Health Care...a national emergency?

The use of the National Emergency Act as a means to bypass the Congress to start a program to build a wall was brought up by President Trump after he walked into a meeting with Democrats, demanded his wall…and was told ‘no’!  He stormed out, ending the negotiation.  Trump does not like cooperating, and prefers unilateral action.

By declaring an emergency under the National Emergency Act (NEA), and borrowing funds from the military, Trump is dealing in unilateral action.  Through use of the NEA a president may usurp all powers and become a dictator.  All you need is a convenient emergency.  That’s easy pickings for Trump, who lies all the time.  “The crisis at the border is an emergency, there I said it…build the wall!"

But, in the bigger picture, this may not be all that bad.  The elections last November proved that America is tiring of Trump and his antics.  The Democrats are sure to win the White House back in the election of 2020.  Then it will be the Democrats' turn.

The big issue for Democrats is healthcare.  The Affordable Care Act was always vulnerable because it uses the insurance market as a delivery vehicle.  We need a direct national health delivery program (sometimes called a ‘single-payer’ program) such as Britain has in its NHS.  

Republicans in Congress will obviously oppose that.  But, Trump and his wall will warm the public to finding “emergencies” in tiny little corners of the world.  If building a wall against women and children is an emergency, imagine what bells the battle against disease and misery will ring.  Following in Trump’s path, we simply need to dip into funds intended for the Department of Defense to create a National Health Care Program.

It’s hardly unreasonable.  The Department of Defense is defined as the protector of Americans against attack by any means.  Admirals and Generals have had to adjust amid constantly shifting war strategies, from the urban battlefield, to attacks by the Internet.  Certainly anything that threatens America health can be viewed as an enemy tactic, if not a direct enemy.

The Defense Department is the perfect unit to combat disease and tragedy in the newly conceived threat world.  Indeed, the Department of Defense already has a biological warfare unit in the National Biodefense Strategy, which includes the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID).  It is a small step to expand the mission to public health protection.

It may mean a bigger financial demand on the military, but the cost of a silly wall on the southern border will be upwards of $30-billion.  Congress will adjust with more funds.  Isn’t your life and health worth it?  Isn’t that what defense is all about?  Instead of a threat from an external enemy, this is adjusting our sights on the enemy inside.

There is no emergency in the US.  The debt would be the closest thing to a serious problem that will become an emergency at some point.

Maddog wrote:There is no emergency in the US.  The debt would be the closest thing to a serious problem that will become an emergency at some point.

That's the beauty of President Trump wearing this path for us by resort to the National Emergency Act (NEA).  "Emergency" is an elusive,  vacillating term.  If he can find an "emergency" in appearances by women and children seeking asylum at the border, certainly anyone can find an "emergency" in thousands of people dying of cancer or heart disease.  Truly, an "emergency" is what the people feel threatened by at the time.

Use of the National Emergency Act is a path to direct, unilateral action by the president.  The office of the president will soon be occupied by a Democrat, and the emergency will be healthcare--especially when the public sees what the Republicans have done by eliminating the individual mandate.  http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/tax-bill-individual-mandate-obamacare/

We are caught in suspension.  The insurance market was a convenient delivery system as long as the disincentive of risk was removed.  The individual mandate did that.  Now, without it, the insurance market is no longer a workable solution.  But the jump to a national, taxpayer funded, healthcare system is perhaps too great a leap today.  The National Emergency Act is a perfect bridge.

All we need is for Trump to legitimize the tactic for us.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:There is no emergency in the US.  The debt would be the closest thing to a serious problem that will become an emergency at some point.

That's the beauty of President Trump wearing this path for us by resort to the National Emergency Act (NEA).  "Emergency" is an elusive,  vacillating term.  If he can find an "emergency" in appearances by women and children seeking asylum at the border, certainly anyone can find an "emergency" in thousands of people dying of cancer or heart disease.  Truly, an "emergency" is what the people feel threatened by at the time.

Use of the National Emergency Act is a path to direct, unilateral action by the president.  The office of the president will soon be occupied by a Democrat, and the emergency will be healthcare--especially when the public sees what the Republicans have done by eliminating the individual mandate.  http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/tax-bill-individual-mandate-obamacare/

We are caught in suspension.  The insurance market was a convenient delivery system as long as the disincentive of risk was removed.  The individual mandate did that.  Now, without it, the insurance market is no longer a workable solution.  But the jump to a national, taxpayer funded, healthcare system is perhaps too great a leap today.  The National Emergency Act is a perfect bridge.

All we need is for Trump to legitimize the tactic for us.

There is no emergency at the border, or with healthcare. There are just dumb Americans who are easily manipulated by fear.

Maddog wrote:The debt would be the closest thing to a serious problem that will become an emergency at some point.

That is the beauty of this avenue.  The cost of a national healthcare system will initially fall on the wealthiest and most profligate department in the US Government: The Department of Defense.

The DOD can absorb the initial hit, and keep going with its everyday business.  The programs that will need to be cut to make way for a national healthcare program will be the needless overseas adventures, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the F-35 program (currently costing in the $1-trillion range) and Aircraft Supercarriers ($15 billion/copy in latest Ford class).  After all, these expenditures amount to toys for generals.

Compared to the price tags on these toys, the cost of healthcare might well be negligible, and well worth it.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's the beauty of President Trump wearing this path for us by resort to the National Emergency Act (NEA).  "Emergency" is an elusive,  vacillating term.  If he can find an "emergency" in appearances by women and children seeking asylum at the border, certainly anyone can find an "emergency" in thousands of people dying of cancer or heart disease.  Truly, an "emergency" is what the people feel threatened by at the time.

Use of the National Emergency Act is a path to direct, unilateral action by the president.  The office of the president will soon be occupied by a Democrat, and the emergency will be healthcare--especially when the public sees what the Republicans have done by eliminating the individual mandate.  http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/tax-bill-individual-mandate-obamacare/

We are caught in suspension.  The insurance market was a convenient delivery system as long as the disincentive of risk was removed.  The individual mandate did that.  Now, without it, the insurance market is no longer a workable solution.  But the jump to a national, taxpayer funded, healthcare system is perhaps too great a leap today.  The National Emergency Act is a perfect bridge.

All we need is for Trump to legitimize the tactic for us.

There is no emergency at the border, or with healthcare. There are just dumb Americans who are easily manipulated by fear.

I couldn't agree more. Those "dumb Americans" elected Trump.

Obviously, the trickery works. Let's put it to good advantage.

Maddog wrote:There is no emergency in the US.  The debt would be the closest thing to a serious problem that will become an emergency at some point.

The emergency is Donald Trump himself. He's an incompetent piece of shit.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There is no emergency at the border, or with healthcare. There are just dumb Americans who are easily manipulated by fear.

I couldn't agree more.  Those "dumb Americans" elected Trump.

Obviously, the trickery works.  Let's put it to good advantage.

There are all sorts of Americans afraid of things. Immigrants, guns, healthcare, crime. The list goes on and on, and ignoring half of the dumb Americans is sorta the problem. Both sides can't see the ignorance amongst "their" team.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I couldn't agree more.  Those "dumb Americans" elected Trump.

Obviously, the trickery works.  Let's put it to good advantage.

There are all sorts of Americans afraid of things. Immigrants, guns, healthcare, crime. The list goes on and on, and ignoring half of the dumb Americans is sorta the problem. Both sides can't see the ignorance amongst "their" team.  

I do agree with you. But, by now, most politicians work within such constraints.

My point is that in two years, when Democrats come back into power--as they inevitably will after Trump and the Republican guard--it will be a perfect moment to pull an 'emergency" for healthcare.

The big issue for Democrats is healthcare. The Affordable Care Act was always vulnerable because it uses the insurance market as a delivery vehicle. We need a direct national health delivery program (sometimes called a ‘single-payer’ program) such as Britain has in its NHS.

Health care is the US is abysmal. Few people can afford it and when you go to the emergency room you are seen by nurse practitioners or anybody but a real doctor. You are lucky if you don't die from lack of care. In hospital, if you are admitted, there is one nurse for 5-8 patients (on average). The priority is "cost over care." It's pathetic.

My argument has always been to join healthcare with military defense.  First, they both have the same mission: the defense of the citizen.  The nature of the enemy may be different--the military opposes external forces; the physician opposes internal forces--but other than that, both have the burden of protecting the population.

Second, they both cost a lot.  But the Department of Defense (DOD) already has the most of the taxpayer's dollar.  Probably the most waste, too.  Maybe clean up the waste by making things more efficient.  Do we really need a $ trillion-dollar F-35, when cost-to-benefit, a CAT-Scan will help more people and generate more human happiness.

We constantly hear conservatives moaning about how much healthcare will cost, but the same conservative will go out and spend $ trillions on a needless war in Iraq.  Put the tasks in the same basket.  Charge the institution with the same responsibility in both cases.  And let them figure it out: divide all those resources according to need and common sense.

Lurker wrote:

The big issue for Democrats is healthcare.  The Affordable Care Act was always vulnerable because it uses the insurance market as a delivery vehicle.  We need a direct national health delivery program (sometimes called a ‘single-payer’ program) such as Britain has in its NHS.

Health care is the US is abysmal. Few people can afford it and when you go to the emergency room you are seen by nurse practitioners or anybody but a real doctor. You are lucky if you don't die from lack of care. In hospital, if you are admitted, there is one nurse for 5-8 patients (on average). The priority is "cost over care." It's pathetic.

Maybe it's just where you live. I get excellent care here in Texas.

"ONE Nurse for 5to 8 Patients ! your lucky, over here it's more like 1 Nurse for 20-30 patients !

nicko wrote:  "ONE Nurse for 5to 8 Patients !   your lucky, over here it's more like 1 Nurse for 20-30 patients  !

That's because of Tory austerity. The NHS is an easy target, and cost cuts are a constant occurrence.

If the NHS had the promotion of the military--label poppies, memorial day, tomb of unknown soldier (nurse?), silver stars and purple hearts, and all--there would be more support for the enterprise of healthcare. We could pin medals on nurses. A special day commemorating phlebotomists.

Fighting an external enemy seems to involve the eqo more, and so there is more emotion invested in soldering.

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Health care is the US is abysmal. Few people can afford it and when you go to the emergency room you are seen by nurse practitioners or anybody but a real doctor. You are lucky if you don't die from lack of care. In hospital, if you are admitted, there is one nurse for 5-8 patients (on average). The priority is "cost over care." It's pathetic.

Maybe it's just where you live. I get excellent care here in Texas.

Yo, Maddog...

Are you even aware that the equivalent hospital treatments and hospital stays over there cost double what they do in Australia, New Zealand, Britain or France..

With that 50% difference ending up on the corporate bottom lines, -- and not in the actual costs of delivering those services.

Plus, you lot also pay a lot more for the equivalent levels of private health insurance, than that charged by those very same companies in other countries..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Maybe it's just where you live. I get excellent care here in Texas.

Yo, Maddog...

Are you even aware that the equivalent hospital treatments and hospital stays over there cost double what they do in Australia, New Zealand, Britain or France..

With that 50% difference ending up on the corporate bottom lines,  --  and not in the actual costs of delivering those services.

Plus, you lot also pay a lot more for the equivalent levels of private health insurance, than that charged by those very same companies in other countries..

Sounds like Lurker should move to Australia. I think he lives in Tennessee.  He doesn't appear to be happy there.  

After all, he's the one bitching  about his healthcare, not me.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Yo, Maddog...

Are you even aware that the equivalent hospital treatments and hospital stays over there cost double what they do in Australia, New Zealand, Britain or France..

With that 50% difference ending up on the corporate bottom lines,  --  and not in the actual costs of delivering those services.

Plus, you lot also pay a lot more for the equivalent levels of private health insurance, than that charged by those very same companies in other countries..

Sounds like Lurker should move to Australia. I think he lives in Tennessee.  He doesn't appear to be happy there.  

After all, he's the one bitching  about his healthcare, not me.

Or, maybe he only need shift across to Texas or California ???

The USA does often times seem to operate more like fifty individual countries -- rather than one united federation..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Sounds like Lurker should move to Australia. I think he lives in Tennessee.  He doesn't appear to be happy there.  

After all, he's the one bitching  about his healthcare, not me.

Or, maybe he only need shift across to Texas or California  ???

The USA does often times seem to operate more like fifty individual countries --  rather than one united federation..

We are supposed to be 50 separate experiments loosely held together. Politicians being the power junkies that they are, are constantly trying to centralize power in Washington.

Maddog wrote:Sounds like Lurker should move to Australia. I think he lives in Tennessee.  He doesn't appear to be happy there.  

After all, he's the one bitching  about his healthcare, not me.

The issue isn't the quality of healthcare, but the availability.  The universities of Tennessee are at the forefront of medical science, but the cost is out-of-reach.  How can a nation that is at the front of military research and capability, be at the bottom of delivery of medicine?  The answer is misappropriation of resources.

Heretofore, the delivery of medical and health care has been by something called health insurance.  Understand that any kind of insurance is one big gambling parlour.  The individual bets that s/he is going to get sick, and the insurance company bets that s/he is not.  When illness comes along, the insurance company must pay off.

So, it is understandable that the insurance company does not want to make bad bets.  So, its inclination is not to bet on pre-existing conditions, old people, pregnancy and/or other bad odd bets.  Flat out: the odds are not there.  A gambling parlour is simply not the place to deliver healthcare.

Health defense, like military defense, should be at the top of a nation's priorities.  Both are defense against the enemies of the nation.  Like the military, healthcare should be the responsibility of the nation...not a betting parlour.  You protect the borders; you protect the bodies!  A nation that doesn't protect it's citizens is either weak, or abdicating it's responsibilities.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Sounds like Lurker should move to Australia. I think he lives in Tennessee.  He doesn't appear to be happy there.  

After all, he's the one bitching  about his healthcare, not me.

The issue isn't the quality of healthcare, but the availability.  The universities of Tennessee are at the forefront of medical science, but the cost is out-of-reach.  How can a nation that is at the front of military research and capability, be at the bottom of delivery of medicine?  The answer is misappropriation of resources.

Heretofore, the delivery of medical and health care has been by something called health insurance.  Understand that any kind of insurance is one big gambling parlour.  The individual bets that s/he is going to get sick, and the insurance company bets that s/he is not.  When illness comes along, the insurance company must pay off.

So, it is understandable that the insurance company does not want to make bad bets.  So, its inclination is not to bet on pre-existing conditions, old people, pregnancy and/or other bad odd bets.  Flat out: the odds are not there.  A gambling parlour is simply not the place to deliver healthcare.

Health defense, like military defense, should be at the top of a nation's priorities.  Both are defense against the enemies of the nation.  Like the military, healthcare should be the responsibility of the nation...not a betting parlour.  You protect the borders; you protect the bodies!  A nation that doesn't protect it's citizens is either weak, or abdicating it's responsibilities.

Nah, he's a very unhappy and angry human. I support Lurker moving to Australia.

Maddog wrote:Nah, he's a very unhappy and angry human. I support Lurker moving to Australia.

But we'd lose Lurker...that's not good.  How about all those memes?  

The better answer is to split the DOD, and take half the money and invest it in medical science and healthcare facilities.  I'm sure Lurker wants those other people to be healthy too.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Nah, he's a very unhappy and angry human. I support Lurker moving to Australia.

But we'd lose Lurker...that's not good.  How about all those memes?  

The better answer is to split the DOD, and take half the money and invest it in medical science and healthcare facilities.  I'm sure Lurker wants those other people to be healthy too.

They have the internet in Australia. He could post from there.

The problem is that Trump is surrounded by people who aren't him, and they're never going to let him declare a national emergency when his response would be to then fund a 15-year infrastructure project.

That's like building a new fire station because your city is burning down.

Democrats would be more strategic. Just implant a national healthcare system in the Pentagon.

After all, we are withdrawing from Syria. What else are we going to use a five-sided building for?

Original Quill wrote:Democrats would be more strategic.  Just implant a national healthcare system in the Pentagon.

After all, we are withdrawing from Syria.  What else are we going to use a five-sided building for?  

Was the building used prior to going into Syria?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Democrats would be more strategic.  Just implant a national healthcare system in the Pentagon.

After all, we are withdrawing from Syria.  What else are we going to use a five-sided building for?  

Was the building used prior to going into Syria?

I kinda remember some Saudi terrorists using it for target practice a few years back...

When they flew a hijacked 'plane into the side of it..

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Democrats would be more strategic.  Just implant a national healthcare system in the Pentagon.

After all, we are withdrawing from Syria.  What else are we going to use a five-sided building for?  

Was the building used prior to going into Syria?

For many needless wars, year after year, decade after decade.

Now, finally, we have nothing scheduled...not even a Junior Prom.

It would make a wonderful hospital.