• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Healthcare Reform - Obama

toasty said:
The government and the private sector already compete on numerous different fronts, with shipping and education being the most obvious examples. Frankly, the competition in both of those realms has resulted in more choice and better pricing for consumers.
Click to expand...

In shipping and education, you are not penalized for going to a better school or using Fedex instead of the services the government provides. Also, there is no legislation that says that you can use your current shipping and education methods for now.

When you need to penalize those who buy from your competitiors or make way for eventually mandating that your services be purchased in future decades, that is a sure sign that your plan is a disaster.

That isn't competition. In a real competition, you attract customers by being cheaper, better or some combination of the two.
 
3devious said:
In shipping and education, you are not penalized for going to a better school or using Fedex instead of the services the government provides. Also, there is no legislation that says that you can use your current shipping and education methods for now.

When you need to penalize those who buy from your competitiors or make way for eventually mandating that your services be purchased in future decades, that is a sure sign that your plan is a disaster.

That isn't competition. In a real competition, you attract customers by being cheaper, better or some combination of the two.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement that you buy coverage from the government, nor is the government even making a plan generally available. Simply put, what the hell are you talking about? Totally confirms my belief that most people that are opposed to this bill base their belief upon incorrect facts.

Point me to the provision that says that I have to ditch my existing private coverage and buy into a plan offered by the government, and then we'll talk.
 
mrletternumber said:
Private fire departments: Why should I pay if your house is on fire. I was responsible and didn't let a fire affect my house. If your house or business is on fire, then you pay the cost to put it out.
Click to expand...

This was a brilliant quote. Terry Pratchett came up with a similar idea: private fire insurance will only lead to a couple of guys tipping up at your house, have a nose round, and saying things like "Lots of paper around here. All very flammable. Oh dear oh dear oh dear..." etc.

Just for the record, I'm English, and it really gets on my bloody nerves when uninformed idiots (generally, not specifically anyone in this thread) start spouting off about our healthcare system. Especially when some ignorant imbecile starts harping on about 'Death Lists' or whatever it was in the UK... Jesus...

Anyway, I'm in the UK, and our health system is nowhere near as bad as is made out. If you need critical care, you get it there and then. It can't be any other way, or people would be dropping like flies. The people who are made to wait are made to wait for a reason. That reason isn't because they can't afford it - it's because the highly trained and very experienced medical professional believes they aren't likely to drop dead in the next 10 minutes.

As it is, if you don't fancy waiting, (well, running the risk of maybe having to wait), you get private insurance (BUPA for example) and go to a private hospital. It's not expensive, and you do it if you need to. You can even get coverage if you have an existing condition - you just either have a higher excess on that condition, or you aren't covered for THAT particular condition. It's not complex.

I pay approx 10-11% of my salary into what we call 'National Insurance', and that pays for a lot of public services, such as the ambulance service and the NHS. It contributes to the police, and the fire brigade, and any number of other public services that I suspect you wouldn't want to go without.

Plus I never ever have to worry about them turning round and saying "Sorry - you've already been unwell once this year, so we're not paying this time."

Also, I have a couple of questions for those Americans among you all of a Red State/'Small Government'/Republican (is that the right terminology?) persuasion:

Firstly: Those of you that don't have health insurance now, either through your job or purchased personally - what would you do should you get a serious long-term illness or require surgery or something?

I ask only because I know how much that'll cost. I had kidney surgery a few years ago, on the NHS (admittedly after a wait of about 6 months, but it was non-life threatening, and optional), and the total cost of the surgery, and after-care etc. etc. came to about
 
mrletternumber said:
Also, this in no way shape or form violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I challenge you to state the article, section, and clause of the Constutution which authorize this bill. When Congressional "leaders" were asked repeatedly for this information they just shrugged it off and never answered.
 
mrletternumber said:
Here's an idea. Let's go further and make some of you happy by creating a perfect libertarian society:

Private fire departments: Why should I pay if your house is on fire. I was responsible and didn't let a fire affect my house. If your house or business is on fire, then you pay the cost to put it out.
Click to expand...

<<== Retired firefighter.

There are, in fact, a vast number or private not-for-profit corporation fire departments all over the US. In most cases they are paid-on-call or volunteer departments who contract for their services with different cities, towns, counties, or districts. They operate very effectively alongside their municipally owned neighbors.

Also, you can't compare something provided at the municipal or county level of government with things done at the federal level. The federal government is specifically limited in its scope and power by the US Constitution. State governments are similarly limited by the state constitutions. Townships, cities, and counties are generally governed by charters agreed upon by the residents, or levies voted upon in local elections.
 
carthesis said:
Anyway, I'm in the UK, and our health system is nowhere near as bad as is made out.
Click to expand...

For the sake of all our good friends across the pond I'm very glad to hear this.

That said, how well your health care system works or doesn't work has nothing to do with whether or not our government here in the states operates within the framework of its construction. While the US and the UK may both have representative branches of government, the frameworks under which they operate are vastly different.
 
Never in the history of the United States has the Congress ever passed a law which required any citizen to enter into a contract with another citizen or a private business against their will ...... Never, that is, until now. How's that for change?
 
Not to waiver from the subject, but how about the our second in comand opening his mouth again! Talk about an embarrassment to the country!
 
CampD said:
Not to waiver from the subject, but how about the our second in comand opening his mouth again! Talk about an embarrassment to the country!
Click to expand...

Bah, I could care less if the VP drops the occasional F-bomb. I thought it was funnier when he offered condolences to the Irish PM on the death of his mother, who is very much alive. :p
 
jamestown said:
Did the healthcare forget that there are still about 20% of americans not working!!!? And what are they going to do show up at there door steps saying you owe us $700 for not having insurance! that guy/gal should tell them he has a nice casio watch will that do? :D I just don't understand why this at least couldn't wait until you could have worked on stabilizing jobs for people and get them working. Maybe even give them more time to look over the bill and make some changes and get more ideas from both sides!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How'd you manage to increase the ACTUAL unemployment rate by about 10%?
 
toasty said:
How about Article I, Section 8, clauses 3 and 18?
Click to expand...

Yeah, nice try on the general welfare clause. Not so much. They've tried to cram everything under the sun underneath that and interstate commerce, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to understand the meaning of:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises and shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

You have to go to what it's author said about this clause. For your reference, James Madison addressed this subject in Federalist 41, noting:

"...
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms 'to raise money for the general welfare.'

 But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

It is quite clear that the framers did not intend for the General Welfare Clause to be used as a hammer with which the government could beat the citizenry over the head and do as it pleased.


"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

What he is saying is simply that the opening of Article I, Section 8, is merely a generic description of the enumerated powers that follow.
 
What I find funny about all of the junk that flows through Congress, is that every time there is a new Congress, a bill is submitted called the "Enumerated Powers Act". In every new Congress it is summarily rejected by both parties.

What does this bill say, you may ask? It is very simple. It requires that every bill submitted in either house of Congress must contain a statement in it detailing which enumerated power in the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact the piece of legislation.

Why do they all reject this? Both parties know that much of the legislation proposed by both sides is not authorized by the Constitution. It has been this way for far too long. Words have meaning, unless you're a politician, then they mean whatever suits your need at the time.
 
Ok as for schools and mail, different scenarios. Fedex and ups went into competition with usps, not vice versa. Same with schools. So your argument is seriously flawed. And I didn't say higher taxes will kill innovation, I said socialism will. Big difference.


And what's with the name calling?

A debate is a debate. and can get heated, but lets leave direct name calling out of this.
 
BirdieMN said:
Yeah, nice try on the general welfare clause. Not so much.
Click to expand...

Not so much indeed, in light of the fact that the general welfare clause is actually a different clause. The clauses I referred to are the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

BirdieMN said:
You have to go to what it's author said about this clause. For your reference, James Madison addressed this subject in Federalist 41, noting:
...
Click to expand...

Before you go locating another Federalist Paper that you believe supports your position as to these two clauses, it bears mention that I'm a lot less concerned -- and indeed, you should be a lot less concerned -- with what James Madison has said on the topic and more concerned with how the Supreme Court has interpreted these clauses over the years. Simply put, they have been interpreted extraordinarily broadly, and it's gotten even broader as borders have been blurred and virtually all commerce has come to have interstate impact. You may very well disagree with it, and a lot of people do, but if you think that the Supreme Court is going to strike this down on the basis that it exceeds the scope of Congress' power, you're kidding yourself.
 
Outatime said:
e, everything he's done has been an attempt at breaking the back of our great republic.

It's time to take it back.

You unAmerican, yellow, leftist, Tory, tyranophiles need to move on. You're no longer welcome here.

Edit: I might add that you just gave the Americans their rallying cry for 2012. Say goodbye to the one term savior.
Click to expand...

It never seems to amaze me how people like to always point the finger at the other person for making our lives miserable. Republicans and Democrats are both the cause for where our country is!! Which to tell the truth is probably in the worst state that our country has ever been!!

Someone said it earlier that the middle class is getting screwed by this bill well where was this argument when the Bush administration passed the tax cuts for the wealthy because in essence the middle class got screwed then.

When the housing market crashed the middle class got screwed then because their weren't regulations put on the banks so they engage in faulty practices. Who was responsible for this??? I think most republicans would blame Clinton and in a lot of ways they would be right..

My point is this Democrats and Republicans are all responsible for the collapse of our "great republic" no one party more than the other. We as the people need to stop listening to talking points and realize what is right for us as a nation so we can be a great country with people no matter the gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or political belief who come together as one and set the standard of how the world should be!!
 
IOWA said:
And what's with the name calling?

A debate is a debate. and can get heated, but lets leave direct name calling out of this.
Click to expand...

Is that directed at me? I certainly don't recall calling you any names, but your post appears to be directed to my post, so I'm wondering...
 
IOWA said:
The people need to revolt.... civil war even....
Click to expand...

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously after saying things like this? Any idea on how crazy this makes you look?

I'm sick of hearing people make threats like this. Put up or shut up. All these Tea Bagger/ White Power rallies and not a single attempt at over throwing anything. The far right wing has no balls.
 
Just to throw my own two cents in on Govt Spending... The New Deal and other Government programs were a bust... the single most effective action FDR took in ending the depression was staying out of WW2 and profiteering from the Europeans via the Lend Lease Act... or in other words Capitalism, Big Business, and Industry were better models for Government than the other way around...

'nuff said...
 
They're also rationing off health care and deciding when to pull the plug on some people the government deem "not worth it." How does it affect me? Well I don' have health care so... y'know... it doesn't matter how much they "ration" me until I have enough money to get health care on my own.
 
mrmojoz said:
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously after saying things like this? Any idea on how crazy this makes you look?

I'm sick of hearing people make threats like this. Put up or shut up. All these Tea Bagger/ White Power rallies and not a single attempt at over throwing anything. The far right wing has no balls.
Click to expand...

Well who are you? You going to lead this revolt? Then shut up.


Any idea on how crazy this makes you look?

good question, it was also asked a lot, a long time ago too, just before the Revolutionary war broke out. thank God for those crazies huh?
 
Caliboy said:
Just to throw my own two cents in on Govt Spending... The New Deal and other Government programs were a bust... the single most effective action FDR took in ending the depression was staying out of WW2 and profiteering from the Europeans via the Lend Lease Act... or in other words Capitalism, Big Business, and Industry were better models for Government than the other way around...

'nuff said...
Click to expand...

So all of the public work programs that came along with the New Deal did nothing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom