President Trump promised to replace Obamacare, but so far has
only suggested modifying it. He should replace the Obama
approach to health care.
Medical costs cause the price of health insurance to be too high for
some to afford. Obamacare attempted to deal with high
insurance rates by forcing healthy people to buy health
insurance.
A better approach would recognize that it isn't practical for
profit-making insurance programs to pay for expensive to treat
chronic disorders such as those associated with alcohol or tobacco
use. Special programs could be set up to cover such
disorders.
Taxes on alcohol and tobacco should be used to fund programs for
alcohol and tobacco related medical disorders. For
example, a per gallon tax on alcohol products would go into a fund
for treatment of alcohol related disorders. A doctor
would certify that a person has an alcohol related disorder and
health care providers would send health care bills for the patient
to the alcohol fund in the same way bills are sent to insurance
companies for payment. To simplify payment procedures
all medical problems of a patient with an alcohol related medical
problem would be paid by the fund because alcohol can reduce the
body's ability to handle problems. The fund would also cover
medical costs of those who suffer injuries because of the
actions of someone under the influence of alcohol even if the injury
involved a preexisting condition. A police report that one of
the drivers in a traffic accident was under the influence of alcohol
would trigger payment from the alcohol fund even if the courts
wouldn't consider the drinking driver to be at fault.
Under the current insurance system people who never use tobacco or
alcohol help pay for the medical treatment of those who have tobacco
or alcohol related medical problems. Under my proposal only
those who use alcohol and tobacco products would pay to
treat medical problems related to alcohol and tobacco
use.
Another type of health care fund would involve specific disorders,
such as heart trouble or specific cancers that may be caused by
various factors other than tobacco or alcohol.
Government would use general taxes to finance treatment and conduct
research. Other funds might come from non-profit
organizations. Government might encourage non-profit funds by
offering to match what they raise.
Each fund would operate in part as a research project. Paying
for all treatments from a single fund would allow researchers to
monitor and compare the success rate of various different
treatments. Insurance companies are reluctant to fund
experimental treatments because they can't expect to benefit from
them, but the federal government could benefit from knowing what
doesn't work as well as knowing what does work.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Was Teen's Death the Media's Fault?
We all know we shouldn't shoot the messenger who brings bad news.
But, what about messengers who fail to deliver important
information?
Early on the morning of January 4, 17-year-old Joshua Acorn [who preferred the name Leelah] committed suicide by walking into the path of a semi. Acorn had a male body but believed "herself" to be female. The parents and those who support transsexuals are blaming each other and both deserve part of the blame.
However, much of the blame rests with the media which has failed to inform people of scientific research that demonstrates that transsexuals really do have a body of one sex and a brain of the other. Homosexuals are afflicted with the same birth defect, but don't understand their condition. As I discussed in the previous post, various brain scan related studies in the last decade by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicate that people who consider themselves homosexuals actually have the body of one sex and the brain of the other which is the definition of transsexuals.
The media should have distributed this information as it became available instead of acting like homosexuals were part of a different race or species of humans.
As Mark Twain once observed: "That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
Too many of those who call themselves journalists behave much like trained seals. They spend their time sitting around and barking\ for someone to throw them a fishy story. They wait for those with special interests to give them biased information.
Today's journalists have access to more information than previous generations of journalists. They don't need to rely on special interests to provide them with information. Journalists don't have to try to schedule an interview to get information. They can find ample amounts of information on the internet if they will only take the trouble to look for it.
Various sites like http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/contain news releases about various physical and social science research projects. Journalists need to be aware that those who conduct research may have their own biases. Journalists should check for alternate views on the subject. For example, research on whether coffee is good for you or bad for you keeps changing with different studies.
Information about research into the study of the brains of homosexuals has been available on the web for several years. I mentioned the subject in my blogs over two years ago.
The parents who called their child Joshua didn't understand that it wasn't that their child wanted to be a girl. The child who preferred the name Leelah literally did have a girl's brain in a boy's body. The parents might have understood if the media had informed them of scientific research that demonstrates some people really are born with a brain of one sex and a body of the other.
The families of transsexuals aren't the only ones who need to know about this research. Homosexuals have the same condition, but don't understand. The media need to inform homosexuals that scientists know why they feel the way they do and that a sex change operation might allow them to lead a normal life without the sexual confusion they have now.
Those who wish to help homosexuals change their behavior need to know that changing the body so it is on the sexual page as the brain is a much better approach than brainwashing.. It may come as a surprise to some Christians that the Bible approves of sex change operations. Jesus said in Matthew 18: 9 "If thine eye offend thee pluck it out...." Or in other words if a defect in the body causes behavior that might be considered sinful the body should be changed so it won't cause "sin".
The fact that the body and the brain develop different sexual characteristics is a birth defect. Thus sex change operations are corrective surgery, not elective surgery. Government health insurance programs should cover such operations. The U.S. requirement that people purchase health insurance through health insurance companies means that these companies should sex change operations.
Early on the morning of January 4, 17-year-old Joshua Acorn [who preferred the name Leelah] committed suicide by walking into the path of a semi. Acorn had a male body but believed "herself" to be female. The parents and those who support transsexuals are blaming each other and both deserve part of the blame.
However, much of the blame rests with the media which has failed to inform people of scientific research that demonstrates that transsexuals really do have a body of one sex and a brain of the other. Homosexuals are afflicted with the same birth defect, but don't understand their condition. As I discussed in the previous post, various brain scan related studies in the last decade by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicate that people who consider themselves homosexuals actually have the body of one sex and the brain of the other which is the definition of transsexuals.
The media should have distributed this information as it became available instead of acting like homosexuals were part of a different race or species of humans.
As Mark Twain once observed: "That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
Too many of those who call themselves journalists behave much like trained seals. They spend their time sitting around and barking\ for someone to throw them a fishy story. They wait for those with special interests to give them biased information.
Today's journalists have access to more information than previous generations of journalists. They don't need to rely on special interests to provide them with information. Journalists don't have to try to schedule an interview to get information. They can find ample amounts of information on the internet if they will only take the trouble to look for it.
Various sites like http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/contain news releases about various physical and social science research projects. Journalists need to be aware that those who conduct research may have their own biases. Journalists should check for alternate views on the subject. For example, research on whether coffee is good for you or bad for you keeps changing with different studies.
Information about research into the study of the brains of homosexuals has been available on the web for several years. I mentioned the subject in my blogs over two years ago.
The parents who called their child Joshua didn't understand that it wasn't that their child wanted to be a girl. The child who preferred the name Leelah literally did have a girl's brain in a boy's body. The parents might have understood if the media had informed them of scientific research that demonstrates some people really are born with a brain of one sex and a body of the other.
The families of transsexuals aren't the only ones who need to know about this research. Homosexuals have the same condition, but don't understand. The media need to inform homosexuals that scientists know why they feel the way they do and that a sex change operation might allow them to lead a normal life without the sexual confusion they have now.
Those who wish to help homosexuals change their behavior need to know that changing the body so it is on the sexual page as the brain is a much better approach than brainwashing.. It may come as a surprise to some Christians that the Bible approves of sex change operations. Jesus said in Matthew 18: 9 "If thine eye offend thee pluck it out...." Or in other words if a defect in the body causes behavior that might be considered sinful the body should be changed so it won't cause "sin".
The fact that the body and the brain develop different sexual characteristics is a birth defect. Thus sex change operations are corrective surgery, not elective surgery. Government health insurance programs should cover such operations. The U.S. requirement that people purchase health insurance through health insurance companies means that these companies should sex change operations.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Best Option to Repeal Obamacare
If House Republicans are serious about wanting to repeal Obamacare, they should pass a Resolution stating that some, or all, portions of the Obamacare law are unconstitutional. A House Resolution doesn't require Senate approval and cannot be vetoed as would be the case with a bill eliminating Obamacare.
The Resolution should include a statement reminding the courts that the only justification Chief John Marshall could cite for ruling on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress in Marbury v. Madison was the oath the justices took to support the Constitution. Members of Congress take the same oath and thus have the same authority to express opinions of the Constitution.
The voters provide the ultimate check on government. If one Congress acts contrary to what voters think is correct, they have the option of electing new members to correct the improper action. The House of Representatives is the closest to the people because each district is approximately equal in population and all are subject to replacement every two years.
Those challenging Obamacare in court could use such a Resolution to support their claims that the law is unconstitutional.
House members should consult with those challenging Obamacare for suggestions about what the Resolution should include. The following indicate some of the substantial constitutional problems with Obamacare.
Regulating individual behavior using the Interstate Commerce Clause sounds like a violation of the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery. Congress could regulate the behavior of humans as elements of commerce when those humans were commodities to be bought and sold as slaves. Free citizens have the freedom to engage in interstate commerce or not engage in interstate commerce.
Requiring people to pay for health care by purchasing insurance violates their right to privacy in making health care decisions. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases has held that government cannot interfere in a person's right to make personal health care decisions. Requiring people to purchase insurance can force them to turn over health care decisions to an insurance company. Forcing them to turn money over to an insurance company instead of using it to pay for the type of health care they desire can deprive them of their right to choose health care options the insurance company doesn't support, such as plastic surgery, a sex change operation or treatment insurance companies considers "experimental".
Abortion supporters don't understand that Obamacare could eliminate abortion funding if health insurance companies considered late term or other abortions too costly or "risky". If the Interstate Commerce Clause can override the right to privacy on health insurance, then it can override the right to privacy on other health care decisions. This possibility may not be important for Obamacare opponents, but it is important to many Supreme Court justices.
Requiring people to purchase private health insurance violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the First Amendment. Some religions such as the Amish religion and Islam consider purchasing private insurance wrong. The Christian Science religion questions the use of medical doctors. Requiring members of these religions to purchase private health insurance deprives them of their right to practice their religion.
Exempting them from the requirement, creates a special benefit that amounts to a subsidy of their beliefs because they are allowed to keep more of their money for their own use, including donating it to their organization, than those who belong to other religious groups or don't belong to any religious group. Allowing members of some religions to spend money that members of other religions don't have to spend has the same impact as providing a direct government subsidy of the privileged religious groups. The First Amendment refers to government subsidy of a religion(s) as an "establishment of religion".
I have heard that the act creating Obamacare contains a provision that in effect states that if the Supreme Court finds any part of the act unconstitutional than the entire act would be invalid. Such a provision in and of itself would render the act unconstitutional because the provision would alter the powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison invalidated an Act of Congress for a less significant attempt to alter the Court's power.
Such a provision would drastically alter the Court's Article 3 powers both expanding and restricting them. The provision would in effect grant the Court a stronger veto power than the President has because Congress could not override the Court's "veto". On the other hand the provision would dictate to the Court by removing the option of invalidating or modifying only those provisions in legislation that in the opinion of a majority of the Court violate some portion of the Constitution. The Constitution established the judicial branch to limit the ability of the government to control the lives of its citizens by limiting the circumstances under which the government could impose punishment. The judicial branch is not supposed to function as a super legislature.
The requirement that individuals purchase health insurance from private companies at rates set by those companies involves the transfer of the government's taxing authority to private companies which deprives voters of the ability to elect those who determine their taxes.
The Resolution should remind the Court that forcing people to purchase private health insurance is unnecessary to provide people with access to health care. Government can raise revenue to pay for health care with its taxation powers and then use that money to directly pay health care costs as it already does with Medicare and Medicaid.
The comparison of Obamacare to requirements for purchasing auto liability insurance is invalid. The auto liability insurance requirement is a requirement that those who engage in the dangerous activity of driving a motor vehicle prove they can compensate anyone who suffers a loss because of their mistakes while operating a motor vehicle. Many states allow motorists to fulfill this liability requirement by posting a bond rather than purchasing insurance.
The Resolution should include a statement reminding the courts that the only justification Chief John Marshall could cite for ruling on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress in Marbury v. Madison was the oath the justices took to support the Constitution. Members of Congress take the same oath and thus have the same authority to express opinions of the Constitution.
The voters provide the ultimate check on government. If one Congress acts contrary to what voters think is correct, they have the option of electing new members to correct the improper action. The House of Representatives is the closest to the people because each district is approximately equal in population and all are subject to replacement every two years.
Those challenging Obamacare in court could use such a Resolution to support their claims that the law is unconstitutional.
House members should consult with those challenging Obamacare for suggestions about what the Resolution should include. The following indicate some of the substantial constitutional problems with Obamacare.
Regulating individual behavior using the Interstate Commerce Clause sounds like a violation of the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery. Congress could regulate the behavior of humans as elements of commerce when those humans were commodities to be bought and sold as slaves. Free citizens have the freedom to engage in interstate commerce or not engage in interstate commerce.
Requiring people to pay for health care by purchasing insurance violates their right to privacy in making health care decisions. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases has held that government cannot interfere in a person's right to make personal health care decisions. Requiring people to purchase insurance can force them to turn over health care decisions to an insurance company. Forcing them to turn money over to an insurance company instead of using it to pay for the type of health care they desire can deprive them of their right to choose health care options the insurance company doesn't support, such as plastic surgery, a sex change operation or treatment insurance companies considers "experimental".
Abortion supporters don't understand that Obamacare could eliminate abortion funding if health insurance companies considered late term or other abortions too costly or "risky". If the Interstate Commerce Clause can override the right to privacy on health insurance, then it can override the right to privacy on other health care decisions. This possibility may not be important for Obamacare opponents, but it is important to many Supreme Court justices.
Requiring people to purchase private health insurance violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the First Amendment. Some religions such as the Amish religion and Islam consider purchasing private insurance wrong. The Christian Science religion questions the use of medical doctors. Requiring members of these religions to purchase private health insurance deprives them of their right to practice their religion.
Exempting them from the requirement, creates a special benefit that amounts to a subsidy of their beliefs because they are allowed to keep more of their money for their own use, including donating it to their organization, than those who belong to other religious groups or don't belong to any religious group. Allowing members of some religions to spend money that members of other religions don't have to spend has the same impact as providing a direct government subsidy of the privileged religious groups. The First Amendment refers to government subsidy of a religion(s) as an "establishment of religion".
I have heard that the act creating Obamacare contains a provision that in effect states that if the Supreme Court finds any part of the act unconstitutional than the entire act would be invalid. Such a provision in and of itself would render the act unconstitutional because the provision would alter the powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison invalidated an Act of Congress for a less significant attempt to alter the Court's power.
Such a provision would drastically alter the Court's Article 3 powers both expanding and restricting them. The provision would in effect grant the Court a stronger veto power than the President has because Congress could not override the Court's "veto". On the other hand the provision would dictate to the Court by removing the option of invalidating or modifying only those provisions in legislation that in the opinion of a majority of the Court violate some portion of the Constitution. The Constitution established the judicial branch to limit the ability of the government to control the lives of its citizens by limiting the circumstances under which the government could impose punishment. The judicial branch is not supposed to function as a super legislature.
The requirement that individuals purchase health insurance from private companies at rates set by those companies involves the transfer of the government's taxing authority to private companies which deprives voters of the ability to elect those who determine their taxes.
The Resolution should remind the Court that forcing people to purchase private health insurance is unnecessary to provide people with access to health care. Government can raise revenue to pay for health care with its taxation powers and then use that money to directly pay health care costs as it already does with Medicare and Medicaid.
The comparison of Obamacare to requirements for purchasing auto liability insurance is invalid. The auto liability insurance requirement is a requirement that those who engage in the dangerous activity of driving a motor vehicle prove they can compensate anyone who suffers a loss because of their mistakes while operating a motor vehicle. Many states allow motorists to fulfill this liability requirement by posting a bond rather than purchasing insurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
