Socialized Healthcare

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by zE

I found this socialism argument funny, i bet u guys dont even know what socialism means, and sayng that healthcare for all is socialism then all developed country's except USA are communist / socialist lol..

If Brussels controlled your healthcare and they did a horrble job at that task along with managing finances, I mean HORRIBLE finance management, like Greece horrble... you would start to get a feeling for how some of us view this situation.

[zE]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

That's why they come here for medical care...

Lol, so ur sayng when i need medic assistance I would pay a air-plane ticket and go to a us hospital to give my money to get broke, that makes a lot of sense.

If you think euro healthcare sucks, most euro country's rank top in the overall healthare, My country is on 12 place usa is at 37.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

All European country's have free medic assistance, in all euro country's you don't need any kind of insurance or whatever. It´s free for all, any European country spends less % of their incomings with healthcare. So that make us socialist and communist thats funny.

In my opinion so many people defend stupid ideas because the non neutral media that bombards people with lies and inaccurate news to people, to make them afraid of any change. Why its simple, the corporations own the media and half the politics : )

Originally Posted by stray kitten

If Brussels controlled your healthcare and they did a horrble job at that task along with managing finances, I mean HORRIBLE finance management, like Greece horrble... you would start to get a feeling for how some of us view this situation.

Brussels.. wtf. Each Euro country control its own stuff, not Brussels.
Actually all Euro governmets control the heathcare, since war II, and ye i had to go to hospital a lot of times, and i have no complains at all, What greece ( 12.7 deficit) finance management have to do with healthcare lol, look at iceland thats also broke, both here in a bad shape because the banking system not the healthcare. Get ur facts right. If u want a even better example look at USA with a massive debt (83.4 %) if the world economic change currency was in another currency that not dolars or whatever it would be even worst then greece for sure. (G 20 are discussing to adopt a new currency trade to get rid of toxic dollars in a near future).

[stray kitten]

Brussels.. wtf. Each Euro country control its own stuff, not Brussels.
Actually all Euro governmets control the heathcare, since war II, and ye i had to go to hospital a lot of times, and i have no complains at all, What greece ( 12.7 deficit) finance management have to do with healthcare lol, look at iceland thats also broke, both here in a bad shape because the banking system not the healthcare. Get ur facts right. If u want a even better example look at USA with a massive debt (83.4 %) if the world economic change currency was in another currency that not dolars or whatever it would be even worst then greece for sure. (G 20 are discussing to adopt a new currency trade to get rid of toxic dollars in a near future).

Ze, that is my point dude. You completely miss read what I was trying to say.

Our government manages shit like Greece and Iceland. Our Federal government already manages a healthcare system called Medicare and another called Medicaide. They are both riddled with issues and corruption. Remenber we are a federation of states. Many of us want reform at the state level and washington DC and Obama to set some guidelines not TAKE OVER the whole system. We also want them to reform some of the laws that make private heath care so expensive. For me that means about 70 dollars a month I pay. I have a feeling that will go way up now, and I don't meet the definition of what communust liberals call "rich". I am the working class this bill is disguised to supposedly help.

We had a small percentage of people not covered, instead of focusing on that they are taking over the whole system at a federal level, so they will now be called communist.

When I said "if brussels ran your healthcare..." I meant to give you an example of what we are facing, what it is like from some of our perspectives. Having Washington DC forcefully take over 1/6 of our economy is like suddenly Brussels taking away your individual health care plans and centralizing it into a financial/political bureaucracy and taking that money used foe it back to Brussels. And then running it into the ground. Imagine how difficult it would be to centralize everything in the USA/EU vs letting the 50 States/EU member countries manage health care individually with some guidelines and rules to govern health care management. Some states are already gearing up for legal challenges because the expense FORCED on them through this bill will be challenging.

As far as facts go, Yes I know the US has a massive debt that is a large part of why I oppose almost every bill Obama has brought to the political table. It is not because I don't like Obama it because him and the denocrat lead House and Senate are FUCKING UP!. And I compared our federal government to being worse than Greece so why wouyld we want those same people to create the power to take away my private health care and FORCE me into their corrupt mismanaged system.

EU has great health care, yeah there are some issues but it works for you guys and if not for WW2 you may not have it worked out.

[zE]

ah k so you are in favour of a reform on it, but dont want government to get over it, its a legit point of view : )
Anyway i think this measure was a good thing, now time will say otherwise or not.

[Credge]

Originally Posted by zE

ah k so you are in favour of a reform on it, but dont want government to get over it, its a legit point of view : )
Anyway i think this measure was a good thing, now time will say otherwise or not.

That's how about 90% of the people who oppose this bill are.

That is to say that we acknowledge that some reform is needed but we disagree with one of many things.

Cost is one.

It being a state matter and not a federal matter is another.

The U.S. isn't a country where one rule is all there is. We have different speed limits on interstates and highways from state to state. In one state the speed limit could be 65 and in the next it could be 75. We have different laws of all kinds from state to state. We also have different regulations.

This bill, to put it bluntly, is a grab of power much like the GM buy was. It's not a good thing.

[uBeR]

Yeah, I suppose a healthcare system is fairly analogous to highway speed limits.

[{kd} KoRniLLiAn]

Hey it could be worse Obama could be our president...O wait that's right......that's why i didn't vote this year

[Bridget]

WHOOP DEE FUCKIN' DOO.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Yeah, I suppose a healthcare system is fairly analogous to highway speed limits.

Credge is right. According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Federal Government has 19 (correct me if I'm wrong, going off my shaky memory here :P) 'enumerated powers', and it states that anything not listed in the enumerated powers is up to the states. Last I checked providing healthcare was not one of those enumerated powers, and even if you're a loose-constructionist, you simply cannot deny that the general welfare and interstate clauses basically give the Federal Government unlimited power if not used as it was intended. Remember, the Constitution is not a GUARANTOR of rights for the Federal Government, it is strictly there to LIMIT the rights of Government.

I'm personally not a huge Constitution guy, I think it's missing far too much to be an acceptable Constitution, but we should call a spade a spade, and realize that regardless of your ethical position on health care, this bill is unconstitutional.

[Lost]

The US Constitution is exactly what it's supposed to be: a loose set of guidelines with which to form a working government. I feel the truly devastating issue is that it's so damned hard to get people into office who actually want to work for the things we need. It doesn't require special schooling to be a Congressman, just assloads of money.

But with that said, this issue should have been tackled decades ago and instead, it is left wide open. Because it's not necessarily that anything not strictly stated as being controlled by the Fed. government is only able to be controlled by the State, it is that what is not controlled by the Fed is up for grabs by the states, most of which have done something for poor and impoverished families. While I'm not familiar with intrastate healthcare except for OK, I doubt many of them offer plans for statewide care for everyone regardless of income. And that is because it would cost our already broke-ass states more than they want to part with.

[GenghisTron]

Our Constitution isn't a 'loose' set of guidelines, it's actually quite the opposite. At least that's what it's intended to do. As I said, everything not listed in the 19 enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, is up to the state governments.

[pF]

government-run healthcare at least offers the voters/citizens some measure of control (if tiny), and allows you to impose values and motives other than accumulation and profits for taking care of weaker/poorer members of your society. leaving such an important pillar of a modern society entirely to the private sector was evidently an error. one that's been corrected now, it seems.

also, looking in from the outside, all these butthurt conservatives are amusing.. especially when they try their hand at political science, slinging terms around - european or other countries with 'free' healthcare are not socialist, lol. read a book or two

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by pF

government-run healthcare at least offers the voters/citizens some measure of control (if tiny), and allows you to impose values and motives other than accumulation and profits for taking care of weaker/poorer members of your society. leaving such an important pillar of a modern society entirely to the private sector was evidently an error. one that's been corrected now, it seems.

also, looking in from the outside, all these butthurt conservatives are amusing.. especially when they try their hand at political science, slinging terms around - european or other countries with 'free' healthcare are not socialist, lol. read a book or two

They're smart enough to see what's coming. For the elderly who get plans from their employeer as part of a pension, those are being cut because they fall within the "40% tax" rule. For those that get great healthcare, to avoid that tax their healthcare is being downgraded. For the small business that MUST provide healthcare now, not a problem: You make 25k a year? Ah, well, you're healthcare is going to cost me 7k this year, so you're going to get a paycut, sorry, but it's the only way to pay these extra government imposed costs. Oh, and BTW, we're going to be raising our prices on things from toliet paper to food because more people buy those and it'll help defer the costs.

Don't need to read a book to see that happening, only have to read the news. If you think the rich are going to pay for this, you're out of your mind. If the rich were going to pay for it that would have happened the last 10 times government stuck it's nose into it.

So you're "help" to "give" them something got them: Lower quality health care, lower salaries, and a higher cost of living. Congrats.

Scuzzy

[Lost]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Our Constitution isn't a 'loose' set of guidelines, it's actually quite the opposite. At least that's what it's intended to do. As I said, everything not listed in the 19 enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, is up to the state governments.

The US constitution is what, 12 pages? The EU constitution is 300+ pages? My own state (OK) constitution was the longest official government document when the state was accepted into the union in 1907 and I believe that was 120-130 (yay public education). So yes, the US constitution is very loose in comparison. By definition a constitution is the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. You don't want something like that overburdened with legal-ese unless you purposefully want to discourage interpretation of the rules presented within.

To be honest, this is one of the most fundamental arguments in US history: the interpretation of our governing document. Its foolish to say that a strict interpretation is impossible but I would wager the prosperity we've seen would not have been possible if John Marshall hadn't made judicial review a prominent part of our government, thus allowing laws to be passed based on loose or strict interpretation of the document in question. So who's to say that the judicial branch won't dismiss this law later on as an encroachment on those grounds.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Lost

The US constitution is what, 12 pages? The EU constitution is 300+ pages? My own state (OK) constitution was the longest official government document when the state was accepted into the union in 1907 and I believe that was 120-130 (yay public education). So yes, the US constitution is very loose in comparison. By definition a constitution is the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. You don't want something like that overburdened with legal-ese unless you purposefully want to discourage interpretation of the rules presented within.

To be honest, this is one of the most fundamental arguments in US history: the interpretation of our governing document. Its foolish to say that a strict interpretation is impossible but I would wager the prosperity we've seen would not have been possible if John Marshall hadn't made judicial review a prominent part of our government, thus allowing laws to be passed based on loose or strict interpretation of the document in question. So who's to say that the judicial branch won't dismiss this law later on as an encroachment on those grounds.

Perhaps this is a good time to point out that the States formed the US Federal Gov't. Not the other way around.

Why is that significant? There were a select number of powers that were specifically granted to the Fed, by the States, with all other powers not specifically granted to the Fed being reserved to the States or the people directly. The focus of the US Federal Gov't being to protect and preserve the liberty and natural rights of it's citizens. This "Health Care" bullshit is exactly that. It's not about Health Care it's about confiscating a commodity and redirecting it to accrue power to the Fed that was not delegated to it. If you want Gov't Health Care...fine...move to Massachusetts or vote to try to get it passed where you live.

Frankly I am hoping there is still sanity in the checks and balances of the Fed and that this "Health Care" bullshit is fed into the shredder by the Supreme Court when the law suits in play now make their way there. They got Heller right...mostly...perhaps they won't screw this one up too...

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by zE

ah k so you are in favour of a reform on it, but dont want government to get over it, its a legit point of view : )
Anyway i think this measure was a good thing, now time will say otherwise or not.

Ze what would you think if the EU parliament and governing committees in Brussels took over your health care system? Meaning it was ran from Brussels vs. local Portuguese authorities and all funds were controlled for every member state through Brussels?

[SizeableSSonic]

I feel the need to point out that our constitution was written over two hundred years ago, during a time when political thinking was incredibly different. The Founders' idea of "big government" would be considered conservative extremism today. The document has long since outlived it's purpose, and needs a fundamental revision.

[Innoc]

J

Originally Posted by SizeableSSonic

I feel the need to point out that our constitution was written over two hundred years ago, during a time when political thinking was incredibly different. The Founders' idea of "big government" would be considered conservative extremism today. The document has long since outlived it's purpose, and needs a fundamental revision.

Can I infer from your post that you favor largely or entirely liberal policy. Would I also be correct in inferring that you would like to see much of what humans do under government supervision and control?

[SizeableSSonic]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Can I infer from your post that you favor largely or entirely liberal policy. Would I also be correct in inferring that you would like to see much of what humans do under government supervision and control?

No, absolutely not.

What I am saying is that some of the things in the Constitution consist of extremely dated political thinking.

To be more precise, the Constitution as a whole was meant to unify a loosely affiliated group of states. A vast majority of the Founding Fathers were suspicious of big government, just as people such as you and Scuzzy are. By comparison, the States are now much more interconnected, and most of today's conservatives would be considered liberal extremists by the Founding Fathers. Did you know that the Founders didn't even want a standing army? They wanted local militias to defend the country! I highly doubt that would sit well with today's conservatives. I would also highly anticipate us getting a massive, swift kick in the ass in whatever conflict we were to partake in.

I am not so much for a huge, massive expansion of the Federal governments power so much as I am for a redefinition of it. The Constitution as it is now was simply written for a very different time and place, and needs to be revised to reflect our current way of life.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by SizeableSSonic

No, absolutely not.

What I am saying is that some of the things in the Constitution consist of extremely dated political thinking.

To be more precise, the Constitution as a whole was meant to unify a loosely affiliated group of states. A vast majority of the Founding Fathers were suspicious of big government, just as people such as you and Scuzzy are. By comparison, the States are now much more interconnected, and most of today's conservatives would be considered liberal extremists by the Founding Fathers. Did you know that the Founders didn't even want a standing army? They wanted local militias to defend the country! I highly doubt that would sit well with today's conservatives. I would also highly anticipate us getting a massive, swift kick in the ass in whatever conflict we were to partake in.

I am not so much for a huge, massive expansion of the Federal governments power so much as I am for a redefinition of it. The Constitution as it is now was simply written for a very different time and place, and needs to be revised to reflect our current way of life.

I think there is much we would probably disagree on relative to the interpretation of original intent. As far as this thread goes perhaps you might be able to see why I was inferring a liberal position on your part? You mention rewriting the Constitution in a thread about Socialized Healthcare. Were you meaning to associate those two things? If so does that mean you believe that the Gov't should force, through economic penalty/punishment, the people to procure health insurance whether they want to or not?

As to original intent and the broader, but related, subject matter...that's probably decent fodder for a different thread.