Comments on: Heritage Answers the Question ‘Is National Health Care Constitutional?’ http://lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/heritage-answers-the-question-is-national-health-care-constitutional/ Observations from a conservative in a blue state. With a little help from my friends! Sat, 26 May 2012 14:39:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Looking at all sideshttp://lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/heritage-answers-the-question-is-national-health-care-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-74769 Looking at all sides Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:20:00 +0000 http://www.lonelyconservative.com/?p=9337#comment-74769 Heritage contradicts itself then: "Perplexed, Indiana on August 5th, 2010 at 2:12pm said: I don’t understand. It was the Heritage Foundation that first proposed the “individual mandate” in its report entitled, “Using Tax Credits to Create an Affordable Health System,” dated July 20, 1990 (Backgrounder #777). If you doubt me, you can read this report on your own website at the following link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1990/07/Using-Tax-Credits-to-Create-an-Affordable-Health-System. My favorite excerpt from this report: “The second central element in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law, every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family’s health needs, rather than employers, who are not.” -Perplexed in Indiana" Found at: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/03/obamacare-vs-limited-government/ But the argument is erroneous. I think we can all agree the healthcare system is broken. This plan does nothing to address the runaway costs of healthcare, other than to create a better bargaining position during contract negotiation (largest insurance company gets the best rates). It doesn't address the HUGE price/cost differences from payer to payer and provider to provider. It doesn't try to eliminate the costly paperwork (credentialing for each payer, for instance), it doesn't do many things. But it is the first possibly viable and concrete plan put forth and , god forbid, forced into existence. If we cannot put forth a better and constitutional plan, we had best start the gears to make THIS plan legal. Heritage contradicts itself then:
“Perplexed, Indiana on August 5th, 2010 at 2:12pm said:

I don’t understand. It was the Heritage Foundation that first proposed the “individual mandate” in its report entitled, “Using Tax Credits to Create an Affordable Health System,” dated July 20, 1990 (Backgrounder #777). If you doubt me, you can read this report on your own website at the following link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1990/07/Using-Tax-Credits-to-Create-an-Affordable-Health-System.

My favorite excerpt from this report: “The second central element in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law, every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family’s health needs, rather than employers, who are not.”

-Perplexed in Indiana”
Found at:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/03/obamacare-vs-limited-government/

But the argument is erroneous.
I think we can all agree the healthcare system is broken. This plan does nothing to address the runaway costs of healthcare, other than to create a better bargaining position during contract negotiation (largest insurance company gets the best rates). It doesn’t address the HUGE price/cost differences from payer to payer and provider to provider. It doesn’t try to eliminate the costly paperwork (credentialing for each payer, for instance), it doesn’t do many things.
But it is the first possibly viable and concrete plan put forth and , god forbid, forced into existence. If we cannot put forth a better and constitutional plan, we had best start the gears to make THIS plan legal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Katherinehttp://lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/heritage-answers-the-question-is-national-health-care-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-17513 Katherine Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:46:26 +0000 http://www.lonelyconservative.com/?p=9337#comment-17513 Christopher, you don't realize that the reason you survived is because America has the best cancer survival rates in the world, and it's because we DON'T have a health care system. If we do get one, your wait times for surgeries would increase ten-fold, and your taxes would increase, so you would STILL BE PAYING FOR IT. In addition to this, the article is about how UN-CONSTITUTIONAL national health care is. The Constitution was set up by some of the greatest Americans ever. We as Americans have come to believe we're entitled to everything when that's simply not the case. Christopher, you don’t realize that the reason you survived is because America has the best cancer survival rates in the world, and it’s because we DON’T have a health care system. If we do get one, your wait times for surgeries would increase ten-fold, and your taxes would increase, so you would STILL BE PAYING FOR IT. In addition to this, the article is about how UN-CONSTITUTIONAL national health care is. The Constitution was set up by some of the greatest Americans ever. We as Americans have come to believe we’re entitled to everything when that’s simply not the case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Joshua Farkashttp://lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/heritage-answers-the-question-is-national-health-care-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-11660 Joshua Farkas Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:16:06 +0000 http://www.lonelyconservative.com/?p=9337#comment-11660 Christopher, I don't think you understand the amount of money very powerful people would lose if they were to let national healthcare benifit a large majority of America. You just don't seem to get the republican agenda. Christopher, I don’t think you understand the amount of money very powerful people would lose if they were to let national healthcare benifit a large majority of America. You just don’t seem to get the republican agenda.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Christopher Clarkhttp://lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/heritage-answers-the-question-is-national-health-care-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-11109 Christopher Clark Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:27:41 +0000 http://www.lonelyconservative.com/?p=9337#comment-11109 "In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution. This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started." In our system, the poor die. I am a cancer survivor, but only because my doctors treated me for no charge. If I had had other physicians, I would have died. What more proof is needed that national insurance is necessary than the pathetic mess our health system is in? We have the worst system of any major country, and quite a few minor countries have systems that are superior. Those who believe otherwise are either ignorant, heartless, or both. “In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution. This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started.”

In our system, the poor die. I am a cancer survivor, but only because my doctors treated me for no charge. If I had had other physicians, I would have died.

What more proof is needed that national insurance is necessary than the pathetic mess our health system is in? We have the worst system of any major country, and quite a few minor countries have systems that are superior. Those who believe otherwise are either ignorant, heartless, or both.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Heritage Answers the Question ‘Is National Health Care Constitutional?’http://lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/heritage-answers-the-question-is-national-health-care-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-11105 Heritage Answers the Question ‘Is National Health Care Constitutional?’ Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:06:35 +0000 http://www.lonelyconservative.com/?p=9337#comment-11105 [...] See the rest here: Heritage Answers the Question ‘Is National Health Care Constitutional?’ [...] [...] See the rest here: Heritage Answers the Question ‘Is National Health Care Constitutional?’ [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>