|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 12, 2013 13:30:24 GMT
BTW, for those who say Obamacare is settled law and cannot be changed......why do you think Republicans should simply give up, when Democrats never do?
I'm the person that keeps saying that "Obamacare" needs to be changed and that Republicans are the logical source for making many of those changes. What I've also been saying repeatedly is that the Republicans are not going to be able to "uninsure" the tens of millions of uninsured that will gain insurance because of "Obamacare" so repeal or defunding of the law is not a political option.
Personally I'd like to see something completely new created to phase out "Obamacare" and replace it with something better but it must still be designed so that every American, regardless of their ability to pay, will be ensured that they will receive quality health care. The sooner a proposal is drafted that would accomplish this the easier it is to make the transition and the lower the cost to make that transition. It has to be a plan that is better than "Obamacare" and while Republicans keep saying "Obamacare" is a disaster they haven't been able to come up with anything better to my knowledge.
Take a page from my proposal to privatize Social Security. It increases the guaranteed minimum retirement benefits under the "safety net" four-fold and it also increases the anticipated retirement income from a maximum of about $25,000/yr to a projected average of well over $100,000/yr. and ends Medicare completely because people will be able to afford private health insurance when they retire. My proposal is far superior to Social Security/Medicare and even "liberals" have admitted that but the problem is that because Social Security/Medicare are so firmly entrenched that it takes 40-45 years and about $40 trillion to make the change to privatization. Of course that $40 trillion will still need to be spent if we don't privatize but I had to come up with a new source of revenue to pay for it.
I want a new plan to ensure that the tens of millions of Americans that couldn't afford health care services or the insurance to pay for them will be provided with those necessary medical services. I've repeatedly stated that. Rpublicans complain about the problems with Obamacare, sometimes honestly and sometimes not, but they don't offer anything better.
We need a better plan to replace Obamacare. There I've said it again. Now what is the proposal that is better than Obamacare? Did you like my proposal to replace Obamacare that I posted in the Healthcare forum? It didn't change the fundamental requirements of providing for the "uninsured" but did change the responsibility from the federal government to the state government which is responsible for the "general Welfare of the People" of America. Republicans repeatedly claim that the States are better at providing benefits to the People so I moved responsibility from the federal government to the States and that would end Obamacare by replacing it with something better. So what do you think about that proposal?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 12, 2013 17:30:41 GMT
I'm also of the belief that state's no better how to care for their own. Will it always be that 100% get taken care of? No. And part of that is because of the people themselves......who won't come in to the doctor/hospital even if it's provided free for them. Take for instance in Dallas County (you brought it up the other day). 30% of children below 18 yrs. are supposedly living in poverty and many without health insurance. However, they STILL get treated.....FREE. Not only our C.H.I.P.S. program.....but also as I told you the other day, several of the TOP hospitals treat them free. Since 1996, THE top Children's Hospital in Dallas County treat children......both in everyday care and needed surgeries, etc.....FREE. No child is turn away based on a family's ability to pay!!! They are getting care FREE and at the TOP hospital. They....and other medical centers immunize children free.....and yet there are still some not immunized. That's because you cannot FORCE parents to bring their kids in for immunizations. So, as much as the people try......there are always going to be some who go without healthcare......and that will even be the case under Obamacare.
You also complain that children are starving somewhere in this country. But I don't know where. In every school I know of, they receive FREE lunches AND breakfasts. So that leaves just dinner that their parents, many who are on food stamps....to provide. A family of 4 is described at being at the poverty level at $23,550/yr.....surely with that AND their food stamps, they can afford to feed their children one good meal a day and on week-ends? Those at this level are not described as starving; but rather don't have as much food as they'd like. No one is starving in our country unless that is their choice.
In the border town here in Texas....they have a huge problem with diabetes and obesity. They have programs to try and instruct the people in how to eat healthy. And yet......their favorite thing is Cheetos with melted cheese poured over it. That's what they want.....no matter how much instruction or help you give them. They'd rather take their diabetes shots and continue eating as they like too....instead of changing their eating habits.
So.....my point is.....sometimes despite the BEST of efforts......it helps, but it cannot do everything. I do believe that states do a better job...and certainly the private or not-for-profit hospitals do as cited above. I'm sure if you asked the people who are getting treated free at Parkland Hospital or Children's Hospital in Dallas IF they'd rather be placed on Medicaid, they'd probably tell you they like what they are getting.
BTW, Children's Hospital of Dallas spends $157 MILLION annually in "community benefits.....uncompensated.
Let's look at the good that is done too....and not just always dwell on the negative or act as if nothing good is ever done.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 12, 2013 18:50:52 GMT
We can't be responsible for a person failing to take advantage of "free health care" so long as it's there for the person. We can complain if actually obtaining the health care is problematic though. For example when I checked on how to obtain free health care in Texas for another forum I found there are multiple was in which it can be obtained, often requiring the person to jump though hopes in trying to figure out how to obtain it as well as "qualification requirements" and/or legitimate health care services not being provided based upon which way they need to go.
For example EHow.com provided the information that Women's Health Care services were provided for by the Texas Women's Health Program....... unless they wanted an abortion that they have a Constitutional right to because the Texas Women's Health Program doesn't provide abortion services. Based upon the recent Texas anti-abortion law there might not be a private abortion clinic within hundreds of miles of where they live so they can be effectively denied quality health care in such a case. Yes, I know that some people don't believe in abortions but they don't have to get one if they don't believe in them. An abortion can literally be a life-saving medical procedure in rare cases and yet a woman in many parts of Texas would be left to die because she was unable to travel to one of the few remaining private abortion clinic that can be many hundreds of mile away.
But back to the point. If all of the States can ensure quality health care services for 100% of the residents in the states so long as they take advantage of the free services if necessary then they've done all they can or be expected of government. I would also suggest a "one-stop shopping" system that ensures the "free medical services" if required because making it complex will inherently result in many not being able to find the right "hoop" to jump through.
Have Republicans advocated that? Not to my knowledge. If "State" run programs to ensure that no one is without relatively easy access to free health care if required that covers all legitimate needs then my proposal for a Constitutional Amendment to require it makes sense. Simply leaving it arbitrarily up to the States hasn't worked so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 12, 2013 22:58:35 GMT
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. We can't be responsible for a person failing to take advantage of "free health care" so long as it's there for the person. We can complain if actually obtaining the health care is problematic though. For example when I checked on how to obtain free health care in Texas for another forum I found there are multiple was in which it can be obtained, often requiring the person to jump though hopes in trying to figure out how to obtain it as well as "qualification requirements" and/or legitimate health care services not being provided based upon which way they need to go.
For example EHow.com provided the information that Women's Health Care services were provided for by the Texas Women's Health Program....... unless they wanted an abortion that they have a Constitutional right to because the Texas Women's Health Program doesn't provide abortion services. Based upon the recent Texas anti-abortion law there might not be a private abortion clinic within hundreds of miles of where they live so they can be effectively denied quality health care in such a case. Yes, I know that some people don't believe in abortions but they don't have to get one if they don't believe in them. An abortion can literally be a life-saving medical procedure in rare cases and yet a woman in many parts of Texas would be left to die because she was unable to travel to one of the few remaining private abortion clinic that can be many hundreds of mile away.
So what? I'm on Medicare...and there are a lot of doctors that don't take Medicare patients either. Doesn't mean I'm being discriminated against. And BTW, it's NOT a "Constitutional right" to have an abortion. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. Geez. And no.....women don't don't have to get abortions if they don't believe in them......and that works both ways. Doctors who don't believe in killing babies in the womb and hospitals who don't want to be that business, don't have to. And NO......abortions do NOT save the life of a woman. NEVER. There are cases, of course, where a pregnant woman has been in a car wreck or something like that...and maybe the baby has to be delivered or even taken C-section. But it NEVER means the doctor has to actually purposefully KILL the baby on the way out first. NEVER necessary in order to save a woman's life. NEVER. They take the baby....and if it can be saved; it's saved. If the baby or the mother die.......it's not due to something the doctor or hospital did or caused. YOU and other abortion supporters want the doctor to stick a knife or scissors in that baby's neck to actually make sure it's dead before it's delivered or taken C-section. That's the difference.
But back to the point. If all of the States can ensure quality health care services for 100% of the residents in the states so long as they take advantage of the free services if necessary then they've done all they can or be expected of government. I would also suggest a "one-stop shopping" system that ensures the "free medical services" if required because making it complex will inherently result in many not being able to find the right "hoop" to jump through.
Have Republicans advocated that? Not to my knowledge. If "State" run programs to ensure that no one is without relatively easy access to free health care if required that covers all legitimate needs then my proposal for a Constitutional Amendment to require it makes sense. Simply leaving it arbitrarily up to the States hasn't worked so far.
Why don't you run for Congress on that platform of free health care for everyone as a Constitutional Amendment and see how far you get?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 13, 2013 12:10:15 GMT
1) The United State Supreme Court, that establishes Constitutional precedent, established that a woman does have a Constitutional Right to an abortion in it's 1973 Roe v Wade decision. In that decision it fundamentally established that there could be no legal restrictions on the woman's Right to have an abortion during the first trimester, limited restrictions during the second trimester, but that once the natural viability of the fetus occurred a woman's Right to an abortion was fundamentally limited to cases where a doctor determined that an abortion was necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html
2) I don't believe that any person has a "Right" to free health care services in America but I do believe that we have a moral obligation to ensure that no person is denied health care services simply based upon their inability to pay for them. This is no different than the laws we have that require the voluntary guardian of a child (whether it's the parent or another person caring for a child) to provide for the welfare of the child. A child does not have an Inalienable Right to expect someone else to feed, cloth, or provide shelter for it (an Inalienable Right cannot impose an obligation on another person) but because we're a moral and compassionate society we do require that guardian of a child provide for that under the law.
So I'm moral and compassionate and believe that being moral and compassionate is necessary for America.
I do find it hard to believe that so many of the "religious right" apparently don't believe in being moral or compassionate when it comes to ensuring that those that can't afford medical services would receive them. Why is that? Didn't Jesus teach his followers to be moral and compassionate when it came to those in need?
If I was ever to run for office it would certainly include being moral and compassionate related to the law. While my primary agenda would be based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person that our government was created to protect I would not oppose laws based upon morality and/or compassion that are not founded upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. The "social contract of government" is not limited exclusively to the protections of our Rights.
|
|
I'm on Medicare...and there are a lot of doctors that don't take Medicare patients either. Doesn't mean I'm being discriminated against. And BTW, it's NOT a "Constitutional right" to have an abortion. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. Geez. And no.....women don't don't have to get abortions if they don't believe in them......and that works both ways. Doctors who don't believe in killing babies in the womb and hospitals who don't want to be that business, don't have to. And NO......abortions do NOT save the life of a woman. NEVER. There are cases, of course, where a pregnant woman has been in a car wreck or something like that...and maybe the baby has to be delivered or even taken C-section. But it NEVER means the doctor has to actually purposefully KILL the baby on the way out first. NEVER necessary in order to save a woman's life. NEVER. They take the baby....and if it can be saved; it's saved. If the baby or the mother die.......it's not due to something the doctor or hospital did or caused. YOU and other abortion supporters want the doctor to stick a knife or scissors in that baby's neck to actually make sure it's dead before it's delivered or taken C-section. That's the difference.