medicade, not about the New Deal, not about the Great Society...and laughably, it's not about the 'socialized military' That's all redirection away from the argument. You know it, I know it. Further....programs, elsewhere in our government (no matter what Constitutional approval they are based on), do not constitute approval for errors in new legislation. I've asked well over 6 times for one specific reference to where national health care is allowed in our constitution. You guys are so circular. But you do make it easy for me. You don’t get it: I cut and paste and show you again. You remind me of my childhood dog Lady…she could entertain herself for quite a while snarling and snapping at her own tail. Sorry Dippy…bark up the other tree.

If you want to argue ‘general welfare’ whip it out.

lestatdelc | Nov 15, 2007 12:58:12 PM Bill, if national health insurance is unconstitutional, so is Medicare, so is Social Security, both of which are Federal insurance programs and have been in place for over 40 and 70 years respectively. What about FDIC? That is another Federal insurance program, is that unconstitutional as well? You are again trying to breath life into your beyond expired, fraudulent, "prove a negative" sophistry of an argument.

Sophistry….goood pull! I bet you wish your thinking matched your vocabulary… (g) Man…you guys are incredibly thick. It took over 80 years to get us into the sorry state of understanding we presently are in….one thing at a time….mmkay?

See above to Miles.

Justin | Nov 15, 2007 1:11:46 PM Ahh Bill… This is just too much fun to stop now. You still haven’t shown us how the Constitution disallows national healthcare, but I’m going to go ahead and let that one go since it is obvious you are incapable of backing that claim up. I am going to hit you on something else though. You assert that the person passing the law has the burden to prove that it is not unconstitutional. That is actually not how our system works. Laws get passed by our legislative and executive branch. Once the law is passed anyone can challenge the constitutionality of that law through our judiciary branch. It is up to the person or group challenging that law to prove that it is unconstitutional. Therefore the burden of proof here is on YOU not the rest of us since you are trying to claim this is unconstitutional. Now since Medicare and other similar social programs laws have been passed and have never been judged to be unconstitutional by or judiciary I’d say your argument holds no water whatsoever. However, you have every right to hire a lawyer and challenge these or a new national healthcare program if you truly feel you are right. I do suggest you come with more than “this is unconstitutional” when you go in front of the Supreme Court because the burden of proof will be on you.

Fun? I know! It kinda is…isn’t it?! Oh man….this must be embarrassing for RonWyden and the Supremes.

Let me in on the obvious. Hey mang, ju gaht me hall hrong mang….

So lets go thru your process:

• BILLS get passed by our legislative…check • They get signed into law by executive…check. • Once a bill becomes law…anyone can challenge the constitutionality, through any branch of the judiciary? (we part ways here….are you saying I can challenge Federal law in state court? Are you saying I can just make an appointment and go straight to the Supreme court?)

I think you’re pretty far off base already and were I a liberal idiot I’d draw the line there and fight you from this position. But, I’m a conservative and get your drift so I’ll hold your hand to that point and we’ll take it up when we’re done clarifying your position….OK? …besides…this is fun right?

• It is up to the person/group to provide the challenge to Constitutionality in court

• Therefore the burden of proof is on you (meaning me)

I was going to post at this point and ask if you really wanted to stand here…but hell, where’s the fun in that?

So all I have to do is get Congress to pass the “anything I want” bill get the President to sign it (or failing that a veto override) and it becomes law…no matter what the Constitution says? How's that song go? …….B o l o g n a.

I think that’s pretty far off base. I think all proposals must pass a Constitutional test before it even becomes a hard copy for submittal to Congress for consideration. I think that’s exactly what that mutt Wyden did. Further, I think you grant far too much power to the courts and make them kings from the bench. How about them apples? This is kinda fun.

Chris Lowe | Nov 16, 2007 1:37:31 AM On "bill"'s idiocy: The underlying historical answer about Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security is the commerce clause. Arguably it would apply even more clearly to a universal health insurance plan (whether this means national single payer or something like Wyden's plan with 50 state plans plus territorial plans with partial funding to all from federal general revenues). Univeral health insurance would create greater mobility in the interstate labor market, greater capacity for individuals to become entrepreneurs & risk starting businesses because to do so will no longer put their families' healthcare access at risk, and greater capacity of U.S. businesses to compete with those from countries where health costs are better contained and not primarily a cost to business. Current insurance companies and current large employers providing health insurance benefits operate across state lines. There are federal laws that regulate the insurance industry though there are also state laws that do so as well. The basis for the federal regulation of the insurance industry would also be the basis for federal provision of universal health insurance (as it is the basis for Medicaid and Medicare).

Gee Chris…my idiocy? We haven’t even met. Didn’t they have grape flavor today?

That the commerce clause supports the constitutionality of national health care?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

You hang your hat on this as authority to pass national health care legislation? Is there any question as to why you guys are viewed as folders and spindlers of our Constitution?

If this is the line that BO stands behind…cool. We can slug it out from here so lets look.

Arguably it would apply even more clearly to a universal health insurance plan (whether this means national single payer or something like Wyden's plan with 50 state plans plus territorial plans with partial funding to all from federal general revenues). Univeral health insurance would create greater mobility in the interstate labor market,

You bet arguably. Really, in what respect? If I can get my foot fixed in Portland or San Diego…why would I go to San Diego? Or are you tilting at the proposal that illegal aliens being able to come and go as they please and still get health care? I think Americans are entirely capable of mobility…with or without your insistence that I pay for their care. You’re full of something...lets just say it is of your self.

greater capacity for individuals to become entrepreneurs & risk starting businesses because to do so will no longer put their families' healthcare access at risk,

Noooow we, get to the meat. This has nothing to do with “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” this is about spreading risk and income redistribution. I call double talk…weasel and twist one argument to try and get a foot in the door and then start tearing. Spreading risk is already handled well by private companies…you’re talking about income redistribution…about ensuring that I pay for your care.

and greater capacity of U.S. businesses to compete with those from countries where health costs are better contained and not primarily a cost to business.

Again…bullshit...and this takes real chutzpah. Greater capacity for business to compete?
Concern about the cost of doing business? ....when it is liberalism/socialism that is constantly and eternally driving the costs up? Please.

Aside from the entirely disingenuous position, considering liberal perspective on (and constant ranting about) the evil of the corporate/business world…and the evils of profit, I have yet to see how government involvement will reduce costs of doing business and make them more competitive as a few of you have actually and with a straight face, claimed. Nah, you’re just smoke and mirrors…and not good.

Current insurance companies and current large employers providing health insurance benefits operate across state lines.

I think you are in the least…artful. At worst, and as usual, you think we are as slimy and stupid as you are.

Well, that was fun. After all of Bill's efforts it looks like his 2 main arguments have fallen flat:

1. his amorphous 'Constitutional' argument

and

1. all of his arguments about 'socialism' were without merit as demonstrated by the COMPLETE lack of evidence that followed his assertions, like this one:

I have yet to see how government involvement will reduce costs of doing business and make them more competitive as a few of you have actually and with a straight face, claimed. Nah, you’re just smoke and mirrors…and not good.

I already told you Bill that America, with it's private system, actually pays more than everyone else in the world, including many countries that have universal health care. In other countries that have universal health care, consumers get the same medications for less, everyone is covered, and increasingly, they live longer than Americans. They also have more freedom when it comes to choosing their doctors/hospitals than Americans have in their system.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

And, amazingly, you applaud America's inferior outcomes. You even boast that your insurance company can tell you to take a flying leap - assuming you are actually covered, that is.

Hold that thought there little Mikey. I have another life too...you kids don't warrant ALL my time. I'll reply to you and yours directly....mmkay?

I have yet to see how government involvement will reduce costs of doing business and make them more competitive as a few of you have actually and with a straight face, claimed. Nah, you’re just smoke and mirrors…and not good.

I already told you Bill that America, with it's private system, actually pays more than everyone else in the world, including many countries that have universal health care. In other countries that have universal health care, consumers get the same medications for less, everyone is covered, and increasingly, they live longer than Americans. They also have more freedom when it comes to choosing their doctors/hospitals than Americans have in their system.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

And, amazingly, you applaud America's inferior outcomes. You even boast that your insurance company can tell you to take a flying leap - assuming you are actually covered, that is.

I won't even begin on the source...but come on. Let's even assume that your facts are even of the correct order or magnitude. We are highest in the world per capita...uh oh. Somebody's doing something not for free again! Those damn doctors and nurses and research scientists....

2 obervations:

1 We have the best health care in the world...you generally don't see people clamoring to go to Thailand or Russia for life saving treatment. The best costs: no matter what your socialist buddies tell you...it is human nature driven and inescapable.

2 Even if you numbers are right...how does that prove that government intrusion will bring costs down? Especially in light of the fact that about half of all medical bills are ALREADY paid by government.

As far as You even boast that your insurance company can tell you to take a flying leap - assuming you are actually covered, that is.

Phew, I can only say geez whiz Mikey…I hope everyone here doesn’t think like you. Because you tell me a thing is true…doesn’t make it so. I’m sure you’re a nice guy. But your logic escapes me in lieu of actual evidence that supports your argument.

So when you show me how government intervention has driven costs down I’ll be all ears. Until then, I think you’re all mouth. It’s not invective, it’s observation.

Chris Lowe | Nov 16, 2007 12:46:20 PM

Bill,

Since you treat the process by which the constitution is interpreted as germane to your argument above, please tell me if you agree that Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court decision authored by Chief Justice John Marshall that definitively established the power of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of statutes, is good law?

Please do not accuse me of trying to twist away or change the issue. I am not. About 125 years of federal legislation involving regulation of any number of things including insurance, and funding of any number of things, including national (though not universal) health insurance under Medicaid and Medicare, has taken effect under Supreme Court decisions that ruled that they affected interstate commerce sufficiently to fall under the commerce clause.

This leaves four options. 1) I am right and the commerce clause empowers congress to create national health insurance programs; 2) I am wrong because a universal national health insurance program would have some (as yet unnamed by you) characteristic that would distinguish it from the national Medicaid and Medicare programs, such that the Supreme Court will rule against any such universal program; 3) I am right about how the Supreme Court has ruled on the commerce clause, but you are disputing 125 years of precedent including many rulings by very conservative courts, i.e. you agree that the court has the power to rule, but has just been wrong for half of our national history; 4) I am right about how the Supreme Court has ruled, but you are disputing the correctness of Marbury v. Madison. Which is it?

Of course congress has the right to redistribute wealth for the common good ("promote the general welfare"). Never mind the constitutional amendment that created the power to tax income, the basis of much modern redistribution. What do you think building the Erie Canal did? What do you think tariffs do (the basis of much or most federal revenue prior to the income tax)?

Assuming for the sake of the argument that we won't go into the justice or otherwise of expropriating American Indian lands, what do you think the government was doing when it awarded 400 sq. mile parcels of public land in an alternating checkerboard on either side of major transcontinental railroads to private railway compannies, essentially indemnifying investors from any real risk? Or smaller parcels to homesteaders to encourage U.S. settlement of the trans-Mississippi west?

All of these transferred wealth from some persons to other persons for collective social purposes. Although you claim to be focused on the issue of constitutionality, you throw around name-calling and derogatory adjectives with great abandon, applied to labels which in turn you apply to other individuals, without knowing them. It is an obvious and systematic distractive strategy that undermines all your ostentatious self-congratulation. I didn't say you are an idiot, which would require knowing you to be definitive about, though evidence here is mounting. I referred to "your idiocy" meaning your idiotic arguments. They are idiotic both in the general usage of stupid and ridiculous, and in the more specific originary sense of the word idiocy, meaning self-aborbed and unable to interact properly with others. Your arguments are all of those things. I don't need to know you to say that, I only need to read your arguments.

First, regarding you complaining about my tendency toward invective. I tolerate libs little and socialists not at all…I was one, I know where they come from. They show no consideration from their posture on that high seat, deigning to pass down ordinations to the ‘lower fellows’. But OK…I’ll bite. You want me to play nice…I’ll give you another chance. You give me another chance. No more chances.

I’ll compress your argument here. You essentially claim that national health care has Constitutional grounds based on the "Commerce Clause":

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: “ The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ”

....and that it was used as a Constitutional argument for Medicare, Medicaid. Asserting that by citing the precedent of Marbury v Madison (which holds that the Supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over interpretation of our Constitution) and by extension the Supreme court may declare that the Commerce clause is Constitutional grounds for national health care.

OK…in the first place I did not assert that the Supreme Court has no authority to challenge Constitutionality; so bringing Marbury/Madison into your argument is a red herring. Bologna.

Nor did I dispute that there are constitutional considerations and wide latitude given by it’s authors for interpretation. Alluding differently is just wrong. Bologna

I don’t know why you listed 125 years…Medicare/Medicaid are much younger and have nothing to do with disputing my points.
Medicare/Medicaid are 'national health care lite'. If you think they are not already rife with abuse and liberal ‘foot-in-the-door’ expansion coverage well…I’ll hold up my end of the bargain and just say you’re entirely knowingly wrong for a reason. These little pilot programs are precisely WHY I stand against you now. It is never enough for social engineers.

1 is wrong out of hand because I reject your logic and I think most Americans, were it laid out clearly, would as well.

3 is right…I agree, yes the Constitution has a Commerce clause. You are wrong about 125 years of conservative courts. I don’t know why you question the possibility of the courts having taken us in the wrong direction for quite some time. Liberalism/socialism has done the same for only slightly less time…you guys got away with it so it ain’t impossible. I’m here to help change that.

4 …I think we’ve already covered 4. It’s like asserting there is oxygen in air and alluding I have claimed there is not. Bologna.

So I’ll go with your number 2: I am wrong because a universal national health insurance program would have some (as yet unnamed by you) characteristic that would distinguish it from the national Medicaid and Medicare programs, such that the Supreme Court will rule against any such universal program;

It’s hard for me to know what argument will float to the top when national health care gets plowed under again. So let this untrained cheerleader for conservatism just list a few possibilities:

A) For like the 12th time: Constitutional support, or the lack of it, elsewhere does not constitute Constitutional approval for new legislation (see US v Lopez …I enjoyed that one)

B) Medicare/Medicaid are national health care lite. They are not nearly as pervasive or invasive or ripe for abuse as a national health care program with an entire new level of administration and regulation would be. States rights can and should become an aggressive issue. Yeah….Medicare/Medicaid…bad as they are would be high school plays compared to the Broadway musical of national health care.

C) You run the risk of getting Medicare/Medicaid reversed if you keep going to this well. Twisting and stretching the definition was a major stretch to cover existing medical programs by an interstate commerce regulation clause. To try and cover a national health care plan under regulation will tear open your intent. The clause clearly states “. To regulate commerce”. A national health care infrastructure will go far far beyond the bounds of regulation. It will go deep into the creation/construction of that program….not it’s regulation. If you get past the other hurdles…which I doubt. I think this is where you will die.

Please do not accuse me of trying to twist away or change the issue. I am not. About 125 years of federal legislation involving regulation of any number of things including insurance, and funding of any number of things, including national (though not universal) health insurance under Medicaid and Medicare, has taken effect under Supreme Court decisions that ruled that they affected interstate commerce sufficiently to fall under the commerce clause.

I do not dispute this. Entirely factual. Just entirely wrong and twisted logic. It is the same arguments liberals/socialists always use when twisting the meaning and intent of any part of our founding documents.

Never mind the constitutional amendment that created the power to tax income, the basis of much modern redistribution. What do you think building the Erie Canal did? What do you think tariffs do (the basis of much or most federal revenue prior to the income tax)? Assuming for the sake of the argument that we won't go into the justice or otherwise of expropriating American Indian lands, what do you think the government was doing when it awarded 400 sq. mile parcels of public land in an alternating checkerboard on either side of major transcontinental railroads to private railway compannies, essentially indemnifying investors from any real risk? Or smaller parcels to homesteaders to encourage U.S. settlement of the trans-Mississippi west?

Income tax? Give me a break. I think we have covered your assertion that I am ‘against taxation’…government having some Constitutional precedent (by direct statement that it should be so). As for the rest…I think you’re grabbing at straws to try and float.

<hr/>