Socialised Healthcare

[devonin]

Re: Socialism?

No, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that we may have an ineligible president that is reforming our entire nation.

Let me point out that more than have the congress is democratic, and there are plenty of lobbyists for each and every single one of them. And no, almost no attempt was made by the democratic party to test for his illegibility.

Right, but you don't think the republicans and other non-democrat opponants of him as a president wouldn't have done such an inquiry as to his eligability? Somehow I don't think that to run for president you just go "Hey guys, I'm running for president now" one assumes you rather need to -prove- to some sort of government body somewhere that you meet all of the requirements, that you're past the minimum age, that you've lived in the US for the minimum number of years, and that you're a natural born American. Hell, I had to go through steps to prove my own eligability to run for student council in highschool, so don't tell me Obama was just like "oh yeah, I'm running for president, I promise I'm allowed" and the government said "Oh, sure, no problem, we'll put you right on the ballot"

To wit: If it were possibly to prove that he was not eligable to run for President of the United states it would have been PROVEN long ago.

Sure, sure, and the Democratic Congress also wants to keep illegals in the country. you want to know how illegals keep getting in our Country Devonin? A Illegal Man and a Illegal Woman come into the Country. The have a child. They are now illegal "Legals". And Money is brought out of no where to help the construction industry because these people need homes.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the point to which it was posted in response. You said that taxing people in one state to build something in another state was wrong, and I said that "Taxing ONLY one state as a state-level tax to build something in another state would be wrong, but taxing the nation as a whole to pay for things in the nation as a whole is not." Illegal aliens have nothing whatsoever to do with that point, so as any kind of objection, this just means nothing.

I think the people are pissed off. And I'm sure that they voted... Why do you assume they don't? I don't see proof, and quite frankly, I think most politically informed people or veterans vote.

Anecdotes don't constitute any kind of proof, and more to the point, we're talking about majorities, showing me any number of single cases of people who don't agree doesn't effect my point in the slightest. If a vote passes 99 to 1, and you show me that the 1 person is vehemantly opposed to the subject of the vote, that in no way discounts the proper functioning of a democratic system. You can show me as many single cases as you like. Show me polling data relevant to the sum total of all voters that shows that a majority of people who -voted- in the last election are not in support of actions being taken by the democratically elected government and we'll have something to discuss.

To wit: Even if the whole minority disagrees, it is still properly functioning democracy.

OBAMA DIDN'T PUT MONEY! He's cutting money and he's cutting it in the wrong place! And he is dropping more money into goverment. The Goverment, mind you, is the only thing in this damn Country that can run at a deficit! But apparently the only thing that matters to obama is trying to bail out is his goverment, and he can't even do that good!

Okay, if what you were trying to claim is that Obama has cut money to the programs that Bush previously put money into, then you misspoke and didn't say what you meant to say. Regardless, since a national healthcare system would replace the need for individually serving subsidized healthcare like that provided through the VA office, then there's no need to put more money into a system that is pending replacement.

If we lived in socialized health care and my girlfriend were to get breast cancer, she wouldn't be covered and would be denied.

I live in socialized healthcare. I know many people who have cancer and every single one of them is covered and has never been denied treatment for their condition. So I'm not sure why you're so positive that wouldn't work that way.

Around 5-10 million people don't have health Care. About 300 Million people do. That doesn't seem fair to knock down the 300 million people to the 5-10 million.

Quote from the Los Angeles Times:

"Thanks mostly to expanded government health coverage for children, the number of people without health insurance fell in 2007 for the first time since President Bush took office, the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday.

In all, the number of people without health insurance dropped last year to 45.7 million, from 47 million in 2006, "

That is SUBSTANTIALLY larger than 5-10 million people. I have no idea from where you got your numbers, but these ones come from the US Census Bureau.

As well, the whole point of nationalised healthcare is that it applies to everybody. You aren't paying for this AND also basic health insurance from somewhere else. This -replaces- basic health insurance from somewhere else. You aren't losing coverage, and in fact, given the basis by which nationalised healthcare is funded (By taxes) you aren't paying a customer specific premium with deductable, which means if you DO need to avail yourself of healthcare services, your payments won't increase as a result as they would with most existing private insurance companies.

The Representatives are most likely paid to change there mind or represent another's opinion. The American people want these representatives out of office, either that or for them to actually represent their opinions.

If this is true, then in the next election, all of these people will fail horribly to get re-elected, and newly elected representatives in their place will strike down the reforms. You seem to keep forgetting how democracy works. These people were elected by a majority on the basis of their stated platforms. If they fail to live up to those platforms, they have failed the electorate and will swiftly leave office. Just because the minority is always more vocal doesn't mean that the minority is ACTUALLY the majority. Just louder.

So your saying it's unconstitutional to erect a health care reform? Really?

Um...no...read what I said. It IS constitutional to erect a healthcare system federally and to tax federally to fund it. The federal governement is constitutionally empowered to lay taxes federally to fund programs that act towards the betterment of the nation as a whole, and existing programs like social security have already been upheld in the supreme court as being valid uses for that taxation clause. National healthcare reform seems to me to fall well within those same guidelines and thus is perfectly okay for the government to be doing.

Then again, you can always take a look at the ex. order by obama.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...entialRecords/

Um...that executive order issued by President Obama repealed Executive Order 13233 (Which was put into place by President Bush)

Executive Order 13233 basically forbade the release of "records that reflect: military, diplomatic, or national security secrets (the state secrets privilege); communications of the President or his advisors (the presidential communications privilege); legal advice or legal work (the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges); and the deliberative processes of the President or his advisors (the deliberative process privilege)." (That is from the exact text of EO 13233)

So basically: Bush put in an order that said "You aren't allowed to look at my military, diplomatic, national security, legal advice, legal work or deliberative process documents" and Obama repealed that, allowing such kinds of documents to be subpeonad.

So once more: For one: That statement had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the statement of mine it was made in response to AND cuts the legs out of one of your earlier claims that Obama is keeping some sort of secret evidence hidden, since what he did was repeal an existing order that would have KEPT that evidence hidden.

*Edit*

Wait, You live in Canada? Don't your people come to our country for certain medical procedures? I know a lot of doctors that tell me so.. lol

No, though Canada does have an issue with many Americans especially in border cities, coming into Canada to try and get themselves some of our free treatment because they lack insurance or can't afford American medical procedures.

Also, A lot of what your saying seems to be biased as well, as you too have no evidence which is posted because a single picked amendment that will soon be going against the health care bill.

I'm quoting directly from the documents that you say prove you right, to show that they don't. Fel free to provide similar evidence from government documents to prove me wrong.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Socialism?

Why hasn't anyone talked about the infamous Democratic Health Care reform bill and the spectacular effects it will have on our daily lives?

Why should my grandfather (who contributed to society for 45 years working as a manager for a Lincoln - Mercury dealership) have to be put under in order to pay for some drug dealer's health care?

Why should my dad, who is a successful businessman, pay taxes AND pay for someone else's health care? I mean, he's already paying for someone else's housing, food, water, and electricity.

Why should our nation's working class pay for the less fortunate when the less fortunate are doing nothing to better their situation?

I think this is the government's way of trying to prove that each person is equal. I think the constitution states that every man is born equal. Whether he uses his liberty to benefit his society and himself should be up to him. I understand there are people who are in dire circumstances and are honest and good people. But I should be able to keep my doctor and my check-ups and he should be able to keep his availability and his business. Is it really necessary that we should pay for everyone's health? Especially since our government is trillions of dollars deep in debt?

Finally, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Obama's proposed reform? Why or why not? Is it good or bad for our nation?

I think I've made my stance pretty clear. Thanks for reading my opinions. By the way, I watch Fox News. Don't hate. xP

*is also a Fox News watcher, as well as a Limbaugh Listener and Glenn Beck devotee*

My largest problem with this new healthcare deal is that it was already tried with Medicare and Medicaid in a smaller scale. So if the smaller scale ****ed up, it stands to reason that the whole hog will also **** up.

[devonin]

Re: Socialism?

Or it stands to reason that trying to do things by half-measures dooms them to failure, and you have to either do it all or nothing.

[Afrobean]

Re: Socialism?

Or it stands to reason that trying to do things by half-measures dooms them to failure, and you have to either do it all or nothing.

I think that's a dangerous assumption to draw. If I may kill myself with Godwin's Law here, it'd be like saying, "Well if the Nazis had actually gone through with killing ALL of the jews instead of just SOME of them, things would be better." Hopefully my hung lampshade did enough to make you not lose respect for the point I was trying to make, but basically, it is this: if something is bad on a small scale, it is likely it will also be bad if applied large scale.

And why should anyone be in favor of the government doing ANYTHING on a large scale? You really want the government doing more **** like that and ****ing more **** up? You like the government being larger, less efficient, having more power and responsibility? Do you not like taking responsibility for yourself? And why should the government be in charge of trying to keep people healthy when health and/or healthCARE is NOT an "unalienable right", nor something which is guaranteed (or even MENTIONED as far as I know) by the Constitution?

If a person wants to pay into a charitable service for helping people who can't afford to take care of themselves, I completely respect this, but this is possible already by-- you know-- donating to CHARITY. Why should the government be a charity, even for something as SUPPOSEDLY "necessary" as healthcare? If you want to give your hard-earned money away to people who didn't work for it, feel free, but I work for my money and I don't appreciate people who don't or can't make enough money to support themselves feeling entitled to **** that I earned.

ps dev and... uh... "hayatewillown", I plan on reading your tl;dr back and forth later. Got off work not too long ago and don't feel up to it now, but don't be surprised if I pop up later with an egregiously long post making huge multiple quoted replies.

[devonin]

Re: Socialism?

Well, the Adult population of the US was 210 million in 2001, so even if we call it 250,000,000, the US census department says that unemployment nationally was 5.8% in 2008.

5.8% of 250,000,000 adults is 14,500,000 unemployed adults. But there are currently 45,700,000 americans without healthcare. The reason the 45.7M is even as low as it is, is because of government increases to automatic health coverage for children, which means that a fairly large percentage of "Americans without healthcare" are also "Americans that are NOT unemployed"

So if they have -jobs- but still can't afford health coverage, it's not a matter of you "appreciat[ing] people who don't or can't make enough money to support themselves feeling entitled to **** that I earned."

People who don't care enough is one objection.
People who can't make enough are another kettle of fish entirely.

If you -are- working, and -are- contributing, and -are- paying your taxes and all that jazz, I and it seems the vast majority of my country and many other countries feel like you -are- entitled also to heath coverage.

[hayatewillown]

Re: Socialism?

Well, the Adult population of the US was 210 million in 2001, so even if we call it 250,000,000, the US census department says that unemployment nationally was 5.8% in 2008.

5.8% of 250,000,000 adults is 14,500,000 unemployed adults. But there are currently 45,700,000 americans without healthcare. The reason the 45.7M is even as low as it is, is because of government increases to automatic health coverage for children, which means that a fairly large percentage of "Americans without healthcare" are also "Americans that are NOT unemployed"

So if they have -jobs- but still can't afford health coverage, it's not a matter of you "appreciat[ing] people who don't or can't make enough money to support themselves feeling entitled to **** that I earned."

People who don't care enough is one objection.
People who can't make enough are another kettle of fish entirely.

If you -are- working, and -are- contributing, and -are- paying your taxes and all that jazz, I and it seems the vast majority of my country and many other countries feel like you -are- entitled also to heath coverage.

So let me ask you this.
WHY should we, as Americans, as our constitution and our republic designed us, be dependent on the GOV'T for support? Why should we let them choose for us? The Bill has actions to be made. In order to keep your "INSURANCE", as the bill states, is if you pay more than 3000 dollars!! On top of being taxed!

You however, may not know what it's like. I don't know, but you seem pretty confident so I'll continue.

Big Gov't means that the goverment will be involved with EVERYTHING! That's the point of the bill! The Government will soon involve itself (It already has but you know,) into the market. Then, for "Fair" and "balanced" competition, they will regulate what certain restaurants and stores can sell! Then it's not a competition, but rather a form of socialized (if even) communism.

I don't think I'm making myself quite clear here...

We will lose all of our rights as Americans.
If there's one thing I can say, it's that the liberal/democratic party is bad at being a loser.

If you -are- working, and -are- contributing, and -are- paying your taxes and all that jazz, I and it seems the vast majority of my country and many other countries feel like you -are- entitled also to heath coverage.

I seem to remember a certain Darwins theory of survival in the question. BUT, there are also those who don't pay there taxes, who spend their money on illegal drugs, who spend others money on pork barrel projects. Yet these people deserve health care?

Also, I recall a certain group of people.. oh what was the name... SEIU?

This UNION has over 400 MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money that the government has given to them, yet they won't spend a freaking dime to insure their employees! And these very same people go to the Senate Town hall meetings and harass Conservatives for free speech and for saying that they don't agree with their representative.

[devonin]

Re: Socialism?

We will lose all of our rights as Americans.

This is the only element of your post I feel is even worth responding to at this point, and I'll respond thusly:

I live in a country with government-run subsidized healthcare, and in my estimation, we have been SUBSTANTIALLY freer than americans, have had SUBSTANTIALLY fewer of our rights and freedoms trampled all over (by the republicans I'll remind you, not the democrats) and in general are an overall much better country to live in (As our beating out the US in the United Nations survey of the best places to live for umpteen years in a row supports)

For all that you come in here and crow about how this is illegal, how it is counter to the constitution on which you seem to want to hang every objection, despite my showing you repeatedly where the word-for-word articles and sections of the constitution back up this program, and how Obama and his democratic government wants to take away your freedoms in the wake of a republican president who DID take away MANY of the freedoms protected in the constituion just shows how completely and thoroughly biased you are.

[hayatewillown]

Re: Socialism?

This is the only element of your post I feel is even worth responding to at this point, and I'll respond thusly:

I live in a country with government-run subsidized healthcare, and in my estimation, we have been SUBSTANTIALLY freer than americans, have had SUBSTANTIALLY fewer of our rights and freedoms trampled all over (by the republicans I'll remind you, not the democrats) and in general are an overall much better country to live in (As our beating out the US in the United Nations survey of the best places to live for umpteen years in a row supports)

For all that you come in here and crow about how this is illegal, how it is counter to the constitution on which you seem to want to hang every objection, despite my showing you repeatedly where the word-for-word articles and sections of the constitution back up this program, and how Obama and his democratic government wants to take away your freedoms in the wake of a republican president who DID take away MANY of the freedoms protected in the constituion just shows how completely and thoroughly biased you are.

Obama said in a video that the electrical costs would skyrocket with the new bill (That again no one has read, have you even addressed this?). Take a look at this Devonin. This is OUR national debt. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

(If you have a good internet connection)

Do you think that with spending, more money will come in? If you destroy the free market and the insurance industry, do you honestly think that this will be fixed?

[Cavernio]

Re: Socialism?

Does no one care that they will in all likelihood be paying less through their taxes than what they pay in insurance for similar healthcare?

Hayatewillon: You're totally unfocussed with your arguments, and many have nothing to do with healthcare. The only 'good' argument I've heard from you is an entirely personal one in regards to you wanting to be free of government. They way i see it, if it's not government who's going to control things for you though, it's going to be large business.

There will be jerks and idiots and power hungry people both on the left and the right. Saying that such and such a group is not being nice is hardly an argument against healthcare.

[devonin]

Re: Socialism?

They would rather pay more and know that they were only paying for themselves, than pay less and "pay for the lazy bums" as well.

[Cavernio]

Re: Socialism?

As far as quality of healthcare and wait times and the like, that really depends on how well it is set up, and how much money and effort the government is willing to spend towards healthcare.

I agree that canadian healthcare wait times can be very high, but I would also support higher taxes so that more doctors can be hired so that I could actually get a family doctor. I would also support more universal healthcare coverage in Canada too...like why do my glasses cost me so much money? I also hear of rich canadians crossing the border to pay for certain procedures so that they don't have to wait a month, and of poor US citizens trying to get healthcare in canada. *My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*

[hayatewillown]

Re: Socialism?

As far as quality of healthcare and wait times and the like, that really depends on how well it is set up, and how much money and effort the government is willing to spend towards healthcare.

I agree that canadian healthcare wait times can be very high, but I would also support higher taxes so that more doctors can be hired so that I could actually get a family doctor. I would also support more universal healthcare coverage in Canada too...like why do my glasses cost me so much money? I also hear of rich canadians crossing the border to pay for certain procedures so that they don't have to wait a month, and of poor US citizens trying to get healthcare in canada. *My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*

From what I understand a Single Payer health care plan is almost identical to what Canada's is. The only difference that I really see that's going to happen is that America's government will have more control over what actual goes on in the free market and health care as a whole. Take a look at the bill.


Ps.
I've been in the military my entire life. My father is still in the Navy and I know what socialized health care is like.. it's the exact same thing. I'd prefer however to see a private practice (with a professional) rather than going to someone who's known as the tools of the trade.

*My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*

My concern is this:

They are going to tax people who can't afford it, and those that can they are going to tax more because they have the money. This whole "Plan" is trillions of dollars that is going to be gathered from tax payers over 10 years.

Where are they getting the money. Since we are going to be paying for this HEALTHCARE PLAN when the hell are we going to fix the national debt? Has this even been an issue?? Democrats and liberals used to whine about it all the time when bush was in office, but as soon as obama preaches to the brainwashed it's like... OMG BILL TIME!

Please watch this devonin... and Whomever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDizyQK5DHo

It also contains a link to the health care bill.


And Yes, I'm all over the place with this argument, but the bill is all over the place in America. I should be more organized when typing but then again Devonin can afford better grammar.. lol

[Sullyman2007]

Re: Socialism?

Here's a link to yet another senator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52r

Link is broken. Not sure why I'm posting here but to tell you the link doesn't work.. you aren't posting anything I want to reply to. It seems like you are so desperate... just so desperate and I don't understand why.

[hayatewillown]

Re: Socialism?

Link is broken. Not sure why I'm posting here but to tell you the link doesn't work.. you aren't posting anything I want to reply to. It seems like you are so desperate... just so desperate and I don't understand why.

I don't know what happened to the link but it's whatever, I'll have the link removed before someone else posts about it.

[Afrobean]

Re: Socialism?

Does no one care that they will in all likelihood be paying less through their taxes than what they pay in insurance for similar healthcare?

What if I pay zero?

Because insurance is a ****ing scam.