Posted on 07/19/2017 8:41:57 AM PDT by Incorrigible
I would argue that many don't feel any additional security with Obamacare, especially if they weren't paying anything to begin with; i.e., those on Medicaid.
For those that ARE paying for their healthcare, I would say we feel less secure, knowing that they're paying an ever-increasing amount for care, and in many cases they question whether or not they should see a doctor at all. "Is that pain something serious?" they wonder. "Is that migraine normal, or just something I can take some pain reliever to handle?"
In a single-payer system, people will have a sense of security, knowing the government will give them all the healthcare they need...until the government doesn't. The word "ration" won't ever be mentioned in their doctor's offices, but they will happen.
I forgot to mention this above, cause the article doesn’t get into it - medical research. No one in the world comes close to matching us in terms of research into procedures, drugs, etc.
The only possible exception to this is Israel, who has universal health care with good research. But I would hazard a guess that more works only because they’re small, very homogenous, and don’t have the same ideals of freedom/individuality as we do.
Nothing about Israel makes sense. It does function in many ways as a family, which is far different from the typical functioning of a nation-state.
If your idea of speaking delicately and kindly is being an asshole I’d say you need to rethink your approach.
As a side note to this thread from related threads …
As patriots read the following material, please bear this in mind. Smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax appropriation laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks.
Speaking of US healthcare history, patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. (Neither have the states constitutionally authorized most other domestic social spending programs that the corrupt feds are now running.) This is because the Founding States had given the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the feds, evidenced by the 10th Amendment. (This is also evidenced by the excerpts at the bottom of this post.)
Sadly, voters have only themselves to blame for the unconstitutionally big federal government on their backs imo.
More specifically, corrupt federal politicians seized the opportunity provided by the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A) to get themselves elected. Politicians used 17A to exploit citizens by “promising” low-information voters federal social spending programs, programs that the feds never had the constitutional authority to establish.
And since such voters had evidently never been taught about federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, misguided citizens swallowed the bait on such promises, unthinking using their voting power to unconstitutionally expand the federal government’s powers by electing such politicians — scam city; caveat emptor.
And with the exception of the US Mail Service (1.8.7), even though the states otherwise uniquely have the 10th Amendment-protected power to establish the social spending programs that the feds are now illegally running, the states cannot afford to run their own programs. This because the feds have been effectively stealing state revenues by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes which the feds use to run their unconstitutional spending programs.
In fact, when low-information state lawmakers, and likewise constitutionally-challenged state officials, brag about winning federal grants for budget-starved state social spending services, food stamp and welfare programs great examples, not only can it be argued that state officials are actually recovering state revenues stolen by the feds when they receive “federal” funding for these services, but also consider this.
The corrupt feds typically use such funding to unconstitutionally expand the fed’s powers by requiring the states to comply with unconstitutional federal regulations in order to receive such funding.
Again, big-time scamming by a corrupt, unconstitutionally big federal government.
Are we having fun yet? :^P
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the swamp imo, it is actually up to patriots to drain the swamp in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the authoritative clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below. They are excerpts from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justice, and Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker. These excerpts should help patriots to better understand big-time corruption in the federal government.
Regarding Obama’s justices bluffing that the Obamacare insurance mandate is constitutional for example, consider the fifth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court clarified that the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers does not include regulating contracts, including insurance contracts, regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance contract are domiciled in different states.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” —Linder v. United States
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Patriots also need to make sure that federal candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, unlike the current RINO-controlled Congress, will be willing to use Congress’s 14th Amendment power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights when states abridge those rights, strengthening 1st Amendment-protected religious expression for example, when misguided, pro-LGBT states enforce Christian-hating policies.
What I meant was we have a unique Constitution based upon God-given natural rights and liberty. Does anyone else, for example, have the equivalent of our 2A for the purpose of resisting tyranny?
I don’t believe anyone else really does.
If there are some that even come close to what we have been blessed with, then I stand corrected.
And also Israel (like a lot of countries) gets big foreign aid from us. They can afford to divert money into non-mil stuff when they are subsidized on the mil side
Wow! You should submit that as an article to one of the popular conservative news websites!
The author of this drivel seems to be unaware of the Veterans Administration, a marvel of “single-payer” sloth and corruption.
Because she’s on the verge of figuring it out on her own. Why interfere with that process?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.