Tax-financed health care

[indygal]

Where patients are denied life-saving medications based on an age bracket?  Or medical procedures have such long waiting lists that the patients tend to die before treatment?  Or where cancer rates are much higher because screenings are not conducted in time?

As if to say those things don't already happen here in the US? And the biggest reason they do happen here is because health insurance is being denied to those in need of it. How many elderly are cutting back on their meds so they can afford to eat or heat/cool their home? How many people don't see a doctor for preventive care, because they can't afford it, only to develop chronic illness? Many of those are then denied health coverage for "pre-existing conditions." Or if they are eligible, they can't afford the hundreds of dollars a month for the insurance.

[Varmit]

I'm not saying that those thing don't happen here, they do, but not on the levels of canada and france.  I just don't want to see a program implemented that will lower the standard of care in our country.  I mean, think about it, the same people who voted on legislation that THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ,  will be the ones in charge of your medical care. 

[srkruzich]

I am sorry to jump in here but Doctors should not have the option to either accept Medicaid/Medicare/etc. as the government provides the license for them to practice.  It represents an unfair disadvantage to those using those options, some of which have no alternative.  Why should someone with Medicare, age 72 for example, living on a fixed income not be able to utilize a specialist because they do not accept Medicare?  That is unethical and should be corrected.  You don't want to accept Medicare/Medicaid/etc. don't petition the state for a license to practice.....

Uhmm excuse me but Licensing cannot be used as a tool to force a doctor to accept less than what he sets his prices for services rendered. That is unethical.

[srkruzich]

That's not unethical.  We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.

Gov't programs are limiting freedoms. 

The Fed's should not be paying for anything.  This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.

And screw everybody who doesn't have limitless means?  I'm sorry but your interpretation of how the country was established is not completely accurate, it is a perspective of it.

Where in the constitution does it guarantee any medical care to everyone?  Where in the constitution does it even say the Government can offer medical care to those who cant afford it?

[srkruzich]

Do you consider the police force and fire department socialist institutions also?

hmm since the police department's only job is to protect public property, and serve warrants you could say that.  Their certainly not required to protect the individual. 

[redcliffsw]

Here's a bit of history on the third-party payments (health insurance)

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050803.asp

[redcliffsw]

Nobody can explain things like Walter Williams.  Here he makes
more good American sense that we ought heed:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/07/25/health_care_government_vs_private

[jerry wagner]

That's not unethical.  We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.

Gov't programs are limiting freedoms. 

The Fed's should not be paying for anything.  This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.

And screw everybody who doesn't have limitless means?  I'm sorry but your interpretation of how the country was established is not completely accurate, it is a perspective of it.

Where in the constitution does it guarantee any medical care to everyone?  Where in the constitution does it even say the Government can offer medical care to those who cant afford it?

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

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.

"General Welfare" --> interpret it how you like, and that the necessary and proper clause provides the power to do so

[srkruzich]

That's not unethical.  We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.

Gov't programs are limiting freedoms. 

The Fed's should not be paying for anything.  This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.

And screw everybody who doesn't have limitless means?  I'm sorry but your interpretation of how the country was established is not completely accurate, it is a perspective of it.

Where in the constitution does it guarantee any medical care to everyone?  Where in the constitution does it even say the Government can offer medical care to those who cant afford it?

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

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.

"General Welfare" --> interpret it how you like, and that the necessary and proper clause provides the power to do so

I have the exact meaning of it handy here.

Lyndon LaRouche has identified the principle of the general welfare as the only legitimate basis for the authority of government. A useful summary may be found, for example, in LaRouche's article, ``Will the U.S.A. keep its sovereignty?'' published in the November 19, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

LaRouche emphasizes that our United States republic ``came into existence as direct heir of those anti-oligarchichal, anti-Roman, Platonic principles of natural law'' which were first affirmed in the founding of the first nation-state republics during the late 15th Century: France under Louis XI, and England under Henry VII. LaRouche describes the source of this law as ``a combination of the Classical Greek, republican heritage, with those doctrines, respecting the universal notion of human individuality, which were promulgated by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, notably the Epistles of the Apostle Paul.''

Out of this, came the central principle upon which ``the authority, powers, and responsibilities of the sovereign nation-state republic were premised ... the notion of `general welfare,' or commonwealth.'

by Edward Spannaus
Printed in the American Almanac, May 15, 2000.

[jerry wagner]

Stop it with the authoritative statements as to the exact meaning.  That phrase can have many meanings.  The author you supplied, wrote out his interpretation.