Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 276
Health care Page 12 of 46    (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
I have been trying really hard to understand the opposing perspective regarding health care. We are fortunate enough to have the time to discuss and learn from each other. I would like to simplify the ideology behind the opposition for our readers. The following are my thoughts based on posts, responses, and concerns.

Please tell me if I these views match those who oppose Health care reform:

• Expresses the need for a bipartisan health-reform bill as a stall tactic.
• Believe the system is best because of its inequality. If an industry leader, corporate board member, or lawyer can’t buy better health care than the guy that mows the lawn, then the world is not functioning as it should.
• Oppose progressive legislation that provides benefits to regular Americans.


John
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 277
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/20/2010 8:31:40 AM
John, really, do you really think we have nothing to offer? If you want to fix something, you have to understand what is broken as well as how it works in order to fix it or improve it. The Obamacare plan doesn't do that. It ignores the impact of fraudulent medical lawsuits for starters. Between that and the amount of negative impact illegal's have had, fixing just those 2 things would be huge.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 278
Health care
Posted: 3/21/2010 8:33:20 PM
Presenting fragmented information from bias sources like Republican Kevin Brady and a report written by a group called “Americans for Tax Reform.” does not paint an accurate picture.

The expansion of the IRS is necessary for the following reasons:

• US population has grown since Word War II; baby boom (1946-1964), immigration, etc
• Job Creation - How is this bad?
• Advancement in technology since World War II; which create a need for IT, software engineer, and other computer related jobs.

It should also be noted that Healthcare will take years before implementation (2014). It is well publicized that the other party will use anything and everything related to Healthcare this upcoming election.

If we look at history and the current situation, it is definitely reassuring to see our government take action.
 RushLuv
Joined: 4/16/2009
Msg: 279
Health care
Posted: 3/21/2010 9:34:14 PM
Well, the health care bill just got passed. It's breaking news all over the place.

Nancy is one of the greatest house speakers ever, and I am very proud of Obama. I can't even imagine how the naysayers are feeling right now, but this should definitely ensure Obama another four years in office.

The millions of American's without health care, this is definitely something to be thankful and excited about.
 RushLuv
Joined: 4/16/2009
Msg: 280
Health care
Posted: 3/21/2010 9:58:14 PM
Just because they now can force you to have health care, doesn't change the fact you can't afford it.


Who is "you'"? Speak for yourself, not for the rest of us.


oh yeah, that doesn't go into effect for 4 years.


Duh. I am fully aware of the four years. Fyi, it was a huge controversy going around that people without jobs are the one's who supposedly won't be able to afford the new health care bill. We don't even know if that's true, or not.

We don't know how expensive the health care will be, until further notice. Until then, I hold no bitterness towards the new bill.

I am very proud of both Nancy, and Obama and no one else's opinion is gonna change that, no matter how much they try to twist it.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 281
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/21/2010 11:14:47 PM
They touted this to be mainly for those of us who do not currently have health coverage. So far all I get is they will make it more affordable. Right now that won't get me coverage and still won't for quite some time as it is low on my list of priorities, which includes basic survival on my own 2 feet and nothing more as I try to string a few jobs together being self employed. Once I grow enough I will need to hire help. This will not make it easier for me because I never have been offered or have been supplied health coverage in the past throughout my 30 years in construction other than 3 years in the union, so it will automatically cost me more no matter what.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 282
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 12:42:32 AM
It's going to be interesting to see how this affects the congressional elections in November. This thing won't be easy to repeal, or to get the courts to do anything about, even though it's seems to be unconstitutional. (So was the Social Security Act, and yet that monstrosity is still with us 76 years later.)

The special dispensations for Florida, Nebraska, etc.--which this bill's supporters used to buy votes, and which apparently remain in it-- don't seem to be a valid use of Congress' power to spend for the *general* welfare. How does a federal law's special treatment for a handful of states serve the welfare of Americans who live in all the other states?

Also, the whole scheme relies on forcing people either to buy federally-approved medical insurance, to pay a tax penalty, or to face tax evasion charges if you don't do either one. Say health insurance policies *are* part of interstate commerce, and Congress' power to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" means it can make laws that control those policies. But does that also mean the power to regulate the *absence* of interstate commerce--which this new law does by making us buy health insurance policies, or else?

If so, why couldn't Congress also make laws requiring us all to buy new cars, shares of stock, new foods or clothes Congress chooses to put on the market, or almost anything else? It's hard to see five members of the Supreme Court--even with the "empathy" and disregard for the Constitution that's been added to it--agreeing to stretch the Commerce Clause of the Constitution THAT far.

The trouble is, the Court might not hear a challenge to this new law for a long time--especially if it didn't help elect all that many Republican candidates this November. But if the law's not repealed, one of the suits that claim it's unconstitutional may eventually reach the Court.

The one good thing about adding Justice Sotomayor is that she's such a weak link Justice Kennedy, who's usually the deciding vote in 5-4 decisions these days, may be embarrassed to vote with her. Justice Stevens doesn't seem to mind her, but he's 89, and by then he may have retired (or expired.) To fill his seat, this President just might give us Janet "Big Sis" Napolitano. It would be hard for a lot of us to miss Stevens, but that might make him start to seem pretty good.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 283
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 1:59:24 AM

I am very proud of both Nancy, and Obama and no one else's opinion is gonna change that


I'm sure that's true. There a quite a few million Americans who agree with their political views, and they won this battle. But even if other people's opinions about their policies don't affect you, I hope you, and everyone, will keep an open mind about the economic effects of this.

I'm sure a lot more facts about the price of this bill will come out after the President signs it into law. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are already bankrupt, and now we're adding another giant federal entitlement program. We're also having to pay enormous amounts of interest to attract foreign money--China and others will only support our borrowing if we give them a good return on their investment.

The usual way governments get rid of debt is by devaluing their money. And when they do, it wipes out people's investments. That's why inflation's been called a hidden tax. We're passing along the tab for things we can't pay for to Americans not even born yet. Also, an uncertain economy discourages businesses from expanding and creating new jobs. I don't see this as good news for the millions of Americans who are out of work.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 284
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 8:11:35 AM
It's like the perverted ice cream man. Sure he does sell ice cream, but he also sells drugs and is a rapist that knows where everyone lives.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 285
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 10:57:14 AM
"I'm sure a lot more facts about the price of this bill will come out after the President signs it into law."

Actually, if you really want the facts vs either parties biases, than you ought to check out the myth busting on the topic and the known financials at www.factcheck.org

Not all of the provisions wait 4 years to happen, some immediately take effect.

No, it is not government run, there is no government option.

The motive for the impact on the 'cadillac' policies is to cause businesses to select normal policies and give the workers the difference in costs in pay ... pay that is subject to tax whereas the cadillac policy portion of their pay packages were not.

The changes in Medicare are the ones that John McCain proposed in 2008.

It is quite fun to read the truth vs the emotional hype of unfounded posts and the media.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 286
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 10:59:45 AM
What amazes me is how many gullible people now think we all have health care.. when in fact what just happened is that 0bama made it illegal to not have health insurance.... & the fine for not having it is $700...

Great, who's paying my $700 fine?

All those people who can't afford/don't want insurance now have to come up with $700 to pay the fine... I'm guesssing the majority of those people are the same blithering idiots who voted for 0bama...
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 287
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 12:07:39 PM
Hey, let them try to squeeze it out of me and see what happens. Lawsuits are waiting. Since they won't fix frivoulous lawsuits, then let them deal with every imaginable lawsuit.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 288
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 1:25:40 PM
How do you feel about the federal govt. forcing you to buy health insurance?


Because this law makes insurers cover people with pre-existing medical conditions, it also had to force everyone to buy health insurance. Otherwise, people would game the system by not buying it until they got sick.

I haven't seen anyone make a legal argument explaining why the federal government can force people to buy something--but I sure wouldn't want to try to make it. From what I've read, Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is what the "you must buy" provision probably relies on. (It's hard to see how anything else in the Constitution could even apply.)

I can see why the Commerce Clause would cover insurance policies, because even though they're not commerce themselves, they affect it. I don't know offhand whether the Court's ever held that it does--I'll research it if I have time. But even so, it's another thing completely to say Congress can regulate the *absence of* commerce--let alone do it by making people buy something, pay a tax penalty instead, or face criminal prosecution if they don't do either one. When has government ever forced individual Americans to buy anything?

The Ninth Amendment, which is the strangest thing in the Bill of Rights, is a reminder that the people may have certain basic rights that aren't specifically listed in the Constitution. And the Tenth makes clear many rights are reserved to the people. The Court mentioned the 9th Am. in Griswold in 1965 and in Roe in 1973, when it said we have a general right to privacy, in the context of contraception and abortion, that government can't invade.

That right of privacy has also been involved in other Court decisions about a person's right to die, the rights of blood parents, and other issues involving things personal and physical. Why isn't someone's choice about their medical care just as much a physical, personal, and private matter? And if it is, it's hard to see how it makes sense to say the Commerce Clause gives Congress authority to destroy a basic personal privacy right. Can Congress also tell us what foods we have to buy?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 289
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 5:41:40 PM
JD, Nothing wrong with thinking like a cartoon character. You may know about this, and I probably don't have the details just right. My parents used to mention an old-time character that lived in an ink bottle. And at the start of each, strip, he'd come pouring out--as I pictured it, sort of like the genie coming out of the magic lamp.

I think it's just common sense that the federal government has no authority to tell anyone they have to buy anything. Mark Levin sees what's happening as part of a planned effort to destroy the U.S. as the Constitution created it, and put a totalitarian government--a soft tyranny--in its place. And I have to admit, if you read the Communist Manifesto, what this administration has done fits what Marx was calling for pretty well. I'm less inclined to dismiss that as crazy talk, coming from Levin--he's a top-notch lawyer who worked in the Reagan Justice Department and who understands the Constitution and the ideas behind it very, very well. I've never heard him get a fact wrong.

This kind of thing is just what I'd expect from a President who could easily have put to rest rumors he wasn't a U.S. citizen, or a closet Muslim, but never really has; who wouldn't wear a flag pin until he realized it looked bad; who, with his wife, hung out with a Palestinian Arab who was one of Yasser Arafat's biggest boosters, with the guy who helped start the Weathermen and his ex-FBI ten most wanted wife, both of them communists and terrorist bombers, and their Maoist "educator" pal, and who for 20 years went to a church whose preachers openly condemns this country and says it's to blame for 9/11, while hobnobbing with Louis Farrakhan and his buddy Moammar Khadafi; who went to France but wouldn't visit the WWII sites in Normandy to pay his respects; who couldn't apologize for this country enough overseas, while saving his grins and soul handshakes for fascist tyrants; and who wants to give the man who masterminded the 9/11 attacks and murdered almost 3,000 innocent American civilians more legal rights than you or I have.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 290
Health care
Posted: 3/22/2010 7:55:01 PM
Hmmm ...

When I voted for Obama, the idea of a public option for health care, administered by a nonprofit governmental organization seemed fine with me. An unconstitutional mandate for private citizens to buy health coverage from private insurers was not what I had in mind. One that limits access to reproductive care was also not what I had in mind.

I don't have a problem with a government mandate to pay taxes that cover the needs of those who can't pay, or who insurers won't cover. But I'm not too keen on the idea of a penalty or loss of freedom if an individual chooses not to pay a private business.

That isn't socialism, BTW, I believe the operative word is fascism.

I hope those states sue and win, which I'm sure they will. This is the best Congress that money can buy, and Obama has gotten completely bamboozled in the drive to get something re: health care through.

I don't see how any liberal can be happy with this result.
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 291
Health care
Posted: 3/23/2010 7:58:36 PM
You guys are such incredible sore losers. Good luck with the hostility and anger. The party of "no" just got its ears boxed in. Talk about denial LMAO...
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 292
Health care
Posted: 3/23/2010 9:38:49 PM

You think the government has a role in "helping" business make wise choices.


No, I think that the government is a good counterweight to the power of corporate interests when those interests trample the rights of individuals.

You confuse me with someone who simply takes the other side of your false dichotomy. It's not statism vs. individual rights. It's checks and balances. If the private sector is exercising market power to deny people access to coverage unless they give up all their life savings in order to pay for it, there is a role for government to step in to curtail that form of extortion.

I do agree, though, that when both private and government extortionists get together to craft legislation it comes out pretty bad.
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 293
Health care
Posted: 3/23/2010 11:01:47 PM

The VAST majority of the general populace was AGAINST this bill passing.


You wish. As usual, the facts show otherwise. You people just don't learn. Repeating BS over and over again doesn't make it true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/obama-democrats-begin-rea_n_510563.html


According to a Gallup/USA Today poll conducted the day after health care legislation passed the House of Representatives, 49 percent of the respondents think the passage of reform is a "good thing," compared to the 40 percent who think it is bad.


You still looking for the non-existent death panels LMAO. Well, they're hidden in the same place as the Iraqi WMD

 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 294
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/23/2010 11:18:14 PM
I'm not worrried Blues because now you all have plenty of rope now to hang yourselves with. You don't need our help to do that.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 295
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/24/2010 12:17:06 AM
If the private sector is exercising market power to deny people access to coverage unless they give up all their life savings in order to pay for it, there is a role for government to step in to curtail that form of extortion.


It's always a good ploy for demagogic politicians to blame corporations--sort of like Hitler blaming Germany's problems on the Jews. It doesn't surprise me that the hordes of free riders on Uncle Sam's gravy train go for that tripe, but it does surprise me a little, Ace, that you do. Something less than one percent of the money spent on health care in this country goes to medical insurance companies.

Maybe the Hollywood portrayal of corporate execs has seized your imagination--heartless Mafia types, riding around in black Lincolns wearing $4,000 suits. Usually, they're slavering over the chance to pull a shady land deal that will ruin kind old Pop Jones' farm, or dump toxic waste next to the local school--until, of course, the hero and the local schoolteacher team up to defeat them, and fall in love in the process. I don't recall any plots with Snidely Whiplash health insurance execs, but I'm sure we can expect to see some.

It was government intervention that caused this. Employers started providing medical insurance partly as an alternate way to compensate employees. I believe this was partly caused by the higher wages the Wagner Act allowed unions to get for their members, and the pressure those higher wages put on businesses to control their payrolls. (If I'm wrong about this, someone can educate me.)

Government also began to encourage employers to provide medical insurance with a very limited tax break in 1943, and this was expanded a great deal in 1954. Also, the McCarran-Ferguson Act carved out an antitrust exemption which allowed states to discriminate against out-of-state insurers. That encouraged higher prices by eliminating part of the competition.

In recent years, states also began requiring medical insurers by law to cover more and more--therapeutic massage, grief counseling, acupuncture, and so on. And they've increased insurers' costs by imposing more and more regulations on them. Obviously, an there's a greater risk in insuring someone for a medical condition they already have. That increases the price the insurer needs to charge--but now, they'll be prohibited by law from doing that. That's like prohibiting a car insurance company, by law, from charging the 20-year-old with two DUI's and a couple dozen speeding tickets any more than it charges the lady who's been driving for 40 years, is very careful to obey all the vehicle laws, and has never had a ticket.

The states and the federal government created a system in which the person using medical services isn't the person paying for them. That artificially reduces the *price* of these services to the user, while doing nothing to reduce the *cost.* When you add in lots of suits for medical malpractice, it's an open invitation for policy holders and doctors both to overconsume medical services. Might as well do this also, and order these extra tests--why not be on the safe side, when you're not paying the tab?

As the demand increases for a more or less fixed amount of medical services, guess what? It allows insurers to charge higher prices. But then the government which put them in that position in the first place blames them for these high prices, and uses them to justify still more intervention! Government can artificially hold down the price of goods and services, but that doesn't make it cost any less to provide them. It just causes fewer of them to be provided.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 296
Health care
Posted: 3/24/2010 8:40:42 AM
Match,

It's just a question of power. Those with more money have more power. I'm not interested in going back to the days of sweat shops and company towns, and when individuals find themselves in desperate conditions it can be very profitable in the short run to exploit them. Being sick reduces people to desperation, and I've heard too many stories of bankruptcy and loss of life savings due to medical problems to believe that such lucrative opportunities would not be taken advantage of.

In other situations that lead to violence or the appearance of extortion we have laws and agencies to enforce standards of ethical behavior. When it comes to medical care, the inherent imbalance of power between consumer and provider precludes a market solution. There might be a market solution for insurance, but that leaves out those who need care but can't afford the premium.

Corporations are not inherently bad. That depends on the people who work in them. However, unregulated corporations are inherently risky, and that's bad.

The chaos we've had so far with respect to health care coverage is very bad. The new system could well be going from bad to worse. The antitrust exemption is extremely bad no matter how you look at it. But it appears to me that corporate interests have prevailed over the common welfare in this bill, and that is very unfortunate for those of us who don't own stock.

I don't like this bill. I don't like the corporate welfare arrangement it purports to replace. I feel that medical care is a public utility and should be structured as such. That system has its drawbacks, but most of them can be addressed by making service delivery contracts open to bid every 5 years. If we'd done that with electric power, water, and so on, our infrastructure would be in much better shape. If medical providers knew that they'd have to compete for their contracts every 5 years, we'd see advances. It wouldn't just stagnate.

Give _anyone_ too much power and it goes bad. That includes both government officials and corporate officers. What is so surprizing to you when I say that?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 297
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/24/2010 10:12:10 AM
^^^^^I notice the honorable Rep. Dingbat also referred to the country's population as "three hundred" people. If admitting he supports a law he thinks gives the federal government authority to "control the people" doesn't prove to his constituents that he's unfit to serve in the Congress, I don't know what would.

He's about as impressive as Rep. Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. When asked what part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to force people to buy health insurance, he answered, "Under several clauses--the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others."

Of course there is no such clause in the U.S. Constitution. And Conyers obviously doesn't care enough about the rule of law even to think about the constitutional authority for socialized medicine. Otherwise, after having lived with this monstrosity all these months, he'd have been able to say *exactly* what he thought the source of that authority was. Conyers must assume he and his fellow high priests in the Capitol have some general power to do whatever they think sounds good, fine, and wonderful (under the Good, Fine, and Wonderful Clause.)

Like the others, Conyers knows a lot of his constituents don't even understand basic civics and don't much care, either. Why bother to understand your country's system of government--let alone admire it--when you've been taught for years how oppressive and despicable that country is?

"Jefferson? You mean the school? Oh yeah, you mean that old dude who was talkin' about 'all men are created equal' while he owned all these slaves--I saw the movie about how he had this hot thing goin' with this one of his slave chicks. This place, man, I don't know--they like put all those poor Japanese people in camps out in the desert, too--and then they like flew bombers over and *nuked* like a million of 'em! Somebody's got to pay for all that bad karma, dude."

The greatest political system ever invented on Earth--which about a million Americans have died fighting to defend--is being dismantled by a pack of statist jackals, not one of whom is fit to clean the boots of any of those dead patriots. These people are Americans in name only. They hate the individual freedoms our system guarantees as much as the Muslim jihadists they sympathize with.

The way to fight this disgusting, anti-democratic arrogance--this tyranny--is for all Americans who still have their wits about them, and who love this country, to put these vermin out of office. Our last decent chance to stop this slow-motion statist coup may come in November.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 298
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/24/2010 11:00:51 AM

but that leaves out those who need care but can't afford the premium.


Medicaid already covered those people. And before that was created, it was done through private and church charity. Even now it is. Of course the news media don't cover it, but there are all sorts of people and organizations that contribute a lot of money for medical care for the indigent.


However, unregulated corporations are inherently risky, and that's bad.


I'm starting to wonder if you've been studying our President's use of the straw man as a rhetorical device. He loves it. You keep mentioning these unregulated corporations to justify (apparently federal) government control, but you don't cite specific examples. The usual lurid examples of corporate wrongdoing don't prove it's intentionally being ignored, any more than the fact there were hundreds of murders in L.A. last year proves that the police and the County D.A. aren't trying to enforce California's murder laws.

You never explain just where you think state corporation laws are failing, or why they are--or, if they're so ineffective, why all 50 states even have (and always have had) them. You also ignore how competition tends to control quality. If one provider charged too much for its premium, or didn't provide good service, what's to prevent anyone from using another one, just as people do with other kinds of insurance? Or, if you assume medical insurers are colluding, where's your evidence?


I don't like the corporate welfare arrangement it purports to replace.


I don't know of any evidence that medical insurers ever wanted or tried to get more government control over their operations, or that they profit from that control. The total profits of all health insurance companies in the U.S. last year were about $13 billion, or about 3%. As one commenter put it, that $13 billion is like a rounding error when you're calculating the cost of fraud just in Medicare. I don't have the exact amount of the official estimate, but it's several *hundred billion dollars* a year.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 299
Health care
Posted: 3/24/2010 12:11:49 PM
In this day and age, it's unacceptable to me that getting healthcare is financially decimating - some procedures are so expensive, they put a dent in the finances of a millionaire. Insurance companies are greedy bloodsucking entities that capitalize on the financial incapabilities of individuals (after all, ensuring your safety and health is basic survival instinct), and proceed to kick them when they're down. Healthcare, then, abuses the fact that people aren't directly paying for anything, and drives their cost up. In this endless upwards spiral that profits healthcare and insurance endlessly, the only loser is the patient.

The rest of the world, healthcare is a basic human right and government responsibility. Citizens empower their governments so that the government can uphold and enforce their right to a certain health standard. Empowering your government involves funding it. This is the basic difference in ideology. You see it as paying for someone else's expenses (which then makes you think your rights are being infringed) whereas the rest of the world living under public healthcare doesn't see it as anything different than funding their government so that their roads are paved and their infrastructure is maintained. It's not a "health tax". It's just tax (a single "item" that funds your government), not broken into a thousand different distinctions.

It's frankly a goddamn disgrace that US cannot provide to their citizens with this service whereas much smaller nations, with tiny budget margins worse economies can sustain efficient, successful and cheap healthcare services. While US firmly hinges itself on the archaic notions of the past, civilization in the rest of the world advanced to a point where free, public healthcare is a very fundamental, basic human *need*, not an extravagant luxury.

Obviously no one's going to have an epiphany and change their ideologies overnight (I wish). I just hope that people who don't agree still *understand* and appreciate the thought process behind public healthcare instead of demonizing it as an infringement of their rights. Let's end the scare tactics.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 300
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 3/24/2010 2:04:41 PM

The rest of the world, healthcare is a basic human right and government responsibility.


The only rights that cut any ice in this country are legal and constitutional rights. I couldn't care less what you think are "basic human rights," or whether "the rest of the world" you fancy is so much more advanced and civilized than our benighted corner of it agrees with you. You're free to go live wherever they do things the way you like.

Or, if you'd rather stay here and get the U.S. government to create your socialist utopia, where a vast, bawling herd of slobs with little enterprise and fewer morals can use the government's authority to steal property from people who worked hard to get it, then amend the Constitution to authorize it.

But don't think the rest of us will just stand by while you subvert the fundamental law of this country. Whoever thinks that had better be ready for a fight to the finish. You, and others who think like you, either don't understand the first thing about the Constitution, or you imagine you're free to ignore it. Or both. The fact you'd call the outrage of half the country over this gross insult to the Constitution "scare tactics" and your claim that the U.S. "firmly hinges itself on archaic notions of the past" both reveal just how glibly you disregard that Constitution.

What I hear from people like you makes me understand how tyrannical governments get started. You don't understand the reasons for limited government any more than my cat understands Oliver Twist, and even if you did, you'd probably dismiss them. You want to live in a way that violates the most fundamental principles this country was founded on--and you want to do it here. You have just the President and the Congress for the job, too. But the rest of us will have a say in how long they're around.

If you think the law--and the Constitution is the highest law in America--changes whenever enough people want to ignore it, you belong in some other country where the rule of law means little or nothing. Don't like the wording of your mortgage or loan agreement or business contract because you feel they're based on archaic notions of the past? Hey, no problem---just change what they mean, so they don't deny you your basic human rights.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care