Republicans can't deal with medical care:

[Into the Night]

Public welfare clause. Supremes have ratified its use.

Not a power or authority. The Court does NOT have authority to change or nullify the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

That doesn't say "healthcare". That's nothing more than a very vague statement you bleeding hearts believe it means something it doesn't.

Can you read? Can you answer a simple fucking question without trying to divert?

They are trying to destroy the Constitution of the United States. By justifying the 'welfare clause' as a power or authority, the rest of the Constitution is effectively nullified. They want to install fascism by oligarchy.

[CFM]

They are trying to destroy the Constitution of the United States. By justifying the 'welfare clause' as a power or authority, the rest of the Constitution is effectively nullified. They want to install fascism by oligarchy.

Ask them to show you (fill in the blank) in the Constitution and they'll use "welfare clause". It's interesting how that one phrase can be used to spell so many different words.

[Althea]

Somebody's human right to access medical treatment does not obligate somebody else to pay for it.

Then why do most people get their insurance at their employer's expense? Which is then extended to the taxpayer to fund?

[Althea]

Republicans' Dilemma:

Republicans have been unable to convince the majority of USA voters that access to medical treatment should not be considered as a necessary human right and concern of their government.
Failing that, they have been unable to convince voters that it should be repealed before they can devise and pass a superior government medical policy, due to their inability to devise and agree among themselves and pass what they believe should be our government's superior medical policy.

Republicans remain currently opposed to any bi-partisan efforts for improving or replacing the Affordable Care Act with a superior government policy that recognizes human entitlement of access to medical treatment, (I suppose that will be the eventuality).

When Republicans are finally forced to recognize individual's entitlements to medical treatment as a human right, they will need to convince voters that they had never opposed the concept. Otherwise, Republicans opposition to legal entitlement of medical treatment will be as federal minimum wage rate and social security retirement are, programs that will continue to be politically net detrimental to the Republican Party.

Respectfully, Supposn

The overwhelming issue with any Republican plan, is that they don't care about actual healthcare. They fought to kill ACA not because it didn't work. (of course, it never worked as planned as Congressional Republicans de funded key aspects of the program in year 2) They fought to de fund it because they didn't feel that billionaires should be paying a 3.8% cap gains tax on anything over $250k/year in investment income.

They never did, and never will care about healthcare. Why do you think they pushed the killing of ACA before they came up with their giant tax giveaway to billionaires/corporations?

[Supposn]

Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition.
I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition. ...

...WRONG. That money from the federal government is NOT free. YOU pay for it, whether through federal taxation, through the costs of federal regulations, and through the devalued dollar from the federal government printing too many of them. ...

Into the Night, you're correct, we all currently pay for catastrophic medical expenditures that occur in the USA.

To the extent those catastrophic costs are covered by insurance, they're passed on to those purchasing the insurance which increases prices to consumers, and/or employers, and/or unions, and/or non-profit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
To the extent those price increases don't recover the additional cost, the deficiency remains with the insurers, that are profit or nonprofit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
Who or whatever entities eventually pay those catastrophic costs are taxpayers or government agencies funded by taxpayers. Catastrophic medical costs consequentially reduce governments tax revenues or are direct costs to governments.

It would be to insurers benefit to insist their clients avail themselves at no additional costs to themselves, for reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to their conditions. If their clients do not comply, they may be charged additional increased fees because they're failing to prevent medical and financial risks. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.

The additional fees would be passed on to the government and thus absolve the insurers of any responsibility due in such cases to the patients refusing preventive diagnostic and preventive services.

Respectfully, Supposn

[canceled.2021.2]

Healthcare is not a right. Nor should it be

It is a scarce finite resource and responds to the law of supply and demand like all other resources.

That people think others should pay for their healthcare does not mitigate this important truth

[jimmymccready]

But it does not. Only Into The Night imply that courts make law. No one else does; SCOTUS interprets the Constitution.

Scalia's material is clear enough that Into The Night's argument is a fallacy of the stone, fallacy of argument, and a fallacy fallacy that the Welfare Clause is not a power of authority.

[Supposn]

Healthcare is not a right. Nor should it be

It is a scarce finite resource and responds to the law of supply and demand like all other resources.

That people think others should pay for their healthcare does not mitigate this important truth.

Teflon Don, prior to D-day, families' wealth and contributions to tax revenues were not factors of consideration for determining which individuals would be among the earliest and riskiest waves of troops landing on the beaches. We hope that all contribute what they can for the benefit of our nation.

You're contending a nation which requires both the poor and the wealthy to risk and possibly pay with their lives should deny the benefits of medical technology to those unable to afford them. Dependent upon individuals' medical condition, medical care is more or less a necessity, but it is a necessity of life?
Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]

Where does the Constitution mention healthcare?

CFM, Within the U.S. Constitution’s preamble:
“promote the general welfare”.

Within article 1, section 8:
“The Congress shall have power to … provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; … To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; … fix the standard of weights and measures; … 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”.

The Federal courts, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court have thus far upheld this against opposition to federal acts, laws, or regulations such as Social Security retirement, minimum wage rate, mandated individual purchasing of medical insurance, and child labor laws.

Respectfully, Supposn

[canceled.2021.2]

Teflon Don, prior to D-day, families' wealth and contributions to tax revenues were not factors of consideration for determining which individuals would be among the earliest and riskiest waves of troops landing on the beaches. We hope that all contribute what they can for the benefit of our nation.

You're contending a nation which requires both the poor and the wealthy to risk and possibly pay with their lives should deny the benefits of medical technology to those unable to afford them. Dependent upon individuals' medical condition, medical care is more or less a necessity, but it is a necessity of life?
Respectfully, Supposn

Necessity? Maybe

Right? No

With love,

ILA

[Gonzomin]

Not a power or authority. The Court does NOT have authority to change or nullify the Constitution.

Not what they do. They interpret the constitution and find the public welfare clause real and operative. The constitution is a blueprint. It does not cover all problem or all contingencies.

[Althea]

Into the Night, you're correct, we all currently pay for catastrophic medical expenditures that occur in the USA.

To the extent those catastrophic costs are covered by insurance, they're passed on to those purchasing the insurance which increases prices to consumers, and/or employers, and/or unions, and/or non-profit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
To the extent those price increases don't recover the additional cost, the deficiency remains with the insurers, that are profit or nonprofit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
Who or whatever entities eventually pay those catastrophic costs are taxpayers or government agencies funded by taxpayers. Catastrophic medical costs consequentially reduce governments tax revenues or are direct costs to governments.

It would be to insurers benefit to insist their clients to avail themselves at no additional costs to themselves for reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to their conditions at no cost to the insured patient, or be charged additional increased fees because they're failing to prevent medical and financial risks. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.

The additional fees would be passed on to the government and thus absolving the insurer of any responsibility due to the patients refusing preventive diagnostic and preventive services.

Respectfully, Supposn

You just described ACA...the plan Republicans want to kill, and replace with insurance that covers nothing.

[Althea]

Healthcare is not a right. Nor should it be

It is a scarce finite resource and responds to the law of supply and demand like all other resources.

That people think others should pay for their healthcare does not mitigate this important truth

Says the guy who more than likely, gets insurance from his employer

[Gonzomin]

The concept of any insurance is you get a lot of people involved and few will need it. The ones who get in car accidents are financed by those who do not. Those who get in accidents or get ill are financed by those who do not. Insurance requires many people paying premiums and not using it. Insurance companies extract profits from that pool of money. Eliminate the profit motive and insurance is cheaper and less adversarial.It becomes much cheaper. The concept does not change.