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.
We are "supposed" to be the richest nation on the face of this earth yet we can't provide for our sick......we have 12 billion dollars a month for bombs for Iraq however we sit at 38th in the WORLD in providing healthcare while nations we consider to be "lesser" than us are managing to provide their citizens with national health care programs that provide better care than ours. Our leaders have lost focus on the fact that they are there to provide for the safety and welfare of its people.....its an absolute disgrace that there are 38 other countries on this planet that have found health care systems and a way to pay for it while we have 50 million people who can't afford to see a doctor. Whats wrong with us ?
There is nothing wrong with 'us'. Read the Constitution. We provide for the common defence and PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide for it. It's in article I. Translated, this means that our Constitution was intended to provide defense for our nation. Articles of war (which congress decides to draft) are provided for. Health care is not. It never was. You have a right to pursue it, you do not have a right TO it. Health care is not a right. It's a politician's false promise of some sort of utopia, and the politician uses this wedge issue to justify all trepasses on the individual's private property, which, in the case of health care, equals your income, in the form of confiscatory taxes.
There is nothing wrong with 'us'. Read the Constitution. We provide for the common defence and PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide for it. It's in article I. Translated, this means that our Constitution was intended to provide defense for our nation. Articles of war (which congress decides to draft) are provided for. Health care is not. It never was. You have a right to pursue it, you do not have a right TO it. Health care is not a right. It's a politician's false promise of some sort of utopia, and the politician uses this wedge issue to justify all trepasses on the individual's private property, which, in the case of health care, equals your income, in the form of confiscatory taxes.
Common defense? That's socialist or communist. I guess you're saying our Constitution is selecively communist. Why can't people hire their own protection? If there were competition amongst armies then we could pay more efficient ones that don't buy $800 toilet seats. Free market, liberty, competition, capitalism, and all that.
Can you cite some sources, please? I can. See Kenneth Greenberg, James Cobb, James Ayers, and Robert Fogelman, for starters. I've got dozens more. Each of them talk about how secession differs from the revolution, mainly because the southern states signed on to the Constitution in 1787. The colonies, in contrast, did not sign any such contractual (or constitutional, for that matter) and legally binding document with England.
And I am still not sure how to reconcile your claim that Lincoln "was a bloodthirsty animal" with your claim that only losers shoot second that you raised when I pointed out that the South shot the first shots of the Civil War. Was Lincoln supposed to let the South shoot on Union soldiers with impunity? You have expressed your beliefs in self defense elsewhere at length, even going so far as to post pictures of weapons. In what logical universe was the Union Army supposed to have not defended itself from southern aggression? How can Lincoln be both a loser for shooting second and a bloodthirsty animal who bears sole responsibility for the Civil War? I really don't get it.
Finally, I characterized your claims as antiquated because they are similar to those made by southerners in the 19th century. Again, see the sources listed above for verification--all have written books published by university presses. I think it is fair to say that a 200-year-old line of argument is antiquated, but others may disagree. But if I had a piece of furniture, say, that was 200 years old, I would probably call it an antique. Why not apply that same criterion to a line of argument?
source for what? i really wasnt going into legalities with the comparison between england and the north because when it comes to a situation like this, you cant expect a constitution to legally bind the states to stay together forever. i could look for some legal arguments over the state's rights issue and the legal obligations of the colonies to england but i dont think it should be necessary. when it comes down to it, the south can secede if they want to and the north can go to war to keep the south if they want to. we can form our own opinion on whether or not it was worth the lives of 700,000 Americans to keep the south from seceding. did they deserve to die because of the act you consider illegal?
why do you pretend like this shooting first thing is complicated? in my descriptions of self defense where i shockingly post pictures of guns, there is an invader and a person defending their home. in this instance, the north was invading southern property and should have left. even if the south was wrong, it still doesnt justify a war killing 700,000 people. you realize you are taking a position of supporting a war killing 700k people because of one act of what you deem as illegal aggression.
if you call the southern argument antiquated, then the northern argument is antiquated as well. both of them exist today, and both have supporters. calling either antiquated is silly.
Common defense? That's socialist or communist. I guess you're saying our Constitution is selecively communist. Why can't people hire their own protection? If there were competition amongst armies then we could pay more efficient ones that don't buy $800 toilet seats. Free market, liberty, competition, capitalism, and all that.
You are right. It is selectively communist. When it comes to national defense, the Constitution provides for defense of the nation, as a whole. What you choose to pursue, within the boundaries, is entirely up to you. It's a beautiful thing. If you want to be a winner, go for it. If you want to roll over and play dead, don't expect the citizenry to pick up the tab for your funeral.
That's the way the founding fathers set up our system of government. And in a relatively short time, in human history, relative to other nations, it has surpassed everything in its wake, in terms of quality of life. I live next to a third world nation, and I get to see how others who have comparable physical and intellectual resources, nonetheless, live in misery and squalor. I think too many Americans live relatively insular lives and can't objectively ponder how well off they are relative to other nations. And in my opinion, what separates us from most of these third world hellholes is our superior system of government. It's not perfect, however, and it never will be. Not everyone can have everything at all times, at the expense of 'the wealthiest amongst us', as many in this country like to demonize those who produce. At some point, accountability must play a role.
You are right. It is selectively communist. When it comes to national defense, the Constitution provides for defense of the nation, as a whole. What you choose to pursue, within the boundaries, is entirely up to you. It's a beautiful thing. If you want to be a winner, go for it. If you want to roll over and play dead, don't expect the citizenry to pick up the tab for your funeral.
That's the way the founding fathers set up our system of government. And in a relatively short time, in human history, relative to other nations, it has surpassed everything in its wake, in terms of quality of life. I live next to a third world nation, and I get to see how others who have comparable physical and intellectual resources, nonetheless, live in misery and squalor. I think too many Americans live relatively insular lives and can't objectively ponder how well off they are relative to other nations. And in my opinion, what separates us from most of these third world hellholes is our superior system of government. It's not perfect, however, and it never will be. Not everyone can have everything at all times, at the expense of 'the wealthiest amongst us', as many in this country like to demonize those who produce. At some point, accountability must play a role.
The Constitution also empowers legislators, who are elected by the populace, to use their judgment in enacting legislation that will also promote the general welfare. That includes other socialist measures should those legislators deem them to promote the general welfare. The Constitution set the precedent by explicitly imposing a socialist policy in terms of a national military for which the government can pay by imposing taxes upon people, coercing them to pay those taxes.
So it sounds like your argument isn't against socialism - you seem to readily accept it when it comes to a military - but rather against what "promote the general welfare" actually constitutes. And that's what the argument is about always. But the Constitution no more supports your view of what "promote the general welfare" means than anyone else's, so you can't present your opinion as being THE Constitutional one here.
And accountability extends to those who produce, which is why they are also criticized. This nation did grow quickly in a short amount of time, and in the time of greatest growth we saw the most "socialism" and redistribution of wealth, much more than what we see today. Today we are seeing the most capitalist economy we've ever seen and we are seeing the ill effects of it, off the heels of the postive effects, and people are unhappy with it.
Most of it is not going to the people that PROVIDE it. They are going to the insurance companies that are also guilty ouf OUTSOURCING a lot of their work overseas.
Our own company increases our rates if we spend more than 75 cents on every dollar paid into insurance.
A minimum 25% maintainance fee for what? Book keeping and denial of insurance?
The whole insurance issue is very simple. Get rid of it. It is very opoprtunistic and should NOT be the one earning money off of the mere practice of providing a buffer for health care funding.
Now, everyone here seems to be focusing on the wrong aspect of the bill, if it were written properly, in that they are saying it should not be the responsibility of the government to provide this.
They aren't.
This bill is supposed to ease the Medicare/Medicaid burden. If people could start to AFFORD health insurance from the Government rather than from Prudential or USHC, maybe less would NEED "free" health care from Medicare.
Maybe doctors could go back to charging REALISTIC fees for their services because they are no longer being paid $40 from Aetna for a procedure that would cost you or I $80 off the street. A $50 procedure would cost everyone $50. Someone w/o insurance could afford the occasional trip to the doctors as opposed to now.
As for Reaganomics, they were great for those that had the money to DO something with them at the time. They broke up and sold large portions of our financial base to foreign investors and we have never gotten that back. It was good for everyone, but GREAT for the top.
Problem is, when you sell the land beneath your feet, eventually you find you have very little left to stand on. Bush (Sr.) had to pat the price for that, and Iraq War I. He did a pretty decent job patchnig things up, but people did not like his taxes (especially after "reading his lips").
The bubbles started though, beginning with Tech and Clinton rode those comfortably for 8 years. He did not DO much, really, in those times, good or bad. I believe he saw indicators pointing for some falls, but they were ignored (no new President wants to be a party pooper. Jr learned that from Sr, unfortunately, there is only so long you can inflate the bubble).
Our overall COL has gotten insane. People are in debt up to their gizzards and even the more financially secure ones have housing debts that are astoonomical in comparison to what they were 30 years ago, not just in sheer amounts, but in ratio as well.
the argument here should not revert into a Robin Hood kind of "debate" where people scream to keep their money and all government spending is evil (even when it has been proven that spending on research, development and education provide a net gain for the country). We DO spend too much on cr4p like the road and bridge to nowhere. We coddle the Pharms and Insurance sompanies and our money leaves the country faster than migrant workers after the housing crash.
We are a country that loves its 99 cent lettuce, but no native wants to work out in the field for teh wages that the "illegals" will. You want to stop illegal immigration? Pay more than WalMart prices for things and maybe the farms and other inductries will earn enough to employ "decent hardworking Americans" that would not be caught dead in the field for $10 a day.
SO although I do not BLAME reagan, he really did not help things, and since most people earned more, they did not see that they were earning it off the debt of our nation. One day we will have to pay it back, and we see how painful that is right now.
Two things, first is obvious. If we did not HAVE the debt, we would not have to pay for it. We need to learn how to live within our means again.Jr. does not need a plasma screen TV and not all of us need that Boehemoth SUV.
Second is a little diferent. We need to make sure our excess comes BACk into the country. When we overspend, that is one thing, but when it is on Sony and Toyota, that money does not come back once our credit cards are denied. (Credit Cards, another sham. Making money mereley over moving money around....).
If we collapse, we need to have SOME resource, from natural, to manufactured, to intellectual, that we STILL produce domestically to fall back on. We don't have that anymore, and now we are trying to deflate the bubble as gently as possible to prevent colossal collapse and damage to industries NOT directly in connection to the debt.
Unfortunately, companies like AIG have seen this as "free money" and have divvied up hearty chunks to their big boys.
But whatever. Bottom line is we need a bill that is plain and simple, not 1000 pages long with stipulations for every state.
Here is our medical coverage and here is how we will pay for its formation, NOT necessarily for its continued operation.
Most of it is not going to the people that PROVIDE it. They are going to the insurance companies that are also guilty ouf OUTSOURCING a lot of their work overseas.
Our own company increases our rates if we spend more than 75 cents on every dollar paid into insurance.
A minimum 25% maintainance fee for what? Book keeping and denial of insurance?
The whole insurance issue is very simple. Get rid of it. It is very opoprtunistic and should NOT be the one earning money off of the mere practice of providing a buffer for health care funding.
Now, everyone here seems to be focusing on the wrong aspect of the bill, if it were written properly, in that they are saying it should not be the responsibility of the government to provide this.
They aren't.
This bill is supposed to ease the Medicare/Medicaid burden. If people could start to AFFORD health insurance from the Government rather than from Prudential or USHC, maybe less would NEED "free" health care from Medicare.
Maybe doctors could go back to charging REALISTIC fees for their services because they are no longer being paid $40 from Aetna for a procedure that would cost you or I $80 off the street. A $50 procedure would cost everyone $50. Someone w/o insurance could afford the occasional trip to the doctors as opposed to now.
As for Reaganomics, they were great for those that had the money to DO something with them at the time. They broke up and sold large portions of our financial base to foreign investors and we have never gotten that back. It was good for everyone, but GREAT for the top.
Problem is, when you sell the land beneath your feet, eventually you find you have very little left to stand on. Bush (Sr.) had to pat the price for that, and Iraq War I. He did a pretty decent job patchnig things up, but people did not like his taxes (especially after "reading his lips").
The bubbles started though, beginning with Tech and Clinton rode those comfortably for 8 years. He did not DO much, really, in those times, good or bad. I believe he saw indicators pointing for some falls, but they were ignored (no new President wants to be a party pooper. Jr learned that from Sr, unfortunately, there is only so long you can inflate the bubble).
Our overall COL has gotten insane. People are in debt up to their gizzards and even the more financially secure ones have housing debts that are astoonomical in comparison to what they were 30 years ago, not just in sheer amounts, but in ratio as well.
the argument here should not revert into a Robin Hood kind of "debate" where people scream to keep their money and all government spending is evil (even when it has been proven that spending on research, development and education provide a net gain for the country). We DO spend too much on cr4p like the road and bridge to nowhere. We coddle the Pharms and Insurance sompanies and our money leaves the country faster than migrant workers after the housing crash.
We are a country that loves its 99 cent lettuce, but no native wants to work out in the field for teh wages that the "illegals" will. You want to stop illegal immigration? Pay more than WalMart prices for things and maybe the farms and other inductries will earn enough to employ "decent hardworking Americans" that would not be caught dead in the field for $10 a day.
SO although I do not BLAME reagan, he really did not help things, and since most people earned more, they did not see that they were earning it off the debt of our nation. One day we will have to pay it back, and we see how painful that is right now.
Two things, first is obvious. If we did not HAVE the debt, we would not have to pay for it. We need to learn how to live within our means again.Jr. does not need a plasma screen TV and not all of us need that Boehemoth SUV.
Second is a little diferent. We need to make sure our excess comes BACk into the country. When we overspend, that is one thing, but when it is on Sony and Toyota, that money does not come back once our credit cards are denied. (Credit Cards, another sham. Making money mereley over moving money around....).
If we collapse, we need to have SOME resource, from natural, to manufactured, to intellectual, that we STILL produce domestically to fall back on. We don't have that anymore, and now we are trying to deflate the bubble as gently as possible to prevent colossal collapse and damage to industries NOT directly in connection to the debt.
Unfortunately, companies like AIG have seen this as "free money" and have divvied up hearty chunks to their big boys.
But whatever. Bottom line is we need a bill that is plain and simple, not 1000 pages long with stipulations for every state.
Here is our medical coverage and here is how we will pay for its formation, NOT necessarily for its continued operation.
Most of it is not going to the people that PROVIDE it. They are going to the insurance companies that are also guilty ouf OUTSOURCING a lot of their work overseas.
i am actually opposed to health insurance, private or public. health insurance discourages people from people concerned about the costs. if you got rid of insurance, walmart would dominate healthcare and prices would go down drastically.
cutting out most healthcare regulations would sevrely reduce healthcare costs.
i am actually opposed to health insurance, private or public. health insurance discourages people from people concerned about the costs. if you got rid of insurance, walmart would dominate healthcare and prices would go down drastically.
cutting out most healthcare regulations would sevrely reduce healthcare costs.
Or at least a high deductible insurance that makes people think twice before rushing to the ER and calling an ambulance for a bloody nose, or odering all those MRIs.
I'm in agreement with Mike about his views of the government. EVERYONES destiny is in their own hands. Many people want to sit on the couch all day and want good jobs and health benefits and college money and let someone else pay for it. I (we) grew up poor in a tenement in the hood in Jersey City. I (we) wife, have worked for over 30 years straight. I started my own business without govt. help. Probably worked 16 hour days for over 25 years. Raised four kids and I paid to put them through college not the govt. I have seen for years generations of people living in section 8 subsidized housing and are perfectly healthy but REFUSE to work and better themselves BECAUSE the govt. pays them. Life throws curveballs to each and everyone of us but it's up to us to catch them and handle them. If you are disabled and can't work sure you deserve assistance and others for a short period of time. NOT LIFETIME. And NO I don't watch Fox TV and NO I don't listen to Rush on the radio. Just a hardworking middleclass american pissed about the govt. spending trillions of OUR money that our grandkids will be paying back for our countries spending habits when we are dead and buried.
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.
