Health Care Reform; States suing as unconstitutional

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

I NEVER said, at any time, that such service for repayment of a medical service should be at the EXCLUSION of other activities such as a regular job. You assumed that on your own. And I only suggested such an arrangement in the case of any individual who had no other way to repay for services.

You , and others, haven't convinced me that such an arrangement for repayment would "completely destroy every aspect of the economy and punish the healthy." Really? That sounds ludicrous.

You assume that I have a "vendetta against the poor." No, I don't. I've been poor. What I am against is an ever growing system of permanent dependence on government assistance, which no one who has studied the history of human societies would deny, only works to keep the poor impoverished. I guess you could say that I am in the "teach a man to fish" camp, as opposed to the "give a man a fish" camp.

There is no doubt in my mind that we all face huge problems in this country, and the world. My main concern is my own, very uniquely founded, country. I believe that the answers to most, if not all, of our problems, are spelled out in the books of history. Some of us seem to think that just because we are "modern America" that our problems are somehow unique. As though human nature, and the way human societies function, has changed because our technology has changed. No, I think that we are exactly the same animal that we have always been, and that the observations of all of the great philosophers of the past are just as valid today as they were when first observed centuries ago. There are many guides and warnings that we repeatedly refuse to acknowledge to our detriment. Much like a child who refuses to listen to a parent. We get burned even though those who know better have told us not to touch that, and don't go there. But like that stubborn child, we just have to learn the hard way. Unlike that child, we are running out of second chances.

OK, off of my :soapbox:

---

So, you just think people should work 12 hours a day instead? Or just spend the rest of their lives slowly working off the debt? What is this?

Your idea steals tremendously from the available work force, and the healthy are left holding the bag. And you are aware that those who can't pay for it is most people, right?

You are already permanently dependent on the government in virtually every way, except one - the important one, for any human being. Your ability to exercise your skills, talents, intellect, and contribution to humanity. This is made possible by your dependence on the government for everything else, from clean water to internet to the power to cook your food.

If you want to live in a developed human society, you are governmentally dependent. Because the assumption is that you want to live there so that you have more time to contribute something unique to humanity, which you can't do if you spend every minute of your life worrying about when you're going to eat next.

Point me to the example of universal health care doing anything other than helping people, raising quality of life, and raising the general productivity of that society. I have not been able to find such an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

And you are aware that those who can't pay for it is most people, right?

---

Could you clarify this please? Do you have a statistic to support that?

Sure. 2/3 of insured Americans are insured by their employers. However, healthcare costs are becoming so high that some employers can no longer offer insurance. Left the way it was, this was only going to happen more and more, eventually leaving a large portion of the population - probably at least half - with no ability to get insurance.

The cost they would rack up in ER bills would be transfered mostly to the wealthier half who could afford insurance, and their premiums would continue to skyrocket.

Let's also consider that in some places in the country, huge numbers of people are unemployed. The number of uninsured individuals in the depression has obviously risen.

With mention on the previous page about changing the constitution...I always have a bit of a problem with that as the Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution however, protects your rights. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you). So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.

Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and [I][U]even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

It seems that more often than not, those who would change our constitution are those whose agenda is shackled by the rights of the people that are stated within the constitution. To enforce their agenda/ideology necessitates changing our constitution so that our 'constitutional rights' are replaced by those 'granted by the state' or federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardblues

With mention on the previous page about changing the constitution...I always have a bit of a problem with that as the Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you). [/COLOR][/FONT]So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.

Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

It seems that more often than not, those who would change our constitution are those whose agenda is shackled by the rights of the people that are stated within the constitution. To enforce their agenda/ideology necessitates changing our constitution so that our 'constitutional rights' are replaced by those 'granted by the state' or federal government. <o>:p</o>:p

---

Ok. Fine.

60% of Americans support the health care bill. There. No Constitutional conflict.

Any way you look at it, this is going to happen. The government has a reason to do it (money), anyone concerned with ethics has a reason to do it (capable infrastructure, saving lives), and the people want it, and have wanted it for ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

So, you just think people should work 12 hours a day instead? Or just spend the rest of their lives slowly working off the debt? What is this?

---

What!?? You've never worked a 12/12 work schedule?? Oh, you don't know what you're missing!

Hey, I take it you are young. I was once as young as you and thought very differently from how I do now. Age and life experience, call it maturity, has a way of changing your views. Although some people seem immune to the process. Too bad. Hang in there and you'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

......
I think the opposition is more focused on the minority of people who will somehow take advantage of the system and consequently steal tax dollars, instead of the majority of decent, contributing citizens that this will benefit.

---

Yes and more.

The opposition and the existing legislation is a tangled
coalition of agenda both positive and negative. To focus
on those individuals that take advantage of the system is
perhaps a problem. To take advantage of the system requires
that you have something wrong with you. When you have
a medical problem the current system works hard to push
you outside of coverage into a situation where many traditional
safety nets including family are discouraged or abused.

The US system has been broken in numerous ways for the last
twenty+ years and getting worse faster than individuals can
compensate.

One thing I was taught in the Army is that a good plan can
be a winning plan if executed well. And a great plan will
fall on its behind if not executed well.

The pitch has been thrown and it is our turn at bat.
The voting booth opens in November and it is time
now to craft clear and positive mandates for our
legislators to act on.

This legislation will take years to change some things. It can
be amended and it can be improved.

The key omission I see in this legislation is that there is
no transparency requirements for the regulations and
regulation process that will establish the reality of coverage
rules and processes. This and the lack of tort reform
are the most glaring omissions.

Mistress...you say 60% of American's support the health care bill...ahhh...alll the polls I've read say it enjoys only 38% support...the majority by all reports were opposed to this bill...but...perhaps I am misunderstanding to what you refer...if so...forgive me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

What!?? You've never worked a 12/12 work schedule?? Oh, you don't know what you're missing!

Hey, I take it you are young. I was once as young as you and thought very differently from how I do now. Age and life experience, call it maturity, has a way of changing your views. Although some people seem immune to the process. Too bad. Hang in there and you'll see.

---

My god, let's count 'em up...

Logical fallacy by appeal to antiquity.

Logical fallacy by presumption of age/wisdom relationship (can also be bigotry, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

Logical fallacy by appeal to wealth.

Logical fallacy by appeal to majority (a majority that doesn't actually exist in reality, interestingly enough).

You are losing any credibility fast. I am here quoting facts, giving social analysis, and posing questions.

And all you can do is tell me that I'm young and dumb/an entitlement whore/not entitled to freedom/whatever you come up with next.

You clearly have nothing of any measurable truth to say on this. You're just afraid of losing your money.

You're absolutely right. Some people are immune to maturity. But it's got nothing to do with age.

You know, for the sake of civility, the best method for presenting your thoughts is to support them with facts...not attempt to belittle or negatively label someone with an opposing view...the implication about maturity...or stating their purpose is greed driven....not very convincing or sound! If you have a point, prove it with facts.