How would you vote - State Constitution

Post Reply
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by Accountable »

How would you vote if your state had the following proposed amendment for your constitution:

"Because all people should have the right to make decisions about their health care, no law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

This is what the citizens of Arizona are voting on this election cycle. Here's a link of a column explaining the possible impact.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by Accountable »

:yh_doh :-5

I wanted to add a yes/no poll & forgot to put a check in the thingy. I hate those thingies. :yh_frustr
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by flopstock »

I'd vote for it. The govenment does such a lousy job with medicare and medicaid, i think they need to get that straight before even considering expanding it..:thinking:
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by wildhorses »

Accountable;1036139 wrote: How would you vote if your state had the following proposed amendment for your constitution:

"Because all people should have the right to make decisions about their health care, no law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

This is what the citizens of Arizona are voting on this election cycle. Here's a link of a column explaining the possible impact.


written by health insurance companies....I am sure.
wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by wildhorses »

Oh sorry. I forgot to answer the question. I would vote no. Everyone already has the right to pay for their own medical services or to accept or decline any insurance coverage. So we don't need a law for this. Universal healthcare is on the way and in anticipation of this the health insurance companies are trying to protect their very existence.
wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by wildhorses »

flopstock;1036871 wrote: I'd vote for it. The govenment does such a lousy job with medicare and medicaid, i think they need to get that straight before even considering expanding it..:thinking:


Ya but health insurance companies do a worse job....way worse. I have had both private and public healthcare during my life and private is way worse.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by Accountable »

wildhorses;1039079 wrote: Oh sorry. I forgot to answer the question. I would vote no. Everyone already has the right to pay for their own medical services or to accept or decline any insurance coverage. So we don't need a law for this. Universal healthcare is on the way and in anticipation of this the health insurance companies are trying to protect their very existence.


wildhorses;1039080 wrote: Ya but health insurance companies do a worse job....way worse. I have had both private and public healthcare during my life and private is way worse.
You don't honestly believe the politicians will do away with the insurance companies, do you? That's a huge source of campaign revenue. No, it'll be a "privatized" arrangement or some type of hybrid.
wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by wildhorses »

Accountable;1039092 wrote: You don't honestly believe the politicians will do away with the insurance companies, do you? That's a huge source of campaign revenue. No, it'll be a "privatized" arrangement or some type of hybrid.


They will do away with the insurance companies to cut costs. Insurance companies are very top heavy and that is where much of the money goes. Meantime they avoid paying legitimate claims. In some cases they have been court ordered to pay claims. So they are corrupt as well.

Don't you think the politicians would have an easier time getting at health care money if health care was controlled by the government?

Insurance companies exist only to feed themselves. They no longer provide a useful service as they use to do. So who needs them?

Now...the government is not very efficient at providing care..but you always get the care. For necessary medical care..you get it. There is waiting involved unless you have an emergency. But you always get the medical care. With private insurance you can be denied care. Believe me...I know what I am talking about.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by Accountable »

wildhorses;1039098 wrote: Don't you think the politicians would have an easier time getting at health care money if health care was controlled by the government? No, of course not. The government doesn't employ lobbyists to woo politicians with huge campaign contributions and other percs. Private industries do. Look at Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac. Gov't privatized them and they gave millions if not billions to the politicians.

(aside: I think I just had an epiphany:-2)



wildhorses wrote: Now...the government is not very efficient at providing care..but you always get the care. For necessary medical care..you get it. There is waiting involved unless you have an emergency. But you always get the medical care. With private insurance you can be denied care. Believe me...I know what I am talking about.
I'd rather see no insurance at all, gov't or private. Teaching saving, strategic budgeting, and self-sufficiency from elementary school would do tons more for society than starting sex education in kindergarten. Without insurance to jack up natural competition, prices would settle to something affordable, and those who can't afford care can rely on existing safety nets.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by Nomad »

Accountable;1039248 wrote: No, of course not. The government doesn't employ lobbyists to woo politicians with huge campaign contributions and other percs. Private industries do. Look at Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac. Gov't privatized them and they gave millions if not billions to the politicians.

(aside: I think I just had an epiphany:-2)





I'd rather see no insurance at all, gov't or private. Teaching saving, strategic budgeting, and self-sufficiency from elementary school would do tons more for society than starting sex education in kindergarten. Without insurance to jack up natural competition, prices would settle to something affordable, and those who can't afford care can rely on existing safety nets.


What are existing safety nets ?

Where do you draw the line on coverage for the nets and whats the wage cut off to determine eligibility ?

Whats the quality of health care going to be ?

Is a person that needs a transplant going to be considered or shoved aside ?

What about coma patients, how long do they get to live ?

Whats the difference between a safety net and social welfare ?

Should it be all or nothing ?

If Alabama passed such a law and Louisiana didnt would those citizens die off as they watched the ones across the state line get treated ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by spot »

Accountable;1036139 wrote: How would you vote if your state had the following proposed amendment for your constitutionI'd remember Hubert Humphrey's speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention and reject it. What he said of civil rights then applies just as much to social rights now.To those who say, my friends, to those who say, that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years too late! To those who say, this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, I say this: the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Hum ... Convention

He remains one of the most impressive Americans I've ever heard of.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by wildhorses »

Accountable;1039248 wrote: No, of course not. The government doesn't employ lobbyists to woo politicians with huge campaign contributions and other percs. Private industries do. Look at Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac. Gov't privatized them and they gave millions if not billions to the politicians.

(aside: I think I just had an epiphany:-2)



I'd rather see no insurance at all, gov't or private. Teaching saving, strategic budgeting, and self-sufficiency from elementary school would do tons more for society than starting sex education in kindergarten. Without insurance to jack up natural competition, prices would settle to something affordable, and those who can't afford care can rely on existing safety nets.


The government does not need lobbyists to get GOVERNMENT MONEY. Taxpayers would pay for the system with taxes...so if government wants to get at the money they can get at it much easier from taxpayers than from campaign contributions. And then they dont have to play games with the insurance companies. No insurance at all? LOL. Then if you get cancer your assets are totally wiped out. Geez...what kind of system is that?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by spot »

Nobody wants to hear the UK way, I suppose?

I thought not. Here you can pay into anything you want to for health care and get treated by anyone you want to for health care but your payments toward the costs of the National health Service are obligatory. There's choice for everyone at the cost of double-paying if you want to make your own path. The problem with the amendment is that once it puts "and decline" into law there's no way to tax any funding for a public health care system. The simple "No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly", we've got that already. I think it's a red herring - who wants to take that away from anyone? It's just there to get an emotive "Yes" response.

I've just read your Town Hall link, Acc. Does the amendment include a demand that everyone be allowed to buy their drugs from any source without restriction on who they pay or what they buy.? I've read it twice again and I still can't decide.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by BTS »

spot;1040346 wrote: I'd remember Hubert Humphrey's speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention and reject it. What he said of civil rights then applies just as much to social rights now.

To those who say, my friends, to those who say, that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years too late! To those who say, this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, I say this: the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Hum ... Convention

He remains one of the most impressive Americans I've ever heard of.
Civil Rights Aside,

Thank you so much spot..............everything he said was and is against our Constitution and you are luvvinn it........Oh yeah.... what year did this "most impressive American" get elected president anyways? I can't find him anywheres.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by wildhorses »

BTS;1040395 wrote: Civil Rights Aside,

Thank you so much spot..............everything he said was and is against our Constitution and you are luvvinn it........Oh yeah.... what year did this "most impressive American" get elected president anyways? I can't find him anywheres.


How are human rights against our constitution?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by spot »

BTS;1040395 wrote: Civil Rights Aside,

Thank you so much spot..............everything he said was and is against our Constitution and you are luvvinn it........Oh yeah.... what year did this "most impressive American" get elected president anyways? I can't find him anywheres.


Civil rights aside? Good lord.

The civil rights program was an infringement on States' rights, pure and simple. Are you truly telling me there are still reactionary elements in the US who wish it hadn't happened?

Hubert Humphrey, as you perfectly well know, was Lyndon Johnson's Vice President. The pair of them drove a coach and horses through States' rights and finally ended segregation a hundred years late. Up until then, those Southern parts of the USA like Mississippi and Alabama were comparable to South Africa under Pik Botha's apartheid.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by Accountable »

Nomad;1040343 wrote: What are existing safety nets ? Our various welfare programs.

Where do you draw the line on coverage for the nets and whats the wage cut off to determine eligibility ? Not sure. Have you given it that much thought? You have a dollar figure in mind?

Whats the quality of health care going to be ? Not sure how to answer that question. "Health care" is too broad a term to oversimplify to a single guage. It's a question for each state to decide rather than centralizing a single program in DC.

Is a person that needs a transplant going to be considered or shoved aside ? What about coma patients, how long do they get to live ? Are you sure you've loaded these questions enough? I think if you tamp them you can get a little more in.

Whats the difference between a safety net and social welfare ? More politically loaded generalizations. Do you have a point?

Should it be all or nothing ? Should what be all or nothing?

If Alabama passed such a law and Louisiana didnt would those citizens die off as they watched the ones across the state line get treated ? Can you think of a specific realistic example that would give us such extremes? Is there a law passed in Canada, for example, that the US doesn't have, and do those citizens die off as they watch the ones across the border get treated?


[.]
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by Accountable »

wildhorses;1040349 wrote: The government does not need lobbyists to get GOVERNMENT MONEY. Taxpayers would pay for the system with taxes...so if government wants to get at the money they can get at it much easier from taxpayers than from campaign contributions.Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about government money. That's our tax dollars. I'm talking about political campaign contributions, which politicians receive directly and even get to keep portions for personal use. The largest contributions come from lobbyists employed by big wigs and corporations ... corporations like Fanny Mae, which gave Obama over $100K in his couple hundred days as senator.



Privatizing Fanny Mae was a huge financial boon to Washington politicians. I don't think they'll kill such a prize cash cow by nationalizing it, at least not for long. Same with AIG. (Yes, this is a major change from my earlier opinions).



wildhorses wrote: And then they dont have to play games with the insurance companies. No insurance at all? LOL. Then if you get cancer your assets are totally wiped out. Geez...what kind of system is that?Insurance companies disrupt the natural supply & demand system that keeps prices low and quality high. It also impersonalizes (if that's a word) the humane medical process. It's alot easier to say no to an insurance guy in a suit than to a patient in an oxygen mask.
wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by wildhorses »

Accountable;1041204 wrote: Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about government money. That's our tax dollars. I'm talking about political campaign contributions, which politicians receive directly and even get to keep portions for personal use. The largest contributions come from lobbyists employed by big wigs and corporations ... corporations like Fanny Mae, which gave Obama over $100K in his couple hundred days as senator.



Privatizing Fanny Mae was a huge financial boon to Washington politicians. I don't think they'll kill such a prize cash cow by nationalizing it, at least not for long. Same with AIG. (Yes, this is a major change from my earlier opinions).



Insurance companies disrupt the natural supply & demand system that keeps prices low and quality high. It also impersonalizes (if that's a word) the humane medical process. It's alot easier to say no to an insurance guy in a suit than to a patient in an oxygen mask.


Yes I understand what campaign contributions are. But if all healthcare money goes to the government, then government officials can figure out how to access it. They dont need to get it from insurance companies.

If we dont have healthcare insurance companies, then maybe we could have financial insurance to protect finances in case of catostrophic illness. Otherwise people who get sick lose everything right at the time they are at their weakest. Would you like to see cancer patients in the street? I didnt think so. There has to be some protection. And you made a good point that health insurance does manipulate costs higher. So maybe some other type of insurance for those who run into a health crisis...which quickly can become an employment crisis and therefore a financial crisis.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by Accountable »

wildhorses;1041297 wrote: Yes I understand what campaign contributions are. But if all healthcare money goes to the government, then government officials can figure out how to access it. They dont need to get it from insurance companies.



If we dont have healthcare insurance companies, then maybe we could have financial insurance to protect finances in case of catostrophic illness. Otherwise people who get sick lose everything right at the time they are at their weakest. Would you like to see cancer patients in the street? I didnt think so. There has to be some protection. And you made a good point that health insurance does manipulate costs higher. So maybe some other type of insurance for those who run into a health crisis...which quickly can become an employment crisis and therefore a financial crisis.
Somewhere around here in another conversation we touched on the idea of declaring illnesses, such as cancer, natural disasters, which would make the victims eligible for federal funding. I figure it's a far better use of tax dollars than rebuilding some idiot's beach house.
wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

How would you vote - State Constitution

Post by wildhorses »

Accountable;1041305 wrote: Somewhere around here in another conversation we touched on the idea of declaring illnesses, such as cancer, natural disasters, which would make the victims eligible for federal funding. I figure it's a far better use of tax dollars than rebuilding some idiot's beach house.


I believe that would work. Most people dont get med insurance for routine medical care. They get it in case they get hit by a bus or they get cancer, or they have a major heart attack. They do it to protect their assets.

By the time you pay the premium you pay more than you would for routine care anyway. So if there was some system in place to protect those hit with a medical crisis then there would really be no need for insurance. Of course there would have to be some system in place to take care of people who are unemployed...or who become unemployed due to injury or illness. I am talking about routine medical care unrelated to the crisis. Otherwise minor health problems can balloon into serious problems.

But I believe if we build up the american worker and stop outsourcing all the jobs....we can make america strong again and so there will be very few unemployed persons. That way they could always pay for their own med care. Then your solution of a "FEMA" style catostrophic care system would work well.
Post Reply

Return to “Social Human Rights”