nice red herring there guys, but that's why congress also debates and votes on going to war.
sigh....
sigh....
Sense prevails in US politics
- Thread starter Firefly
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
How do you feel about the US government being number #1 in the world in gun trafficking? Leading to terrorists that hide in hospitals having to be killed by us.
c'mon man, you were doing better
do you really want to talk about bipartisanship? really? only if there's a new set of pics on google/images->facepalm ;P
seriously though. the bickering has been on the side of the democrats. 39 voted against the damn thing and for very good reasons. some of them actually believe in the constitution and the free market.
republicans have made many, many attempts to make amendments and get involved in the process, but have been totally shot down at every step. the dem leaders ended up doing most of it behind closed doors.
Thus proving my point. You are still trying to pin the blame solely on the Democrats. You are one of the people who keeps the quid pro quo running. I pin the blame on both parties. The whole thing keeps being perpetuated regardless of who is "in charge." I'm sure that the same thing right now would happen if the numbers from each party are switched, and the roles would be reversed.
Not really. This is a problem with how people view this issue. "Oh it must be one or the other, or it won't work."
Try putting "completely" in front of "constitutional." You put an unfair bias in your generalization. Also, that is for the courts to decide.
Both can happen at the same time.
I love how people say "free market" this and "free market" that, and say that anything but is a "government take over." In things like banning discrimination against pre-existing conditions, the government is trying to make the free market more fair. But still, a free market and a fair market can live in harmony!!!
I actually agree with this. It probably wouldn't have had a public opinion, but the government would have been in control aswell.
Did you try my post or are you just going to ignore it?
Why should he put "completely" in front of something that isn't constitutional at all? This isn't bias, this is fact.
The courts are corrupt and have been since 1921 and use past rulings that actually are unconstitutional to decide what is actually constitutional. Its a process in its self that needs reform. Its a process that needs one unconstitutional ruling to make it possible to make many.
(edit: though its either constitutional or its not. There is no need to put completely in front of either. Really though you are nitpicking over word choice here. How ****ing stupid of an argument are you willing to put out?)
What?
Read my post or respond to it. Then maybe you will see why this is garbage. The fact is to enable pre-existing conditions to be covered they aren't saying people have to keep their coverage until what they needed is paid back, but instead forcing everyone to be covered and taking over the decisions of the insurance company and the industry in general. That isn't free market. (ofcourse like I said in the post you didn't read they will still pay their own bills, get money and won't actually be owned by the government) All business decisions however will be handled by the government.
Last edited:
c'mon man, you were doing better
do you really want to talk about bipartisanship? really? only if there's a new set of pics on google/images->facepalm ;P
seriously though. the bickering has been on the side of the democrats. 39 voted against the damn thing and for very good reasons. some of them actually believe in the constitution and the free market.
republicans have made many, many attempts to make amendments and get involved in the process, but have been totally shot down at every step. the dem leaders ended up doing most of it behind closed doors.
Yes, there was a reason 39 voted against: they're up for reelection. I'm just going to go ahead and bring up the republicans voting AGAINST not doing business with contractors which put in rape clauses in their contracts. (this bill specifically prompted by a young woman who was gang raped and locked in a crate and who the company brushed aside) You want to tell me that's not partisan? Both sides do it, so stop with your: yeah, stupid democrats are the problem BS. Both parties are problems and you foisting it all on the party you disagree with is the bigger problem.
Haven't we gone over this before? You disagree with the SC rulings on the commerce clause, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
It is keeping private health care and forcing changes to allow more people to get it and keep insurance companies from kicking people out when they need it most. That sounds like reform to me
Government regulation != government take over. Last I heard, this doesn't abolish insurance companies but instead sets standards and guidelines for operating.
You, sir, are taking something which isn't versus and making it verses. Just because you disagree with the reforms doesn't mean that they aren't reforms. Just because the government is imposing more rules doesn't mean that the private market is gone.
~Jason
The fact that you can look no further than that into the motivation for voting against massive government expansion is sad.
I love how I said this three times now and this is the fourth that there is no regulations going on or guidelines or standards, there is a government committee picking peoples insurance plans taking it out of the hands COMPLETELY of the insurance industry. There is a difference between this and regulations, guidelines and standards. Lets see how many times I have to re-word that.
Its makes the SC rulings unconstitutional. You happy now with your retarded arguments? Here is a example, where in the constitution does it allow the government to put rules on gun ownership. Look hard now. You will need it. Now look where it says they have the right to tell people to register their guns with the federal government(bill being worked on) Well? Oh right commerce clause. Ofcourse the answer for all. Ignoring the original use and purpose of the clause was to stop discriminatory laws of the states against other states. Its funny how the SC changed that. But then again that is constitutional right because obviously the SC is above board in all of this. Please, get a clue.
Last edited:
Libertarianism - the opium of the right, the cocaine of the wrong. Because right or wrong, left or right, it's just like being on drugs.
I didn't miss your point Einstein.
I was relating the fact that such an argument is baseless when we're talking about health care. it's not comparable to any issue which falls below the quality of human life.
"statistics show..." is a poor argument for anything.
the point is that people are people, human life is human life.
there are a variety of reasons that people might go uninsured.
just because you are nice and comfy doesn't mean others are not suffering. if you happened to be in their shoes or were otherwise unable to support yourself, you'd change your tune.
no, it's selfishness.
it doesn't matter how you sugar coat it.
so typical...
ego, ego, ego.
that's all I'm hearing from you.
you pay taxes to the state to allow it to save someone's ass from a burning building or from being robbed even when you may never use the same service in your entire life. but you pay for it in case it should ever be needed by you.
there's no difference when it comes to health care.
everyone should receive it.
for the same reason it's important to protect personal property and ensure individual liberty. it means quality of life.
what do you think they meant when they wrote "the pursuit of happiness" huh?
that everyone should get free flowers and teddy bears?
no, I'd rather put some of it (like a public option) in the hands of the Fed while changing some of the rules so that the private insurance industry will quit raping it's consumers for big profits.
you're a fool, just keep those blinders on.
pretend America doesn't have a health care problem.
keep pretending that there aren't giant clinics who used to go to war-torn, third-world countries and provide free care who now set up shop in major US cities.
that's a nice little patriotic spiel, but you ignored my question.
look who's talking...
Last edited:
Larkin- no one listens to you because you're sort of bat**** crazy. To insist that requiring minimum standards means total control is beyond stupid. Suppose you show me in writing where this committee chooses everything and we'll believe you, but that isn't how it happens.
Also, you don't get to decide what is constitutional, the SC does. That's the way our government is structured. Congress writes the laws, president enforces and SC decides if they are constitutional or not. Simple. What is constitutional is what they say. The only interpretation that matters is theirs and their interpretation, by definition, is what is constitutional. No vote for you, sorry. But I'm sure your mother still thinks you're special.
~Jason.
Also, you don't get to decide what is constitutional, the SC does. That's the way our government is structured. Congress writes the laws, president enforces and SC decides if they are constitutional or not. Simple. What is constitutional is what they say. The only interpretation that matters is theirs and their interpretation, by definition, is what is constitutional. No vote for you, sorry. But I'm sure your mother still thinks you're special.
~Jason.
If you all want me to pay for your healthcare, then just say it. But don't try to pretend it's somehow mandated by the Declaration of Independence -
Oh wait... what was that word you left out?
The notion of Government mandated healthcare is an absolute joke. What necessities of life are they going to mandate in the name of humanity? Food? Shelter?
And don't give me those weak counter-arguments about food stamps and housing programs. They are not the same thing and if you examine them honestly, you'll see that I'm right.
We are not ordered to spend X amount of dollars on food or shelter every year. Nor are we asked to pay in advance for our years' worth of food or risk being fined or jailed. I do not demand to go to the supermarket and get the same food that my neighbor has, nor do I walk into your neighborhood, ring your bell and demand that you buy me a house. It's ridiculous.
This is nothing more than a huge powergrab after failed interventionist policies have driven up the price of a service. We've gotten big sob stories, propoganda, and grossly inflated claims about how piss poor everything is and just how good 'ol Uncle Sam can save you, if only you give him your money. Well at least your rich neighbor's money.
And you guys bought it... hook, line, and sinker. Congratulations.
Man up and say you want to give up your liberty in return for feeling safe. You entrust the government to do what's right when you are openly critical of your fellow man in the private sector. Those government guys all mean well... they won't ever mislead us or screw us over.
OK
... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....
Oh wait... what was that word you left out?
The notion of Government mandated healthcare is an absolute joke. What necessities of life are they going to mandate in the name of humanity? Food? Shelter?
And don't give me those weak counter-arguments about food stamps and housing programs. They are not the same thing and if you examine them honestly, you'll see that I'm right.
We are not ordered to spend X amount of dollars on food or shelter every year. Nor are we asked to pay in advance for our years' worth of food or risk being fined or jailed. I do not demand to go to the supermarket and get the same food that my neighbor has, nor do I walk into your neighborhood, ring your bell and demand that you buy me a house. It's ridiculous.
This is nothing more than a huge powergrab after failed interventionist policies have driven up the price of a service. We've gotten big sob stories, propoganda, and grossly inflated claims about how piss poor everything is and just how good 'ol Uncle Sam can save you, if only you give him your money. Well at least your rich neighbor's money.
And you guys bought it... hook, line, and sinker. Congratulations.
Man up and say you want to give up your liberty in return for feeling safe. You entrust the government to do what's right when you are openly critical of your fellow man in the private sector. Those government guys all mean well... they won't ever mislead us or screw us over.
OK
First, that was in the declaration of Independence, not an actual paper with any weight.
Second, the pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean you have the right to happiness, but instead the right to pursue happiness. It never says it will guarantee it nor that happiness is even a right.
Last edited:
really?
you think that's what this is about?
a dick waving contest between the have's and the have not's?
you think it's all "sob stories" and propaganda specifically out to dash the constitution? there's nothing wrong with the system?
I've come to expect better arguments from you.
this is a disappointment.
Last edited:
You know, Crotale, Larkin, Kiff, and Brizz might have a point. I lived in Canada for six years and my experience with there healthcare system was awful. I'm sure all the Europeans in this thread can sympathize with how bad free healthcare is.
Oh wait, it was awesome and the best care I've ever experienced all you naysayers have literally no idea what you're talking about!
Oh wait, it was awesome and the best care I've ever experienced all you naysayers have literally no idea what you're talking about!
Hey captain jesus america glenn beck, watch this and then get back to me:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Canada's system is pretty similar to Switzerland's.
Some time's its good to take capitalism's dick out of your ear and actually look at successful ways of dealing with this issue.