UPMC is now out of network

[blue collar]

There is a world of difference between promoting and providing. The former is a policy protection that ensures each citizen is fully free to pursue the blessings of life, liberty and happiness without government interference and political corruption. The latter can only be accomplished by injuring one group of citizens through taxes to provide a benefit to another group of citizens. This can never be provided equally as mandated by the Constitution which is why it wasn't even considered for the first 150+ years of the Union. We the people never granted Congress the constitutional authority to provide such am unequal benefit which means the federal government is barred from doing so by the very document which gives our nation the right to exist in the first place. Congress, along with the other branches of government, ignores this fundamental restriction to our national peril. The $100 trillion dollars we now owe to this untenable set of programs can never be paid no matter how much you want to tax the income producers in this nation. Set their tax rates to 100% and confiscate every dollar in revenue that comes into every American business and you will still be woefully short of paying off that debt. The founders of this nation never intended to see it go bankrupt by "providing" entitlements which is why there is no provision for them in the Constituion.

The constitution says provide the general welfare and it doesn't mention anything about taxes being uniform.

 

[SparrowHawk]

The constitution says provide the general welfare and it doesn't mention anything about taxes being uniform.

Ever read the 10th Amendment? Well as a public service here it is:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This is why 26 states have filed suit against Obama Lama Ding Dong Care! There is also the Commerce, see below

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”

The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "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 Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.

All of the above is all grand and good except that Obama Lama Ding Dong ignores the COTUS on a regular basis.

View attachment 9208

 

[blue collar]

Ever read the 10th Amendment? Well as a public service here it is:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This is why 26 states have filed suit against Obama Lama Ding Dong Care! There is also the Commerce, see below



All of the above is all grand and good except that Obama Lama Ding Dong ignores the COTUS on a regular basis.

View attachment 9208

My response wasn't about the Affordable Care Act, it was in response to the claim that the constitution doesn't say 'provide' the general welfare. I'm not getting into a debate about the Affordable Care Act, as it doesn't matter what I think, the courts will decide on that for us. I do find it amusing that all of these neo cons won't vote for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus, but if Jesus were running for office, they wouldn't vote for him because he's a 'socialist'

 

[Barrister]

:

Ah, the new American dream has been realized. A chicken in every pot and a bankruptcy filing for every household. No need to take personal responsibility for anything because there is always someone or some evil corporation to pay for the things you would like to have but can't afford on your own. What could possibly go wrong with millions of Americans filing for bankruptcy and sticking the doctors and hospitals with the bills? No chance health care costs would go up under that plan bold solution for skyrocketing health care costs.

"Sticking doctors and hospitals with the bill" .......you are so damn stupid you scare me!!!!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[SparrowHawk]

My response wasn't about the Affordable Care Act, it was in response to the claim that the constitution doesn't say 'provide' the general welfare. I'm not getting into a debate about the Affordable Care Act, as it doesn't matter what I think, the courts will decide on that for us. I do find it amusing that all of these neo cons won't vote for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus, but if Jesus were running for office, they wouldn't vote for him because he's a 'socialist'

I'm voting for Ron Paul who is essentially a Libertarian.

 

[Barrister]

More proof that third-party payers mask and insulate patients from the true costs of medical care. If people paid for their own services rather than looking to group coverage and third-party providers the US wouldn't be spending $2.5 trillion a year for medical care and rates wouldn't keep growing to cover the ever-expanding "needs" people have for care.

Here's an example for you. My best friend's dad had a bad heart all of his life (he learned about it in his twenties). Despite the weak heart, he still managed to be active and provide a good living for his family. he had to take regular breaks to give himself a rest or he would be in serious cardiac trouble. This was the nature of his life until he turned sixty. At that age he was no longer able to get past his weak and dying heart and he ended up living in the cardiac unit of the hospital for about a year. He was on a heart pump and needed regular medical care while he waited out his turn on the heart transplant list. Finally when he was likely days away from dying in the hospital according to the doctors, a transplant heart became available and he was rushed into surgery to receive his new heart. He has been living for more than ten years past the transplant and has a great quality of life. I personally love this man like a father and am very grateful that he was able to survive a life-threatening condition.

The problem with that story is that his lifetime medical insurance premiums were likely around $240,000 in today's dollars ($6,000 a year * 40 years) but the costs just in his final year leading up to the transplant were far in excess of his total lifetime contributions:
Average per day in hospital - $7,000*365 = $2,555,000
Average cost of transplant - $ 145,000

Total cost of transplant not including the years before and after his time in the hospital = $2,700,000. That means financially he only contributed about 9% of the total cost of his care. Where did the other $2,457,000 for that year come from? Obviously this came from the other members of his coverage group even though they didn't know him. Mathematically more than 400 people in his group had to receive no medical benefits in return for their insurance premiums in order for my friend's life to be saved (far more when you consider the full fifty years of him having a bad heart and not just the one year where he was waiting for a transplant). On an annual basis he only contributed less than 0.2% of his own medical costs.

I know this man and the love he has for his family. If he didn't belong to a group insurance program and was rather faced with bankrupting his family with a nearly $3 million medical bill in one year, he would never have permitted the procedure. He would certainly rather have died than to see his family suffer irreparable financial harm trying to keep him alive. By his own evaluation he would never have claimed that his life, at age sixty, was worth the price that was required to save it. His lifetime earnings may not have even been as high as this one medical event and objectively there was no way to accomplish this life-saving procedure except for the generosity of others. now he and I would likely have been fine with a fund being setup in his name and if enough people were willing to donate to save his life, I'm sure he would have gone through with it. Absent the safety net of group coverage, federal tax dollars, or generous donations it would have been logistically impossible to save his life through his own earning potential. And therein lies the problem: lifetime medical care can easily exceed the total lifetime earnings of an individual person and the only way to make up the difference is to force others to pay for someone else's care. Multiply this times 311 million Americans and we have a financial crisis of epic proportions. Just because we have the medical technology to provide care doesn't mean the nation has the financial resources to pay for all of the procedures and drugs and malpractice insurance that people may want or "need".

I can assure you that if I were faced with the same scenario that I wouldn't bankrupt my family to save my own life. I would evaluate each condition and the cost of the treatment and only purchase those procedures that I felt were necessary and beneficial to my entire family. We have lost that direct relationship of cost vs. benefit under these systems and we will never be able to sustain those kinds of costs if the expectation that there is no financial limit to the cost of saving a human life or to provide medical care for every single condition that people may face. Entitlements and socialism have already bankrupted this nation, we just haven't admitted it yet.

You continue to ask the wrong question. The right question is why dies it costs $7000 per day to even be in a hospital. Your ignorance is quite astounding sir!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[CallawayGolf]

The constitution says provide the general welfare and it doesn't mention anything about taxes being uniform.

Careful readers will note that I clearly said what the preamble says about promoting rather than providing:

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

Article I Section 8 says the following:

The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

The preamble establishes what was intended concerning General Welfare - it is to be promoted. "General" is not individual and it implies a broad, non-specific atmosphere where the Blessings of Liberty can be secured for all the people. Nowhere in the Constitution does it anywhere or at anytime even remotely hint at concept of providing monetary benefits or tangible personal services such as health care or retirement to certain individual citizens. The term "uniform" is used multiple times in the document demonstrating that the federal government has no authority to tax citizens or pass regulations that could bring a benefit to one group to the detriment of another. No matter how one looks at it, the personal blessings of liberty cannot be secured if the federal government forces one citizen to pay for a benefit offered to another citizen who 'qualifies" under some arbitrary measure of "need". Using tax dollars to ensure the nation and thus all citizens are protected from attack by a foreign nation is a legitimate use of taxpayer funds per the Constitution. Using one taxpayer's money to pay for another citizen's personal medical care is stealing and the Constitution cannot be tortured into consenting in stealing from one person to give to another.

However, even if a case could be made that these programs were constitutional it still wouldn't change the failed economics of treating every citizen in need and trying to preserve life at any and all costs. The nation and all of its prosperity can not cover $100 trillion in Medicare and Medicaid in all its parts. And these costs aren't going down despite the undeniable level of insolvency but are increasing each year. We can never tax enough, produce enough or borrow enough money to fund this kind of limitless health care. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Please show me mathematically how a $15 trillion economy that generates $2.5 trillion in tax receipts will be able to cover $100+ trillion in unfunded social health care liabilities and another $15 trillion unfunded Social Security liability when we are running a $1.3 trillion budget deficit and are $15 trillion in debt.

 

[CallawayGolf]

:

"Sticking doctors and hospitals with the bill" .......you are so damn stupid you scare me!!!!!

NICDOA
NPJB

So if you run up a big hospital and doctor bill from an illness and then declare bankruptcy, who pays the hospital and doctor for the goods and services provided?

 

[blue collar]

Careful readers will note that I clearly said what the preamble says about promoting rather than providing:


Article I Section 8 says the following:


The preamble establishes what was intended concerning General Welfare - it is to be promoted. "General" is not individual and it implies a broad, non-specific atmosphere where the Blessings of Liberty can be secured for all the people. Nowhere in the Constitution does it anywhere or at anytime even remotely hint at concept of providing monetary benefits or tangible personal services such as health care or retirement to certain individual citizens. The term "uniform" is used multiple times in the document demonstrating that the federal government has no authority to tax citizens or pass regulations that could bring a benefit to one group to the detriment of another. No matter how one looks at it, the personal blessings of liberty cannot be secured if the federal government forces one citizen to pay for a benefit offered to another citizen who 'qualifies" under some arbitrary measure of "need". Using tax dollars to ensure the nation and thus all citizens are protected from attack by a foreign nation is a legitimate use of taxpayer funds per the Constitution. Using one taxpayer's money to pay for another citizen's personal medical care is stealing and the Constitution cannot be tortured into consenting in stealing from one person to give to another.

However, even if a case could be made that these programs were constitutional it still wouldn't change the failed economics of treating every citizen in need and trying to preserve life at any and all costs. The nation and all of its prosperity can not cover $100 trillion in Medicare and Medicaid in all its parts. And these costs aren't going down despite the undeniable level of insolvency but are increasing each year. We can never tax enough, produce enough or borrow enough money to fund this kind of limitless health care. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Please show me mathematically how a $15 trillion economy that generates $2.5 trillion in tax receipts will be able to cover $100+ trillion in unfunded social health care liabilities and another $15 trillion unfunded Social Security liability when we are running a $1.3 trillion budget deficit and are $15 trillion in debt.

It's great that you know their exact intent. While they were writing it, why didn't you suggest that since they used the word 'promote' in the preamble, that they then should use the word 'promote' in art I sec 8?

 

[SparrowHawk]

So if you run up a big hospital and doctor bill from an illness and then declare bankruptcy, who pays the hospital and doctor for the goods and services provided?

PSSSST!

It's called Capitalism and there are winners and losers. They provided the service in hopes of getting paid and the guy/gal flipped a chapter.

Kind of like HP and US Airways did to hundreds of small businesses like the Comfort In near PHL. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Typical Neo-Con, when it works to my advantage I'm all for a rule or law, when it doesn't call it Libtard or Socialist

 

[CallawayGolf]

It's great that you know their exact intent. While they were writing it, why didn't you suggest that since they used the word 'promote' in the preamble, that they then should use the word 'promote' in art I sec 8?

The Constituion isn't divinely inspired or without error. It has several very obvious flaws and the inconsistency shown here is one of them. Thus rules of interpretation need to be followed to arrive at intent and meaning. IMO the preamble is the thesis statement or controlling clause for the entire document (the Supremes don't agree but they are far from perfect too). If the preamble represents the principles upon which the document was founded, then it would take precedence over Article I. Regardless, the concept of Liberty, Freedom, and limited federal powers are clearly evident in the document and also in the Bill of Rights. So when you see "promote" in one section and "provide" in another section you should go back and look at the general intent of the document. Therefore, securing the blessings of liberty is the antithesis of high taxes which represents a loss of liberty (see the Boston Tea Party for a historical reference) and the better understanding of intent would not be to have punitive and confiscatory tax rates in order to provide an unequal distribution of benefits. Prudence and mathematics clearly dictate that these programs have run their ill-fated course and it's time for them to end before the whole nation implodes. People need to pay their own way because there is no way the top 280,000 income earners can pay for 308 million other people's retirement and healthcare costs by "paying their fair share".

 

[CallawayGolf]

PSSSST!

It's called Capitalism and there are winners and losers. They provided the service in hopes of getting paid and the guy/gal flipped a chapter.

Kind of like HP and US Airways did to hundreds of small businesses like the Comfort In near PHL. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Typical Neo-Con, when it works to my advantage I'm all for a rule or law, when it doesn't call it Libtard or Socialist

Capitalism isn't founded upon people using the bankruptcy laws to avoid paying their obligations. Winners and losers are borne out of free market forces and the ability to meet demand while still making a profit. If everyone filed for bankruptcy and failed to pay their debts that would be the end of the United States.

I've already said I don't agree with the way bankruptcies are permitted and I think US should have liquidated in either the first or second filing. Perhaps HP should have as well but that is all in the past now. Blaming Doug for either bankruptcy filing is inaccurate since he has never been the CEO of a bankrupt airline. He has done everything possible to keep HP and US out of bankruptcy court and I think he should be commended for his leadership in that.

Economically I am a least as right as Ron Paul and probably more committed to the Constitution, the rule of law, low taxes and even lower federal spending as I think we need to get the budget down below $1 trillion (not cut $1 trillion like Paul which still leaves us in a deficit). I resigned my post as county chairman of the Republican party when W. was per-anointed as the presidential nominee back in 1999, so I'm curious how I could qualify as a neo-con.

 

[blue collar]

The Constituion isn't divinely inspired or without error. It has several very obvious flaws and the inconsistency shown here is one of them. Thus rules of interpretation need to be followed to arrive at intent and meaning. IMO the preamble is the thesis statement or controlling clause for the entire document (the Supremes don't agree but they are far from perfect too). If the preamble represents the principles upon which the document was founded, then it would take precedence over Article I. Regardless, the concept of Liberty, Freedom, and limited federal powers are clearly evident in the document and also in the Bill of Rights. So when you see "promote" in one section and "provide" in another section you should go back and look at the general intent of the document. Therefore, securing the blessings of liberty is the antithesis of high taxes which represents a loss of liberty (see the Boston Tea Party for a historical reference) and the better understanding of intent would not be to have punitive and confiscatory tax rates in order to provide an unequal distribution of benefits. Prudence and mathematics clearly dictate that these programs have run their ill-fated course and it's time for them to end before the whole nation implodes. People need to pay their own way because there is no way the top 280,000 income earners can pay for 308 million other people's retirement and healthcare costs by "paying their fair share".

Since you brought up the Boston tea party, you should know that it was not about high taxes. I remember learning in elementary school that it was about taxation without representation. When you read about the Tea Act, you will see it actually didn't raise taxes (like the tea-tards portray it did), it was actually a tax break for the East India Tea Company. But like you said, it's YOUR interpretation of the constitution.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Since you brought up the Boston tea party, you should know that it was not about high taxes. I remember learning in elementary school that it was about taxation without representation. When you read about the Tea Act, you will see it actually didn't raise taxes (like the tea-tards portray it did), it was actually a tax break for the East India Tea Company. But like you said, it's YOUR interpretation of the constitution.

I wasn't meaning to imply that the Boston Tea Party was about high taxes but rather taxes naturally erode liberties. A 100% tax rate naturally means a person has 0% liberty over his income. A 0% tax rate naturally means that a person has 100% liberty to use his income as he chooses within the constraints of the law. Thus each percent increase in taxes represents an equal and corresponding loss of personal liberty. Therefore securing the blessings of liberty is inextricably coupled with maintaining the lowest possible tax rate.

 

[SparrowHawk]

What this is really about is the average Joe/Jane taking the same laws that Corporations use and using them for their benefit. Why do you think they changed the personal BK laws? Because the big banks and the like saw the bubble coming and wanted to ensure their payday. So they called up their bought and paid for Congress and took care of that quick fast and in a hurry.

Morally & Ethically there is no difference between a individual running up huge debt either by design or unforeseen events like illness then a Corporation knowing full well that they would be unlikely to pay a local small business due to a soon to be filed Bankruptcy.

The problem is that a united and outraged citizenry could not just occupy Wall Street with one big orgy they could drive the entire financial system to it's knees and get the changes required to get this country back on track in under 180 days. Two things would need to happen around August 1, 2012:

1: Every Credit Card Holder with holds payment for 90 days, sending a letter indicating that they have a new policy of charging $5.00 to open and process payment. Every Letter sent Certified to the bank CEO.

2: Come Election Day, the nations voters implement G.R.I.P (Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians) which simply means you vote only for those not currently in office. Instant Term Limits

Then watch everyone in the power seats scramble to meet the will of the people. Hey I can dream can't I? There are likely 300 million credit cards most carry balances and the citizens could easily bankrupt Bank of America and others. What's the consequences to the individual? Precious little if everyone rose up. Whe don't have to live as slaves to Government and their allies in the private sector.