Health care backlash

SmarterThanYou said:
congress was never meant to have that kind of power. limited government and all. all they had the authority to do was make the states provide fairness between them.
Click to expand...

Let's take this from the top. The government is mandated with promoting the general welfare and helping people secure the Blessings of Liberty. Seems logical. I doubt the Founding Fathers would have written the government's purpose is to harm people and prevent them from securing the Blessings of Liberty.

So, what is ones health considered? If one is concerned about another person's welfare isn't health at the top of the list? If one is charged with a child's welfare or an elderly parent's welfare doesn't it go without saying they are responsible for their health?

What are the blessings of liberty? Can one secure the blessings of liberty if they are ill? Isn't good health, being able to work and enjoy recreation, a basic liberty?

The Preamble to the Constitution reads, "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty". That's stated before anything else is written which means everything that follows is supposed to be interpreted with that in mind. That's the guiding principal, the purpose.
 
apple0154 said:
Let's take this from the top. The government is mandated with promoting the general welfare and helping people secure the Blessings of Liberty. Seems logical. I doubt the Founding Fathers would have written the government's purpose is to harm people and prevent them from securing the Blessings of Liberty.

So, what is ones health considered? If one is concerned about another person's welfare isn't health at the top of the list? If one is charged with a child's welfare or an elderly parent's welfare doesn't it go without saying they are responsible for their health?

What are the blessings of liberty? Can one secure the blessings of liberty if they are ill? Isn't good health, being able to work and enjoy recreation, a basic liberty?

The Preamble to the Constitution reads, "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty". That's stated before anything else is written which means everything that follows is supposed to be interpreted with that in mind. That's the guiding principal, the purpose.
Click to expand...

total misinterpretation designed to fulfill your desires. congress was never intended to have the authority to force the population to buy a product.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
total misinterpretation designed to fulfill your desires. congress was never intended to have the authority to force the population to buy a product.
Click to expand...

The only reason insurance must be purchased is because universal coverage was rejected. That doesn't change what the government is mandated to do which is to promote the welfare and help secure the blessings of liberty.

Why would that be added to the preamble when "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility and provide for the common defence" was mentioned?

It seems some folks feel the government should be a "hands off" type of government but it specifically states "promote" and "secure". They are verbs. Active.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
total misinterpretation designed to fulfill your desires. congress was never intended to have the authority to force the population to buy a product.
Click to expand...

Dude apple is Canadian. That's why he has a totally different reading and understanding of what Congress and the President is suppose to do. He believes the President is suppose to tell the head of the Fed what rates to set for instance (well actually who knows if he really believes that he's just so partisan that's what he claims).

So in effect dude doesn't really have any prinicples. They are partisan driven.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/27/ap/business/main6337692.shtml


Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it. The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.



THIS IS WHAT PARTISAN DRIVEN LOOKS LIKE
 
apple0154 said:
The only reason insurance must be purchased is because universal coverage was rejected. That doesn't change what the government is mandated to do which is to promote the welfare and help secure the blessings of liberty.

Why would that be added to the preamble when "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility and provide for the common defence" was mentioned?

It seems some folks feel the government should be a "hands off" type of government but it specifically states "promote" and "secure". They are verbs. Active.
Click to expand...
That's not accurate Apple. In most countries with UHC the requirement that all persons carry health insurance is one of the primary operating principle. The public option is made available, in those nations, for those who cannot afford private insurance. This assures that all persons can be covered.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
we don't. but we also firmly believe that a country has every right to defend itself. Calls for sanctions against Israel (forgive me AHZ) because they were trying to protect themselves from palestinian and iranian terrorism were insane at best, downright suicidal at worst.
Click to expand...

Then explain these two. The platform says a country has a right to defend itself but it also says in two different places the the U.S. shouldn't interfere.

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
 
apple0154 said:
I bet you never even thought about the fact people don't put a few dollars away every month for 40 years for medical expenses.

Yours is just one more example of not thinking things through. It's the same crazy, irresponsible argument used for Social Security when people say if one invested they'd have more money at retirement. For the last time, people don't save.

Social Security would have never come about if people did save. There wouldn't have been any need for it. The topic would have never come up.

The same with medical expenses. If people saved and could afford their medical expenses a politician wouldn't have won the Presidency campaigning on universal medical care.

Why do people have such difficulty seeing the obvious?
Click to expand...

A few years ago reports like this were coming out, and not much has changed since then.

(CNNMoney.com) - Americans are among the world's most cash-strapped people, according to the latest semi-annual survey from AC Nielsen released Tuesday.

Nearly a quarter (22 percent) of Americans have no money left once they've paid for their essential living expenses and spent their discretionary dollars. That puts the United States at the top of a list of 42 countries for saving futility. The United States is neck and neck with Portugal.

Countries with the most consumers who have no spare cash

Country % of consumers with no spare cash
United States 22%
Portugal 22%
Canada 19%
United Kingdom 17%
France 16%
Netherlands 15%
Turkey 14%
Germany 13%
Chile 12%
South Korea 12%
​
Source: AC Nielsen

"Americans are legendary for incurring debt," said Tom Markert, Nielsen's chief marketing officer.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/pf/worst_savers/index.htm

"In 1981, Boss says, families saved an average of 11% and owed 4% of their income on credit cards. By 2000, the average savings rate had already fallen below zero, and credit-card debt had gone up to 12% of income. Today, she says, "boomers have a bigger problem with debt than anyone else. Half of them do not have a retirement account."

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/savinganddebt/savemoney/p145775.asp
 
cawacko said:
Dude apple is Canadian. That's why he has a totally different reading and understanding of what Congress and the President is suppose to do. He believes the President is suppose to tell the head of the Fed what rates to set for instance (well actually who knows if he really believes that he's just so partisan that's what he claims).

So in effect dude doesn't really have any prinicples. They are partisan driven.
Click to expand...

I had said the government should have the power to set interest rates. I'm aware of the bank act of 1913.

That doesn't change the fact the preamble mentions "provide" and "secure". They're action verbs as opposed to, say, the government should "sit" and "watch".
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not accurate Apple. In most countries with UHC the requirement that all persons carry health insurance is one of the primary operating principle. The public option is made available, in those nations, for those who cannot afford private insurance. This assures that all persons can be covered.
Click to expand...

In some countries, yes. Or in some parts of a country. For example, in British Columbia, Canada a person is required to pay a monthly fee. Even if unemployed they are required to pay a fee unless on welfare.

In Quebec, Canada there is no fee whether or not one is working. No fees. No forms. It's as simple as offering a type of credit card when visiting the doctor and the bill is forwarded to the government.
 
christiefan915 said:
A few years ago reports like this were coming out, and not much has changed since then.

(CNNMoney.com) - Americans are among the world's most cash-strapped people, according to the latest semi-annual survey from AC Nielsen released Tuesday.

Nearly a quarter (22 percent) of Americans have no money left once they've paid for their essential living expenses and spent their discretionary dollars. That puts the United States at the top of a list of 42 countries for saving futility. The United States is neck and neck with Portugal.

Countries with the most consumers who have no spare cash

Country % of consumers with no spare cash
United States 22%
Portugal 22%
Canada 19%
United Kingdom 17%
France 16%
Netherlands 15%
Turkey 14%
Germany 13%
Chile 12%
South Korea 12%
​
Source: AC Nielsen

"Americans are legendary for incurring debt," said Tom Markert, Nielsen's chief marketing officer.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/pf/worst_savers/index.htm

"In 1981, Boss says, families saved an average of 11% and owed 4% of their income on credit cards. By 2000, the average savings rate had already fallen below zero, and credit-card debt had gone up to 12% of income. Today, she says, "boomers have a bigger problem with debt than anyone else. Half of them do not have a retirement account."

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/savinganddebt/savemoney/p145775.asp
Click to expand...

Many Americans can't save because the cost of everything keeps going up every year.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Prices going up??

Cry me a river...

Ya gotta love that free market capitalism!
Click to expand...

Frank Zappa certainly did, even visiting noted free market icon Vaclav Havel who sought his advice on developing the emerging free market in the Czech Republic after the fall of Communism, with fostering ties with western business.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Prices going up??

Cry me a river...

Ya gotta love that free market capitalism!
Click to expand...
Controlled (or not so well-controlled) inflation is a policy of government, not the free market. The Fed is designed to get people to spend money and move the economy not stagnate it through hoarding. Is it a good policy? That is up for discussion, but pretending it is the fault of a "free market" when it is deliberate government policy is just a display of ignorance.
 
Damocles said:
Controlled (or not so well-controlled) inflation is a policy of government, not the free market. The Fed is designed to get people to spend money and move the economy not stagnate it through hoarding. Is it a good policy? That is up for discussion, but pretending it is the fault of a "free market" when it is deliberate government policy is just a display of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Perhaps then you'll have to start helping educate about the difference between the statist fascism that underpins our entire system and actual free markets, if it won't make your masonic skin burn to help reveal the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top