Medicare for all

[Humperdink]

For those you extolling the virtues of a national healthcare system, you may want to peruse the wait times in Canada. The Canadian system is typically used as the model system. The Fraser Institute tracks wait times from general practitioner referral to actual treatment by a specialist.

"Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 19.8 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment ..... Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (39.0 weeks), while those waiting for medical oncology begin treatment in 3.8 weeks."

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies ... _eTQT1h71Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[interstorm]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

[Daniel]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

Actually, before discussion the virtues of a national healthcare system, you first need to find the part of the Constitution that allows it. That should be the first step in any federal law, according to the Constitution.

FYI, hard to believe we're in a climate crisis with all the lies over the past 50 years.

[interstorm]

Actually, before discussion the virtues of a national healthcare system, you first need to find the part of the Constitution that allows it. That should be the first step in any federal law, according to the Constitution.

FYI, hard to believe we're in a climate crisis with all the lies over the past 50 years.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. If you refer to the Constitution not explicitly stating we (the US) can provide universal healthcare and thus shouldn't discuss it, I'd say the Constitution didn't explicitly give women the right to vote until the 19th Amendment. For that to happen, as it obviously should have, there needed to first be discussion on whether that change should be made. I think we are at a similar point on discussing universal healthcare. Should we, as a nation, decide to move forward then there can be the needed amendment for that. To say we shouldn't talk about healthcare because the Constitution doesn't currently provide language around it -- not saying that is what you are saying, I could be missing your point -- doesn't seem consistent with how topics (whether ratified or not) were handled in the past.

As for climate change, not sure if you imply that we AREN'T in a climate crisis (i.e. you do not believe the message because of so many lies or half-truths being spread -- which is fair) or that we ARE in a climate crisis (that crucial data has been known for decades about the implications of fossil fuels and we haven't done anything about it (because of the lies to keep the status quo). That is also fair). Won't make any assumptions on your position but reading it is ambiguous.

(And as for lies / half-truths, that goes back to my original statement that organization like Fraser, which exist on both the left and the right, do nothing to actually help people get informed on a position. Instead "think tanks" like that spout out their propaganda making it more difficult to sift through the information to find actual (and complete) truth. It is disappointing that modern political strategy appears to be one of tiring out individuals with information fatigue in the hopes the masses will sooner or later just tune out. The best we can all do is to try to verify information we hear, approach everything with a critical and rational mind, allow ourselves to be impacted by new data and even change positions -- then most of all, no matter where your political leanings are -- VOTE! On every election, small and local up to the federal level -- VOTE!)

[Daniel]

Actually, before discussion the virtues of a national healthcare system, you first need to find the part of the Constitution that allows it. That should be the first step in any federal law, according to the Constitution.

FYI, hard to believe we're in a climate crisis with all the lies over the past 50 years.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. If you refer to the Constitution not explicitly stating we (the US) can provide universal healthcare and thus shouldn't discuss it, I'd say the Constitution didn't explicitly give women the right to vote until the 19th Amendment. For that to happen, as it obviously should have, there needed to first be discussion on whether that change should be made. I think we are at a similar point on discussing universal healthcare. Should we, as a nation, decide to move forward then there can be the needed amendment for that. To say we shouldn't talk about healthcare because the Constitution doesn't currently provide language around it -- not saying that is what you are saying, I could be missing your point -- doesn't seem consistent with how topics (whether ratified or not) were handled in the past.

As for climate change, not sure if you imply that we AREN'T in a climate crisis (i.e. you do not believe the message because of so many lies or half-truths being spread -- which is fair) or that we ARE in a climate crisis (that crucial data has been known for decades about the implications of fossil fuels and we haven't done anything about it (because of the lies to keep the status quo). That is also fair). Won't make any assumptions on your position but reading it is ambiguous.

(And as for lies / half-truths, that goes back to my original statement that organization like Fraser, which exist on both the left and the right, do nothing to actually help people get informed on a position. Instead "think tanks" like that spout out their propaganda making it more difficult to sift through the information to find actual (and complete) truth. It is disappointing that modern political strategy appears to be one of tiring out individuals with information fatigue in the hopes the masses will sooner or later just tune out. The best we can all do is to try to verify information we hear, approach everything with a critical and rational mind, allow ourselves to be impacted by new data and even change positions -- then most of all, no matter where your political leanings are -- VOTE! On every election, small and local up to the federal level -- VOTE!)

For women to be able to vote, it needed a constitutional convention and amendment passed. As is, passing universal healthcare through Congress is unconstitutional. If you want to discuss a constitutional convention, fine. If 38 states vote to do a convention, fine, if they pass a resolution, fine. What the presidential candidates are suggesting is not only unconstitutional, but the president literally isn't involved in the process. You and are more involved than the president in changing the constitution. BTW, Elizabeth Warren's suggestion of getting rid of the electoral college was geared towards stupid people. She knows better than that or her education is a lie (Her lying, nah).

I don't believe we're in a climate crisis. I don't believe that anything we do affects the earth to the point the propaganda suggests. I will concede that from a local/micro perspective we do because of livability. I've seen charts where pollution has gone down, I also know that we've only tracked temperature for 150 years or so. I've also seen a village on the North Sea that grew wheat 6000 years ago. It can't grow wheat now because it's too cold, so what was the temperature like 6000 years ago? I've seen studies that show bacteria in places on the earth that the cold climate shouldn't have allowed to be created.

So what exactly is the climate crisis? The one where we'd be in an ice age by now? Global warming (which if I remember correctly was the very natural El Nino)? The flooding we should have seen? Most of the "science" has been made into bad movies.

This is why I don't believe in the climate crisis. If there was actually one, why aren't they talking to the countries that are actually polluting? Why are we being bullied into making unnecessary changes? I'd take it much more serious if they stopped using mentally defective children and started talking to China and India before coming to America.

I'd also take it more seriously if they stopped with the "world is going to end" nonsense or if they'd stopped flying to places to tell us to stop flying. It's just so much BS that I don't believe them. Cry wolf for 50 years and wonder why people don't believe.

[Humperdink]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

Shazzam, I checked my post for a few weeks and no one responded and now you have. Allow me to comment on what you have stated. I have no problem if you want to "kill the messenger" (re: the Fraser Institute). However, just killing the messenger does not advance your argument or refute mine. Please find a link where wait times in Canada are within reason. Otherwise, your response holds no water.

Two anecdotes:

1) I live in NW Pa, two hours from the Canadian border. Our one-horse town has a local hospital that recently hired an orthopedic surgeon. I went to see him over a knee issue. Hanging on his office wall were his undergrad, graduate, and medical degrees, all from Canada. I asked why he was practicing in the US. He responded: "I needed to earn a living". Think about that. He's here because opportunities in Canada are apparently lacking. Maybe he's the only one who fled, but I doubt it. If too many doctors follow him, you have a shortage. And likely extended wait times.

2) Spouse and I traveled to Belize a few years ago. She had a major gastro-intestinal issue. Took her to the local free clinic. Obviously it was going to cost me as a US citizen. We walked in the door and lo and behold, it was pediatric day. Every toddler in the town was waiting to be examined. The place was filthy. The bathroom had one terry towel for everyone to dry their hands. I found out there was a private clinic across the street. We went there. It was run by a female Cuban exile. Naturally I asked how she ended up in Belize. She told me she traveling with a Cuban athletic team and when the opportunity presented itself, she fled. She couldn't have been happier. The office and exam rooms were spotless. My spouse was treated within minutes.

I submit to you that when the feds completely run healthcare, it will be rationed. There will be shortages, there will be extended wait times. There are only so many resources. The old and the handicapped will be the last ones treated.

Here's another link for you: https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/new ... itals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline for the above link: Nearly 1,000 Canadians Treated at WNY Hospitals

[Daniel]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

Shazzam, I checked my post for a few weeks and no one responded and now you have. Allow me to comment on what you have stated. I have no problem if you want to "kill the messenger" (re: the Fraser Institute). However, just killing the messenger does not advance your argument or refute mine. Please find a link where wait times in Canada are within reason. Otherwise, your response holds no water.

Two anecdotes:

1) I live in NW Pa, two hours from the Canadian border. Our one-horse town has a local hospital that recently hired an orthopedic surgeon. I went to see him over a knee issue. Hanging on his office wall were his undergrad, graduate, and medical degrees, all from Canada. I asked why he was practicing in the US. He responded: "I needed to earn a living". Think about that. He's here because opportunities in Canada are apparently lacking. Maybe he's the only one who fled, but I doubt it. If too many doctors follow him, you have a shortage. And likely extended wait times.

2) Spouse and I traveled to Belize a few years ago. She had a major gastro-intestinal issue. Took her to the local free clinic. Obviously it was going to cost me as a US citizen. We walked in the door and lo and behold, it was pediatric day. Every toddler in the town was waiting to be examined. The place was filthy. The bathroom had one terry towel for everyone to dry their hands. I found out there was a private clinic across the street. We went there. It was run by a female Cuban exile. Naturally I asked how she ended up in Belize. She told me she traveling with a Cuban athletic team and when the opportunity presented itself, she fled. She couldn't have been happier. The office and exam rooms were spotless. My spouse was treated within minutes.

I submit to you that when the feds completely run healthcare, it will be rationed. There will be shortages, there will be extended wait times. There are only so many resources. The old and the handicapped will be the last ones treated.

Here's another link for you: https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/new ... itals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline for the above link: Nearly 1,000 Canadians Treated at WNY Hospitals

I think the bottom line for medicare for all are two things.

First, it's unConstitutional. That can certainly change, but I doubt it.
Second, even if the Constitution does change, what's a more corrupt and fraud driven government benefit? I haven't looked it up lately, but there used to be millions to billions in fraud and corruption in the limited amount of medicare we do see. And people want this expanded? They can't even control medicare for some, I can only imagine how horrible it will be if it's for all.

[Humperdink]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

Shazzam, I checked my post for a few weeks and no one responded and now you have. Allow me to comment on what you have stated. I have no problem if you want to "kill the messenger" (re: the Fraser Institute). However, just killing the messenger does not advance your argument or refute mine. Please find a link where wait times in Canada are within reason. Otherwise, your response holds no water.

Two anecdotes:

1) I live in NW Pa, two hours from the Canadian border. Our one-horse town has a local hospital that recently hired an orthopedic surgeon. I went to see him over a knee issue. Hanging on his office wall were his undergrad, graduate, and medical degrees, all from Canada. I asked why he was practicing in the US. He responded: "I needed to earn a living". Think about that. He's here because opportunities in Canada are apparently lacking. Maybe he's the only one who fled, but I doubt it. If too many doctors follow him, you have a shortage. And likely extended wait times.

2) Spouse and I traveled to Belize a few years ago. She had a major gastro-intestinal issue. Took her to the local free clinic. Obviously it was going to cost me as a US citizen. We walked in the door and lo and behold, it was pediatric day. Every toddler in the town was waiting to be examined. The place was filthy. The bathroom had one terry towel for everyone to dry their hands. I found out there was a private clinic across the street. We went there. It was run by a female Cuban exile. Naturally I asked how she ended up in Belize. She told me she traveling with a Cuban athletic team and when the opportunity presented itself, she fled. She couldn't have been happier. The office and exam rooms were spotless. My spouse was treated within minutes.

I submit to you that when the feds completely run healthcare, it will be rationed. There will be shortages, there will be extended wait times. There are only so many resources. The old and the handicapped will be the last ones treated.

Here's another link for you: https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/new ... itals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline for the above link: Nearly 1,000 Canadians Treated at WNY Hospitals

I think the bottom line for medicare for all are two things.

First, it's unConstitutional. That can certainly change, but I doubt it.
Second, even if the Constitution does change, what's a more corrupt and fraud driven government benefit? I haven't looked it up lately, but there used to be millions to billions in fraud and corruption in the limited amount of medicare we do see. And people want this expanded? They can't even control medicare for some, I can only imagine how horrible it will be if it's for all.

I agree with you on the unconstitutional aspects of the feds running our health care system. Most people are clueless regarding the constitution and 10th amendment. The 10th amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The feds cannot touch anything not specifically given to them. Examples would be heath care and education. The feds have done a dandy job with education haven't they? They have the reverse Midas touch - everything they touch turns to crap.

[Daniel]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

Shazzam, I checked my post for a few weeks and no one responded and now you have. Allow me to comment on what you have stated. I have no problem if you want to "kill the messenger" (re: the Fraser Institute). However, just killing the messenger does not advance your argument or refute mine. Please find a link where wait times in Canada are within reason. Otherwise, your response holds no water.

Two anecdotes:

1) I live in NW Pa, two hours from the Canadian border. Our one-horse town has a local hospital that recently hired an orthopedic surgeon. I went to see him over a knee issue. Hanging on his office wall were his undergrad, graduate, and medical degrees, all from Canada. I asked why he was practicing in the US. He responded: "I needed to earn a living". Think about that. He's here because opportunities in Canada are apparently lacking. Maybe he's the only one who fled, but I doubt it. If too many doctors follow him, you have a shortage. And likely extended wait times.

2) Spouse and I traveled to Belize a few years ago. She had a major gastro-intestinal issue. Took her to the local free clinic. Obviously it was going to cost me as a US citizen. We walked in the door and lo and behold, it was pediatric day. Every toddler in the town was waiting to be examined. The place was filthy. The bathroom had one terry towel for everyone to dry their hands. I found out there was a private clinic across the street. We went there. It was run by a female Cuban exile. Naturally I asked how she ended up in Belize. She told me she traveling with a Cuban athletic team and when the opportunity presented itself, she fled. She couldn't have been happier. The office and exam rooms were spotless. My spouse was treated within minutes.

I submit to you that when the feds completely run healthcare, it will be rationed. There will be shortages, there will be extended wait times. There are only so many resources. The old and the handicapped will be the last ones treated.

Here's another link for you: https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/new ... itals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline for the above link: Nearly 1,000 Canadians Treated at WNY Hospitals

I think the bottom line for medicare for all are two things.

First, it's unConstitutional. That can certainly change, but I doubt it.
Second, even if the Constitution does change, what's a more corrupt and fraud driven government benefit? I haven't looked it up lately, but there used to be millions to billions in fraud and corruption in the limited amount of medicare we do see. And people want this expanded? They can't even control medicare for some, I can only imagine how horrible it will be if it's for all.

I agree with you on the unconstitutional aspects of the feds running our health care system. Most people are clueless regarding the constitution and 10th amendment. The 10th amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The feds cannot touch anything not specifically given to them. Examples would be heath care and education. The feds have done a dandy job with education haven't they? They have the reverse Midas touch - everything they touch turns to crap.

The feds have done a good job with education when you consider the goal. The education system has created a generation of useful idiots who fight against America without knowing why. When the Chinese in Hong Kong are fighting for the American way of life and American students are fighting for Communism, it proves what I just said.

Khrushchev was right and now we're seeing the consequences of someone trying to fight the agenda to destroy America from within.

[Humperdink]

NHS, the UK model for Medicare for All:

"Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes ... def88836b8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Zarovich]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

Shazzam, I checked my post for a few weeks and no one responded and now you have. Allow me to comment on what you have stated. I have no problem if you want to "kill the messenger" (re: the Fraser Institute). However, just killing the messenger does not advance your argument or refute mine. Please find a link where wait times in Canada are within reason. Otherwise, your response holds no water.

Two anecdotes:

1) I live in NW Pa, two hours from the Canadian border. Our one-horse town has a local hospital that recently hired an orthopedic surgeon. I went to see him over a knee issue. Hanging on his office wall were his undergrad, graduate, and medical degrees, all from Canada. I asked why he was practicing in the US. He responded: "I needed to earn a living". Think about that. He's here because opportunities in Canada are apparently lacking. Maybe he's the only one who fled, but I doubt it. If too many doctors follow him, you have a shortage. And likely extended wait times.

2) Spouse and I traveled to Belize a few years ago. She had a major gastro-intestinal issue. Took her to the local free clinic. Obviously it was going to cost me as a US citizen. We walked in the door and lo and behold, it was pediatric day. Every toddler in the town was waiting to be examined. The place was filthy. The bathroom had one terry towel for everyone to dry their hands. I found out there was a private clinic across the street. We went there. It was run by a female Cuban exile. Naturally I asked how she ended up in Belize. She told me she traveling with a Cuban athletic team and when the opportunity presented itself, she fled. She couldn't have been happier. The office and exam rooms were spotless. My spouse was treated within minutes.

I submit to you that when the feds completely run healthcare, it will be rationed. There will be shortages, there will be extended wait times. There are only so many resources. The old and the handicapped will be the last ones treated.

Here's another link for you: https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/new ... itals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline for the above link: Nearly 1,000 Canadians Treated at WNY Hospitals

I think the bottom line for medicare for all are two things.

First, it's unConstitutional. That can certainly change, but I doubt it.
Second, even if the Constitution does change, what's a more corrupt and fraud driven government benefit? I haven't looked it up lately, but there used to be millions to billions in fraud and corruption in the limited amount of medicare we do see. And people want this expanded? They can't even control medicare for some, I can only imagine how horrible it will be if it's for all.

I think the feds can pass laws regarding issues not expressly found in the constitution, but the states laws can supersede if not expressly given to the feds.

As far a fraud and waste, my wife works in healthcare, and she recovers millions every year for her company. Fraud and waste is rampant in government and more is not needed in healthcare. Private companies are always looking to profit, so the issue there is people may not always be given the care they need without struggling with their private insurance.

Perfect world is where everyone can get care in a timely manner at a reasonable cost while people maintain a healthy lifestyle to help keep medical costs down.

[Daniel]

First, it's unConstitutional. That can certainly change, but I doubt it.
Second, even if the Constitution does change, what's a more corrupt and fraud driven government benefit? I haven't looked it up lately, but there used to be millions to billions in fraud and corruption in the limited amount of medicare we do see. And people want this expanded? They can't even control medicare for some, I can only imagine how horrible it will be if it's for all.

I think the feds can pass laws regarding issues not expressly found in the constitution, but the states laws can supersede if not expressly given to the feds.

As far a fraud and waste, my wife works in healthcare, and she recovers millions every year for her company. Fraud and waste is rampant in government and more is not needed in healthcare. Private companies are always looking to profit, so the issue there is people may not always be given the care they need without struggling with their private insurance.

Perfect world is where everyone can get care in a timely manner at a reasonable cost while people maintain a healthy lifestyle to help keep medical costs down.

Feds pass laws all the time that are unConstitutional, which is why this country is in the declining state it's in. If I had to make an educated guess, I would imagine 2/3 of laws from the feds are unConstitional. People want more federal interference without having an understanding that they shouldn't and aren't allowed. We've accepted this practice then wonder why Washington DC is so corrupt. They're corrupt because there is too much distance from the common person and the federal politicians and too much ignorance among the masses.

I think the perfect world is mediation by the government with pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment, hospitals, doctors, etc. I don't like tort reform because it hurts citizens. I also don't like that insurance companies a lot of times won't go to trial and just settle (that information isn't up to date so might have changed). Since it's virtually impossible to prove malpractice, I believe one malpractice suit against a doctor that's successful should be the end of their practice, maybe not one but you get where I'm going with this. Medical licenses should be federal, which the Constitution allows this because of interstate commerce. A doctor shouldn't have to get a license if they move from state to state.

[SubtropicalPenguin]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

Shazzam, I checked my post for a few weeks and no one responded and now you have. Allow me to comment on what you have stated. I have no problem if you want to "kill the messenger" (re: the Fraser Institute). However, just killing the messenger does not advance your argument or refute mine. Please find a link where wait times in Canada are within reason. Otherwise, your response holds no water.

Two anecdotes:

1) I live in NW Pa, two hours from the Canadian border. Our one-horse town has a local hospital that recently hired an orthopedic surgeon. I went to see him over a knee issue. Hanging on his office wall were his undergrad, graduate, and medical degrees, all from Canada. I asked why he was practicing in the US. He responded: "I needed to earn a living". Think about that. He's here because opportunities in Canada are apparently lacking. Maybe he's the only one who fled, but I doubt it. If too many doctors follow him, you have a shortage. And likely extended wait times.

2) Spouse and I traveled to Belize a few years ago. She had a major gastro-intestinal issue. Took her to the local free clinic. Obviously it was going to cost me as a US citizen. We walked in the door and lo and behold, it was pediatric day. Every toddler in the town was waiting to be examined. The place was filthy. The bathroom had one terry towel for everyone to dry their hands. I found out there was a private clinic across the street. We went there. It was run by a female Cuban exile. Naturally I asked how she ended up in Belize. She told me she traveling with a Cuban athletic team and when the opportunity presented itself, she fled. She couldn't have been happier. The office and exam rooms were spotless. My spouse was treated within minutes.

I submit to you that when the feds completely run healthcare, it will be rationed. There will be shortages, there will be extended wait times. There are only so many resources. The old and the handicapped will be the last ones treated.

Here's another link for you: https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/new ... itals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline for the above link: Nearly 1,000 Canadians Treated at WNY Hospitals

I think the bottom line for medicare for all are two things.

First, it's unConstitutional. That can certainly change, but I doubt it.
Second, even if the Constitution does change, what's a more corrupt and fraud driven government benefit? I haven't looked it up lately, but there used to be millions to billions in fraud and corruption in the limited amount of medicare we do see. And people want this expanded? They can't even control medicare for some, I can only imagine how horrible it will be if it's for all.

I generally don't talk politics on this board, since I prefer to just enjoy being a Pens fan around here, but I will make a quick note here that Medicare is almost certainly constitutional. Expanding medicare eligibility beyond the current age restrictions would also almost certainly be deemed constitutional. This is a far less constitutionally ambiguous approach to health care coverage than the ACA. Argue as much as you wish about whether it is better/worse than our current system (or prior systems), but I think advancing a constitutional argument against Medicare (for some, or all, or whomever) is folly. At its core, the Medicare of All approach is pretty simple, since all that is really required is to take the existing Medicare statute, and amend the provisions regarding age of eligibility.

Congress' authority to enact health care legislation generally comes from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which has been interpreted quite broadly over the years, and I see no reason to expect even a "right of center" Supreme Court would retreat from decades of precedent on this matter. The power to tax and spend for the general welfare and its power to regulate interstate commerce have been the primary source of constitutional authority for most health care legislation over the years.

There is a reason that the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the constitutionality of Medicare - because the Court already directly addressed Social Security, and the differences are not particularly meaningful at a constitutional level. In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal spending under the "general welfare" clause, and that the Social Security Act constituted a legitimate attempt to solve these problems in cooperation with the states. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has given pretty broad deference to legislative decisions by Congress that a spending program provides for the general welfare.

The Medicare program was established as Title XVIII of the Social Security Act in 1965. It would likely be subject to the same constitutional analysis as was Social Security under the Steward Machine Co. v. Davis case. Granted, the Supreme Court has not taken a case challenging Medicare (or Medicaid as a whole for that matter), but there is nothing particularly different about providing health insurance coverage than there is for unemployment coverage. Now, NFIB v. Sebelius (the ACA case in 2012) did apply a little pressure back on the Medicaid program, but I don't see anything in that case that would suggest a move from the Court that would lead to a holding the Medicare or Medicaid is unconstitutional.

In summary - I highly doubt a constitutional challenge to medicare would be successful, regardless of whether it is expanded to all Americans rather than only to those over age 65.

[Humperdink]

Not necessarily debating the point (although I have Canadian friends who have lived their whole lives in that country and wouldn't want anything resembling the US) however I'd caution this source. Fraser Institute is right leaning "think tank" (i.e. propaganda machine) with funding from the Koch brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). On their site they even have "studies" designed to combat (or show a negative opinion of) the emergence of renewable energy sources in favor of traditional (fossil fuel) ones. Not saying there aren't negatives of renewable -- but we ARE in a climate crisis and perpetuating the model that created the problem shouldn't be part of any solution to the challenges of renewable energy.

So again -- not taking a stand one way or the other but I'd caution anyone from taking Fraser Institute seriously. If you want a REAL opinion on the "virtues of a national healthcare system", go talk first hand to a handful REAL people that live under such a system. DON'T simply adopt the position of an organization that exists only to politically influence the population based on the desires of their high-money backers (right or left leaning).

Shazzam, I checked my post for a few weeks and no one responded and now you have. Allow me to comment on what you have stated. I have no problem if you want to "kill the messenger" (re: the Fraser Institute). However, just killing the messenger does not advance your argument or refute mine. Please find a link where wait times in Canada are within reason. Otherwise, your response holds no water.

Two anecdotes:

1) I live in NW Pa, two hours from the Canadian border. Our one-horse town has a local hospital that recently hired an orthopedic surgeon. I went to see him over a knee issue. Hanging on his office wall were his undergrad, graduate, and medical degrees, all from Canada. I asked why he was practicing in the US. He responded: "I needed to earn a living". Think about that. He's here because opportunities in Canada are apparently lacking. Maybe he's the only one who fled, but I doubt it. If too many doctors follow him, you have a shortage. And likely extended wait times.

2) Spouse and I traveled to Belize a few years ago. She had a major gastro-intestinal issue. Took her to the local free clinic. Obviously it was going to cost me as a US citizen. We walked in the door and lo and behold, it was pediatric day. Every toddler in the town was waiting to be examined. The place was filthy. The bathroom had one terry towel for everyone to dry their hands. I found out there was a private clinic across the street. We went there. It was run by a female Cuban exile. Naturally I asked how she ended up in Belize. She told me she traveling with a Cuban athletic team and when the opportunity presented itself, she fled. She couldn't have been happier. The office and exam rooms were spotless. My spouse was treated within minutes.

I submit to you that when the feds completely run healthcare, it will be rationed. There will be shortages, there will be extended wait times. There are only so many resources. The old and the handicapped will be the last ones treated.

Here's another link for you: https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/new ... itals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline for the above link: Nearly 1,000 Canadians Treated at WNY Hospitals

I think the bottom line for medicare for all are two things.

First, it's unConstitutional. That can certainly change, but I doubt it.
Second, even if the Constitution does change, what's a more corrupt and fraud driven government benefit? I haven't looked it up lately, but there used to be millions to billions in fraud and corruption in the limited amount of medicare we do see. And people want this expanded? They can't even control medicare for some, I can only imagine how horrible it will be if it's for all.

I generally don't talk politics on this board, since I prefer to just enjoy being a Pens fan around here, but I will make a quick note here that Medicare is almost certainly constitutional. Expanding medicare eligibility beyond the current age restrictions would also almost certainly be deemed constitutional. This is a far less constitutionally ambiguous approach to health care coverage than the ACA. Argue as much as you wish about whether it is better/worse than our current system (or prior systems), but I think advancing a constitutional argument against Medicare (for some, or all, or whomever) is folly. At its core, the Medicare of All approach is pretty simple, since all that is really required is to take the existing Medicare statute, and amend the provisions regarding age of eligibility.

Congress' authority to enact health care legislation generally comes from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which has been interpreted quite broadly over the years, and I see no reason to expect even a "right of center" Supreme Court would retreat from decades of precedent on this matter. The power to tax and spend for the general welfare and its power to regulate interstate commerce have been the primary source of constitutional authority for most health care legislation over the years.

There is a reason that the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the constitutionality of Medicare - because the Court already directly addressed Social Security, and the differences are not particularly meaningful at a constitutional level. In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal spending under the "general welfare" clause, and that the Social Security Act constituted a legitimate attempt to solve these problems in cooperation with the states. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has given pretty broad deference to legislative decisions by Congress that a spending program provides for the general welfare.

The Medicare program was established as Title XVIII of the Social Security Act in 1965. It would likely be subject to the same constitutional analysis as was Social Security under the Steward Machine Co. v. Davis case. Granted, the Supreme Court has not taken a case challenging Medicare (or Medicaid as a whole for that matter), but there is nothing particularly different about providing health insurance coverage than there is for unemployment coverage. Now, NFIB v. Sebelius (the ACA case in 2012) did apply a little pressure back on the Medicaid program, but I don't see anything in that case that would suggest a move from the Court that would lead to a holding the Medicare or Medicaid is unconstitutional.

In summary - I highly doubt a constitutional challenge to medicare would be successful, regardless of whether it is expanded to all Americans rather than only to those over age 65.

The constitutionality of Medicare for All was not my point. Further, IMO citing the constitution is an exercise in futility as evidenced by numerous SCOTUS rulings, the most recent being penned by Chief Justice Roberts on Bambicare. The constitution is what the current crop of justices say it is.

My point is that Medicare for All is bad healthcare and will be rationed. You and/or your doctor will not be choosing your healthcare nor the timing of it, the FEDS will.

Another article highlighting the myth of free Canadian healthcare:

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... s7uNafqJaE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[interstorm]

You and/or your doctor will not be choosing your healthcare nor the timing of it, the FEDS will.

As opposed to your insurance company?

[Humperdink]

You and/or your doctor will not be choosing your healthcare nor the timing of it, the FEDS will.

As opposed to your insurance company?

Very good point. However, I would suggest you have a better shot (ha) with your insurance company, bad as they are, than with the intransigence of a federal procedure/policy. More competition on insurance side would be the first move that needs to be made. Selling across state lines, ease of entry into the market etc. Transparency on the cost side from the medical providers. How about this? Eliminate employer provided health insurance. Give the the employee the money and let them buy their own. This just might force the insurance companies to be competitive at the individual level, while at the same time getting the insured to become price conscious.