Dodd unveils health-care plan

JIrby, Colorado — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:52:17 GMT

Cost estimate? I have an estimate. About the same amount Halliburton stole from the American taxpayers and their grandchildren in Iraq.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Al, KS — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:58:37 GMT

When are these candidates going to quit chipping away at the edges and get down to real universal health care. We as a nation have to join the civilized world and provide all Americans with free health care...no matter what the cost. I would think that taking the burden off the citizens and businesses would more than generate the additional tax revenue to pay for the plan...it would create jobs and eliminate the corrupt health insurance industry that is robbing us all. I had to make some changes to my health care insurance this week, and it took me 2 days just to get a human to answer the phone. Imagine concentrationg on getting well, not on what or whether the insurance company is going to pay. Imagine companies investing here, in plants, offices and jobs, knowing that they will not have a huge health care burden. Imagine no longer worrying about pre-existing conditions (what a crock). I want a candidate with this kind of imagination.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:01:11 GMT

Something tells me that with all the health plans being offered, we may end up adding more and more to the deficit, adding to unemployment and going back to the carter days.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

GONZO-GATOR 2 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:21:11 GMT

GONZO-GATE..IT WILL NOT JUST GO AWAY.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:21:27 GMT

To Al, KS--There is nothing in the Constitution which permits, authorizes, requires or even suggests that the Federal government has the right, power or duty ot "provide all Americans with free health care (which wouldn't be free at all because we'll pay increased taxes or fees [or both] for the "privilege)." If you can find a place where this power is granted to the government I'd like to see it.

The U.S. is not organized like the rest of the "civilized world" (your term). Our national government is one of LIMITED and DELEGATED powers (limited sovereignty), unlike most of the world (where the national governments are the true sovereigns). I'm surprised that most Americans can't recognize or appreciate this very fundamental and simple FACT.

Short of amending the Constitution, the Federal government should not even consider getting into the health care business. Candidates for President (who should know better) should stop talking about health care, unless they're willing to engage in the solemn debate necessary to amend the Constitution, and abide by the result (which might not be to their liking, given what happened in 1993-1994).

None of the "plans" address this, and none of them address the question of why something becomes more affordable because it's imposed as a tax which everyone has to pay. or why a person has to be required to buy something he or she may not want or be able to afford.

Let's get some serious discussion about these questions. Either that, or drop the discussion altogether (my personal preference).

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Al, KS — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:35:02 GMT

Richard, the govt is in the health care business...medicare...etc. Maybe you like getting ripped of by insurance companies that are second only to the oil companies in profit, but I don't.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

BJ, Medford, OR — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:40:15 GMT

what part of a single payer system don't these guys get???
Get rid of the insurance companys and let the free market system work with one payer, based on the Medicare system,

Dodd unveils health-care plan

DEMS Fighting Back Against Demonic Wing-nuts — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:48:03 GMT

Jerry- your post was fine right up to the Carter reference. Once again a stupid attack against Dems.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

MK,MO — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:58:19 GMT

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA / that's one of the poorest arguments against a national health insurance plan I have heard, nobody said it would be free, but if everyone is required to participate it will be affordable, I would guess you don't pay for health insurance, but if you did it would reduce the cost of what you currently pay and the people who currently pay nothing would have to pay some, national healthcare isn't going to ruin anyone but it will most certainly help many, so just relax and take a long ride in the beamer around your gated community, you'll still be rich when universal healthcare is implemented, get over it

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:59:29 GMT

Al--I don't like getting ripped off by anyone, especially the government. That's one reason I don't want it in the health care business (and that includes Medicare, which is equally unconstitutional and never should have been enacted in the 1960s).

Nothing the government does is ever done efficiently or in a cost-effective manner. Anyone who believes otherwise is confused at best. What makes anyone think that a government that can't control the borders or effectively keep defense on budget can control and manage 1/7th of the economy? I know it can't and won't, and I don't want to have to pay for the mistakes.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:09:22 GMT

Goverment screwed up Social Security already. God knows how they would destroy the health field.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:19:25 GMT

Social Security could be fixed easily by one simple change. If FICA tax applied to 100% of a person's income instead of being limited to the first $96,000 Social Security would remain solvent for the next 75 years. And over 80% of taxpayers wouldn't need to pay another dime.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:32:18 GMT

Richard Fifield, the US spends a greater proportion of GDP on health care than any other nation on earth yet has worse health than most of the industrialized world on every measure from infant mortatlity to life expectancy. Our private sector health care is more expensive and less effective than the government run health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Medicare has administrative costs 1/15 of the insurance-based portion of the industry. Half of all patients in this country are already covered by government programs or government-paid insurance of one sort or another. Why shouldn't the rest of us enjoy those benefits?

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Sick & Tired in Oklahoma — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:20:37 GMT

Here it is in a nutshell:

The United States can't even take care of their own people.

There's homeless Americans all over the U.S., jobs are leaving the U.S., thus leaving very little available for Americans. Oil companies screwing JQ Public with excuses for the high prices. (LIES all LIES). The government has screwed up HealthCare so bad, HMO, PPO, Dosie Doe's....The co-pays are rigged to make you think your getting a better deal. NOT!!!
My healthcare cost per check are outragous. My company doesn't pick up that much on their end.
It will take a miracle for someone to figure that mess out.
Americans are losing jobs by companies closing down, moving, major corporate buyouts-thus following layoffs. MMMMMMM Wonder why the housing market is in the mess it's in.......

The U.S. can send BILLIONS of dollers to Foreign countries, but can't take care of our own. We need a President that will take charge of his country first!

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Robert — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:10:07 GMT

To Richard Fifield,

I´m an American living in a European country and I can tell you their healthcare system is better. I have had routine visits to the doctor, emergency visits to the doctor, and I´ve had a serious knee surgery. And you know what, it´s damn near free. If you compared the cost of my healthcare in taxes with the price I would pay for premiums (and at that during a year with no health issues, let alone a year with a knee operation and numerous other episodes), I would be paying about half of what I would pay in the United States.

Now maybe you´ve never lived outside of the United States, so really, how could you know? Your common sense delusions that America isn´t Europe and shouldn´t look to the rest of the world as an example is a natural extension of the isolation America faces between Canada and Mexico.

Well, I´m here to tell you on a personal level that you´re wrong, and I´ve seen it with my own eyes. There is no other way to put it.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Stan Kubick — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:57:05 GMT

US health care by any measure is the best in the world.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Olivia — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:02:32 GMT

Chris Dodd needs to go to New Orleans and examine her post-Katrina health care system which, per a recent article in the New York Times, is in Third World-like conditions. Many of her doctors and other health care personnel have either been forced to evacuate by Katrina or left later due to the lack of business, and she has very few functioning hospitals. People with conditions ranging from cancer and heart disease to chronic diseases such as diabetes and depression haven't been able to find adequate care, and there have been many preventable deaths as a result. Hospital emergency rooms are jammed so patients must wait for hours. It is to be hoped that the current hurricane season continues being as mild as it has been because were another major storm to hit southeastern Louisiana, the lack of medical facilities would cause a great human tragedy. Dodd should visit New Orleans and bring her health care crisis to the forefront as a campaign issue.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:14:53 GMT

I'm going to take a risk here, but I think that most everyone in this blog stream missed my point, and is more interested in attacking than in understanding. So here goes:

1--MK, MO: I don't know where you come off accusing me of taking my position because I'm rich. I'm not. I live paycheck to paycheck just like most people. That's one of the reasons (not the most important one, to be sure, but one of them) that I don't want this government "benefit" pushed on me. If I were rich, the extra taxes wouldn't affect me, and I might not oppose the plan so vigorously (in fact, the people pushing this most strongly seem to be very rich indeed [John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, etc.]), because then I COULD afford it. It's people in the middle class who can least afford additional taxes, user fees, mandatory premiums, etc. So lets keep the snide references to gated communities, beamers, etc. out of the discussion, okay? I didn't raise those kinds of attacks, and I don't appreciate the ad hominem attacks just because you disagree with me;

2--John B: Whether cost can be saved by going to an expanded Medicare system or not is irrelevant. I'm no expert on cost accounting, so I can't argue with your numbers, but I can't imagine that Medicare is that cost-efficient (if it were it wouldn't be broke);

3--John B: Whether Social Security can be "fixed" by raising the income cap begs the question I raised as to why the government is even in this business in the first place.

My fundamental argument with government-run health care for anyone (and this goes for government-run retirement funding as well [i.e., Social Security]) is simply this: NOTHING in the Constitution gives the government the right or the power to do any of this. I've looked, and I can't find the power. And, despite saying this a number of times, NOBODY else apparently can, either. So, if the power isn't there, the government SHOULDN'T do it. Period. End of discussion. Cost and cost effectiveness doesn't enter into the equation. Neither does "necessity" (although I'd dispute the necessity of such a change). Neither does the argument that "we're the only country that doesn't do it." If our government of limited and delegated powers doesn't have the power delegated to it to do this, it CAN'T do it.

Now, of course, the Constitution can be changed. There's nothing wrong with proposing or advocating that. That would lead to a healthy and long-overdue debate on what the proper role of a government of limited and delegated powers should be in the 21st Century. But not until that debate is held (and won by the expansionist forces) is it proper to advocate for any specific program, or to even THINK of imposing such a program on the country. And we're a long, long way from thnat point now.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:14:54 GMT

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:19:32 GMT

Robert--Maybe European health care is better than in the U.S. I don't know, since (as you point out) I've never lived elsewhere (although I have traveled some).

That point is irrelevant. The U.S. is not organized as a statist (top-down) country. Our national government does not have absolute sovereign power. It is sovereign (and most times only in a coordinate sense) only in those areas which were delegated to it in the Constitution or its amendments. While broad and somewhat nebulous at times, those delegations are still finite and limited, and the government cannot do what it has not been empowered to do--no matter how much some would prefer otherwise.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Neil - Salem, MA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:51:25 GMT

Richard,

In the US, Power derives from the people. The Constitution exists at the will of the people. It is the highest authority, but can be changed by the people.

Power at the Federal level is "given" by the people. Since we have a Republic, we elect our Federal representatives to make choices for us, including what powers we "give" to them. However, the laws passed by Federal government must not be contrary to the Constitution.

Power and authority not assigned to the Federal level, can be given to the State governments. Power not assigned there, can be give to the Cities and Towns.

Funding for various projects and the needs of the citizenry is done by the Federal government because they, our Federal representatives, voted to do so. They give themselves that power "on our behest". There is nothing in the Constitution that says they can't. (If there were, our representatives would find themselves before the Supreme Court very quickly.)

Is funding NASA unconstitutional? No. Then neither would the use of tax dollars to fund a national health insurance plan be unconstitutional.

If you're concerned about where all that money is going to come from to pay for national health insurance, consider this:

In this country today, people are receiving health care to one degree or another regardless of whether they have health insurance or not. For those that don't have insurance, care is give in the emergency rooms of our hospitals and our system of health care simple shifts the burden of cost to those who do have insurance. One way or another, the medical bills are being paid. So, let's assume that it costs NNN dollars to pay for all the health care now being given to all persons, insured or not, during one year.

It's not that hard to imagine collecting those NNN dollars with taxes instead of using private insurance companies (who take a considerable percentage of our money for their own profit). We save money by eliminating the profiteering of the private insurers, and we gain efficiency by having one insurer with one paperwork system, rather than hundreds of insurers with hundreds of paperwork systems.

Today our country spends 500 billion dollars a year on a war, even while we spend NNN dollars to care for the insured and the uninsured. I think that we could create a national health insurance system in our country that could give us all excellent health coverage, and which could be the best example of its kind in the world.

Of course, the private health insurance lobby is against this idea. Guess why.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Neil - Salem, MA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:43:27 GMT

"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."

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:33:16 GMT

Neil--While I disagree with your analyses, I appreciate that you at least chose to join in on a level appropriate to the gravity of the discussion.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution (which you quoted) was never intended to be construed as you want to construe it. If it were, the rest of Section 8 would be unnecessary. Originally, "general welfare" was meant to be a qualification (that any taxation and expenditures were not to be for individual benefits, but for the benefits of the country as a whole). The courts turned the whole thing on its ear in the 1930s because they were looking for a way to sustain Social Security, which is also patently unconstitutional (for the same reason).

The Federal government cannot allocate or give power to the States. In fact, it's the other way--States gave power to the Federal government in the Constitution.

The fact that Congress (the people's representatives) enacted the laws does not demonstrate their validity. Laws to be valid must be "pursuant to the Constitution" (see Article VI, Section 2). The only thing which today prevents a flood of suits to declare Congressional overreaching unconstitutional is the Court-created doctrine of "standing," which holds that unless an individual is sufficiently hurt by an act, he has no right to sue (and no one has a sufficient interest in the Federal budget to sue to challenge taxes or expenditures). It would be better if that weren't the case, but, alas, it is.

Lastly, funding NASA is not unconstitutional. NASA is an extension of the powers delegated to Congress to deal with the military (NASA may call itself "civilian," but its authority flows from the military establishment, a clear Federal responsibility under Article I and Article II; some interpretation of the Constitution is permissible, but a wholesale abandonment of the limitations on governmental power benefits no one. If you don't believe me, look at the overreaching the current Administration has done in the name of 'security').

Again, thanks for a good post and for your observations. As I said, we don't (and probably will never) agree, but your willingness to engage on a theoretical level is refreshing and enlightening.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Robert — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:29:50 GMT

Richard,

You´ve got some interesting ideas on this, but I just don´t think your approach has much pertinence this day in age.

Remember, the constitution is a dated document, and nothing could have allowed the framers to see the medical advances that would be coming.

And while it may, for reasons unknown to me, seem logical to see a national healthcare service as benefiting individuals and not the nation as a whole (seriously, anyone who thinks that has no macro-vision), it´s not beneficial for anybody.

And do you know what, Richard, I´m willing to bet that if the constituion said "the government cannot in any form provide healthcare for the citizens of the United States," the people would force their elected leaders to amend the constitution. So you can take a backdoor approach to reading the constitution, but it just lacks the relevance and gravity that the topic of healthcare mandates.

Dodd unveils health-care plan

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:48:43 GMT

Robert--Your attitude is exactly why the Constitution has been construed into oblivion. If, as you state, an amendment would have been approved to remove any ban on providing health care, they WHY is it so wrong to insist that, before such a program is put into place (permanently, since once in, it can never be removed), the Constitution be amended to authorize such an intrusion and expansion of the government?

Or are advocates afraid the amendment just may not pass, once all the parameters of it are explored?

Just asking.