Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy plans to use the most recent effort to repeal and replace portions of the Affordable Care Act to push an amendment that would bar states from enacting their own single-payer systems, he told reporters on Monday.
When asked by The Intercept on Tuesday about the status of his legislation, Kennedy said that the bill’s co-sponsors, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Bill Cassidy, R-La., told him that the measure already bans single payer, but that he was welcome to offer his amendment either way.
“I don’t think states should have the authority to take money from the American taxpayer and set up a single-payer system,” Kennedy said. “Now some people think that that’s inconsistent with the idea of flexibility. But that’s what the United States Congress is for. I very much believe in flexibility, and I know the governors want flexibility. But it’s our job to make sure that that money is properly spent.”
Kennedy’s amendment is similar to pre-emption laws many states have passed to prohibit municipalities from controlling their own minimum wages or enacting municipal broadband. These laws have emanated from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a policy network funded by corporations.
The movement for statewide single-payer health care has picked up steam in a number of states over the past year, including California.
The irony, of course, is that the Graham-Cassidy repeal effort is pitched as giving more power to states. “I believe that most Republicans like the idea of state-controlled health care, versus Washington, D.C.-controlled health care,” Graham said Tuesday.
And if this repeal effort fails, he warned, darkness would be coming. “At the end of the day, this is the only process left available to stop a march toward socialism,” he said.
Top photo: From left, Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Dean Heller, R-Nev., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., hold a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2017, to unveil legislation to reform health care.
At times it appears that government of the U.S. exists mainly to protect the rights of predatory corporations from extorting American citizens. They know that as soon as one state successfully enacts a single payer heath care that it is game-over for the sickness-industry predators who fund political campaigns. In Colorado, the Democratic Party leaders were among the strongest opponents of universal health care and worked hard to convince Colorado residents to strip themselves of the citizens referendum rights that put single payer health care on the ballot. Colorado’s Senator Democrat Michael Bennett worked to criminalize any citizen who might dare to save money by ordering her or his prescription drugs from a Canadian pharmacy. Actions show that the vast majority of establishment politicians of both major U.S. party are fully dedicated to keeping universal health care beyond the reach of citizens.
“At the end of the day, this is the only process left available to stop a march toward socialism,”
*snort*
That’s funny as fuck. It’s the only process left available to stop the workers from owning the means of production? (Note to right-wing idiots: this is what socialism actually is.)
What a shitbrain.
underneath the rock is the truth – senator is afraid how many states will adopt a single-payer system and prove that works and works for all state citizens. It will make the Mississippis look bad, so sad. If this bill passes, CA should pass a law banning any conservative from a red state who doesn’t have an employer-sponsored health insurance…yes, extreme vetting that could take two years but it’s certainly worked against terrorists.
Your title suggests perhaps you’re thinking about this wrong. If you’re going to make a state’s rights argument, then it should be the state’s money. This is federal money.
I think the solution to this (and many other problems) that Republicans *should* support is to not send this money to the federal government in the first place (which they then send it back with strings attached), but to keep the money in the states which they can decide how to spend any way they want.
“And if this repeal effort fails, he warned, darkness would be coming. “At the end of the day, this is the only process left available to stop a march toward socialism,” he said.”
I think that’s all that needs to be said to know where these plutocrats stand when it comes to what’s best for the american people. Look at countries that have national single payer , Canada, UK, even lower income countries like Thailand, and it becomes obvious who benefits from a private system. Not the people.
These people know that single payer at the state level can be successful and are absolutely terrified that should states be allowed to demonstrate that, it would spread like wildfire and go national. They simply cannot allow something they hate to work. They aren’t about to let the people decide, so they’ll just bar it legally from happening. This isn’t simply about state’s rights, but about individual rights, too.
To Jeff D. – You’re wrong – States’ Rights was originally the colonists’ concern that federal govt. would overreach, like England did. States’ Rights should be a cherished concept, to use to balance things out when the pendulum swings too much to the right or left.
I wonder how much the insurance companies and pharma paid these guys to sponsor this bill. They know full well that a Medicare-for-all system will never pass at the fed level because they own the feds, both parties, but their greatest fear is that it could pass on the state level and their welfare gravy train will start collapsing like the recession of 2008.
let me know when you, corrupt to the core clowns, fully owned by paypal-ebay publish the snowden documents like you are supposed to.
The NY Health Act is a single payer universal health care system that is within one vote of becoming law. The economics of it have been worked out and verified. It does not steal money from the American taxpayers. The only federal money used is money that would come to New York any way. It is not socialism. Socialist health care is when the government provides health care, like in VA hospitals. People would choose their doctors and hospitals. And recently, Governor Cuomo said positive things about the bill. Health care is a human right, not something available to only those who can afford it. Any health care system must pass the Jimmy Kimmel test (whose son was born with serious heart problems): health care cannot be denied for inability to pay. I wonder if the sponsors of the ban state single payer health care had a family member with a catastrophically expensive health problem, would they still support the state single payer ban?
States Rights is a lie used for whatever pretext the user wants. It was originally used as a pretext for supporting slavery, but southern states oppose it when it is contrary to what they want or don’t want. The health care issue has nothing to do with States Rights in any context, this is utter BS.
Being as no state can afford to enact a single-payer system this is truly a nothing burger. Sorry about that. #MedicareForAll must be enacted on the federal level because our government (currency issuer) is the only one able to afford to do so. There is no way individual states can bear the cost as they would have to raise the revenue first and, quite frankly, there are not enough rich people to tax to make that happen. The House of Representatives, who hold the purse strings, have to pass an appropriation bill to fund #MedicareForAll. So call your Representatives and demand that they stand up for our right to have health care. That is where it all starts – in the House of Representatives. Demand your right to health for you cannot have freedom without it.
Only a State run health service is can bring this discussion down to earth. The feds can borrow money but that borrowing is what is killing us. There is a limit to health care that is available and affordable. California is equal to France in GDP and population so for it, health care can be affordable for all. We can not all expect unlimited menus of care for “free” but some level can be had with individual State run services.
Do you really mean state run health care? Single payer means the state pays, but the state does not provide health services. People go to private doctors who are paid by the state.
Well, the New York Health Act (which passed the Assembly and nearly passed the state Senate this year) would have been paid for by a very reasonable progressive tax that would have lowered costs in 98% of households and saved $45 billion in health care expenses annually. All the while eliminating copays and deductibles. I’ll grant you it might be difficult in some other states, but it turns out that alot of money can be saved by eliminating private insurance’s exorbitant administrative overhead, profits, and executive pay, streamlining provider admin. costs, negotiating lower medical device and drug costs through a single agency, etc, etc.
Anyone who is against free health care for everyone on the planet is nothing less than a killer and enemy of humanity everywhere. Where does their hatred of humanity come from? Why does the idea of everyone receiving health care freak them out? I cannot understand their mania about this basic human right. I suppose it must go along with their worship of the capitalist system, wherein the riches of the earth are stolen by a tiny minority at the expense of the majority. It is psychopathy and sociopathy together. Mental illness is the only think I can think of.
Just speaking for myself, I want everyone to have healthcare. Goods and services are better provided through the market than through central planning. Declaring something a “right” doesn’t mean that production will meet demand and everyone will have equal access to scarce resources.
Agree or disagree, but my argument is based on economic analysis and the conclusion is that a State-run single-payer healthcare system will lead to worse outcomes over time, is unsustainable, violates basic human rights and crowds out private alternatives.
There are many scarce resources that are fundamental to human life, yet we don’t feel the need to socialize their distribution. Food and water is more fundamental to human life than even healthcare yet these goods are distributed to people in the market fairly well. Our store shelves are stocked with food, while in the old soviet union people lined up in the hopes of getting a loaf of bread.
Healthcare in the United States has nothing to do with a free market. It is an absolute mess and is intolerable. But reforms ought to come from free markets and not more central planning.
Well, such statements can only lead one to believe that your ‘analysis’ is of the faux-conservative variety, based on the premises that current healthcare pricing is reasonable [it isn’t by any sane measure], and that healthcare insurers play some pivotal and necessary role in the healthcare system [they most certainly DO NOT].
The markets are the absolute WORST option for reasonable, affordable healthcare.
Don’t people who live in countries with a nationalized health care system live longer? Is it not true that life expectancy in the US is actually going down?
Sorry to break it to you, but food and water are both plentiful, widely available, and widely producible to the point that terrible, unforgivable central planning is required to keep the bottom from falling out of the food market. I can grow my own vegetables if need be, I can’t grow my own healthcare.
Furthermore in situations where these resources become scarce, price gouging and profiteering lead to food riots and civil violence without big ol’ evil government intervention.
Markets only work in situations where the vast overwhelming majority of the population can either afford the goods in question, or live without. Healthcare falls into neither of those categories. A market of desperate, powerless people can never be free.
Free markets are as imaginary as the communists’ classless society.
“Agree or disagree, but my argument is based on economic analysis and the conclusion is that a State-run single-payer healthcare system will lead to worse outcomes over time, is unsustainable, violates basic human rights and crowds out private alternatives.”
I disagree, because you haven’t backed any of this up. When are you going to start doing that? Without this it’s just right-wing propaganda.
Also, can you explain how it will ever be profitable for health insurance companies to provide coverage to the chronically ill? Without gouging them, I mean. How does the free market help those people?
OK most of you know me as a supporter of the Constitution, free & fair markets and Republic, not the current empire endless war, surveillance and corporate welfare State. If decent and affordable healthcare demands single payer as a result of corporate greed and this is socialism I guest You could call me Comrade Fred. In truth I am no more a socialist than those corporate servants that sponsored and/or support this legislation are public servants. The issue of healthcare certainly shows who you serve.
Welcome to the fight, comrade.
The best health care model is the standard Social Democrat European model – everyone gets access to the same basic level of health care, but if you want to spend the extra money, you can get added services through the private insurance industry system – and if you really have money to blow, you can set up a private medical clinic in your mansion. But nobody falls through the cracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
Germany has a lower military budget (about 1/3 of the US military budget by % of GDP) and higher corporate taxes (about 33% all told) – as well as a much better public education system.
In the industrialized world’s eyes, America is a dump, bordering on the Third World.
America is truly not Third World but surely second rate compared to too many other Nations. “Money is speech” not E pluribus unum is the National policy.
Not 3rd World but, relative to what we should have in America, we are a disgrace.
Each of these men are corrupt from the top of their head to the souls of their feet. They will deny healthcare to American taxpayers, but they have no problem taking our money and throwing it down a rats nest called these corrupt routine wars that are going on in how many countries right now? Yet these men want to take our money and put it into their corrupt military that they personally profit off of. Why are these losers still in office? Due to the fact the crooks constantly lie to their constituents. If we are going to drain the swamp why haven’t these men been flushed down the sewer?
States would rather continue with corrupt Senators and Representatives than get a real person that will go to bat for them. What have any of these Senators ever done for you? Not a GD thing.
March towards socialism? What an liar. What they are scared of is an aging American population Is bracing for higher healthcare costs across the country and they do not want one state to provide a working model for the rest, proving that the political class in states like Louisiana are really monsters pretending to be people who would rather see the elderly lose their homes or die without dignity. That march towards decency is what all eldery people deserve.
Proving that the choice is between socialism and barbarism. I support socialism, and therefore agree with you. But these capitalist thieves have no decency whatsoever.
“At the end of the day, this is the only process left available to stop a march toward socialism,”
The 1950’s called. They want their propaganda back.
The Republicans will send healthcare right back to the Dark Ages…
so you uh, ‘progressives’ want socialized medicine controled by the national government. Socialism run by the national government. That would be national socialism eh?
Ahh the intercept is so coool!! It is financed by a corrupt to the core american corporation, it doesn’t publish 99% of the NSA documents Snowden got from your nazi government and it is a propaganda outlet for ‘progressive’ garbage like socialized medicine, i.e. a monopoly run by the state.
You are a fucking disgrace.
Last I saw, every other Western nation- the wealthier Asian nations and even many third world nations had universal healthcare, yet idiots scream about ‘socialism’ while your millions of own citizens (and potentially even you) die, be disabled and go bankrupt.
That’s so beyond pathetic that it almost has to be an attempt at satire or agitprop.
Wow….universal healthcare…socialism…..national…..national socialism….NAZIS…..WOW! My eyes have been opened!
Most of the world has socialized healthcare….MOST OF THE WORLD IS NAZIS!!!!!!!
Posts like this are extremely useful, in a Taoist sort of way, because it reminds us of the universality of the principle of complementarity. In this case, one can distinguish intelligence only because there is stupidity, and one can distinguish thoughtfulness only because there is thoughtlessness.
Nice observation. So idiocy does have a purpose, after all.
“In this case, one can distinguish intelligence only because there is stupidity”
There should be an obligatory YouTube attached showing the knockout punch. Thanks for the smile.
“That would be national socialism eh?”
No, it would not. National socialism doesn’t have anything to do with socialism. National socialism is fascism.
Everybody knows that.
When did the comment board here begin to resemble Yahoo? If you disagree, please enumerate in intelligent language so we can engage. Oh, am I sounding elitist?
Socialized medicine:
1. Patient can’t pick their doctor
2. Doctor’s can’t pick which hospital
3. Hospitals can’t pick which procedures
4. Can’t sue your doc or hospital
This coverage is call the “VA” in this country. That is right. All of our soldiers are covered under socialized medicine.
NONE of this is in the ACA or the current bill.
Educate your self before you comment
YOU ARE THE DISGRACE
you and the uneducated like you are the reason I can’t call myself a conservative.
By the way, the four morons in the picture accompanying this article all have free health care through the government, paid for by each and all of us. That’s why their grinning and we’re dying.
We should most certainly end that program.
Republicans will do or say anything to prevent the poor and middle class people of this country from having health care. For me respecting conservative thought and conservative people stopped when I realized that I would also have to respect selfishness. No way I would do that.
The so-called conservative movement in the US was hijacked by reactionary ideologues long ago. States rights was once one of the bedrock principles of US conservatism, its mantra being the words from the Constitution that all powers not explicitly vested in the Federal government are reserved for the states. Whether it be abortion rights, legalization of marijuana, or health care, the reactionaries show themselves to be such, and not conservatives. So-called liberals, by the way, are also not free of sin.
The Constitutional doctrine of states rights is no different from the First Amendment. You may loath what someone says, but that does not impinge on their right to say it. Similarly, you may oppose universal health care, but it gives you no right to impose your will on the people of another state.
So Louisiana used to have a senator that frequented prostitutes. Now they elected an actual prostitute! Go right to the source.
Personally, I’m not in favor of a taxpayer funded (coercively funded) single payer healthcare system. However, it is completely inappropriate for a US Senator to ban States from enacting such a system in their State. We should have more local control over important policies like health care and less Federal control. I believe in the principle of Subsidiarity. This principle states that every policy or decision-making body ought to be as local as it possibly can be. Decision-making should be delegated to a centralized authority only when the problem is such that a more local authority cannot possibly handle it.
It’s great to see Progressives support States Rights and Nullification, but I hope they see the wisdom of these positions on principle, rather than as a temporary stop-gap measure until they can use the Federal Government to force their plans onto the entire country.
Allow a handful of States to try implementing a single-payer healthcare system. Then see what happens to their State budgets over the course of a few years. Look at patient satisfaction, see if the number of physicians and medical services increases or decreases. Then other states can emulate the policy or reject it.
If it is implemented at the federal level and turns out to be disastrous (as I predict), then people will have no recourse since it would be mandated across all fifty states.
It is not ethically appropriate to force people to join a system they disapprove of. Let those who want single-payer congregate with others who want the same thing and leave those that don’t alone.
This is such an elementary ethical principle. It defies logic why the libertarian needs to constantly remind other adults of such a basic moral rule.
It is the responsibility of the USG to provide and enforce the declarations of independence.
I don’t really understand this comment. I take it you are supportive of State sovereignty?
Do you have health insurance? I don’t. I can’t afford it and don’t quality for medicare. I hope that people who have health care will soon understand that single payer is the only way to provide health care to everyone. It’s an act of solidarity and a way to help your fellow beings. Or do prefer we just die in the gutter because we can’t afford to got to a doctor?
I meant medicaid, but I’d love to have medicare.
Of course I don’t prefer that people “die in the gutter”. And I don’t begrudge you or anyone else for taking government assistance given the sorry state of medical care in this country. I think that a free market will be more likely to lower costs and deliver better medical services to everyone in the long run. And I think that a decentralized system would encourage different localities to try new ideas. People who want to live in an area where the community voluntarily provides large social safety nets for their citizens should be free to do so. Others who want to purchase their own medical care shouldn’t be forced to pay for your social program.
A Federal single-payer system will be hugely expensive, costs will continue to soar, there will be rationing of care and it will crowd out private medical services in favor of a central bureaucracy.
I get that a large segment of the population is convinced that single-payer healthcare is the solution to our healthcare woes. Then let them try it at the State level first.
” I think that a free market will be more likely to lower costs and deliver better medical services to everyone in the long run. ”
Well, you have had a very long run to deliver better medical services and it did not work.
California wants to try single payer. The Republicans don’t want them to succeed and will try to make a law against it. Also, importing medicine from Canada or the E.U. is forbidden. That is why you pay such high prices for medicines.
There is no such thing as a free market.
There hasn’t been a free market in healthcare since before WWII. The system we have today is the result of government incentives to tie healthcare to employment. So, no, there has been no long run to try.
That being said, Congress should not (and legally cannot) prevent states making their own decisions. State debates on single payer at least force some discussion of how to pay as each state doesn’t have a Federal Reserve to print money. Of course, the most economically “progressive” states are all suffering under pension benefits and are thus at risk of bankruptcy, even without taking on additional burdens. Iliinois seems closest, but there is no plan for California to deal with its debt – debt built on empty promises used to buy votes.
I completely agree with this comment. The Federal Government has no legal right to prevent States from instituting their own form of single-payer healthcare.
It’s almost as if progressives see things as binary. Either policies conform to their socialist ideal, or they are complete laissez-faire free markets. You are completely correct that the United States hasn’t had a free market in medical care since at least before World War 2.
What corrupted the free market in medicine were Big Medicine lobbyists who used the State to grant themselves monopolies and crush their competitors. Progressive Era regulations were passed with the support of Big Business, despite what people have been told. Big Business wants to escape the free market as much as anyone else. They don’t want these pesky competitors constantly nibbling away at their market share.
Healthcare in the United States is not a free market, not even close. It is a corporate-State hybrid that is the product of decades of political intervention and central planning. An actual free market in medical care is farther away from our current system than is European-style single-payer.
Saying there is no such thing as a free market is the same as saying there is no such thing as a voluntary exchange. A free market is simple transactions in the absence of coercion. All I am saying is that aggression is wrong and we should limit it to the greatest extent possible.
“lower prices in the long run”
Someone needs to write you a reality check bub, because there is no real world basis for this statement, the US spends almost twice as much on healthcare as countries with socialized healthcare for outcomes that are either no better or worse.
Why am I for socialized healthcare – because my tax dollars are already paying for it! The US government already pays more per capita on medical care than many countries with socialized Healthcare
You’re still making the faulty assumption that the United States has had a free market in healthcare in the recent past. Areas of healthcare where markets are freer and patients pay out of pocket, like Lasik eye surgery and cosmetic procedures, healthcare costs have fallen dramatically. In every area of medicine that the government has been heavily involved in, prices have skyrocketed. The empirical evidence is on my side of this issue, not yours.
Name even one place in the world where that is the case?
Do you “free market uber alles” types ever stop to think about the inherent contradictions in your world view that “markets will solve everything” when there are so many examples of where markets are totally unsuited to “competition” for basic human needs–like clean air, water, health care, education, transportation infrastructure, sewer, power . . . .
I mean seriously are people like you cognitively impaired or simply so ideologically blinkered that you can’t conceive that your precious “markets” (a creation of men, rules, and laws and not some magically thing that arises out of the ether) can’t solve all of mankind’s problems?
I suppose the third possibility is you’re paid to be purposely obtuse or disseminate free market propaganda and don’t really believe it.
I don’t believe there is a justification for the State. And I don’t believe that coercion is justified either. And I genuinely believe this with every fiber of my being.
Without a State, not everything will be provided through competition. I’d imagine there would be many different diverse communities that will operate social safety nets, mutual aid societies and provide common services for free to their members. The difference between these organizations and the State is that each person who chooses to be a member of a mutual aid society will be doing so voluntarily. People will freely contract with one another to provide the essentials of civil society, mutual defense and so forth.
The incentive structure for people in government is perverse compared to people in the private sector. People in government don’t own any of the property they freely use therefore have little regard for it’s long-term capital value and failure is only met with larger budgets.
We agree that healthcare in the United States is a disaster. But single-payer is not idyllic either. Particularly in Europe, budgetary problems leave the long-term funding of these programs in serious jeopardy. Rationing does occur and people do have to wait longer for MRI scans and routine surgeries than they do in many other parts of the world.
If you believe so strongly in a single-payer system why don’t you congregate with those that would like the same sort of system, and institute it at a local level? Why not leave the Red states out of it completely?
In a libertarian society, Bernie Sanders and his followers could carve out a socialist enclave where people could live in accordance with those values. But the libertarian simply asks that you don’t coercive others to join or fund your social program against their will.
Seems like a reasonable request to me.
Oh, dear. Well, I reject the idea that Sanders is a socialist, and furthermore, do you understand the history of socialist societies? When have they ever been left alone to develop themselves, resolve their internal contradictions, and continue the class struggle? You are literally arguing for capitalist encirclement–the very thing that has helped to destroy socialist and socialist-aspiring countries.
Furthermore, what you are arguing for kinda sounds like a state.
I think it’s much more reasonable for libertarians to go find an uninhabited island somewhere so they can live out their feudalist hellhole fantasy and leave the rest of us alone.
Last thing, Jacob, and then I’ll leave you alone, but I think you should know it’s not possible to attain the situation you describe unless the profit motive is done away with completely and the economy has reached a state of superabundance. And to reach that point, capitalism needs to disappear. This is why anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism can’t coexist.
What would, for instance, stop a CEO who wants to expand his company from paying a bunch of private militia members to just take the resources of these mutual aid societies so that he could achieve this expansion?
“I think that a free market will be more likely to lower costs and deliver better medical services to everyone in the long run.” Except that it DOESN’T and never has. This has been documented over and over again. Single payer costs LESS. You really should stop drinking that Kool-Aid and read some statistics.
Repeat after me: “The United States doesn’t have a free market in medical care”.
You should repeat this sentence multiple times a day until it sinks in. Opposition to coercively-funded single-payer healthcare should not be taken as an endorsement of the current healthcare system in the United States.
People who complain that single payer is “taxpayer supported”, forget that the rest of us taxpayers would be supporting them, too. It’s called a social contract, an idea that has nearly vanished from consciousness in the United States. They are also stupid in that single payer costs far less than private-profit driven health “care”. Countries with single payer health care purchase drugs and other items at a huge discount. Check any statistics you like, and the answer will be the same. The United States is obsessed with profit, profit, profit for a tiny minority. This is in itself a sickness.
Or we could just look at the 50 or so countries that already implemented universal coverage. Alternatively, we can pretend other countries don’t exist or that their humans are a completely different species and their rules wouldn’t apply to us. There are plenty of issues that the US forged on with no prior example, bravely moving forward with our own example. This? This is not one of those.
Let me just as a pragmatic question. In the current climate, how do you suppose a single-payer healthcare system would be implemented in the United States? Given the strangle-hold that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have over Washington D.C. wouldn’t you expect that any proposed system of universal coverage would include massive benefits to large corporations and drug companies?
Not only would a U.S. Single Payer healthcare system maintain corporatist quasi-fascist elements, it would expand all the inherent problems with socialism and central-planning.
Why do you suppose economic laws don’t apply to healthcare? Aren’t healthcare services scarce goods? There aren’t an unlimited supply of hospitals, doctors, nurses, labs, and MRI machines, so why would we expect a State dictate to bring them into existence?
Profits and losses in a market provide signals as to where to direct production and allocate scarce resources. Undermining these features of a market inevitably lead to shortages, misdirected capital, rationing and other problems.
I’m giving you the option of having a social insurance system, but I’m asking you to implement it at the local level and leave those who want no part of it alone.
I’ve personally always disapproved of being coerced by a legal system.
A well designed single payer system would allow people to opt out and purchase private health insurance. That feature is present in the systems of several countries that I know of. In that respect, it’s similar to Social Security and Medicare. Nobody from the Government holds a gun to your head forcing you to sign up.
On the other hand, you still have to pay your taxes, whether or not you like how the money is being spent. If you think that is coercive, then perhaps you should move to Antarctica.
Then how is it ethically appropriate to force state residents to join a state system they disapprove of? Your libertarian logic seems to lead to the conclusion that the government should not exist. Is that your “basic moral rule”?
You’ve got it. I’m an anarchist, which means I support the complete abolition of the State. I make a distinction between the State, which is a territorial monopoly, and government, which can be voluntary. There will be governance in any society, but no authority should be allowed to form a monopoly and coerce people to submit to their authority against their will. There will be private courts, judges, police, and different communities that agree to abide by different rules and standards. You could call this “government”. But everyone agrees through contract to abide to an authority, so it is voluntary.
If a person violates the rights of another, for example stealing property, raping or murdering, they have abdicated their right to be left alone and a libertarian legal system can apprehend them and force them to pay restitution to the victim. But no legal body has the right to use aggression against a person who has not be proven to have violated the rights of anyone else.
How would that “libertarian legal system” that has the power to apprehend people and force them to pay restitution not constitute a state?
Also, how do you have a “legal entity” without a state? Who grants this legal entity the power to do any of this?
Good argument for states as testing grounds for healthcare systems, let us try something different, then pick the bests systems and require some minimum universal coverage at the Federal level customized at state level.
This is false. The proposed amendment only prevents states from using federally collected funds to pay for a single payer system. States can can still enact such a system, but they’ll need to fund it themselves.
I can’t believe that America still doesn’t have single payer health care. It is so much better in Canada, I can go see a doctor when ever I want and its free.
No you can’t, at least not for lots of tests and treatment. Got a lump? Wait months while the cancer – maybe – grows before you can get a MRI.
Single payer rations health care, which is why wealthy (even not so wealthy) come to the USA because they can’t wait.
Tz – this is an argument a lot of people use, but guess what? You’re “timely” MRI doesn’t improve your outcomes. It’s much more complicated than that. But guess what, you’re assuming that you/one can even GET an MRI (i.e. have access/insurance). I’m a physician, WE ALREADY RATION HEALTH CARE ALL THE TIME, news flash.
So, your assumption is that tumors don’t grow when you can’t go to the doctor because you have no medical insurance? Stop the moronics and grow up. The health care system is crap and you want to defend the status quo pushing it. That makes you a troll for the insurance industry. Quite a hero.
Aside from your pushing of the usual lies- see how long it takes in the US for insurers to get you to a specialist and then to approve and get ‘your tests’ approved, completed and returned.
Months is the usual time frame- in addition to expensive deductibles and copays that YOU pay out of pocket.
tz, u Canadian? Very much doubt it as ur response to Ethan is the “standard line of the nay sayers” I’ve heard for many years while travelling and working throughout the US. I am Canuck and he is bang on, although it’s not free, but no one in Canada has ever filed for bankruptcy due to medical debt, nobody dies waiting for health care. Our outcomes are better, our life expectancy higher, child mortality rate lower, and so on. Facts! Wait times are mostly for elective or non emergency procedures, and cosmetic type surgeries.
I love how you respond to Ethan as if you know more about his experience than he does.
Fool.
Also, it is NOT free. Who pays the doctors and hospitals? But let there be “free health care”, and NOT TAX anyone to provide it. The socialist fairy will come down and wave its wand and pay for everything.
What you mean is either you don’t pay taxes, so it is free, or ignore the portion of your taxes used to pay for it
But you get the point Ethan is making, that a hospital visit in Canada doesn’t require you to fork over a load of cash.. .
A broken leg that requires surgery, without insurance, can cost upwards of $30000., not to mention all the other costs like doctors fees, meds, physio etc. Something like this could bankrupt many. A simple physical accident and your life is ruined.
In Canada, you simply go home and your life carries on as normal…
Of course he knows that.
I would like to add that the waiting list myth has been debunked by Dr. Danielle Martin (from Canada). Testifying for congress, she showed politely what fools the congressmen are.
In the U.S. the socialist fairy gives only to large companies, the militairy and congress.
Fact of the matters is- the overwhelming majority of people in the US, universal healthcare costs less overall -and far less out of pocket once all is accounted for -and delivers better health outcomes than the present morass that you’ve shackled yourselves with.
Numerate people know this- though the dishonest among them will endlessly lie about.
Contrary to the republican doctrine of states rights, pimped out whores in congress have no problem betraying their own word and the people they pretend to represent. This sort of vile pregenocide is characteristic of all third world monsters who kill people to steal their stuff and keep their power over others. Such crimes against the people is legal in the US.
shakedown
The other side of that coin is that the elected schemers are proposing a threat to the HCI to shake them down for more campaign money.
How soon before they legalize full on slavery?
Remember that every person in the above picture is convinced that they are entitled to the best health care money can buy. It’s kind of like Congress voting themselves pay raises in the middle of the night when nobody’s watching (except for hard core C-Span junkies). I have money and power and will do anything to keep it. As for others, screw you. If you don’t have coverage, just shut up and die. The govt. doesn’t owe you a damn thing. Besides, we can’t have any of that “socialist” crap in society.
what do people who lack talent + imagination + goodness + determination do for a living?
They get jobs in sock-puppet astroturfing.
that was funny
The picture over this article shows people who are genuinely happy at the prospect of stripping health care from the most vulnerable in this country. A number of words come to mind to describe a people like these, and also describe the kind of people who vote for them.
“It’s kind of like Congress voting themselves pay raises in the middle of the night when nobody’s watching”
The 27th amendment prohibits this. But your overall point is valid.
Amendment XXVII
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Of course, our collective stupidity results in about 92% of our “representatives” being returned to office each election cycle, so fat lot of good the amendment does us.
Anyone want to place bets as to how much longer it will be before Cassidy is confined to a wheelchair?
On a good day, a brilliant day…on a day the Dems are feeling confident…and cocky…and a little brazen…I do not think that the Democrats would act as cravenly as the Republicans do. It may only be in matters like this, but it’s something.
Bill Cassidy was on with Jimmy Kimmel.
I have to wonder why.