I often hear conservatives rail against universal health care coverage for all Americans, and one of the most commonly spoken talking points is that they don’t want government bureaucrats in Washington, DC making decisions regarding their health care.
What I’m wondering is how that would be any different than the current system, in which bureaucrats from health insurance companies make decisions regarding the health care individuals receive.
Although….now that I think of it, there is one big difference: the bureaucrats making those decisions for private insurers are primarily motivated by making decisions that benefit their companies’ financial bottom lines, whereas the same would not be true under a government-run system.
A good point that I had not considered.
And what’s more, a comparison of the overhead costs of Medicaid and the overhead costs shows that Medicaid is far more efficiently run than private, for-profit insurance companies.
There has to be a better system than the one we currently have…
I have said for a long time now, the conservatives aren’t interested in us saving our money. They are only interested in who gets it.
Trivia fact for you: Scott Walker ran a socialized health care system for seven years, and it saved millions for county taxpayers. That was before he was against it, of course.
Chris, I know it’s all about who gets the money…it’s just sad that our nation’s health care system has become largely motivated by profit margins, rather than patient care.
I love it when you all agree with yourselves. It’s funny.
“What I’m wondering is how that would be any different than the current system, in which bureaucrats from health insurance companies make decisions regarding the health care individuals receive.”
Ummm, it’s called the CONSTITUTION!
Rich, where in the Constitution are the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice, Homeland Security, etc. mentioned? By your logic, since the Constitution does’t explicitly mention them, they’re not Constitutional. What about Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare? They’re not mentioned either, so I’m wondering if you think they should go as well.
However, if we want to talk about the Constitutionality of government-provided health care, I’d point to Article 1, Section 8 (emphasis mine):
“The Congress shall have Power 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;”
Perhaps the genius of the Constitution (and the men who wrote it) is that it doesn’t address every circumstance or situation, because the framers were smart enough to know that times can change.
“They’re not mentioned either,…”
So you admit that it’s not Constitutional. Thank you for making my point for me 🙂
Rich, I didn’t admit it’s not Constitutional; in fact, I cited Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to back up my assertion that it is Constitutional, given that the Congress has the authority to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
Where in the constitution does it say that I need to pay for everyones health. Why stop at health coverage why not cover my car insurance, life insurance etc?
You don’t need to pay for everyone, Tim. Just your parents, your wife’s parents, and your children.If everyone can do that, there is no need for national healthcare.
Zach, I’m not going to fight the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice, Homeland Security nor Social Security nor Medicaid/Medicare; I really see no need.
I never said that “since the Constitution does’t explicitly mention them, they’re not Constitutional”. Indeed the document is to be interpreted and implemented accordingly.
As for “Perhaps the genius of the Constitution (and the men who wrote it) is that it doesn’t address every circumstance or situation, because the framers were smart enough to know that times can change.”
Yes, times change BUT the CONSTITUTION does NOT, unless it is ammended!
So….the answer to your initial question is that one bureaucrat is really a business man in a free country. Regulate him all you want. Tax him all you want under our current Constitution….
The other bureaucrat would be implementing a nanny state under nothing that I can find in our Constitution.
You asked the question. There’s the answer.
“I never said that “since the Constitution does’t explicitly mention them, they’re not Constitutional”. Indeed the document is to be interpreted and implemented accordingly.”
Ultimately this is an issue of interpretation. You’ve admitted you interpret the Constitution much differently than I do, and I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what the general welfare clause really means.