NPR's U.S. Healthcare Truths

[.Shane.]

Oh yeah, the founding fathers were ALL about providing for the welfare of the people. This must explain why when the country was founded we had a single payer healthcare system and were socialist. For people that were so hell bent on providing for people, they sure did a whole lot of nothing about it. And I guess the Preamble isn't a part of the constitution?

And we had slavery, very little rights for women, and even a ton of voting restrictions on white males.

 

[MargotTenenbaum]

I'm quoting Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Last time I checked, it was a part of the Constitution. So it looks like the government is tasked to promote and provide for the general welfare. Two clauses with a broad two-verb mandate.

Why would they contradict themselves? Especially when nearly everyone of the founding fathers feared exactly what you are promoting? That piece isn't talking about people, it's talking about the states.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why would they contradict themselves? Especially when nearly everyone of the founding fathers feared exactly what you are promoting? That piece isn't talking about people, it's talking about the states.

Promote and provide isn't contradictory. It's supplementary my dear Wilson.

Anyway, you have to go with the text in the Constitution that you have, not the text you think you have.

 

[MargotTenenbaum]

Promote and provide isn't contradictory. It's supplementary my dear Wilson.

Anyway, you have to go with the text in the Constitution that you have, not the text you think you have.

No they are not. They are two totally different words. My promoting people to help themselves when I'm at work is nothing like me giving lazy deadbeat welfare moms with 13 kids with 12 different last names (true story) a chunk of the money I earn! Why would they waste the ink? Why would they clearly differentiate between provide and promote in the Preamble when all they meant was provide? Why would they establish the Bill of Rights as they did if they really meant provide? Why is our constitution piled with words and phrases that limit government power over hte people if they really just wanted to establish a soft tyranny where government dictated our EVERY MOVE!!! Haven't you ever The Rights of Man and Common Sense!? Haven't you ever read comments from the founding fathers AGAINST big government programs like government run healthcare? Nobody with half a brain would actually think the founding fathers wanted us to have a state run healthcare system ever if they had the facts!

 

[JollyRoger]

They used both words in the Constitution. Don't argue to me about how silly that is, argue with the ghosts of the drafters.

 

[MargotTenenbaum]

They used both words in the Constitution. Don't argue to me about how silly that is, argue with the ghosts of the drafters.

Why argue with them? You're the one promoting an agenda that violates my freedom!

Madison in Federalist 41, "It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare...But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity."

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

 

[JollyRoger]

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

I quote the text of the Constitution, you quote something outside the text and then you have the nerve to end with that?

 

[MargotTenenbaum]

I quote the text of the Constitution, you quote something outside the text and then you have the nerve to end with that?

I quoted the constitution too. Then I quoted people who wrote the constitution and what it's original intent was. So yes, I did have the nerve to end it with that!!

 

[Cutlass]

That's because you're most pro-business estimate only takes into account paper work for government administration. It doesn't take into account administrators, electricity, cost for buildings, etc, etc. Yet, for whatever reason the left wing partisan hacks in the mainstream press always take into account massive overhead costs for insurance firms to make them look inefficient! It's not right!!!

The government doesn't run anything more efficiently than the private sector! NOTHING!!! Why would anybody expect them to administer healthcare better?

You do also realize you've listed a few bad points of government running healthcare right!? Once we all have a right to healthcare, what's to stop us from going to the doctor everyday and exhausting services? Oh! That's right! Government rationing and death panels!

See, now you're just making things up. Just as one example, more than 20 nations run health care better than the private sector in the US does. That's an absolute proven fact. It is a religious conviction that the private sector is always better. But no one who thinks about these things believes it.

 

[MargotTenenbaum]

See, now you're just making things up. Just as one example, more than 20 nations run health care better than the private sector in the US does. That's an absolute proven fact. It is a religious conviction that the private sector is always better. But no one who thinks about these things believes it.

Talk about making up facts!!! Our healthcare system would be just fine if it wasn't for healthcare fraud, subsidizing illegal immigrants, and with giving money to people who just abuse the system, refuse to be civil and integrate even on the most basic level. If rednecks and urban trash acted with civility, our system would far exceed any socialized program on a statistical basis (because let's be honest, the care available in America far exceeds the care available anywhere else). Those socialized programs also function only because of our private sector research and development!!!

 

[Cutlass]

Talk about making up facts!!! Our healthcare system would be just fine if it wasn't for healthcare fraud, subsidizing illegal immigrants, and with giving money to people who just abuse the system, refuse to be civil and integrate even on the most basic level. If rednecks and urban trash acted with civility, our system would far exceed any socialized program on a statistical basis (because let's be honest, the care available in America far exceeds the care available anywhere else). Those socialized programs also function only because of our private sector research and development!!!

Yes, you are making up "facts". And that whole post is full of them. Equal or better outcomes for as little as half the money spent are undeniably better than what the US has. Try getting your "facts" from a non political source and you'd know this. You post is nothing but extremist talking points.

 

[MargotTenenbaum]

Yes, you are making up "facts". And that whole post is full of them. Equal or better outcomes for as little as half the money spent are undeniably better than what the US has. Try getting your "facts" from a non political source and you'd know this. You post is nothing but extremist talking points.

Stop kidding yourself. I would not have access to the "golden parachute" health insurance I have, or access to tons of treatments in any other country. You can choose to ignore the dysfunctional asocial scum that weighs down on our society. You can choose to ignore the fact that the rich in this country pay a disproportionate amount of the overall bill for radical new healthcare treatments and drugs. But that doesn't mean you have a valid argument.

Take away blacks and hispanics in healthcare statistics, and America outperforms Europe on almost every measure.

 

[amadeus]

And we had slavery, very little rights for women, and even a ton of voting restrictions on white males.

To be fair, if the founders had disbanded all of those things immediately, men likely would have revolted and it would result in the state reverting back to some kind of tyranny or leaving us open to foreign conquest.

 

[.Shane.]

To be fair, if the founders had disbanded all of those things immediately, men likely would have revolted and it would result in the state reverting back to some kind of tyranny or leaving us open to foreign conquest.

Of course. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Take away blacks and hispanics in healthcare statistics, and America outperforms Europe on almost every measure.

I'd like to see a source for this.

 

[Integral]

Excellent OP, Whomp, and I'm glad you brought this to our attention.

Off to listen...

 

[.Shane.]

I'd like to see a source for this.

A person who wasn't either irrationally afraid of minorities or bigoted toward them would simply point out that its not so much because they are black or Hispanic, but because of their economic status. The same would be true of whites in poor parts of the country.

 

[JollyRoger]

I quoted the constitution too. Then I quoted people who wrote the constitution and what it's original intent was. So yes, I did have the nerve to end it with that!!

Your Federalist Papers quote was from one faction who had a part in drafting the Constitution, but most certainly does not represent some universal vision of the time. Why do you think we have the Federalist Papers? Because the writers of the Federalist Papers were fighting to get a Constitution in place in the first place and to get their vision of it. The fact they had to hit the newspapers shows they had some convincing to do.

The Constitutional Convention was, in part, a response to the teabaggers of the day - those types supportive of such nonsense as Shay's Rebellion. The faction pushing for a stronger federal government than existed under the Articles of Confederation were the ones behind the Federalist Papers. They had to concede a Bill of Rights to get the Constitution done and they had to negotiate away some of what they were pushing for.

The fact is, that the Constitution does contain the words promote (in the Preamble) and provide (in Article I, Article 8) in regards to the general welfare. Why you think that the preamble is all there is to the Constitution is beyond me.

 

[civ_king]

What about rationing of mammograms!? Are you all for that TOO!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576027,00.html

my counter

The recommendations, the college said, are based on scientific evidence that suggests more frequent testing leads to overtreatment of irregular Pap smears, which can harm a young woman's chances of carrying a child full term.

“I think it’s bad timing with the whole health-care reform effort going on and the mammogram recommendations that came out earlier this week,” said FoxNews.com managing editor of health Dr. Manny Alvarez... “But these particular guidelines don’t fall into the criteria of saving money. These guidelines have to do with minimizing injuries to women that are of reproductive age.”

And Alvarez, a high-risk obstetrician and chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, said many of his patients have been injured by the treatment administered to them after an irregular Pap smear.

“Many abnormal Pap smears do not need any medical treatment and yet there has been an abuse in surgical treatment,” he said. “This has led to a large amount of women now having pregnancy complications, such as premature deliveries, incompetent cervix and vaginal cuff damage — all due to surgical follow-ups to irregular Pap smears.

obviously death panel stuff

No they are not. They are two totally different words. My promoting people to help themselves when I'm at work is nothing like me giving lazy deadbeat welfare moms with 13 kids with 12 different last names (true story) a chunk of the money I earn! Why would they waste the ink? Why would they clearly differentiate between provide and promote in the Preamble when all they meant was provide? Why would they establish the Bill of Rights as they did if they really meant provide? Why is our constitution piled with words and phrases that limit government power over hte people if they really just wanted to establish a soft tyranny where government dictated our EVERY MOVE!!! Haven't you ever The Rights of Man and Common Sense!? Haven't you ever read comments from the founding fathers AGAINST big government programs like government run healthcare? Nobody with half a brain would actually think the founding fathers wanted us to have a state run healthcare system ever if they had the facts!

1) That is insulting
2) I didn't know the founding father wrote about universal health insurance
3) [citation needed]

See, now you're just making things up. Just as one example, more than 20 nations run health care better than the private sector in the US does. That's an absolute proven fact. It is a religious conviction that the private sector is always better. But no one who thinks about these things believes it.

Margot seems to be implying that the US couldn't do it successfully do it because the US sucks/dumb

A person who wasn't either irrationally afraid of minorities or bigoted toward them would simply point out that its not so much because they are black or Hispanic, but because of their economic status. The same would be true of whites in poor parts of the country.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

I agree but it would be vastly more effective to eliminate poverty

 

[Verbose]

Talk about making up facts!!! Our healthcare system would be just fine if it wasn't for healthcare fraud, subsidizing illegal immigrants, and with giving money to people who just abuse the system, refuse to be civil and integrate even on the most basic level. If rednecks and urban trash acted with civility, our system would far exceed any socialized program on a statistical basis (because let's be honest, the care available in America far exceeds the care available anywhere else). Those socialized programs also function only because of our private sector research and development!!!

If one for argument's sake accept this as factual; in what way is it not an admission that the US cannot make public administrative systems work that other nations manage?

That's the only level on which I might accept the assertion that some kind of system similar to one of the European might not work in the US. I.e. the game-theory approach where possibly Americans might generally be proceeding from the assumption that everyone else is scamming the system, in which case it makes perfect sense for all involved to also scam it, meaning it becomes unworkable, or can only be implemented with very harsh (thus large and expensive) control measures.

If so it's a US tragedy.

(I'd also be curious to know what kind of care the rest of US might be missing in your opinion?)