Rep. Tom Reed, R-NY-23, said he anticipated the (CBO) score. He said, logically, legislation to repeal a law that mandates health insurance would be expected to, at least initially, decrease the amount of people covered.–Ryan Whalen, Spectrum News
Does everyone need health insurance? Tom Reed says no–they may not want it, may not afford it, or may think they don’t need it. So what to do if the kids are sick? Take them to a federally qualified health center like The Chautauqua Center in Dunkirk where subsidized care is available. If the Federal subsidy isn’t enough, New York State must pay, but not with property taxes, no way. New York will have to find the money somehow, and if that embarrasses NY Governor Cuomo, so much the better.
Congressman Reed and others are correct. Not everyone needs or wants health Insurance. There are some people who are wealthy enough that health Insurance is not needed. Not everyone needs collision insurance on their automobiles. If people could self insure thei new automobiles most of them would save money. Not everyone has an automobile and therefore do not need auto insurance.
I am sure you understand that for any insurance company to survive it must take in more revenue than it pays out in healthcare reimbursements, labor and overhead.
The business model is to collect more in premium and investment income than is paid out in losses, and to also offer a competitive price which consumers will accept. Profit can be reduced to a simple equation:
Profit = earned premium + investment income – incurred loss – underwriting expenses.
Insurers make money in two ways:
Through underwriting, the process by which insurers select the risks to insure and decide how much in premiums to charge for accepting those risks
By investing the premiums they collect from insured parties
The most complicated aspect of the insurance business is the actuarial science of rate-making (price-setting) of policies, which uses statistics and probability to approximate the rate of future claims based on a given risk. After producing rates, the insurer will use discretion to reject or accept risks through the underwriting process.
Insurance companies are mandated by the federal government to have a set amount of cash available to pay claims. This amount is a formula based on the number of insured and is set by the federal government.
I know what you are thinking, Let the Federal Government run the healthcare and take away the profit and set amount of cash reserve that insurance companies must have on hand at all times.
Within a very short time the bureaucracy of the federal government would grow in size and scope and end up being less efficient and more costly than the private sector which would mean they would end up costing the consumers and taxpayers more money. This is what happens under Communism. Reading the US Constitution one can easily see that the Federal Government has absolutely no business in being involved in healthcare or health insurance. Let the free market work untethered by the federal government and we will end up with the best system that is affordable.
You’re talking about people’s lives here not some abtract concept. We could follow the preamble “of life & the pursuit of happiness” and make sure health care is every citizen ‘s right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Free market concepts are inapplicable to healthcare because it is a necessity rather than a luxury.
I would rely on Article I, Section 8 — “Congress shall have the power … to provide for the General Welfare of the United States.” Also, Congress has the power … “to regulate commerce among the several States.”
Interestingly, Medicare is run by the federal government and has administrative costs of only 2.5%. Private health insurance, on the other hand, has average administrative costs of at least 20-30%. The CEO of Aetna received $27.9 MILLION in compensation in 2015. No figures are available for 2016. Blue Cross executives also are compensated in the millions annually. It seems appropriate to assume that those huge salaries are part of the high administrative costs in private health insurance. And Aetna is making a huge profit,despite its claim that it is losing money in some states under the ACA.
To quote Mark Ira Kaufman’s article “The Myth of Free Market Health Insurance,” “There isn’t one free market health insurance system anywhere in the world that works. The United States is the world’s most conspicuous example.” “The countries that relegated private health insurance to the dust bin of history provide overall care equal to or better than that in the United States, cover all of their citizens, manage chronic illnesses with greater effectiveness and at a lower cost, promote healthy lifestyles that keep costs down, and have populations that are on average healthier than Americans. Despite having some of the finest nurses and doctors in the world, the United States ranks 36th in average lifespan among all nations.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Val for Yates,
The words you typed “of life & the pursuit of happiness” are not actually in the Preamble to teh US Constitution.
This is the entire text of the Preamble of the US Constitution;
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I believe that you may be referring to comes from the following phrase in the Declaration of Independence;
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This has absolutely nothing to do with the unconstitutional actions of the Federal Government taking over healthcare or health insurance.
Article 1 Section 8.
“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;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
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.”
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, “nice” meant “precise”], we must learn what the word, “welfare”, meant when the Constitution was ratified. “Welfare”, as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:
Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).
But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”.
Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings? Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?
The Truth is that Congress is NOT authorized to pass laws just because a majority in Congress say the laws promote the “general welfare”! As shown below, James Madison, Father of The Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton, author of most of The Federalist Papers, expressly said The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress!
Rather, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. If a power isn’t specifically granted to Congress in The Constitution, Congress doesn’t have the power. It really is that easy – and our beloved Madison and Hamilton show us.
1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause: Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:
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…
Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress for the Country at large. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers!
Power to Regulate
The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. When Congress deems an aspect of interstate commerce to be in need of supervision, it will enact legislation that must have some real and rational relation to the subject of regulation. Congress may constitutionally provide for the point at which subjects of interstate commerce become subjects of state law and, therefore, state regulation.
When the federal government forces people to purchase health insurance is morally wrong. The enforcement is a fine that is taken by force from these individuals who choose not to purchase health insurance.
How did we get to the point where the federal government claims the power to regulate every aspect of our lives, including forcing us to buy health insurance?
Consider Prohibition: During 1919, everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages for the welfare of teh population. So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amendment).
But with Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the federal government abandoned our Constitution: FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).
Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!
Opinions of the Supreme Court are the way the Constitution is understood. “Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government” could easily encompass universal health insurance.
The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret US Constitution based on the meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written. Activist Judges cannot make ruling on how a vocal majority feels at that time. Sanitizing history to make oneself feel better is wrong.
The Prohibition analogy is a good example. Why didn’t President Woodrow Wilson and the Congress just pass a law outlawing alcohol at the time?
Why didn’t President Franklin Roosevelt (a notorious President for making end runs around the Constitution as he grew big government) and the Congress pass a law to make alcohol legal to sell again instead of repealing the 18th Amendment with teh 21st Amendment ?
The US Constitution must be read and interpreted using the language and meaning of the words as the Constitution was written during that time period.
If this is not liked or cannot be accepted then one is free to pursue amending the Constitution.
It is quite obvious that the Progress Left who are advocating using violence to shut down free speech would like to see the 1st Amendment interpreted differently than written.
(look at the recent riots and destruction of personal and public property at Berkley as they advocate violence and intimidation shutting down speech they do not approve of)
Pretty ironic, these “thugs” are using the tactics of Fascism as they riot to shut down what they label as Fascist speech.
If these “thugs” (either Communists or the useful idiots that Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx spoke of) understood the 1st Amendment they would understand that even in America Fascists have protection under the 1st Amendment and have the freedom of speech.
The reason that the US is ranked as 36th in the world for lifespan has more to do with the measurements being different in many countries. (some countries do not count suicide, some infant deaths, other DWI deaths etc.)
This list has the US at 31st in life expectancy.
Good site for info
Canada and the UK’s healthcare system is beginning to move towards the private free market sector.
There is tons of info out there on the current and looming failures of government controlled healthcare.
I have a friend who had to bring his mother to the US 10 years ago to have surgery in the US because the wait list length of time was longer than her life expectancy.
I have friends in Trinidad who have additional health insurance in the US just in case they get sick.
I highly recommend that all progressive liberals (and all Americans) take a trip to Cuba and visit a couple of hospitals while there. Then we can have a better informed conversation.
Actually, due to continued government growth and ever increasing taxation, on earnings and owned property ,working for additional earnings and income become a necessity to live, prosper and survive in this country. For many of us the “privilege” of having a drivers license and an automobile along with government required automobile insurance becomes a necessity to pay government required property, earnings and income taxes
“The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret US Constitution based on the meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written. ” That statement is opinion not fact.
The Supreme Court has had First Amendment absolutists, notably Justice Hugo L. Black. Even Justice Black made a distinction between speech and conduct.
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” — Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States
I once believed that one ought to be able to distribute political literature at a shopping mall. When this idea was tested in the courts, it was often upheld. But now I think this battle has been lost–today it would cause more than a reasonable amount of trouble even if one were vindicated in the end.