posted
Orincoro, You must not be very fun at a dinner party. It was a play on words. No sense of humor at all . . . Instead of acknowledging my sarcastic play on words for what it is and was intended to be, you decided to call me dumb, a joke, and equal to a child in a playground. You have no imagination and therefore must not be a very fun person. The mockery is amusing though, now I'm a little kid on a playground talking about John Dart. Oh, there I go again, "mishearing" what you said, sorry.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop: I have a lot of respect for people who serve our country faithfully, especially those willing to face death. But here is what gets me pretty frustrated,
quote:We heard these things and no amount of lip service about "we support the troops not the war" could make up for it.
I was horrified to come back as a missionary from 2001-2003 and find out we had troops in Iraq (I had almost total media blackout while I was working as a missionary). I immediately assumed that it was like Desert Storm; the threat was obvious, the necessity of force was established, and all that remained was to do the work. When people told me that we were still looking for the WMDs that were "definitely there" I believed it. When we said we were going to help the Iraqis create a new democracy, I was unsure how that would work out, I genuinely hoped it would. When I found out we had a special facility at gitmo so that we could find a way to deal with terrorists who don't wear a uniform I thought it might be a good idea. When the photos of Abu Gharib showed up I thought, "Whoever is in charge of that should be cashiered, it's terrible that a few soldiers will reflect so badly on our fantastic armed forces."
But then I found out the WMDs just were not there. I found out that the intelligence community hadn't ever had very good evidence of said WMDs. I didn't fault Bush for that, but I did hope he would at least admit that mistakes had been made. Instead, I found out the administration was playing up "nation building" and pretending they never said the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." But that instead the war had always been about removing an evil dictator. I recognized that since we had started the thing we damn well better find a way to leave things as best we can. I was miffed the administration did not own up to the mistake, but I moved on. Then I found out that private contractors were acting lawlessly in Iraq, disrespecting our troops, murdering the Iraqi people, and were somehow immune to both Iraqi and American law. Then I found out that since gitmo could not legally do certain things to get information that "might" be in the heads of some of those terrorists that "extraordinary rendition" was created so that we could ship them to other countries that would do those terrible things. I found out that we were releasing prisoners from gitmo because they were innocent, years after they had been arrested and tortured. I looked to the administration to own up to their mistakes instead of taking credit for victory prematurely "Mission Accomplished." I came to believe that I wanted the war in Iraq to work out desperately, I even believed the surge might work based on hearing some of our most brilliant minds explain it. But I also came to believe that if the war in Iraq was a dead end like the Vietnam War that the Bush administration would act just like the LBJ administration and in their desperation to win take us all to hell with them.
I'm very glad there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 2001, but what has the cost been? We were not right in everything we did since 9/11, we should own up to that. I was thrilled that Pres. Obama has announced that we are closing gitmo, whatever good such a facility could have gained us, it completely failed in its' execution because we couldn't even treat our prisoners within the bounds of the Geneva Convention to say nothing of the constitution.
I'm cautiously optimistic about Iraq now, it might actually turn out alright. Those who said we had already lost may be wrong. But those who said they support our troops but not the war are still right in a sense. We were not right to go to Iraq in the first place. But most importantly of all,
How can anyone do anything but pay lip service to the idea that we ought to bring our troops home? Can we take up arms and do something about it? Should we all be accused of being "unpatriotic" by filling up the jails after refusing to pay taxes so that the war cannot be waged? What does a patriotic person who hates a war and wants to get out so as to save the lives of our troops do besides pay lip service and seek to persuade others that they are right in their opposition? What would you do?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: Orincoro, You must not be very fun at a dinner party. It was a play on words.
No it wasn't. You don't know what a play on words is- they generally require something we call "wit." Add that to your list of things to look up sometime.
This was more of a "faceplant over words," which, by the way, *is* a play on words. Did you find it witty and smart when Pee-Wee Herman said "I know you are but what am I?" Did you repeat that to your friends until they begged you to either stop, or find new people to eat lunch with?
quote: The mockery is amusing though, now I'm a little kid on a playground talking about John Dart. Oh, there I go again, "mishearing" what you said, sorry.
Are you dyslexic? I'm asking out of curiosity, because under both your handles, you've been showing some real problems in reading comprehension. You don't seem to understand what a wordplay is, you make constant spelling mistakes, you fail to parse the simplest sentences. What's up? More than anything, this last bit gives me kind of a perfunctory: "huh?" Does he actually understand what I was talking about?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The words coming from the citizens who took a stand against the war were fine. They have a right to speak what they believe.
The politicians are different, they represent the America. These phrases impact the enemy, embolden them. All the talk of pulling out, the war is over, etc lost our troops support in the field. Our allies became scared that we would actually pull out and leave them to face the kind of genocide they had after the first persian gulf war. The police and military there take a huge risk. I knew an Assyrian who worked as a contractor with us. He supported his entire village with the money he made. He expressed his concern about us pulling out. He knew he and quite possibly his entire family would be killed if we just called it quits.
During the first Gulf war we encouraged the people to rise up and fight. The one's that did expected America to free them, we didn't and many were tortured and murdered by Saddam after we pulled out. We lost 58,000 troops in Vietnam but our pullout contributed to the deaths of possibly a million people by the Khmer Rouge. Our lack of political will has lead to the deaths of many people in the world. No wonder they don't trust us anymore.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy supports his entire village with the money he makes as a contractor with the US, and he shows concern about the idea of the US leaving? That's news?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: MrSquicky,
As I've said I don't know how many times before, I'm flattered you compare me with Malanthrop. He is more intelligent than I am, and his knowledge of politics in particular is much more researched than mine. I'm just another conservative in the room, but then again, I suppose all of us conservatives are the same- right? He and I have a similar voice on these topics, therefore we must be the same.
I'm certain anyone who is able to do any amount of research could discover we are very much different people. There is nothing to suggest we are the same person, other than our similar voice in this room. All the liberals in the room have a similar voice, does that mean they are the same person?
I probably should've just ignored your comment MrSquicky, since arguing wouldn't change anyone's formed opinion. If anyone is interested in my challenge to research for a few minutes, you'd discover we aren't the same. I doubt anyone who holds such an opinion is interested in the research that might change it. Think as you'd like, again- it's I see it as a compliment, though I suggest your accusation isn't fair to Malanthrop.
One of the things about the internet that makes me smile is how clever non-clever people often think they are.
You're not fooling...well, I can't say anyone, but most people. Even if we haven't had other people doing the same thing with a very similar pattern and even responses that you are, your cunning ruse is actually pretty transparent.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, malanthrop, no examples of how the US Constitution prohibits adapting European style health care systems to our own?
Shocking, I say, shocking that you would ignore a direct question whose answer must prove completely contrary to your rants.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
We told him for weeks we were coming. What else he may have had were hid, buried or moved to another country. He was proud of his WMD's for years. He bragged about them and used them on his own people. Even if he got rid of them he wanted the world to think he had them, a good deterrent.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Maybe if you divert the discussion to WMDs in Iraq people will be diverted from all the questions you have failed to answer about health care.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some old, forgotten chemical munitions that were so badly corroded they were unusable and a bunch of yellow cake there's no evidence was being used in the past two decades for anything (we knew he had bought some before that -- Osirak, anyone? -- and the stuff doesn't just go away).
Yeah, that's exactly what was meant when it was said, over and over again that Iraq was actively developing WMDs, creating an eminent danger.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'd like to give you my opinion on this. I understand why you were frustrated, because I went through a lot of the same emotions. I returned from my mission in 2000, and then joined the Army Reserves in 2001, just before the terrorist attack on 9/11. Right while I was watching the news, I knew it was a matter of time before I would be deployed to Iraq to fight the good fight. I served in Iraq in 05-06, and did the best job I could with the jobs given.
Your frustration is, correct me if I'm wrong, why support something when you don't feel it's doing what you think it aught to be doing? Namely the government efforts in Iraq . . .
I decided to do my duty for my country, to support my leaders and fulfill their lawful orders. As for the time leading up to and after my time of service in Iraq, that time was spent learning what I could about politics so I could form my own opinions and even voice my opinions where I thought they needed to be heard.
We have to be a law abiding community, even when we disagree with the laws. We have the freedom of speech, and many other freedoms. While we are law-abiding citizens, we can voice our opinions on the laws in which we might disagree. The way I see it, all soldiers are doing their job and the desire of higher up authorities and shouldn't be blamed for injustices or malpractices that aren't self-inflicted (Abu Ghraib). The vast majority of the soldiers are fighting the good fight, that is they are fighting what they believe in, or are contractually obligated to do. In short, support the troops, and if you disagree with any laws or government policies, then we have our own voice and it is our right to use it.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop: That is why I highly sympathize with executing a war as best we can even when we were wrong to get in in the first place.
But if an administration is going to commit us to war they owe the people a huge debt. They owe us their best efforts in both preparing and prosecuting the war. Is our best efforts "no exit strategy?" or "Virtually no long term strategy should the war become protracted?"
The administration owes us at least translucence if not transparency, instead we got obtuseness. I don't expect our leaders to look weak and incapable, but do you think Obama looks weak for admitting that torture, abuse, and indifference to basic human rights was a problem at gitmo and we need to come up with another solution? Would George W. Bush had looked weak and ineffective if he had said, "My best intelligence advised me of the presence of WMDs and I made the call, but it looks like we were all mistaken in our belief, for that I take full responsibility. Having said that it would be unethical and wrong for us to simply leave Iraq after opening up such a big wound, it falls to us to help them recreate a government better than the one that so oppressed them in the past."?
Instead we had to vote them all out of office because they wouldn't talk to us like we could understand them. President Obama wants to commit more troops to Afghanistan, I support this decision, but I'd also like a more clear cut description of what victory looks like.
As for us pulling out of Vietnam and thus leaving good Vietnamese people to the wolves, we weren't winning. Our military again had no picture of victory, we had another administration willing to take us all to hell with them if it meant the possibility of victory. The administration also made the mistake of believing the American people could not handle the truth, so they told us very little. You know the Chinese invaded Vietnam after we left in 1979. You know what happened to them? Over 50,000 casualties in a month, perhaps 20,000 killed, then retreat. I am convinced the Vietnam War could have turned out in our favor, but we squandered that opportunity when we backed a terrible man (Diem) who was as bad as any North Vietnamese boogy man. We spent too much time simply dumping more ordinance than all the ordinance used in Europe during WWII on North Vietnam. Our strategic hamlet program was an idea misapplied to the Vietnamese people, we failed to notice that Thai and Australian troops seemed to be killing just as many people without nearly as many casualties. By the time we tried winning the Vietnamese's "hearts and minds" we were too late, they wanted us to leave, and to reap their own whirlwind. Their country definitely had troubles after we left, but its looking better and better these days and they don't hold a grudge towards us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Sorry to revert to an early point in the conversation, but:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
I want another house. I could sign up as a section 8 landlord and get a guaranteed $1300 per month right now or I could put it up on the public rental market and maybe get $900. Personally, I'll take the $900 over some piece of crap who doesn't care about where he/she lives since mommy gov is paying for it.
I live in Section 8 housing. It is the best apartment that I could afford on my wages and I pay every expense out of my own pocket.
I find your characterization of section 8 housing residents misinformed and offensive. Do you actually read what you write or do you find that you kind of drift in and out?
If you're trying to hold the moral high ground, ridding your posts of phrases like "some piece of crap" (in reference to fellow human beings) is a good place to start. </annoyed>
Carry on everyone.
And as a landlord who has one Section 8 tenant, they aren't any more (and have actually been less) of an issue, than those paying more through the market.
I don't know what kind of answer you'll get to your question, or even if you'll get one at all. All I can say for sure is that you won't be getting a direct link to a portion of the Constitution or some Constitutional scholarly paper that outlines exactly why European style health care systems would be unconstitutional in the USA.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
But I stand by the question as a reminder that saying, "it's in the Constitution" and leaving it at that, does not qualify as a free pass.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your frustration is, correct me if I'm wrong, why support something when you don't feel it's doing what you think it aught to be doing? Namely the government efforts in Iraq . . .
I'm more frustrated with the accusation that people who vocally support getting out of a conflict are somehow more cowardly or in possession of weaker convictions as those who actually go to war and folks who rail that to try and bring them home is unpatriotic.
I have already stated that I believe the decision to get out of war is just as important as the decision to go, I would hate either decision to be made mistakenly. I believe the lives of our soldiers and the people of the country we are fighting in weigh heavily on both decisions. But the former administration showed a lack of respect for both of those decisions. They expected us to just let them take care of it and keep sending men into the line of fire, the logic being that if we just trusted and waited long enough all those folks in Iraq would solve the problem collectively and we'd all be so thankful when they came home.
When you say, "I want to know what's going on!" they said, "It's hard to say, don't be so impatient just trust us." When you got tired of that and said, "I'm not sure you're doing the right thing" the response was, "Oh so you don't support America because you are willing to jeopardize all that our men have fought and died for? And what do you know anyway, you're not there, when you pick up a gun and come under fire then you can have an opinion."
The situation is many things, but one of the things it isn't is "right."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The politicians are different, they represent the America. These phrases impact the enemy, embolden them.
Politicians have absolutely no requirement to follow the government. If all the politicians follow the government, what's the point of having any of them? Politicians in a democracy represent the people they are elected by, not the government. In a situation where the executive branch is largely completely separate from the legislative branches, this should be even more obvious than it is in a parliamentary system where a good portion of the politicians are the government.
The day all your politicians fall in the same line, that's the day you have a problem.
Taking a milder form of your argument, that the opposing parties or politicians should, when it comes down to it support the government (the Prime Minister or the President), then I agree. Canada (and I presume the UK) calls the opposition party the "loyal opposition". However, historically and practically speaking, that certainly doesn't mean the opposition have to agree with the government, except in the direst of circumstances which usually amounts to terrible direct disaster and invasion. (Foreign war does not qualify as the direst of consequences).
I would say that opposition parties are basically for "the country", but even that's not the case. Canada functions reasonably well with a major party that represents only a fraction of the country.
Either way, politicians do not have to support the government in any sense that they support the fact that there is a democratic government and that somebody not-them was chosen to be "leader" of it. The rest of the time, it's their duty to represent alternative, hopefully well-reasoned, ideas.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Because you have yet to answer it yet:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: There's one very good reason they shouldn't apply here....The United States Constitution.
What clause in particular?
You and I know there is no such clause in the Constitution but even if there were, it would be essentially irrelevant. If the Constitution required America to have an expensive dysfunctional health care system, then its would be time to amend the constitution.
I get the impression that some people see the constitution as an unquestionable source of truth and goodness. Its not. It was created by men who were wise enough to know better and created a mechanism by which we could change it if needed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The words coming from the citizens who took a stand against the war were fine. They have a right to speak what they believe.
The politicians are different, they represent the America. These phrases impact the enemy, embolden them. All the talk of pulling out, the war is over, etc lost our troops support in the field.
Does that philosophy apply to politicians in the midst of an economic crisis? Should they stifle their dissent and support the President's plan. Afer all, the people who say the plan will fail cause people to be more frightened and discouraged which has a negative impact on the economy. A rather more direct effect, in fact, than war protesters had on our troops.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So, malanthrop, no examples of how the US Constitution prohibits adapting European style health care systems to our own?
Shocking, I say, shocking that you would ignore a direct question whose answer must prove completely contrary to your rants.
Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Is it specifically enumerated?
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - states could provide for it
The Preamble of the US Constitution shows how these rights are to be secured including "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".
Two clear distinctions should be made here: Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach. For example, I'll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it! General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor. - generally, most American have healthcare already.
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress 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." - again, is universal healthcare integral to the general welfare of the United States?
Under current federal law a patient has a right to emergency health care regardless the ability to pay.
We have a right to EMERGENCY health care.
Of course we can't even get the supreme court to agree on gun rights (5-4) so it's truly pointless for us to argue constitutional law.
In my opinion, we have strayed far from the constitutional limits of the Federal government already.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you give an example of a government program you feel is (or could be) providing for the general welfare? Your "reasoning" about it is bizarre in the extreme.
Of course, given what we know of improved health outcomes in many countries with government health insurance, including among the wealthy, even your bizarre arguments are already dealt with. The evidence is clearly that a government health insurance program has the ability to improve the health of just about everyone in society. That's before we even start noticing the benefits on everyone of reduced healthcare costs (another thing the evidence makes clear can be had with single-payer insurance).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, War is nasty business. I think anyone who actually wants war should be psychiatrically evaluated. I don't think those who wish for the speedy return of US troops is unpatriotic. To caveat on that, I think there are healthy ways of expressing the desire to have troops return home, and there are also unhealthy ways. I don't think it's very patriotic for non-military experts to use a public loud speaker, TV, Radio, other wide spread media, to rally a bring the soldiers home because this war is useless, done, illegal, being lost, and/or is a waste of our money, campaign to solicit response. That action isn't patriotic, it's political garbage with no legitimate military base of understanding. I know I just generalized, but there are many of these such individuals in hollywood, or even in current politics.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my opinion, we have strayed far from the constitutional limits of the Federal government already.
So what?
The question isn't whether our not current laws will allow us to establish a national health care system, the question is whether or not doing such a thing would be good.
If the constitution prohibits us from doing something good, we need to change the constitution. We've done that dozens of times since the constitution was formed. You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't have abolished slavery since the constitution didn't originally grant that power.
The question of whether or not we should have a national health care system is a separate issue from whether or not we will need to amend the constitution to do it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm sympathetic to the idea of doing good things, I feel that sometimes specific good things should be left behind restrictions, because those restrictions form an important line against things that are also bad. For instance, no matter if it might help the country to give a particular benevolent president more power, I'm generally against significantly expanding the power of the executive branch.
Government health care in the ways being discussed isn't a topic I feel those qualms apply to, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course we can't even get the supreme court to agree on gun rights (5-4) so it's truly pointless for us to argue constitutional law.
Then perhaps you would be wise not to bring the Constitution into it, malanthrop, if indeed it's 'useless' to argue it.
Or did it only become useless once you were called on yet another BS statement that couldn't be substantiated?
quote:Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Is it specifically enumerated?
Hey, there's a great example of something that ain't the Constitution.
quote:The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - states could provide for it
First of all, I have little doubt you'd be as adamantly opposed to state-run universal healthcare systems as you would be federally run universal health care.
Second, by the reasoning you're using, clearly the federal government doesn't have the authority to, say, inspect the food and drugs we consume to ensure our safety?
Wait...is that part of ensuring welfare? If that is, why not healthcare?
quote:General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.
You remind me of a childless senior citizen bit@#ing about having to pay taxes that go to support local schools. Helping the poor does benefit the entire society, so that addresses your vague complaints easily enough.
quote:- again, is universal healthcare integral to the general welfare of the United States?
Some system that affords healthcare to everyone is, yes. Yeah, even that farcical stereotype of yours, the people with pagers and cellphones and color TVs and Internet access who don't have insurance. Yeah, they make dumb choices. I don't care, I still don't want `em dead if they get sick.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: While I'm sympathetic to the idea of doing good things, I feel that sometimes specific good things should be left behind restrictions, because those restrictions form an important line against things that are also bad. For instance, no matter if it might help the country to give a particular benevolent president more power, I'm generally against significantly expanding the power of the executive branch..
I don't disagree with any of that except perhaps your definition of good. One has to look not only at the narrow consequences of an act but also at the broader and longer range consequences. So if giving a benevolent President expanded powers to accomplish some "good" objective, also means eroding civil liberties or expanding the power of future presidents who may not be benevolent, I would not call that a good thing.
Establishing a national health care system would in fact expand the power of the federal government. I can see why people might be wary of doing that. But the question shouldn't be solely whether or not the expanded government powers are constitutional but rather whether the expanded government powers would as a whole be beneficial or detrimental.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By your argument the government should also provide food to everyone. It is a basic necessity, housing as well is a basic necessity. We should tax everyone to ensure we all have the same diet and the same size home. These are more basic and fundamental than health care.
What you should ask yourselves is does the constitution provide for such an action. The constitution was established to limit government, hence: specific enumeration. Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law. The system has been flipped. Government action should be weighed as contsitutional prior to implementation not proved unconstitutional after the fact.
I'm sure I'm talking to a crowd that believes in the living breathing document concept anyway.
States are suppose to have more authority than the Federal government. That's why gay marriage is a states issue and some states have universal health care. If you want universal coverage, move to Oregon.
Here's a good one, denied "universal" treatment by the state and offered assisted suicide instead.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Now, that's a good deflection, malanthrop.
Maybe if you divert the discussion to WMDs in Iraq people will be diverted from all the questions you have failed to answer about health care.
I'm not deflecting. I'm sure you think everything is about you but I'm responding to other people. Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:By your argument the government should also provide food to everyone. It is a basic necessity, housing as well is a basic necessity. We should tax everyone to ensure we all have the same diet and the same size home. These are more basic and fundamental than health care.
Even if my argument could extend to these straw men you're building (and it can't)...well, in fact the government should provide food to those without. Even the people who don't want to work (that favorite stereotype of conservative Republicans) should get government cheese. Housing (of a sort) as well: no one should live on the street.
quote: What you should ask yourselves is does the constitution provide for such an action. The constitution was established to limit government, hence: specific enumeration. Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law. The system has been flipped. Government action should be weighed as contsitutional prior to implementation not proved unconstitutional after the fact.
The Constitution was not only created for that.
quote:I'm sure I'm talking to a crowd that believes in the living breathing document concept anyway.
The Founders did, too, you know. That's why they built change into it.
quote:Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up.
I'm whistling this. That's as unAmerican a statement as can possibly be made. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not deflecting. I'm sure you think everything is about you but I'm responding to other people. Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up
This discussion board is not for the exclusive use of Americans. The opinions of all who come her are welcome in every debate despite their country of citizenship. If you aren't comfortable with that, I suggest you go elsewhere.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the discussion of health care, it is especially important to take in the views of those who live with some form of universal health care, i.e. those who aren't American.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With regard to food, isn't that the purpose of WIC, food stamps and welfare? And there are programs to help with housing as well. There can be a place in between doing nothing and taxing and redistributing so that everyone ends up the same. Pure capitalism and pure socialism are not the only options. Also, health care is somewhat unique in that a single payer system has a huge cost advantage over other systems. The government truly can do this better then industry.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: We have to be a law abiding community, even when we disagree with the laws.
Have you ever heard of civil disobedience? Henry David Thoreau? George Washington? Ben Franklin? Any of the dozens of politicians who broke English law in order to establish our nation? When we disagree with the laws, we have a duty to act to change them, or to peacefully and openly disobey them. If we feel that our liberties to do so are being infringed, then it is our duty to overthrow the current government. That is in the Declaration of Independence- it was a document detailing the reasons why the states were choosing to break the law.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Could you give an example of a government program you feel is (or could be) providing for the general welfare? Your "reasoning" about it is bizarre in the extreme.
Of course, given what we know of improved health outcomes in many countries with government health insurance, including among the wealthy, even your bizarre arguments are already dealt with. The evidence is clearly that a government health insurance program has the ability to improve the health of just about everyone in society. That's before we even start noticing the benefits on everyone of reduced healthcare costs (another thing the evidence makes clear can be had with single-payer insurance).
Providing for the general welfare: Interstate Highways Border Patrol FBI CIA US Marshals FDA US Customs TSA Multi state projects, canals etc
Federal is Macro (general) Involving multiple states.
This is why we have Local, State, Federal. Federal shouldn't be involved in providing for the Micro (individual).
Micro (local/state) - dry counties - ordinances - state law (health care, marriage, licensing, etc)
Macro - general welfare of the country, not the individual. PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE not PROVIDE SPECIFIC WELFARE.
Promote: 1. a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank. b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade. 2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance. 3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment. 4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product. 5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.
Provide: 1. To furnish; supply: provide food and shelter for a family. 2. To make available; afford: a room that provides ample sunlight through French windows. 3. To set down as a stipulation: an agreement that provides deadlines for completion of the work.
Canada: The average amount of time spent waiting to receive treatment after referral by a general practitioner averaged 17.8 weeks across Canada. At 14.9 weeks, Ontario had the shortest waits. Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick had average waits of 25.8 weeks, 28.5 weeks, and 31.9 weeks, respectively. http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20368/Canadians_Wait_Longer_for_Medical_Care.html
UK Die waiting (6 month waiting list for heart surgery) "A ULSTER University report published yesterday said one in ten people waiting for heart surgery will die before they reach the operating table." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3591667.stmPosts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your examples miss the point. No one has claimed that the medical system in Canada and UK are flawless. The claim is that they have better outcomes than the US system. How many people die waiting for emergency treatement in the US? How many people die because they can't get needed surgery in the US?
Studies have in fact looked at this questions. In the US 100,000 more people die annually from preventable causes than would if we had a health care system as effective as those in France or Japan. (That includes those who are waiting for surgery or emergency treatment). That rate is higher than anywhere else in the developed world.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: On the discussion of health care, it is especially important to take in the views of those who live with some form of universal health care, i.e. those who aren't American.
Well, I live (or will be in a few weeks) with the Czech state Health plan. I'm quite enthused by it. It provides for regular (nearly) free checkups, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc, at a very low cost to the tax payer. Although Czechs now pay a flat tax of about 15%, the national health plans are quite adequate for your needs, especially as a younger person. I believe they generally try to allocate a greater amount of the fund towards older people (CZR has a relatively high median age), but private insurance is available as well, and it is highly competitive, as many people carry both plans, and don't necessarily need their private insurance. It seems to be a single payer system that is very well run.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: On the discussion of health care, it is especially important to take in the views of those who live with some form of universal health care, i.e. those who aren't American.
Well, I live (or will be in a few weeks) with the Czech state Health plan. I'm quite enthused by it. It provides for regular (nearly) free checkups, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc, at a very low cost to the tax payer. Although Czechs now pay a flat tax of about 15%, the national health plans are quite adequate for your needs, especially as a younger person. I believe they generally try to allocate a greater amount of the fund towards older people (CZR has a relatively high median age), but private insurance is available as well, and it is highly competitive, as many people carry both plans, and don't necessarily need their private insurance. It seems to be a single payer system that is very well run.
Wow. That sounds good indeed, no sarcism. If we could have a 15% flat tax that covered all these expenses, I would take that in an instant. I work one week a month just to pay for what comes out of my check. This doesn't include 7% sales tax, or $3000 per year property tax. I believe in the flat tax.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The flat tax includes income tax and an optional single payer health and retirement system. There is also a much higher sales tax in Europe than in the US.
And, understand, unless you are a licensed private business owner or freelancer in CZ, you don't even have to file a tax return.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now, I pay 25% of my household income towards a health care plan that covers almost nothing and spends years fighting over payments. For example, they tried to claim that my pregnancy was a preexisting condition. Based on how long I had had coverage with them, I would have had a nearly 2 year pregnancy in order for that to be true.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with flat taxes is they disproportionately penalize poor people, who must spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You know Mal, I hate it when people take specific cases as a means of disproving a larger point and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Do you not remember whining about people doing this to you?
The average waiting times for an entire country? A national story about people in a country choosing to pull their own teeth out rather than suffer and wait?
Not a specific case like "some people drop out of high school due to car accidents"
posted
Not really. There are lots of countries, and that teeth story is just about the same as the car accidents. People pull out their own teeth, people get in car accidents. Not all of them, not all the time, not everywhere.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law.
I'm not sure I can remember a time when they did.
I doubt anyone alive can remember those days. In the beginning, I'm sure the constitutionality of every bill was in the front of their minds and hotly debated.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The average waiting times for an entire country? A national story about people in a country choosing to pull their own teeth out rather than suffer and wait?
Once again mal, you are missing the point. What is the average waiting time for medical care in the US? How many people in the US choose to pull out their own teeth rather than pay for a dentist?
And lets not look at just one particular treatment, we need to look at all the reasons people might die or suffer from inadequate access to medical care.
And I gave you that number. In the US there are 109 preventable deaths per 100,000 people or 330,000 deaths every year that could have been prevented with adequate and timely access to medical care. The US has the highest rate of preventable deaths of any developed country.
That's right, no matter how many stories you find about Canadians and English dying in hospital waiting rooms, there are more stories out there about Americans dying for similar reasons.
The point isn't that those systems are flawless -- the point is that the US system is even worse.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
