McDonalds Threatens to Drop Insurance

[The Warrior Monk]

Regarding health care, the definition of "welfare", which I included in the post, includes Health.

There is no way the Founding Fathers intended health care to be included to be included as part of "welfare." They didn't intend the general welfare to include things like food, water, or even schooling, so to extrapolate this clause to include health care is utterly preposterous.

I recommend that people actually read about the history of the founding of this country.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not a gun owner or a gun rights advocate so I don't much care which way that argument goes. Your reading of the ammendment matches the liberal perspective that 1/3 of the nation's electorate shares with you. The "other" reading matches the conservative Americana perspective that another 1/3 of the electorate shares. As usual, the outcome of that debate will rest with the middle 1/3 who by definition have no real opinion one way or the other.


But that's a tangent. The HCR debate involves an even more activist reading of the Constitution than gun rights. Personally, I still don't see nationalized health care as an innate human right or a constitutional right. As with most entitlement programs if the electorate wants to vote it in then I guess we'll get what we get. However I think folks are high if they think the people who have already been paying will end up paying any less or get any more coverage than what they've been getting so far. Reason being is that although we need to address controlling costs by making some hard decisions we probably never will.

The politicians might be able to buy their votes from the have-nots but in no way is the outcome actually going to make anyone else happier. The have-nots who will benefit by becoming haves without having to pay for it will soon take that benefit for granted. Human nature is what it is.

That's why we call them entitlements.

 

[Mr Rex]

I always wonder how old the folks that think the government should take care of them from cradle to grave were when they finally left Mommy and Daddy's nest? The best I can figure is that Mommy and Daddy tell them to get the F out, the government can take care of you now, and the cycle begins.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

There is no way the Founding Fathers intended health care to be included to be included as part of "welfare." They didn't intend the general welfare to include things like food, water, or even schooling, so to extrapolate this clause to include health care is utterly preposterous.

I recommend that people actually read about the history of the founding of this country.

the same could be said for hundreds of other areas unanticipated by the Founding Fathers 300+ years ago--so I think your take is also preposterous and fails to acknowledge social evolution.

I recommend you look at the world around you and see how it bears little resemblence to America 300+ years ago. BTW, some of our Founding Fathers had slaves and I'm sure they didn't intend, at that time, that slaves be fully vested in citizenship--a snail like process that took nearly a century from the founding of our Nation.

You appear to be a strict "constructionist", a position that would eliminate numerous advancements made over the past three centuries. Let's turn back the clock!!

 

[Michael S]

Again I ask, why is health insurance an employer issue? Why, as an employer, would you want the headache of the healthcare issue?

The main reason companies are not hiring is because they don't need to. Why would you hire someone if the demand is not there and the potential of near term growth is not the result of hiring the person?

I think much of our health care problems stem from the fact that health insurance is so inextricably linked with employers. It all goes back to politicians using the tax code for social engineering. Companies figured out they could provide benefits such as health insurance in lieu of a higher salary and write off part of the cost. Now it's become institutionalized and it will be damn near impossible to separate the two.

Having a third party payer removes all incentive to shop around for the best deal. You just go with whichever doctor is in your network, pay a small fraction of the bill as a copay or deductible and ignore the true cost. If you actually had to fork over $100-150 to spend 15-20 minutes with your doctor for a routine appointment (well 5 minutes with a nurse, 10 minutes with the doctor and an hour or so of waiting) prices would start falling fast.

Look at laser eye surgery, a decade ago it cost several times what it does today. The price has fallen and the quality has improved because it's a relatively free market (when compared to the rest of the health care market) where people are generally paying out of pocket.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

the same could be said for hundreds of other areas unanticipated by the Founding Fathers 300+ years ago--so I think your take is also preposterous and fails to acknowledge social evolution.

The Founding Fathers thoughts evolved from reviewing history that was far older than 300 years. They obviously could not anticipate particulars, but they could and did anticipate what would occur in a general circumstance...how right they were.

I recommend you look at the world around you and see how it bears little resemblence to America 300+ years ago.

Unfortunately, a great deal of that is due to pushing the Constitution aside.

You appear to be a strict "constructionist", a position that would eliminate numerous advancements made over the past three centuries. Let's turn back the clock!!

Chinese entrepreneurs state it best:

Guo jin, min tui

(State advances, society retreats)

We're running toward what they're running from. Who's making the greater advances?

 

[chad hampton]

I wish all employers would stop providing HC to employees. Make everyone go buy in on your own, then see how fast we all come to the realization that the system is broke.

I realized that a decade ago. Sad to see us come so close and fall short.

 

[AnonApprsr]

Massachusetts has had Romney Care for a couple years. I paid the tax penalty (which was I think 500 bucks a year or something) instead of signing on. They changed that penalty/or changed the law, so I had to sign on this year. I have to pay 150+- dollars a month. I still don't see a doctor. What a scam.

 

[Green Hornet]

Massachusetts has had Romney Care for a couple years. I paid the tax penalty (which was I think 500 bucks a year or something) instead of signing on. They changed that penalty/or changed the law, so I had to sign on this year. I have to pay 150+- dollars a month. I still don't see a doctor. What a scam.

Anon,

What is the $150/mth for? Is that you insurance premium?

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Anon,

What is the $150/mth for? Is that you insurance premium?

We've discussed this before--our friend would rather go without healthcare. He's a gambler!