Socialized health care

[ParishL31]

Literacy tests were designed to test intelligence as a prerequisite of voting. In fact, many undereducated whites could not vote as well as most blacks. Congress outlawed the use of any form of intelligence test as a requirement to vote because that is a major instrument of an oppressive government that disenfranchises masses of people that it deems unworthy. Your view is very radical and extreme for that reason. I never called you a racist. I was merely pointing out how your proposal is the exact same thing that racists used to do to disenfranchise classes of citizens that they didn't want voting.

Something as extreme as the past voting schemes aren't what I really had in mind. I do see your point and something that difficult is indeed extreme, I agree. I was shooting for something that would just prevent people who had absolutely no clue what is going on from voting, hence that lady in the video.

Something more along the lines of something difficulty wise of a Driver's License Test. Something you'd fail if you had no clue what you were talking about. But something you can pass if you had common sense and spent a little time studying/researching.

Simply to weed out the uneducated people in politics, not prevent a class or certain type of people from voting. If someone in the poor class wants to vote in this mock test, hit up a library and study for a bit and that bit of studying would be enough.

 

[lordofthereef]

There's a reason why there's an age limit of 18 to vote. People don't feel people are educated enough at younger ages to vote properly.

In all honesty, the age limit is most likely far simpler than that. We needed a definition for "adult" and with that definition is required an age. Being 18 implies nothing of your intelligence. It simply means you are legally an adult, and as an adult you are given the right to vote. One is not required to have a high school diploma, GED, or anything like that to vote. All that is required is US citizenship and being 18 years of age or older.

 

[lordofthereef]

You libs keep bringing up the percentage of our budget we spend on health care compared to European nations, yet you completely ignore the fact that taxes in the United States are significantly lower than taxes are in Europe. We could shrink that percentage easily by raising taxes, but I, and many other Americans, do not want that to happen.

This may be true, but you are ignoring the fact that we still don't have the world class healthcare that you seem to be claiming.

 

[mike114]

Could you please point out where it is unconstitutional? Because it is not in there.

I don't think I understand your reply. Any type of federal gov't run healthcare would be unConstitutional precisely because it's not an enumerated power within the Constitution.

 

[ParishL31]

In all honesty, the age limit is most likely far simpler than that. We needed a definition for "adult" and with that definition is required an age. Being 18 implies nothing of your intelligence. It simply means you are legally an adult, and as an adult you are given the right to vote. One is not required to have a high school diploma, GED, or anything like that to vote. All that is required is US citizenship and being 18 years of age or older.

Absolutely true and I totally agree. As you said age does not equal intelligence. But as we all know, there are some stupid "adults".

I'm not saying if you don't have a college diploma you can't vote, but simply be aware of what's going on and pass a few simple questions. Questions that are simple enough where if you even have somewhat of an idea of what's going on in the election, you can pass. But if you have zero knowledge, you're not allowed to vote.

When I vote I vote for things I'm familiar with. If there's something I don't know, I leave it blank. I'm not going to vote for something I have no clue what is, and that simply shouldn't be allowed.

Voting is serious. It shouldn't be given to absolutely anyone just because they're old enough. Rich or poor, PHD or high school drop out, I don't care. If someone is a PHD but doesn't follow politics, I don't want them voting either. All I ask is they're familiar with what they're voting for.

But as you said, it'd be pretty complicated figuring out what that test would be. I have no answer to that, just simply proposing the idea.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You libs keep bringing up the percentage of our budget we spend on health care compared to European nations, yet you completely ignore the fact that taxes in the United States are significantly lower than taxes are in Europe. We could shrink that percentage easily by raising taxes, but I, and many other Americans, do not want that to happen.

This is what I mean
Do you know what GDP is?
Do you know how higher taxes on Middle/Working Classes affects it?

All you've basically said is that you and many other Americans don't want Universal Healthcare due to lack of understanding of basic economic principals

 

[FreakyLocz14]

This is what I mean
Do you know what GDP is?
Do you know how higher taxes on Middle/Working Classes affects it?

All you've basically said is that you and many other Americans don't want Universal Healthcare due to lack of understanding of basic economic principals

I am well aware of what gross domestic product is. Higher taxes means less money in our pockets. Other people are not entitled to what I've earned. They can get a job and earn their own.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I am well aware of what gross domestic product is. Higher taxes means less money in our pockets. Other people are not entitled to what I've earned. They can get a job and earn their own.

so why dont you understand that the US spends twice what other countries do on health yet gets less results?
If they have higher taxes their economy should be smaller thus they should be spending a higher percentage of GDP on Health

 

[FreakyLocz14]

so why dont you understand that the US spends twice what other countries do on health yet gets less results?
If they have higher taxes their economy should be smaller thus they should be spending a higher percentage of GDP on Health

Taxes are a source of revenue. The U.S., having lower taxes, naturally has less revenue per capita to spend on public services than a nation with higher taxes.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Taxes are a source of revenue. The U.S., having lower taxes, naturally has less revenue per capita to spend on public services than a nation with higher taxes.

Its total spending by individuals and government as a percentage of GDP - NOT JUST GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Its total spending by individuals and government as a percentage of GDP - NOT JUST GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING

GDP involves government spending in relation to its revenue. 28.2% of the United State's GDP is tax revenue (the portion of its GDP that matters, since that's the part that health care funding comes from) compared to the United Kingdom's 39% and Canada's 33.4%. So, the tax rates do play a role in why the United States spends a larger portion of its GDP on health care costs. It has less revenue to spend on it in the grand scheme of thing per capita.

 

[ElasticNinja]

GDP involves government spending in relation to its revenue. 28.2% of the United State's GDP is tax revenue (the portion of its GDP that matters, since that's the part that health care funding comes from) compared to the United Kingdom's 39% and Canada's 33.4%. So, the tax rates do play a role in why the United States spends a larger portion of its GDP on health care costs. It has less revenue to spend on it in the grand scheme of thing per capita.

where did you find those figures?

the US, its people and government spend twice as much on their health as most developed countries yet live shorter

 

[FreakyLocz14]

where did you find those figures?

the US, its people and government spend twice as much on their health as most developed countries yet live shorter

You threw your own argument off by mentioning "its people". What private citizens pay on their health and what the government spend to provide health coverage are two different things. Also, there is a difference between health care costs and health care insurance costs.

Women die of breast cancer more often in the UK because the National Health Service rations care and screenings. Women are screened for breast cancer annually in the United States, while women in the UK are screened every three years due to NHS rationing. Also, this routine screening starts at age 40 in the US, while it starts at age 50 in the UK. Thus, a woman has a 97% chance of still being alive 5 years after diagnosis, versus the 78% chance that British woman have.

 

[lordofthereef]

That is a fantastic example of breast cancer stats (sounds sarcastic, but it's sincere... didn't know how else to word it). A few quick searches, however, shows that other European nations fare better than the US in other forms of cancer/screenings. Japan ranked highly as well, specifically in colon cancer (and as a bit of reference, the government pays 70% of the bill there, which is also a pretty good deal IMO).

In short, I feel one must make a comparison of multiple nations, and multiple diseases. Sure, UK numbers being far lower than US numbers in breast cancer survival rates is significant, but it is only a VERY small part of a much bigger picture. I personally try not to generalize based on such a small piece of the puzzle.

 

[JCampbell]

Absolutely true and I totally agree. As you said age does not equal intelligence. But as we all know, there are some stupid "adults".

I'm not saying if you don't have a college diploma you can't vote, but simply be aware of what's going on and pass a few simple questions. Questions that are simple enough where if you even have somewhat of an idea of what's going on in the election, you can pass. But if you have zero knowledge, you're not allowed to vote.

Voting is serious. It shouldn't be given to absolutely anyone just because they're old enough. Rich or poor, PHD or high school drop out, I don't care. If someone is a PHD but doesn't follow politics, I don't want them voting either. All I ask is they're familiar with what they're voting for.

Well, since there is a test for one to become a naturalized citizen, why not institute a voting test similar to that? If everyone who votes is a citizen, they should be able to pass a citizenship test! yes I realize that natural born Americans normally would never take this test, but they should know enough about their country to pass a test about it. This way, the test isn't on intelligence or even necessarily the issues or specific politicians, but on the system and on basic U.S. knowledge. Just my opinion.

 

[lordofthereef]

Well, since there is a test for one to become a naturalized citizen, why not institute a voting test similar to that? If everyone who votes is a citizen, they should be able to pass a citizenship test! yes I realize that natural born Americans normally would never take this test, but they should know enough about their country to pass a test about it. This way, the test isn't on intelligence or even necessarily the issues or specific politicians, but on the system and on basic U.S. knowledge. Just my opinion.

I do like this idea. My parents came from Hungary and swear that they know more about this country (USA) than most natural born citizens.
The only caveat is, how often these tests would be administered. If only once, as is a naturalization process, decades down the road the political climate can be very different. By this I mean to say that people can still be voting largely in ignorance of what current candidates stand for.

 

[ParishL31]

That idea is actually really good JCampbell, I like it. I was working with someone that was on a green card and she was studying for her citizenship test. She'd ask me to help her study a few times, the questions were very straightforward and basic history concepts.

Sample INS Citizenship Questions

They're all really basic questions. Perhaps do that test when you register to vote. It's something really basic and common sense to many, but we've all seen when Jay Leno or someone goes out and asks these questions on the streets and some people have no clue.

 

[lordofthereef]

we've all seen when Jay Leno or someone goes out and asks these questions on the streets and some people have no clue.

Wait. If requiring these tests means Jay Leno can't exploit American idiocy any longer I don't know if I am for this idea anymore!

 

[ElasticNinja]

I'm with JCampbell, good point regarding citizenship

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That idea is actually really good JCampbell, I like it. I was working with someone that was on a green card and she was studying for her citizenship test. She'd ask me to help her study a few times, the questions were very straightforward and basic history concepts.

Sample INS Citizenship Questions

They're all really basic questions. Perhaps do that test when you register to vote. It's something really basic and common sense to many, but we've all seen when Jay Leno or someone goes out and asks these questions on the streets and some people have no clue.

That would not be legal. This would violate both the Priveleges and Immunities Clauses and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

 

[JCampbell]

That would not be legal. This would violate both the Priveleges and Immunities Clauses and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

How would it be illegal? The privileges and immunities clause states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
All this clause states is that someone who isn't a citizen in a state can enjoy the same privileges a citizen of said state. It never mentions voting at all, much less that it would be illegal to have a test to vote.

Now to the Due Process Clause (there's one in both the 5th and 14th amendments) These clauses deal with the due process of law, pretty much that the government can't haul you off to jail without a reason. Once again, I see no relation to voting in any of this unless you take a VERY loose interpretation of the constitution.

For Due Process: 5th amendment | Due Process Clause | Takings Clause | Self Incrimination | Fifth Amendment | Lawyers | Attorneys | Law Firms | Attorneys | Lawyers | Law Firms

For Privileges and Immunities: The Privileges and Immunities Clause

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The Due Process Clause is not limited to criminal procedure by a long shot. That Clause has been applied very broadly by the Court to incorporate federal law to be applicable to the states. For example, denying a same-sex couple the right to have sex with each other violates their Due Process rights (Lawrence v. Texas).

This idea would also violate several statutes; most notably the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the following case South Carolina v. Katzenbach.

The INS test is constitutional because the people that must take it are not yet citizens, and therefore do not have the right to vote in American elections at birth like natural-born United States citizens do.

 

[lordofthereef]

That's what amendments are for, as has been said before. Being born in America shouldn't automatically entitle one to make an UNEDUCATED decision reguarding the leadership of this country, IMO.

In any case, you won't know the outcome unless you challenge it, which is why people do challenge it. Often one cannot get new laws past WITHOUT challenging current ones.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That's what amendments are for, as has been said before. Being born in America shouldn't automatically entitle one to make an UNEDUCATED decision reguarding the leadership of this country, IMO.

In any case, you won't know the outcome unless you challenge it, which is why people do challenge it. Often one cannot get new laws past WITHOUT challenging current ones.

That would require a 2/3 majority vote in both Houses of Congress, and ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Fat chance of that happening!

 

[lordofthereef]

That would require a 2/3 majority vote in both Houses of Congress, and ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Fat chance of that happening!

I am aware. I made the same point as you before. This is an innate flaw in our constitution IMO.