Mitt Romney's failure is proof positive

[audtatious]

In April '06, Romneycare was enacted in Mass in order to "provide health insurance for virtually every citizen within the next three years." House Speaker Sal DiMasi made statements like "Nobody in Massachusetts will ever be turned away for health care."

The law says people earning under three times the federal poverty level --- that's $29,000 a year for an individual --- can buy a state-subsidized health plan with no deductibles and rich benefits, including dental care. Sweet!!!!

So, it's been about 2.5 years since enacted. How's it going?

Well, right now it is about a 100 day wait for someone to be able to see a primary care physician, which is on top of the weeks it takes to even find a doctor in the first place as the number of doctors who are accepting new patients has dropped to a historic low. Rural healthcare is even worse. Free clinics are now having to treat patients who have insurance and those with regular insurance is starting to visit ER's for care since they can't get in to see their primary care physicians. Some doctors are now starting to close shop and move elsewhere due to the amount of stress and additional hours they are having to spend (60+ each week). Some doctors offer Nurse Practitioners in order to help speed things up in regards to more urgent care.

Mass is initiating new programs to try and help resolve the problem. They are giving money to increase the size of UofM college classrooms in order to be able to support training for a larger number of "doctors" and they have instituted a loan repayment program where they will pay 20-75k of a students loans for a year of their service in Mass (on top of their salaries of course). But who knows how good this will be overall. Based on the latest AMA survey of doctors, only 2% of all doctors who go through college are even contemplating primary-care roles.

So, this was implemented with great fanfare to be the role model of a nationalized universal-health care plan. I has succeeded in running doctors out of primary care practices and into hospitals (or leaving the state) where they can somewhat control their work hours while making more pay, is now starting to cost the taxpayers more and more money and it is impacting those who are paying for health care as they can't find a doctor or can't get an appointment.

Way to go Romney! What's next, forcing all doctors to spend time in primary care facilities? That would be a great way to ensure Mass will lose more doctors as a whole.

[rn79870]

Yeah, terrible. But wait. That beats what a 22 year old friend of the family went through. He had no insurance, and had gone to the emergency room with severe headaches. They gave him aspirin and sent him home. Finally he fainted in the shower. The emergency room took him this time and found a brain tumor. They operated but it was advanced.

At least his 3 year old daughter got to kiss her daddy good bye the next morning as they unplugged his life support and discussed donating his organs. She still asks, some two months later, "when is my daddy is coming home."

Yeah, a 100 day wait for a doctor sounds pretty good by comparison.

Next issue.

[audtatious]

What about the people who go through similar problems and can't get in to see a doctor at all untill they have a stroke or heart attack?

Sorry, but your 1 story goes both ways. The proof positive is that the Gov itself is incapable of supplying a viable/working national health care system for every person in this country.

[dusred]

One of my Cousins recently died of Cancer at age 14.

Her Father found a place in Hungary which was known to treat all kinds of Cancer effectively, but they catch was that they were booked for 3 years so she just ended up dying instead.

I can just imagine our entire nation's health care system being the same. Nationalized health care doesn't work.

[96Qowner]

Yeah, terrible. But wait. That beats what a 22 year old friend of the family went through. He had no insurance, and had gone to the emergency room with severe headaches. They gave him aspirin and sent him home. Finally he fainted in the shower. The emergency room took him this time and found a brain tumor. They operated but it was advanced.

At least his 3 year old daughter got to kiss her daddy good bye the next morning as they unplugged his life support and discussed donating his organs. She still asks, some two months later, "when is my daddy is coming home."

Yeah, a 100 day wait for a doctor sounds pretty good by comparison.

Next issue.

?????????

And if he'd had insurance the emergency room would have diagnosed the tumor right away? That makes no sense at all.

Health care costs what it costs. It doesn't matter who pays for it. Perhaps if we didn't hire corporations to pay our bills (for their profit) we'd all have more money for health care. And government has never been known as the most frugal means to accomplish ANYTHING. Why make it even more expensive?

When did perfect health become a Federal or State entitlement? People get sick. People die. It's no ones fault.

[rn79870]

Sure, let's pay a trillion dollars for a war that GW lied to get us into, (a war that has lasted longer than WWII for us) and a trillion dollars to bail out the other crooks while their CEOs are getting multi-million dollar bonuses. Yep, both of those are far better than having used the money for health care and training doctors who couldn't afford a college education let alone the costs of Medical school. Better recheck your priorities here guys.

[audtatious]

Come on Bob, you know better than that

[Jesda]

Sure, let's pay a trillion dollars for a war that GW lied to get us into, (a war that has lasted longer than WWII for us) and a trillion dollars to bail out the other crooks while their CEOs are getting multi-million dollar bonuses. Yep, both of those are far better than having used the money for health care and training doctors who couldn't afford a college education let alone the costs of Medical school. Better recheck your priorities here guys.

The role of the federal government is primarily to uphold the constitution and defend the states from foreign invaders and enemies. We can argue in another thread about how well that role was executed, but it is indeed a written obligation of the federal government.

Healthcare is not a federal role, nor should it be. The needs of each state and region vary tremendously. It is not an issue of priorities as you suggest.

[AZhitman]

The role of the federal government is primarily to uphold the constitution and defend the states from foreign invaders and enemies.

Healthcare is not a federal role, nor should it be.

The beauty of this severe "ownage" is in its simplicity.

Socialism doesn't work. Anything that smells like socialism doesn't work. And deluding people into thinking that socialist responses to percieved ills WILL work is simply irresponsible.

I'm surprised no one's calling for Federalization of local police departments.

There's plenty of other countries with socialized medicine. Interestingly, there's no mass exodus of sick people to those countries. Hmmm...

[rn79870]

Except Jesda, you forgot Article 1, section 8Section 8. 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; Add to that the other general clauses that make up the Preamble, such as justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty. But those objects are the broad ends or purposes of the Constitution, not just means or powers.

And Greg, you seem to be shooting too quick the older you get buddy...

[audtatious]

That is talking about the US as a nation/country, not individuals.

[rn79870]

I'm not sure I understand what you meant by that but I'll point out that Article 1, section 8 enumerates the powers of congress to provide for the general welfare of American citizens, not merely states. These, and the other powers mentioned in the preamble are the same powers used to authorize things like the Interstate highway act, National Institute of Health, even federal participation in programs like HUD (section 8), and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. To think otherwise is to assume that every social program the US government has promoted in it's 200+ years is illegal.

[audtatious]

Only if you read the word welfare to include poverty and the poor. The word welfare in regards to Article 1, section 8 has nothing to do with providing to support citizens. Read again.

Specifically, it has to do with monies, credit, military use and legislation, uniform rules, counterfeiting, science and arts, tribunals, war, army/navy and land regulation.

[AZhitman]

Only a true Liberal would interpret that to mean "the government is responsible for my well-being".

Using Bob's logic, there's got to be a government program out there to come mow my lawn. After all, it's 100 degrees outside and I just don't feel like sweating today.

[audtatious]

Well, I guess as a stretch the use of land in regards to that section could be considered since land is used for all the dead bodies that are the result of no healthcare.

[96Qowner]

Not sure you're on solid ground there, Matt.

First, the battle over the General Welfare Clause was all but lost six decades ago in United States v. Butler (1936) and Helvering v. Davis (1937). In Butler, the Court struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which taxed processors in order to pay farmers to reduce production. Although invalidating the statute, the Court adopted the Hamiltonian view (almost in passing) that the General Welfare Clause is a separate grant of congressional authority, linked to and qualified by the spending power. Sorenson perceives correctly that virtually all governmental activity involves the expenditure of money; accordingly, there is little difference between Hamilton’s view and Crosskey’s position that the General Welfare Clause represents a plenary grant of power.

Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is critical or urgent changes with the times."

Justice Harlan Stone struck the final blow in Flemming v. Nester in 1954, holding that questions concerning the propriety of conditions imposed on spending, and questions concerning the generality of the benefits, were for the Congress to resolve–-subject to judicial invalidation "only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification." However disheartening such cases may be to advocates of a narrower and more constraining General Welfare Clause, they do reinforce the urgent need for quality research from competent scholars like Sorenson.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html

[rn79870]

Sorry Matt. Article 1, Section 8 empowers the government in matters of public welfare. Public meaning the citizens, welfare meaning expending money for the social good of the citizens, or classes of citizens. (Social Security is an example of a class receiving a benefit)

The "provide for the general welfare of the United States "provision, which was intended to limit the ability of Congress to tax and spend, has been radically expanded, with the help of the federal judiciary, and is now the constitutional basis for the myriad of federal spending programs that consume the bulk of the taxes extracted from the American people every year.

Simply reading the clause is ineffective without applying the constitutional interpretation of that clause to arrive at the current law, which is, Congress can provide for the public welfare. Again, to think otherwise is to believe that this government has participated in illegal activity for 200+ years. We both know better.

[audtatious]

Hm. I looked at the wrong article 1 section 8. I'll have to look for the right one. I just simply looked for article 1 section 8 and the section I was reading was:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8Article 1 - The Legislative BranchSection 8 - Powers of Congress

[AZhitman]

Certainly Congress CAN provide for the public welfare.

The question is, SHOULD it?

CAN it do so effectively and efficiently?

IS IT the best solution?

I hold that it is not.

[Jesda]

Except Jesda, you forgot Article 1, section 8Section 8. 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; Add to that the other general clauses that make up the Preamble, such as justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty. But those objects are the broad ends or purposes of the Constitution, not just means or powers.

That is not and never will be a free ride to Euro-socialism, no matter how much you want it to be.

[rn79870]

It wasn't intended to be. It was merely quoted to show how wrong your initial statement about the Constitution was.

[Jesda]

It wasn't intended to be. It was merely quoted to show how wrong your initial statement about the Constitution was.

Even "general welfare" has its legal limitations.

Quote »“The general welfare” and “the common defense” are general terms used in a preamble that refer to the itemized powers that follow them. They are not enumerated powers. The enumerated power in the first sentence is “taxation”, ie: the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises [for the purpose of] providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. [/quote]http://www.tenthamendmentcente...untry/

In other words, the powers of providing for the "general welfare" are specified. Everything else is constitutionally not a federal power. It doesnt mean the federal government cant acquire that power, but it does mean that the power to provide for healthcare is not in itself justified by "general welfare."

It is not a constitutionally justified federal role. I can become a federal role, but it should not.

[rn79870]

No. Providing for the general welfare is fluid. The courts and the legislature have seen to that.

And healthcare has precedent under that clause (Art.1, Sec.8). It's called Medicare.

[Jesda]

I think you've missed my point.

Federal healthcare is not constitutionally justified, as "general welfare" includes specific powers. It doesn't mean its unconstitutional, it means the constitution doesn't provide for its existence.