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.
I'm glad you feel comfortable taking away my rights. Thanks.
Rights to what exactly? Can you be more specific? Your argument is a step or two up from calling the plan evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by potatosoup
Oh well that settles it. Why didn't the President just come out and say that at one of his many pressers lately? If only his highly paid cadre of political geniuses had just suggested that he tell the American people to just "Google it", why this wonderful piece of legislation would clearly have all the support it needs for bipartisan success.
Fair enough. I was simply suggesting that people go out and research the topic on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishnfool
Do you really think the government will just leave me alone and let me live my life as I see fit, or do you think they will intrude in my life by offering "incentives", or requiring extra costs, etc. to bring my lifestyle in line with average health care cost? Do you really want the government asking about or attempting to "influence" your personal lifestyle choices? Is that in line with the Founders' visions, with the constitution? I think not.
How is this any different than insurance companies offering incentives or raising your costs depending on your lifestyle choices? You can suffer under the tyranny of corporate power just as easy as any government. With a government plan the people would have more weight to bargain with. Besides, your doctor should be trying to influence your eating and/or exercising habits. Isn't that called preventative care?
Also, the Constitution doesn't say to provide a national health plan and it doesn't say not to. What would Jefferson or Madison say about the East India Health Care Company if such a thing existed in their time?
How is this any different than insurance companies offering incentives or raising your costs depending on your lifestyle choices?
Do I really have to explain to you the difference between a private business and the government? Really?
A company run in the private sector should be free to do what it wishes. I accept that. If I don't like it, I'll shop elsewhere. That's how capitalism works amazing enough
If you really cannot understand the difference in the government wielding that sort of power over you then I am sorry but you are completely hopeless. This is about control. An insurance company has no control over me if I drop them....not true for the government. One cannot simply drop the government.
I will NEVER understand why people are so content with letting the government decide what is best for us.
What would Jefferson or Madison say about the East India Health Care Company if such a thing existed in their time?
Just as a little history lesson for you....the colonists had issue with the East India Trading Company because the crown was essentially using a tax on the colonists to bail out the tea company at the expense of other smaller local companies.....seems the colonists didn't want the government redistributing their money. Sound familiar?
Let me just state that I think our current system is a joke....the costs are ridiculous.
That said, this is quite simply not the government's job or role. This is another in road for the government to further restrict our freedoms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishnfool
A company run in the private sector should be free to do what it wishes. I accept that. If I don't like it, I'll shop elsewhere. That's how capitalism works amazing enough.
That's indeed how capitalism works - competition among companies offering the same/similar product should offer consumers a number of choices. But in health care, is capitalism working? In other words, if a person frustrated by their current health care plan shops elsewhere, will they find something better/more affordable/etc.? Will they even be able to shop elsewhere, if they have a preexisting condition?
In an ideal capitalist society, the competition among health care providers and health insurance companies would act to lower costs (or at least slow the rate of increase) and provide more options. But does it? I don't think so.
I'm not necessarily arguing for or against any of the plans or suggestions made thus far by Congress. I'm agreeing with you that the system is broken ("a joke"), and I'm wondering whether, if left to their own devices, health care insurance companies and health care providers have any interest or incentive or even the ability to fix what is broken.
Rights to what exactly? Can you be more specific? Your argument is a step or two up from calling the plan evil.
You want me and others to pay for your health care. This means you are taking money from me for your gain. That is one way this plan imposes on my freedoms. Secondly Barrack wants to eventually eliminate all private insurance companies and go to a completely single payer system. Thus eliminating competition, quality, and MOST IMPORTANTLY MY FREEDOM OF CHOOSING WHO I WANT TO OPERATE ON ME.
You people are all the same. Obama promises free $$$ and you sheep will do whatever it takes to make sure you get it. It's honestly pathetic what this once great country has become. The sheep all want a piece of the American pie without earning it. You guys can only push and take so far. Keep it up.
Until the 1960's and 70's, we had a free market medical system. Today, we have so many subsidies, taxes, unfunded mandates, insurances mandates (avg of 42 per state), litigation, federal and state regulation, occupational licensing, etc, that no one could seriously call our system a free market system. State mandates alone increase medical premiums by 20-50%.
Also, the Constitution doesn't say to provide a national health plan and it doesn't say not to.
But the constitution does say that any issue that it doesn't mention, is up to the states or the people. See the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nashuatelegraph.com: Nashua ranks No. 4 when it comes to federal stimulus cash (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090820/NEWS02/308209958 - broken link)
Quote:
Gov. John Lynch praised Fitch, who's been working on his own since a summer intern went back to school. The Legislature has already approved a 15-month, $2 million budget for the stimulus office that will ultimately have five, full-time staff including a $120,000-a-year director.
Democrats, spending your money so you don't have to.
Nashuatelegraph.com: Nashua ranks No. 4 when it comes to federal stimulus cash (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090820/NEWS02/308209958 - broken link)
Democrats, spending your money so you don't have to.
They have the nerve to call this stimulus?
The report also revealed that through the end of June that stimulus money created or saved 796 jobs, with 700 of those state workers who did not have to get laid off thanks to the federal grants, Fitch said.
Federal highway money accounted for 75 jobs and weatherization programs kept or added 16 to the payroll, he added.
Wow-how wonderful-the bulk of this so called stimulus plan went to keeping on 700 state workers when our state government is already too large. I guess they have to help ensure those 700 will vote for more tax and spend in 2010.
I was against this "stimulus plan" from the beginning and I still am. However, since we have it, it would have been nice if this $$ were used to actually help stimulate the NH economy instead of keeping on 700 workers of an already overbloated state government.
The best is we need a 2 million dollar budget to run this? And that is for 15 months. How much more will they need after 15 months? Give me an Excel spreadsheet and someone who is experienced in grants and grant writing and an attorney to review the legalities and it could be run for a heck of a lot less. Instead we need someone making $120,000 plus 4 additional full timers to run this? If that is not the ultimate example of wasting taxpayer dollars then I don't know what is.
Must be nice to be Royalty, I mean a .gov employee. All hail Obama!!!!!
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.
Fair enough. I was simply suggesting that people go out and research the topic on their own.
The constitution argument
