Congress clears historic health care bill, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 01:46 PM by suicydking
reply to post by WhatTheory



Alright, let me explain my problem, and why I just discussed nonsense with you for an entire page.

First, I understand that you don't believe that universal health care is a right. That's fine. I understand that you are able to support this opinion by looking at the things that were defined as rights in the American Bill of Rights. At least that's what I inferred from your posts. That's fine, too. I can see your point.

My problem comes from the fact that you claim that if universal health care was a right, that our founding fathers would have specifically included it in the Bill of Rights. That is a fantastical statement, and bears no relevance. I have already stated why.

I would like to discuss the health care issue with people who can challenge my opinions and give me something to think about. I want to sharpen my opinions through rough discourse. I want to learn.

Saying that some guys who lived hundreds of years before the first health care corporation even existed didn't think to discuss it is ridiculous, and brings nothing to the table. I'm simply trying to get you to use something more relevant to back your opinions, instead of fantasy. Only then can we have an exchange of ideas.

You don't think that universal health care is a right? Great. Back it up with something besides the feelings of men who died before the concept was even hatched.


reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 01:57 PM by WhatTheory
reply to post by suicydking

Repeating yourself in numerous posts does not change the fact you are not grasping my point. Let's move on or at least change the direction because you are going around in circles.


reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 02:17 PM by suicydking
reply to post by WhatTheory


Fine, assuming that your point is that goods or services were not considered God given rights by the founding fathers. Even though that's not exactly what you said.

If that's the case, how do you feel about taxes being used to fund police and fire services? Do you throw open your window and shout "SOCIALIST!" when your neighbor's house is on fire?

How do you feel about Medicaid? Social Security? The national parks program?

Do you feel that any services that are concerned with the general public good should be abolished?

If so, why? I cringe at the idea of low-income communities not being able to afford police and fire service, were it to be privatized. Or how about trash pick-up? I understand that it's privatized in some communities, but it's still mandatory. Can you imagine the risk to public health if it were to be voluntary? We would see a resurgence of the black plague within a decade.

Even if your correct in that universal health care is not a right, you're only arguing semantics. The insured pay for the uninsured anyway. Every time someone without insurance goes to the ER, the hospital foots the bill. That cost is eventually passed on to the insured, as rates get higher to cover the difference.

As long as you're paying for it anyway, why not make something good out of it? A healthy workforce is good for the economy. Children being denied insurance before birth due to a diagnosed condition during gestation is lunacy.



reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 02:43 PM by suicydking
reply to post by WhatTheory



So if you don't think that fire & police service is mandated as a God given right by the founding fathers, why are you OK with them being around at all? The level of taxation is decided by the state, but find me a state that does not have these services. There isn't one.

I would prefer that health care be regulated by state. I'm all for state's rights. I still think that it should be available to everyone, without concern for how much that person makes. In my opinion, health care is as valuable to the community as fire or police service. I don't see how a distinction can be made.

In any event, you're not going to be getting any healthcare that's run by the government, anyway. What you're going to get is health care insurance that is more closely regulated, and I like the new regulations myself.

No more than 15% of fees to be used as administration & bonuses? Great.

No more denial for pre-existing conditions? Great.

A subsidy for anyone making less than $88,000? Great. That's almost as good as a public option. As I demonstrated, the insured wind up paying for the uninsured anyway, with the insurance companies taking a hefty cut of it.

Shopping between states for insurance? Great.

It sucks that it's being handled at a federal level, I can understand your beef with that. I'm just looking for more compelling arguments against the bill that the rhetoric I've encountered the last two days.


reply posted on 24-3-2010 @ 03:59 PM by Locoman8
reply to post by WhatTheory


Let me try to assist you.

To the crazy person twisting your words....

The Bill of Rights are "Inalienable rights endowed by our CREATOR." Who your creator is to you is your choice but they are rights you're automatically born with and not a single one of these rights requires the government to regulate or control.

I have the right to say what I want, when I want and how I want. I have a right to believe in my God how I want. I have a right to protect myself, guns, knifes, ball bats, bare hands.... I have a right to bare arms. I have a right to start or join a malitia group. I have a right to habeus corpus. I have a right to refuse to speak in court. I have a right to assemble peacably. You get my point. Health care is a good and service, not a right. That's it.


reply posted on 24-3-2010 @ 04:12 PM by buddhasystem
Originally posted by suicydking
reply to post by WhatTheory



So if you don't think that fire & police service is mandated as a God given right by the founding fathers, why are you OK with them being around at all?


Well said. If one follows this kind of absurd logic, since the Founding Fathers said nothing about asbestos, any laws regulating asbestos are unconstitutional. They also haven't mentioned space flight, so the US lunar program was a stalinist sabotage against our country.


reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 03:21 PM by justinsweatt
reply to post by suicydking


Not true, this was something that Benjamin Franklin wanted to pursue but was persuaded not to by everyone else during that time.


reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 03:32 PM by justinsweatt
reply to post by suicydking


Medicaid is busted and it has NEVER been solvent. EVER. EVER. Ever. Universal care has been tried in states like Kentucky and you know what they learned? That their state was going bankrupt because of it.

Social Security is not in the form that it was originally intended. If you go to archive.org, you can take a listen to some of FDR's speeches about investing a certain percentage Social Security into the Stock Market so that it would remain solvent and it was also there as a "last resort". The average age of retirement was 65. The average life expectancy was 67. We've far surpassed that.

But see this is the problem that I have when people start whining about "but who's going to pick up the trash" and blah blah blah blah blah. Guess what: we did all of this for 150 years without a tax paid babysitter why do we need one now? And yes, to answer your questions, without a doubt the following is unconstitutional:
1. Department of Education
2. Department of Health
3. EPA
4. FDA
5. The IRS

I would abolish the above in one piece of legislation if I could.

You see, that's the genius of John Adams: State Constitutions.

What some of you cannot grasp is that the 27 Amendments to the US were the ones that were to be federalized, everything else would be provided by your State Constitution.

Do you want to pay high taxes, have universal health care, and all of this gum drops and rainbows non-sense? Move to a state that provides that. Perfectly legal. Trying to do it across 50 states? In my opinion, ILLEGAL.

Also, what happens during a catastrophe? Catastrophic Act of Whatever?

You guys don't get insurance either. Insurances is there to insure you against something that is out of your control. Should a guy with 4 DUIs, 3 wrecks, 15 tickets, and unpaid parking fees get the same rate as you for Car Insurance? No. You should have to pay a higher premium. The same goes for your health. Smoke two packs a day, you have a birth defect, you eat 10,000 calories a day, cool, your health insurance is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. I don't think you should be denied, but I damn sure don't think you should be taken care of like someone who's doing everything that they can.

Life is rough and dangerous and eventually it will kill you. There's not getting away from it. There's no liberty in the assurance of "safety". Period.

Pages: <<  3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^