I like how this dude's name is Thomas, because this is totally something Thomas Jefferson would say.
Maybe he had the right idea.
Compared to countries with universal health care, America is behind. We don't even have health care, we have sick care. America: land of the free, home of lower life span. (Over all, an American's expected life span is about the same as someone living in a third world country)
Universal health care requires those who can afford it to pay taxes so everyone can recieve health care. Why should people have to pay for other people's health insurance?
If everyone had healthcare, taxes might go up, but the price of doctors would go down. ER visits only cost so much to cover people who don't pay their bills. At first it would cost more, but it the long run it would be better. With universal health care people can get preventative treatment so not as many people will get seriously ill. In the end, it's cheaper. Starting it is what sucks.
I see your point and won't say you're wrong. However, I disagree with having to pay for everyone else's problems. Especially since it will also go towards people who do not even pay taxes. In my opinion, I think everyone should only have to take care of themselves and their family; not total strangers that could (and I'm not saying everyone does) take advantage of the system and pay nothing but still reap the benefits.
The bill would actually only cover tax paying citizens. And when you think about it, your taxes already go to other people. They pay for public school, roads to be fixed, medicare, and other stuff. Paying for healthcare would end up being one thing that would lower the cost me medicine for everyone else.
I have no problem with paying taxes for things like schools and roads. It's the things like medicare, welfare, and the like that I have a problem with. And about it only covering tax payers: people know how to get around these things.
People can get around it, but it still lowers your doctor bills, which are totally outrageous. In the end it balances out. I personally have no problem helping those who can't help themselves, it's helping those who are totally capable that bothers me. But that's the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
doctor bills aint that bad if you got insurance:P.
I'm sure insurance companies don't wanna pay $800 for an ER visit. Insurance would be cheaper if everyone had it anyway. You're too busy looking at right now. Try looking at the big picture. I'm willing to pay more so future generations can pay less.
okay i'll look at the big picture. in the big picture everyone in americas rights are infringed on and people like me have to pay for other peoples health care. the poor benefit while the rich suffer. we would also be a huge step closer to socialism. what part of that sounds good to you?
None of what you said looks good, but there's more to it than that. Healthcare will become cheaper. Since it's cheaper more people will get preventative care which means less people will get seriously sick. Less sick people means less people on social security disability which means lower taxes. There might be some freeloaders, but not enough to cause a huge problem. Helping those in need is not a bad thing. Too many people are looking at how it affects them right now instead of how it affects society as a whole in the future.
"Since it's cheaper more people will get preventative care" not if the government is footing the bill. do you realize how cheap the government is?
Medicare is government insurance and it covers preventative care. Do you know how cheap preventative care is compared to the treatments of a serious illness? Preventative care will be covered by the government because politicians know that they'd save money by keeping people healthy. Healthcare is cheaper than sickcare.
Alrighty then, we can just agree to disagree.
Well, I'm glad that I live in Australia
isnt australia the one that doesnt let you have porn?
LOL! This is Australia bro, not North Korea.
Psshh and uphold a perfectly good government? That'd be way too hard.
The Constitution was written with a lot of leeway so that Congress would have power. If the government didn't do something because it wasn't in the Constitution, we wouldn't get too much done.
Yes, there's leeway in the necessary and proper clause. It gives Congress the power to do what is necessary and proper to uphold the enumerated powers laid out in Article I Section 8. The Tenth Amendment reserves everything else to the states and the people.
I know.....the elastic clause. I don't know why you're telling me this?
Clarification, I guess. Yeah, the government can do stuff not in the Constitution, but not anything they want.
Nevermind that Bush blatantly destroyed the fourth Amendment with the Patriot Act.
Nevermind that both houses of congress accepted the patriot act
Nevermind its still incredibly unconstitutional and Bush had to sign it
Nevermind it's not the President's duty to decide if a law is constitutional.
Nevermind it's his job to follow it, and the act was blatantly against the 4th amendment, so it should have been rejected by both Bush and Congress.
The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures". Bush and Congress both thought the Patriot Act was completely reasonable, which, in turn, makes it completely constitutional.
It doesn't matter what they thought, it was completely unreasonable. It would be reasonable if they had any reason at all, but they didn't care, they tapped everybody
There are bars that prevent the tapping of people who are not suspected of terrorist activity. Also, considering this was in the aftermath of 9/11 most would say this is reasonable
Time has little to do with it, civil liberties were still being infringed
Time had a lot to do with why thi bill was passed. The patriot act also foiled a lot of plans to attack our country
First of all, a President doesn't get a law passed by himself. He only has the final say, so you can't blame Bush without blaming Congress.
Second of all, the Patriot Act mentions nothing about race or citizens' rights so this is just wrong.
MEANS NOTHING ABOUT CITIZEN'S RIGHTS?!?!?!?!
Um...unreasonable search and seizure, 4th Amendment, destroyed
.....well this is embarrassing, I read "Fourth" as "Fourteenth" and thought you were trying to argue that it singled out Muslims. I apologize.
Don't worry, it happens to all of us.
I agree with the OP. If you check my posts (not trying to hijack or spam or anything) you'll see that I can understand having to hold your own against the bogus leftists (yes, I mean as opposed to the reasonable leftists).
You're doing a damn good job.
By your logic, slavery would be okay. Just saying
the constitution doesnt say anything about slavery until the 13th amendment. and that amendment actually had popular support. and slavery is not necessarily a bad thing.
Haha, you think slavery is ok?
It depends. I disagree with racially based slavery but I have no problem with making criminals or POWs work.
Well that's not really slavery, it's a punishmet for crime.
yeah the punishment would be that they would be slaves.
Car insurance says hi.
Car insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government, which means it's constitutional.
you dont have to buy car insurance.
I just clicked YYA because it reminded me of Eminem when you said 'the government could actually abide by the constitution they swore to uphold'
Because messing up perfectly good government systems is fun!
In it's current form it hasn't taken action yet, so of course it isn't.
When I made my first comment, I was talking about the socialists that want to turn the U.S. into a socialist country and this bill is getting us one step farther away from capitalism. I very strongly disagree with having to pay for other people, you see.
The bill is supplying citizens (including those who cannot usually afford it) with free health care. The only way to do this is by taxes. By paying taxes on this bill, you will be providing health insurance for people who cannot afford it. Ergo, you are paying for the poor's health care. When the people of a country pay taxes to pay for the care of all it's citizens, it is socialism. I don't want to be responsible for anyone but myself. Therefore, I support capitalism.
I @914171 (somewhere_I_belong): I'm in awe that you're actually admitting that you don't want to help people who don't have it as good as you. That's pretty selfish.
What Thomas said. They should help themselves. "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll never go hungry." giving money away isn't the right thing to do; we should be helping people clean up their lives and get jobs so they can provide for themselves.
Really? That's selfish? What's selfish is demanding that you should get the money that somebody else earned! That's selfish! If I want to help somebody out, then I'll do it under my own will. A socialist is somebody who wants other people to provide for them.
Its not selfish. Maybe those people should learn to help themselves.