Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are entitled to an opinion about whether others should have to pay for the health care or not.
What you aren't entitled to do is overrule decisions made by a majority of Congressmen over time. By passing the ACA, EMTALA, Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIPS, Congress has essentially said that within some limits there is a right medical care.
If you don't like the way things are than work to elect Congressmen who will support the repeal of these laws and a President who will sign such bills into law.
Until you accomplish these goals, what you "want" is pretty unimportant. Your real problem is that these things have been voted on for decades and your side has come up consistently on the the losing end. We do things like this through majority rule in this country. I suspect it will change about the time you can convince a majority of the country to take your point of view. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
BTW, someone could work full time at McDonald's and they still wouldn't have health insurance because its not offered there.
Laws are changed every day in this country. Most congressmen aren't worth the paper used to vote for them. They're all in the pockets of the lobbyists not their constitutes.
Who said your employer has to offer health insurance? FYI shift leaders and above have the opportunity to purchase health insurance at McDonald's. The handful of full-time employees also had the opportunity to purchase health insurance when I worked for McDonald's 20+ years ago. No one ever said McDonald's was supposed to be a career unless you were in management. Most of the people who work at the fast food joints around me are high schoolers and college kids....they're not making it a career nor are they looking for insurance since they're usually covered by their parents.
I pay for my own and don't really feel I should have to foot the bill for others. Get a job! I had to. Why are others so much better that they get free healthcare? Who decided they were entitled and why? GET A JOB! Work at 6 McDonald's if you have to. I don't care. I'm so sick of the laziness and entitlements!
You DON'T pay for your own.
You pay into an insurance pool...which makes your healthcare cost YOU much less if YOU need expensive care, because the risk is spread among the pool, which is the entire point of insurance.
Such heartless, selfish and UNEDUCATED people I swear I cannot understand.
Laws are changed every day in this country. Most congressmen aren't worth the paper used to vote for them. They're all in the pockets of the lobbyists not their constitutes.
Who said your employer has to offer health insurance? FYI shift leaders and above have the opportunity to purchase health insurance at McDonald's. The handful of full-time employees also had the opportunity to purchase health insurance when I worked for McDonald's 20+ years ago. No one ever said McDonald's was supposed to be a career unless you were in management. Most of the people who work at the fast food joints around me are high schoolers and college kids....they're not making it a career nor are they looking for insurance since they're usually covered by their parents.
A lot of the people working at McDonald's are in their twenties and thirties and trying to support families. Or don't you watch the news?
What you observe in your own isolated pocket of America does not mean that what you observe is what is occurring in the rest of America.
You are truly a heartless, selfish person that I am embarrassed to claim as a countryman.
Unconstitutional in who's mind? The Supreme Court rules on constitutionality and has been majority conservative for quite some time.
Exactly. Its very common in this country to assert that a law or government policy that you disagree with is "unconstitutional". I seldom hear these people even say which provision of the Constitution they believe the law or policy violates.
However, even if they are erudite enough to actually refer to a specific provision, the problem they run into is that they don't get to say what is constitutional and what is not. In our society, the Supreme Court is vested with that prerogative.
Other opinions may be interesting, but are irrelevant in that final determination.
For one thing, the article you linked is hardly a prime example of your argument. Secondly this argument arose because you chose to nit pick the choice of the word compromise vs consensus. A consensus is often reached through compromise.We're arguing semantics. You don't have to look any further than the Constitutional Convention. I'll link to a simple article rather than an legal review.
I doubt you read the link I posted, so I will try to explain the difference between consensus and compromises.
Our political / representative Govt system is built on the basis that major aspects of our lives are decided by consensus. That is the constitution, and its amendments, which required a vast Supermajority. This the consensus I referred to. The book I linked to is titled "Consensus of the Governed."
Congressional or State laws, mostly require a simple majority, and no broad consensus is required to pass them. That is why these laws must be of limited scope, and in compliance, or not in violation to the Constitution.
Constitution is not up for election. The only changes to the constitution must be ratified by the states.
So, US Congress cannot really legislate outside Consitutional bounds.
Yes SCOTUS gets to decide which law, if challenged, is constitutional or not, and in some cases when its decisions still maintained a horrible practice, segregation, for example, the matter went back to the people, their representatives, who amended the Constitution, and thus rendered SCOTUS decisions no longer applicable.
So, no SCOTUS is not the final word -- if people, their States Reps or Congress decide that ACA is bad, they will have to amend the Constitution. This is where we are.
And no, under current law (ACA) healthcare is NOT a right. It is an obligation, a mandate, a dictate. If you don't enroll, you'll have to deal with the IRS.
I doubt you read the link I posted, so I will try to explain the difference between consensus and compromises.
Our political / representative Govt system is built on the basis that major aspects of our lives are decided by consensus. That is the constitution, and its amendments, which required a vast Supermajority. This the consensus I referred to. The book I linked to is titled "Consensus of the Governed."
Congressional or State laws, mostly require a simple majority, and no broad consensus is required to pass them. That is why these laws must be of limited scope, and in compliance, or not in violation to the Constitution.
Constitution is not up for election. The only changes to the constitution must be ratified by the states.
So, US Congress cannot really legislate outside Consitutional bounds.
Yes SCOTUS gets to decide which law, if challenged, is constitutional or not, and in some cases when its decisions still maintained a horrible practice, segregation, for example, the matter went back to the people, their representatives, who amended the Constitution, and thus rendered SCOTUS decisions no longer applicable.
So, no SCOTUS is not the final word -- if people, their States Reps or Congress decide that ACA is bad, they will have to amend the Constitution. This is where we are.
And no, under current law (ACA) healthcare is NOT a right. It is an obligation, a mandate, a dictate. If you don't enroll, you'll have to deal with the IRS.
Your doubts are unfounded, I read the entire thing. Most high school children know the Constitution is a consensus. Which requires a 2/3 majority, yet it was reached through a series of compromises. So were many of the amendments. I repeat, consensus built on compromise. The ACA is a compromise that may very well lead to a consensus and I dare say it will be proposed by a republican. I think I'll defer any further discussion on this particular subject because you're unwilling to compromise.
This is a public forum and you can asnwer or not answer, and I could care less either way.
Secondly, it's not 2/3 consensus of US Congress. Constitutional amendments although they may be passed by 2/3 of Congress, these Amendments require 3/4 of the States Legislatures to ratify them. So the bar is very high, which means that the issue in question must have broad consensus.
There might or might not be compromises there by some states, but basically the correct concept is Consensus.
No one can win anything important unless there is broad consensus. That is how US Constitution was designed. By Design, States Legislatures have final say on any amendments. States Legislatures can also propose Amendments themselves to the Federal Constitution, and without US Congress, can vote and ratify them.
States Legislatures, theoretically, by 3/4 ratification vote, can make an Amendment to forever forbid UHC, or inversily require it for all eternity. And no Congress, or SCOTUS will get to vote on it.
As much as it takes.
The ONLY Constitutional use of our military is to defend our own borders. PERIOD.
Our priorities in this country are way screwed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalisiin
As much as it takes.
I asked you how much? How much money would we save if we kept military to protect our own borders, as you said, which I agree with.
Next question: how much would it take for UHC? Would the savings cover it?
I am not being facetious, I am just simply curious. Since you brought it up, you should provide the math for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
