Simple plan for healthcare... Add a conditional clause (ala no college aid for drug bust)

for Medicare that throws you off if arrested for "disrupting a congressional meeting with constituents."

Then arrest every repuke protester at these town hall riots.

This is a two-fer. It punishes these hypocrites and saves money for those who appreciate that a single-payer system is the best solution.

direct me to some sites that show arguments in favor of single payer, specifically in reference to the constitutionality and feasibility of said plan? I have not really done much research on the topic and since there are so many people here who are so well-informed I was hoping someone could help me get started. Thanks!

What Is Single-Payer National Health Insurance?

To begin with, it is NOT “Socialized Medicine”, far from it in fact. Also, it does not mean that our medical system will be taken over by the government and run like the post office as many of our opposition friends would mistakenly have you believe.

Basically, House Resolution (H.R.) 676, the “New Expanded Medicare” bill now in the House of Representatives simply creates a new and far more functional “single payer” method of collecting and distributing payments for medical services while leaving the medical system itself completely alone and intact. This will eliminate the hundreds of complicated and redundant payment plans currently imposed on the system by private “for profit” health insurance companies and save literally BILLIONS of dollars every year by eliminating such wasteful duplication. This will allow your doctors offices and hospitals to function much more efficiently and serve your needs much more effectively as well. Just imagine what a huge benefit this will be!

Taxes: We all know that nothing of any real value is ever free, but if you think of the taxes that will be required to support national health insurance as simply a lower cost alternative to the staggering private health insurance premiums that most of us already have to pay but which will be totally eliminated under the new system, then it becomes immediately clear that this could be a really good deal after all!

http://www.hr676.org/

You can find the text of the bill at that website. Single payer is the simplest, cheapest, best way to go. I can vouch for it. It is like the European plans. You pay a graduated tax that is taken out of your paycheck and also in your sales tax and voila you can got to the doctor and hospital of your choice whenever you want. You save the zillions paid to the health care administrators and CEOS and for health care insurance ads. You never have to fear that your medical needs will not be covered.

It would not only lower the cost of medical insurance (note the cost that is lowered is not the cost of the actual care or medications necessarily) but it will discourage a lot of frivolous personal injury and medical malpractice litigation in my opinion. That is because it will never be necessary to fear that ten years from now that seemingly innocuous whiplash could cost you a fortune in medical expenses that you cannot afford.

However, your post did not address the constitutionality of the healthcare proposals being made. I believe that the constitution should be adhered to since it is the supreme law of the land and if there isn't any provision in there for health care I would be willing to amend the constitution to put it there. But as is, isn't all this talk of health care proposals pretty much illegal?

What is arguably not Constitutional is our standing army. Many of the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson and Adams, absolutely abhorred the idea of a standing army. That is one of the reasons that Congress is required by the Constitution to pass a new budget every two years for a militia. The Constitution authorizes Congress to institute an navy but with regard to the army limits the authority of Congress as follows:

Art. I, Sect. 8<12>
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Congress has the power in Art. I, Sect. 8<3> "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

This is, like the even more restrictive provisions regarding the Militia and the Armies interpreted quite broadly.

Further, in Art. I, Section 3<18> Congress is given authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carryin into Executin the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Finally, Art. I, Sect. 8<1> states
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Conservatives like to point to Section 8<1> for authorization to maintain our unwieldy military in outposts all over the world. But they argue that the general welfare clause should be ignored. Who is right? Who is wrong?

The plan now being considered would direct people toward existing insurance providers, hospitals and doctors themselves as well as doctor coops and corporations owned by doctors and medical personnel. It would not institute government run healthcare providers.

Even the single-payer bill, H.R. 676, provides for non-profit hospitals. Doctors and hospitals would be paid for services rendered, but would not go on the government payroll. They would contract with the government or apply for payment for services from the government. That bill is not likely to be passed.

None of the proposals suggest a government-owned health care system. The government would merely be a sort of clearing house for payments. It would regulate the businesses that provide the care as part of its authority under the Commerce Clause. That is the way Medicare works. The relationship is between doctor and patient, hospital and patient. The government just handles the financial side and pays the doctors' and hospitals fees. That is why so many elderly protesters at these meetings look so foolish. They are on Medicare but don't want this reform. They don't understand they are already enjoying the kind of government plan that is being proposed.

This is not socialized medicine whatever that is. I lived in several European countries. The relationship between me and my doctor was private as far as I was concerned. The government ran hospitals over there because that was a longstanding tradition, not because of "socialized medicine." The doctors administered the hospitals even though they appeared to be government owned.

States and local communities traditionally ran a lot of hospitals in the U.S. Those were privatized only within maybe the last 30 or so years. (I'm not 100% sure when the very earliest privatizations took place.) That experiment of privatization has not worked well for most people. Health insurance costs have risen too fast. And too much of our health care dollars has gone for unnecessary advertising and CEO and management salaries as well as to pay-offs for members of Congress.

That is why, in my opinion, we need to return to doctors, other medical professionals, non-profits and local or state governments running our individual health care institutions with the federal handling payment. But my opinion is not relevant to the plans most likely to pass in Congress.

So, the plans being proposed are Constitutional. They simply are. Congress is not assuming any powers outside the Constitution. I have read that the Constitutionality of Medicare has never even been challenged. It is pretty much a given.