Trump Healthcare Vote Withdrawn

a reply to: zazzafrazz

"Affordable Coverage"

Yeah, affordable for the insurance companies.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SBMcG

Your link is biased crap. Really, the clause is interpreted by the people... by who we send to Congress and what we address in our town halls. It sounds to me like the people want some kind of universal healthcare plan and now that some Conservatives understand that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing, they aren't so set on getting rid of it.

Give me one example of the "General Welfare" clause being invoked to force the government to pay for an individual's healthcare (or anything else for that matter).

originally posted by: dougie6665

I am a business owner as well (land development), and have a second career working as a consulting partner with a VC group. I too have paid massive amounts of taxes over the years -- during some time periods far exceeding what you detailed. Of course, in land development, everything you touch is taxed (fees, permits, mitigation, etc.), so it is a little skewed when compared to other industries...

I have no problem with any employer, as a part of an employee's pay package, providing the best health coverage they can fiscally justify. In fact, I think in most cases it is an employer's duty to do so.

It appears to me as though you are a partner in a professional firm.

Looking over your suggestions I don't have any problem with any of that with the exception of my basic revulsion toward anything that forces me to buy something I might now want, i.e, the individual mandate.

I have always been a big fan of supplemental catastrophic insurance of any kind. From a CBA standpoint, it's some of the best money you can spend.

Your 3rd point is going to sound a little harsh to many folks, but not to me. I think a lot can be done to streamline end-of-life care before we get to the let-them-die eventuality.

Again, as a constitutional conservative, I would greatly prefer healthcare be left up to the states with the federal government providing block grants and other financial incentives along with a minimal reasonable level of regulatory oversight.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Hate to say so but that's not quite right nowadays.
Much closer to this:
m.imgur.com...

How many years is America away from enacting a compassionate single-payer health care system? It will happen, because it has to. It is the only model that actually works reasonably fairly.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes the inalienable rights that people have, and tasks the federal government to protect them.

What rights does the constitution task the government to protect? Serious question because I really want to see that quote.

You are looking for ver batim quotes. Stop it. Count to 10.

1) The Constitution says that people have inalienable rights.
2) The Constitution says that the government may not infringe on the People's rights.
3) The Constitution lists and restricts powers of the federal government.
4) The Constitution states that all powers not given to the Federal Government belong to the People and States.
5) The Constitution places the responsibility of defending the People and States to the Federal Government.

Ergo, the Constitution tasks the Federal Government to protect the People and by extension the rights inherent to the citizens.

It's not rocket science.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness would pretty much cover healthcare.

No it doesn't, and that's the Declaration of Independence. What else you got?

a reply to: SBMcG

Every time a tax has been or will be levied by Congress...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Well, I have to disagree with your "Ergo". That is your interpretation. Even though I can see how you arrived at that conclusion I think you are wrong. Honestly, you are taking a huge leap in logic.

That's neither here nor there. I was just curious about if you were referencing something I missed.

Says the person with no apparent grasp on the historical context of the issues that led Revolutionary War, nor State Sovereignty that was required to be ingrained in the Constitution before the People would ratify it for their States.

Seriously - please read some factual, non-Zinn (redundant) history on the way that the British army and King George treated the colonists.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SBMcG

There's that pesky General Welfare Clause...

One of the great misunderstood parts of the COTUS, using modern english for ye olden terms. That whole 'living document' garbage.

If you actually look in an 18th century dictionary...

General:

1. Comprehending many species or individuals; not special.
3. Not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations
5. Public; comprising the whole

Welfare:

1. Happiness; success; prosperity

General welfare != indiscrimate handouts and subsidies. It means that whatever laws the legislature passes should not play favorites and it should promote the People's own personal attempts to achieve individual success.

originally posted by: Leonidas
How many years is America away from enacting a compassionate single-payer health care system? It will happen, because it has to. It is the only model that actually works reasonably fairly.

No, not really.

a reply to: Willtell

Elaborate. How so? Calling something crap without verifiable proof is pretty foolhardy wouldn't you say? Just like a fan boy of the patriots saying the colts suck. Opinions.

a reply to: Phage

1) My state does that.
2) Good idea but the threshold is too low.
3) Right direction, but thin ice on some aspects. Would hospice be included?

With respect to my threshold being too low, sure, I am opening the debate on where it should start.
Is hospice included in end of life care, is my comment thin ice. Again, I tried to be sensitive. But, people complain about the cost. End of life care needs to be handled gracefully, but, also realistically. Again, I am making a proposal.

I think at least my proposals improve on both Obamacare and the abomination the Republicans were proposing. It will be impossible to get everyone to agree on everything because we all have had different life experiences and perspectives.

a reply to: Phage

1) My state does that.
2) Good idea but the threshold is too low.
3) Right direction, but thin ice on some aspects. Would hospice be included?

With respect to my threshold being too low, sure, I am opening the debate on where it should start.
Is hospice included in end of life care, is my comment thin ice. Again, I tried to be sensitive. But, people complain about the cost. End of life care needs to be handled gracefully, but, also realistically. Again, I am making a proposal.

I think at least my proposals improve on both Obamacare and the abomination the Republicans were proposing. It will be impossible to get everyone to agree on everything because we all have had different life experiences and perspectives.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Leonidas
How many years is America away from enacting a compassionate single-payer health care system? It will happen, because it has to. It is the only model that actually works reasonably fairly.

No, not really.

So in the mid term you are ok with poor people dying?

a reply to: SBMcG

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I am a tax partner in a 300 person CPA firm.

1. The only reason why I am in favor of an individual mandate is that to the extent that individuals choose not to insure themselves, we don't let them die (nor should we) we then get sick. We treat them and the cost they cannot afford to pay gets rolled into my insurance premiums. Therefore, I am willing to accept a mandate in return for paying less for others. Anyone who thinks that if health care reform were totally repealed that they are not paying for uninsured people doesn't really understand what is going on. I am not implying you do not as I am sure you do. Simply, I view it as a fairer to everyone.

End of life care is sensitive. I wasn't advocating that we kill these people, I was advocating that society come to grips with what is realistic and what makes sense at end of life. The truth as that as the aging population grows, there simply is not enough money to pay for the growing health care needs. The ultimate solution is that governments are going to need to print money to pay for it. If we aren't willing to let people die, which again, we probably should not, that is the solution. Many will argue we can't do that. But, the truth is that inflation is equivalent to a tax. A tax is spread among the many rather than being directed at my stack. Further, the inflation is already there as reflected in sky rocketing costs.

My suggestions were only trying to develop a way for health insurance to truly become affordable for most Americans, while starting a dialogue on how to handle end of life care which probably absorbs 33% or so of the total health care spend in the country. Absent doing this, we are only going to move from one bad solution to another.

a reply to: gortex

Isn't it more the case that something as complex as healthcare legislation takes months if not years to perfect , checks and balances are needed when peoples lives are concerned

I do agree with that. It should. When they take the part out that forces the working man to pay to pay for it, then it might pass. Until then, take it back to the drawing board. Trump needs to remember, the blue collar working man got him elected.

Trumps bill was cobbled together in a matter of weeks and would probably fall apart in similar speed.

He is still use to the business world of getting things done as fast as possible. He will learn patience now.

Trump did try to get it passed, but I think the perfect opportunity for the President has landed right in his lap.

He might decide to let Obamacare run it's course and it may not be as good an idea as the left seem to think it is.

The president indicated that instead of rewriting the legislation he would allow ObamaCare to "explode."

thehill.com...

But I do agree that it should take a little while to think about.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

That's a straw man. I don't interpret welfare as money from the government but as well-being and have you actually read any Zinn?

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

It took Obama and the uniparty seven years to create this monster.

Actually, the ACA was passed by Congress in Obama's first year.

Yet was not signed into law until 2010.

And provisions have been slowly phased in continuously for the past 7 years.

2010. Oh, you mean his 2nd year. Lol.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
The ACA has some very strong points addressed, pre-existing conditions, kids on their parents insurance until 26, etc. It also has some serious faults. The Republicans have had control of the house and Senate since 2010, and did nothing except come up with the turd that the vote was pulled on, shame on them.

Somebody really needs to take a look at the high cost of health care in this country.

I know. Republicans have had 7 years to come up with a good plan. And this is the best they can do? LOL Talk about key stone cops.

This bill was a turd from the get go, all of the compromises only made it worse. As I said in my first reply, we need some really smart, ready to compromise folks, to sit down and fix this. This for-profit medical care system is not working, and that somehow needs to change.

Some really smart, ready to compromise folks will have to get elected first. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

a reply to: Willtell

Wait, they're running the country into the ground by not replacing obamacare with something just as bad?'

I understand that dimms aren't used to seeing a government function as it's supposed to (with republican representatives actually representing the needs of their districts) but I thought they would at least celebrate when obamacare remained, instead they're disappointed.