![]() |
These comments about ruining the economy are so unfounded, but even if they weren't I'd still rather be unemployed and have my health than be working and have insufficient/overpriced health care, or no health care.
Healthy people > healthy economy Hopefully the next round of elections won't see a bunch of feet-dragging politicians try to gut this bill even more than it's already been so we won't have to make that choice. |
Quote:
And my point on the representative government thing is that we AREN'T one, where they do what we want. We are a republic, therefore that isn't how our government works =P -------------------------------------------- @monster: I didn't realize that it even reduced the deficit of our nation (It's not like I did extensive research on the topic before posting =3), and if that's the case, well then alright then =P. But want to know what the sad thing really is? Currently, our government kind of DOES put a dollar value on the lives of Americans, and if it is really worth it. I do NOT, under any circumstances support that, but it's the sad truth. The government is just a giant corporation, and everything involves money, including a bill that might save 50,000 lives. After rereading what I posted earlier too, I guess I made a superlative in saying the the middle class is paying all of the bill for taxes, yeah, unintentional there. I guess that does give off the front of a fear-based argument alone...=P But like I said, there are good aspects to the bill, whether it be the 50,000 lives mentioned, but still, all it really boils down to is one thing, and one thing alone: money. |
I don't like it goverment run health care isn't good.
|
Quote:
You cant just say it is because you said so. :[ |
Quote:
2. We are a representative republic. Maybe you missed my edit showing James Madison's position on this: "In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic" 3. It doesn't reduce the deficit. This, like every other entitlement, will only grow to the point of unsustainability. 4. YOU SAID IT! The government is the biggest corporation of them all. Except we're forced to pay them since there's only one government. =( 5. Everyone will be paying on the taxes for this thing if Obama expects it to be funded properly without raising the debt/deficit. |
Quote:
Stop posting that, in every post please, its annoying and who cares about James Madison, the stupid Federalist papers mean nothing, they are akin to someone writing a letter to the editor, they hold no weight for legal presidence, or constitutionality. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So has Obama earnt his Nobel Peace Prize yet? Did he finally get something done that makes him worthy to receive such a prize (even though the bill is just a shell of what he intended it to be)? I mean, I know it's just the United States, but surely this is better than nothing.
|
Quote:
|
I suppose I'll defend myself, lol.
Quote:
But yes, as for my opinion on the bill, I have my doubts, and frankly I think it's hard not to. But I am glad that we finally got some real reform passed. Whether or not you like that bill, it is a huge accomplishment. I sure hope it works, as does every reasonable (AKA not ridiculously partisan) American. The current system had to be tackled though. I was hoping for a public option but beggars can't be choosers. |
Quote:
That being said, I still think that this bill is unconstitutional in many aspects. The vote, however, does not affect this at all. I don't believe this is real reform, unfortunately. There's a lot of garbage in this bill that stinks up the very few good provisions in it. We really should start from scratch. But I do want reform too, just as much as anyone. We all hope this will work, I just severely doubt it. And a public option would just collapse the government in its own debt. But if you want to see the kind of reform I would impose, check out the first post I made in this thread, here. Honestly I think that post was my most important contribution to this thread (and I've been contributing a lot...), but I think it got overlooked amongst all the arguing. D= |
@ Prince_of_Light, you can't win an argument against Anti, trust me, I've tried.
I saw on the news that they are going to fine people who do not purchase healthcare, is that true? (Technically, that IS an infrigement upon rights because the government cannot force you to buy into a private entity, car insurance is excempt because of the interstate commerce clause) |
Quote:
And yes, they are going to fine people (or jail time) if you refuse to purchase health insurance. I'm not sure where the exact provision is but I know for sure it's in there. On a side note, driver's insurance (I think you meant that as opposed to auto insurance) is an interesting subject. You don't purchase it to protect yourself, you purchase it to protect whoever you hit and then your premium goes up. Or something along those lines. And I hate that I have to ask, but... could you (or someone else reading this) go back and read my original post on page 2? I really want an opinion on it. =( |
Quote:
|
Quote:
2. Yes, social security is a very socialist program. Sure, it helps some people, but it's ultimately just another grow-until-debt-is-sky-high entitlement that we could have done without. However, I feel it is worthy to mention that originally social security was meant to be an untouched pool of tax dollars to be given out to people who are in a time of need. But our lovely government couldn't resist the temptation to take it so now all the money is spent; replaced by government IOUs. |
Regarding what Light and Anti were going one about...
We should have a re-call process for Congressmen and Senators. It would probably need to take super-majority so that we don't threat them with recall on a montly basis but can still crack down on lawmakers whose wills stray too far from their constituents. |
I think a representative democracy is the best we can hope for. It's not perfect, of course, but I can't see how the will of the constituents can be better gauged than in selecting someone to represent them. People change their collective mind on a monthly-, weekly- and even daily-basis and can be easily swayed by the media and whatever is the political topic du jour. The time it takes from the moment a piece of legislation begins its journey through government to the time it's voted upon can take months (or years if it gets killed in committees and has to be reintroduced) so a representative's constituents could theoretically support a bill and then want it killed by the time it's ready to be a law. Government already moves at a snail's pace. And how would you accurately gauge an entire district's views? Monthly polls? You'd need to have something akin to an election, people would have to take time off work and it all would cost a ton.
|
For all of those comments which stated that Republicans aren't opposed to reform, or that quote and I paraphrase the poster, "Republicans will vote for Republican-supported bills":
Of course you'll say that Republicans were not in support of this bill, regardless of the fact that they had no bill of their own for health reform. They were in power for 8 years and did not do a thing about health care; health care has been an issue in this country since at least the days of Nixon (in which Ted Kennedy could have actually struck a deal but he wanted more than what Nixon was offering). Of course you'll say Republicans are in favor of a health care bill, right? When Republicans like Dick Armey are running Freedom Works, which is the means by which the Tea Party protests have been so well organized, I have to disagree with that notion. When Republicans were arguing right up to the very end of the debate on Sunday that they were against federally funded abortion (it was nowhere to be found in the bill that abortion was funded by federal dollars), to the point where Mr. Stupak who wrote the previously voted down Stupak amendment (to prevent federal dollars from being used to fund abortion) had to step up and call out the Republicans for "politicizing life" as he put it. Not to mention President Obama's executive order which strictly states that the Hyde amendment (no federal dollars are used to fund abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger) will be upheld. With these two pieces of information, how can arguing against federally funded abortion be reasonable? It wasn't in the bill! No, Republicans are not in favor of health care reform, as it would mean the health insurance companies from which so many of them receive their campaign contributions would be making less money. It's all about the money, Lebowski. To the person who wondered why our health care system is broken, it's for that very reason: corporate greed from the health insurance companies! |
Quote:
Why do you think Private and Homeschooled chlidren do better academically than public school chlidren? Mmm? It's really not that hard to figure out. Quote:
[/devil's advocate] I do however agree with that statement and I think it's something our neighboors don't entirely understand. In most European countries, Healthcare is about people. In the United States, it's about making progress, making money, and beating things no other country can beat. We do have the 'best' healthcare in the world. Take that governor from Canada that flew to Florida for a more noninvasive surgery to repair his heart. Take the Mayo Clinic. I'm not saying Europe doesn't have ground breaking medical discoveries, I'm just saying America has more of them. People are more motivated to do research if they're given lots of money to do it. People have gotten used to that money and they don't want it to go away. They want to keep the standard of living they've always had, even at the expense of others, because change is not something really anybody likes. Again, poor them. We can give other incentives instead of money for research and all the nice bells and whistles for one person mean nothing for the people who die untreated because they're uninsured. I understand that it's going to effect people and I understand people aren't all going to like change. The point of the matter is this: We have hurt and injured and sick people in the United States and we're not doing a thing about them because 'it's their own fault they don't have healthcare' Quote:
*sigh* Again, it really floors me just how Selfish some Americans can be to say how unfair this is when, again, they're sitting with their nice and shiny health insurance and good health and they don't have to deal with any of the problems a good portion of America has to deal with. Healthcare and good healthy people make the country a better place to live in. Less sick people, less issues like with H1N1 etc etc. Less sick babies, less sick children, less sick teenagers less sick adults. Healthier, happier, more productive. How can America not want this? Is earning 7 - 8 digits for yourself worth the people's suffering it causes when you have to be paid that much? :/ It's not like they're going to stop paying those doctors those lucrative sums, the doctors won't have it, so yes they're going to try to substain those salaries and still provide free healthcare and it just isn't going to work. Eventually the money will run out or the doctors will quit because of a paycheck cut they don't want to take. Call me pessimistic but really, I doubt that until we start caring about the people in our neighborhood that anything health-care wise is really going to change at all. :/ A business is a business and this Capitalistic economy is what drives our nation. Money money money. All for me, none for you <3 |
I hope this makes a difference, but it's been so gutted that I highly doubt it's really going to change much. Some of the most ground-breaking sections of this bill have been removed. There are still a few good things it brings, but it's nowhere near the game changer it once was. And I'm sure the pork attached to it will screw the people over as much as it helps.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, health is not just about health care. If people actually took all this health nut stuff to heart and started with the exercising, you likely wouldn't need to go to the hospital as often. Same as if you took conscious control of your diet, or used homeopathic medicine (very good for the immune system), or other things. I'm not saying that you can get away your whole life without surgery (even if I have so far), or contracting some serious disease, but this is not a simple "yes or no" question. Bringing it to a logical end, people in the US have less incentive to stay healthy themselves, because "well, we bought health care, might as well use it", which of course is not a good thing either, as it strains the budget just a little more. Quote:
Quote:
Twocows' post mentioned pork, and I would like to reiterate. There is indeed pork, and while Libby, Montana may be happy, I don't care for any more wasteful or misplaced spending. We are already in debt. |
It's been signed into law today, but 14 states are taking legal action against it. And Texas awhile ago said they'd leave the union if they didn't like what the President was doing. :/ really interesting this is getting.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:03 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.