It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are Americans prodominantly against Obamacare?

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Mr Headshot
 


Yeah I am starting to get the picture here, Americans value their dollar more than they value their neighbours life. I get it now.


Wrong again.

We value our freedom of self-determination more than government decree.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


I think you will find that most countries national health services are doing exactly that already. It is America that is behind the times here and it has become apparent why, you have been programmed to be selfish and self significant so much so that your human regard for life has been erroded. I'm leaving this subject here now I think, theres no point arguing this out with you, I'm just glad I don't live in the USA.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


I'm glad I'm not a member of a tribe.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by michael1983l


That is where you are so wrong, healthcare is a right, just as the ability to breathe air is. Why would healthcare not be a right? Why would you not want to practice life preservation wherever possible? Is life that cheap to you that it has a pricetag?

To be honest I am flabberghasted by that comment, I never really knew that capitalism could make people regard life so cheaply.


Healthcare is not up to the government to grant or allow.

It is up to the individual.

Your argument would have the government determining what we can eat, drink, put in our bodies.

Your argument precludes the fact that our bodies are not ours, but instead, are property of the state.

Your "fail" reeks epically.


And, if I may, it is not capitalism that has made people regard life so cheaply. I find this statement biased by the author's preconceived notion of capitalism, therefore, this statement has failed to capture the intended credibility.

Based upon the author's following statement, I'm led to believe this person does not work in the healthcare industry. As a healthcare professional myself, I consider this statement naive; it lacks real-world experience that would negate the asking of such a question. I do not say this lightly or intend to offend the author.


Why would you not want to practice life preservation wherever possible?

Quite simply, preserving life does not imply there will be quality of life, or increased quality of life. Simply living longer has not improved quality of life in this country. Yes, we are living longer, but not necessarily better. People are living with multiple co-morbidities that actually decreases quality of life. Decades ago people often had a single disease pathology, but now, people are living with multiple disease processes. Diabetes, hypertension, COPD. What kind of quality of life do you think this person has? How many medications do you think this person is prescribed? People don't think we Ration healthcare in this country but we certainly do. We need to have realistic expectations about life and death. There are moral and ethical questions to consider. And preserving life, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, is not always the right thing to do. These issues are not black and white, as the original quote implies. Having worked in neurosciences, I could tell you hundreds of stories when preserving life at all times or at all costs, or despite the odds, resulted in more pain, less dignity, and certainly poorer quality of life.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
reply to post by michael1983l
 


I'm glad I'm not a member of a tribe.


I'm glad I'm not a member of the borg.

(fixed it for ya!)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by jhn7537
 


I think you will find that most countries national health services are doing exactly that already. It is America that is behind the times here and it has become apparent why, you have been programmed to be selfish and self significant so much so that your human regard for life has been erroded. I'm leaving this subject here now I think, theres no point arguing this out with you, I'm just glad I don't live in the USA.


Well I'm sorry that we dont see eye to eye on this one, but it is what it is... I guess I could lie to you and say I wish everyone was treated perfectly, but it wouldnt be sincere... The way I feel is that I want to choose where my money goes and i dont want the Govt. to have to tell me... I would be MORE than happy to give my money to health care if I wasnt already giving my money to welfare recipients...Like i said earlier to youl, it just keeps adding up and we have zero clue where its going to stop...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911


And, if I may, it is not capitalism that has made people regard life so cheaply. I find this statement biased by the author's preconceived notion of capitalism, therefore, this statement has failed to capture the intended credibility.

Based upon the author's following statement, I'm led to believe this person does not work in the healthcare industry. As a healthcare professional myself, I consider this statement naive; it lacks real-world experience that would negate the asking of such a question. I do not say this lightly or intend to offend the author.


I'm talking about the rights of the individual.

I'm talking about the rights being eroded by the government. Not capitalism.

And you are wrong. I work in the healthcare field, as does my wife.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Theres some things to rightly complain about in your governments taxation, but keeping somebody alive just isn't one of them. I cannot believe how selfish some people can be when they are worried that some of their tax dollars might go towards keeping somebody alive and that they see no direct benefit from that. Reality check.... if you saw somebody knocked down in the street by a car, would you not help them just because thhey are poor?

I'm sorry but if this is how most American people think then God Bless the Fact I do not live in the USA.


Then why pray tell are you even commenting on a country you are not a part of?...

Your view is jaded, because you are already a part of a socialist system, WE--The--People.. "are not"...

Freedom is never "free"...

IN our country, liberals and lawyers, have done so much harm to our country, that if one was to help someone in the street, the lawyers of the person who was helped, would go after the person who helped for aggravated injuries, mental stress disorders, and loss of wages (and those are only the highlights)..

Then we have the opposite problems with conservatives, who think only of themselves at the expense of others (in this respect, the liberals and conservatives are the same )...

We have no balance, only the illusion of it..

Our Constitution does not allow for forced (fascists) health care policies.. you cannot force another to do what they wish not to do...

Freedom is not all roses and parties 24/7/365 ... it is bloody, callous at times, and very demanding of the inhabitants to maintain it's rights for all in this country..

It is up to the individuals to decide within the boundaries of the state they reside in, to help, setup organizations, work policies "locally", while the ONLY job the government has legally,, is to "insure sovereign u.s. citizens are afforded all the benefits of the Constitution, against all foreign "and" domestic enemies"..

A job it is sorely lacking in it's "true" duties...

All government (by Constitutional laws) is in violation of all Constitutional laws, and therefore are guilty of high treason..

But even now, it still requires "We--The--People" to correct this problem, simply because the laws are "ours" to protect, and insure are upheld...

We are the final solution... Not the government...
edit on 30-6-2012 by QuantifedInfinity because: errors



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You clearly misunderstood my post. In fact, I concur with your post. My rebuttal was directed towards Michael19831, not you. It was his quote I was commenting on. Come on beezzer, if you can't keep up
I'm sure it was confusing because I included both yours and his quotes.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by beezzer
 


You clearly misunderstood my post. In fact, I concur with your post. My rebuttal was directed towards Michael19831, not you. It was his quote I was commenting on. Come on beezzer, if you can't keep up
I'm sure it was confusing because I included both yours and his quotes.


Humble apologies. It's early morning here and my caffeine levels are low.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
#1 A doctor's labor is not my right.
#2 Only a matter of time before many more new vaccines are required, by law. It will be enforced by the government withholding care to individuals who refuse them.
#3 Obamacare WILL lead to one supplier of healthcare, the federal government.
#4 Only a matter of time before eugenics is made general practice. Essentially, government should be small because governments are inherently evil. Giving these corrupt a-holes power over our bodies, literally, is a very very very bad idea.
#5 It doesn't provide tort reform, YET. Once healthcare does go universal, I foresee huge tort reform, as in, you won't be able to sue the malpractice doctors, just like you can't sue the federal post office for a mis-delivered parcel.
#6 I shouldn't be a penalized citizen because I don't make certain purchases.
#7 I know it's bad law because we had to vote for it before we were allowed to read it. Only bad laws are passed in such a matter.
#8 I simply don't trust central government planning. See our schools for an example of this.
#9 I wouldn't trust a person like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, or Newt Gingrich to not abuse it for more power. Fact is, I may trust Obama, but at max he only has 4.5 years left to run things; the person after him will inherit this power and if (s)he's a freakin egomaniac we've screwed the pooch. Imagine what Sarah Palin would do with this. SCARY.
#10 I'm independent, I don't need the government to tell me how to see a doctor. I can handle it.
#11 I'd rather die poor and free than wealthy and waiting for a nurse to open my applesauce because by law they are told they can not.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Lousy way to save a few bucks right? Well, if you think the British government is harsh, wait until that non-sense comes here.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Hahaha...I'm currently refueling my oreo cookie level as we speak!

I've been following your posts closely tonight. You've made many good points.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I don't go to the Dr. I hate them, and they're all idiots, so I refuse to go. I don't think the government should be telling me that I HAVE to buy health insurance, or I'm going to get fined. I think we do need some kind of healtchare reform, or even a national system, but if I don't want to carry health insurance, then it's not the governments place to say I have to. They are already too big, and too intrusive, now it's just getting worse.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doodle19815
It is simple really, People don't like change. For better or worse.

That response is a propaganda laden talking point cop out. If you want real reasons that Obamacare is not favored by the populace, detailed reasons, then read all the articles at this link:

Why ObamaCare Will Fail - Ludwig von Mises Institute

I will also say, there is so much extra regulation in the bill that does not have to do with healthcare. In addition, Elena Kagan helped write the bill and now is on the Supreme Court, is that not a conflict of interest? Healthcare companies also helped to craft the bill, is that also not a conflict of interest?! The implication and intent of the bill is such that the poor who cannot afford to pay for the insurance will now be fined by the IRS. The people do not win with this type of agreement, only the bureaucracy wins and becomes that much richer.
edit on 30-6-2012 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
Why would any civilized person complain about making primary healthcare available to all instead of just those that have the cash to pay for it?

How can a population of a developed nation like the USA complain about paying extra taxes for this when their current government invests more money in war than all other nations combines accross the globe?

Just saying.


Anyone with a decent job can already afford health-care, those that are poor already recieve health-care, those in the middle who should be able to afford health-care, but often cannot because of our economy--won't be able to afford more stress of these taxes out of their paychecks.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TheTardis
 





If you have a job you can afford healthcare


Thats one of the problems, this statement is patently false, and yet some people try to pass it off as true. What does it mean to you to find out this, what you are trying to pass as fact, is a false assumption?

Get your facts straight before you form an opinion. If you start with false assumptions, you end with baseless opinions.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 





If a person is making only $1,500 dollars, a fine or a payment of several hundred dollars is a big hit out of their paycheck.


If your making only 1500 dollars, you will be exempt from fines.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by GenerationGap
 


Americans have no idea how bad their system is now. I live in a New Zealand were we have universal healthcare and no-one tells me to DO anything except my doctor telling me to lose weight, lol. There are no death panels or any loss of rights predicted by Obamacare doomsayers. If a doctor ever stuffs up your treatment they get in trouble but not sued because it will be fixed (if possible). What else do you need? Millions of dollars? If money made your emotional distress go away, marriages would end in divorce less. People getting an MRI everytime they go to a doctor? overtesting. They use their tests to make money out of you. It seems some Americans want to line up and bend over but they aint getting their temperature taken. No wonder Americans travel to New Zealand to get procedures at a third of the price they pay in the good ol' US of A. You're being ripped off. The US Government hates NZ's Pharmac, the NZ Gov organisation that buys pharmaceuticals in bulk (for 4 million people) and getting a cheap deal from the big pharma companies. Subsidised prescriptions cost me $NZ3 each ($US2.49) atm (it's going up to $NZ5 next year for the first increase in a very long time) First world care at second world prices. only 6% unemployment AND our education system is the third best in the world behind South Korea and some other asian country. No wonder James Cameron is moving here, lol, and I know, he's Canadian. Obamacares only problem is it isn't just paid through your taxes. Just so you know, Kiwi's complain about their healthcare too, but ask if they would give it up for the American way and they will thinkyou are CRAZY!.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
this thread made me lul. the op is so right.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuantifedInfinity

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Theres some things to rightly complain about in your governments taxation, but keeping somebody alive just isn't one of them. I cannot believe how selfish some people can be when they are worried that some of their tax dollars might go towards keeping somebody alive and that they see no direct benefit from that. Reality check.... if you saw somebody knocked down in the street by a car, would you not help them just because thhey are poor?

I'm sorry but if this is how most American people think then God Bless the Fact I do not live in the USA.


Then why pray tell are you even commenting on a country you are not a part of?...

Your view is jaded, because you are already a part of a socialist system, WE--The--People.. "are not"...

Freedom is never "free"...

IN our country, liberals and lawyers, have done so much harm to our country, that if one was to help someone in the street, the lawyers of the person who was helped, would go after the person who helped for aggravated injuries, mental stress disorders, and loss of wages (and those are only the highlights)..

Then we have the opposite problems with conservatives, who think only of themselves at the expense of others (in this respect, the liberals and conservatives are the same )...

We have no balance, only the illusion of it..

Our Constitution does not allow for forced (fascists) health care policies.. you cannot force another to do what they wish not to do...

Freedom is not all roses and parties 24/7/365 ... it is bloody, callous at times, and very demanding of the inhabitants to maintain it's rights for all in this country..

It is up to the individuals to decide within the boundaries of the state they reside in, to help, setup organizations, work policies "locally", while the ONLY job the government has legally,, is to "insure sovereign u.s. citizens are afforded all the benefits of the Constitution, against all foreign "and" domestic enemies"..

A job it is sorely lacking in it's "true" duties...

All government (by Constitutional laws) is in violation of all Constitutional laws, and therefore are guilty of high treason..

But even now, it still requires "We--The--People" to correct this problem, simply because the laws are "ours" to protect, and insure are upheld...

We are the final solution... Not the government...
edit on 30-6-2012 by QuantifedInfinity because: errors



A good samaritan in legal terms refers to someone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured person on a voluntary basis. Usually, if a volunteer comes to the aid of an injured or ill person who is a stranger, the person giving the aid owes the stranger a duty of being reasonably careful. A person is not obligated by law to do first aid in most states, not unless it's part of a job description. However, some states will consider it an act of negligence though, if a person doesn't at least call for help. Generally, where an unconscious victim cannot respond, a good samaritan can help them on the grounds of implied consent. However, if the victim is conscious and can respond, a person should ask their permission to help them first.
Source

Some states offer immunity to good samaritans.




top topics



 
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join