Do We Need National Health Care?

[Goobieman]

Second response:::::::
I have answered the question, but I will say it again, YES, if it will benefit the American people......absolutely. That is why the bill of rights was created.

In case you didnt notice, I said this issue was settled -- you would have the Constitution amended to allow the gvmnt to create NHC.

This leaves three questions unaddressed.

 

[alphieb]

Another response::::::::::::::::::::

First of all who said this has anything to do with the constitution. Believe or not this outrageous so called health care system of ours is dragging the middle class down and in turn hurting our economy. How would you be personally responsible for "strangers" when you would benefit from it to? Having said that, do you have health insurance? I bet your premium out weighs what you would pay in taxes. $400.00 per month per family plan is outrageous. You must be single.
__________________

And these are the answers to your questions.

 

[alphieb]

No, you havent.

The 'answer' you gave them consisted of a question asked in return. You did not give a direct answer to the question.

And if the Dems do take over the house and so pass NHC w/o an amendment to that effect, will you support it or oppose it?

I'm sure it will be done in pursuant with Amendment V.

 

[Goobieman]

How would you be personally responsible for "strangers" when you would benefit from it to?

This isnt an answer to my question, its you asking a question in an attempt to NOT answer my question,

NHC will use my money to take care of other people, which in effect says that I am responsible for taking care of these people.

How/why am I responsible for taking care of 300M+ strangers?

 

[Goobieman]

I'm sure it will be done in pursuant with Amendment V.

What does Amendment V have to do with anything?

 

[alphieb]

What does Amendment V have to do with anything?

Never mind...... well actually that is the amendment that allows for amending. That is the one I just sited. What do you propose?

 

[Goobieman]

Never mind......

Do you mean Article V? The Amendment Process?

You REALLY think that any NHC plan will involve a Constitutional amendment -- when Medicare/medicaid already exists sans said Amendment?

Really?

And I ask again:
If NHC passes into law w/o an amendment, will you support it, even though there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the power to create it?

 

[Harshaw]

I just find it ironic that most of the people bleating about the Patriot Act allowing the Federal government access to book-borrowing records also, for some reason, want to hand over EVERYONE'S medical records to them.

:rofl

 

[alphieb]

Do you mean Article V? The Amendment Process?

You REALLY think that any NHC plan will involve a Constitutional amendment -- when Medicare/medicaid already exists sans said Amendment?

Really?

And I ask again:
If NHC passes into law w/o an amendment, will you support it, even though there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the power to create it?

Article V does............this is a circular debate.

 

[alphieb]

I just find it ironic that most of the people bleating about the Patriot Act allowing the Federal government access to book-borrowing records also, for some reason, want to hand over EVERYONE'S medical records to them.

:rofl

I don't follow you?

 

[Goobieman]

Article V does............this is a circular debate.

Becayse you keep running around in circles trying to avoid the issues presented to you.

-I ask you about the Constiutution.
-You (eventually) say it needs to be amended.
-You say you think NHC will pass if the Dems win the house.
-I ask you if you will support it if it passes w/o said amendment.
-You say it will probably pass pursuant to said amendmen tbing passed

You havent answered the question:

1) Do you REALLY think the Dems will bother passing the amendment when medicare.medicaid already exist sans amendment?

2) That doesnt answer the question --- will you or will you not support it if the law is passed w/o any such amendment?

And there are still three other questions you havent answered.

 

[aquapub]

And yet again -- you dont address the questions, you simply make snide remarks.
:rofl

Amen. Arguing with most of the regular liberals here almost seems unfair because they are so immature and laughably unequipped for debate.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't follow you?

And the irony continues to mount.

 

[dragonslayer]

I agree with the options. We don't need a National health plan. it is ok that Children are dying, that people can't afford the cost of health care and medicine. Screw the old folks with Cancer and diabetes. They need to die and unburden loyal Americans. Business now agrees. we business men and women are doing our best to make sure that we don't have to pay for health care for our workers and best of all we are coming up with phoney reasons to lower wages, accept for Ceos and other leaders. We are getting richer, the middle class is fading away, and the top 10% of loyal Americans like me are getting richer. They taught me at Harvard that the only true americans are the rich, and everyone else is just cannon fodder.

 

[alphieb]

Becayse you keep running around in circles trying to avoid the issues presented to you.

-I ask you about the Constiutution.
-You (eventually) say it needs to be amended.
-You say you think NHC will pass if the Dems win the house.
-I ask you if you will support it if it passes w/o said amendment.
-You say it will probably pass pursuant to said amendmen tbing passed

You havent answered the question:

1) Do you REALLY think the Dems will bother passing the amendment when medicare.medicaid already exist sans amendment?

2) That doesnt answer the question --- will you or will you not support it if the law is passed w/o any such amendment?

And there are still three other questions you havent answered.

Answers:

1. medicare/medicaid is not working, people are still having trouble obtaining and affording HC. So therefore, yes I know they will if they get the majority of the house. Clinton proposed it.

2. The law will be passed pursuant to Article V as I have already posted and discussed and If it wasn't I would still support it.

 

[alphieb]

Amen. Arguing with most of the regular liberals here almost seems unfair because they are so immature and laughably unequipped for debate.

And name calling is real mature?????????

 

[Goobieman]

Answers:

1. medicare/medicaid is not working, people are still having trouble obtaining and affording HC. So therefore, yes I know they will if they get the majority of the house. Clinton proposed it.

This doesnt even come CLOSE to answering the question!

WHY do you think that the dems with bother passing an amendment to create NHC when Medicare/medicaid already exists w/o any such amendment

2. The law will be passed pursuant to Article V as I have already posted and discussed and If it wasn't I would still support it.

In order to be passed "pursuant to article V" there must first be an amendment to the constitution -- see the question above.

But, you're apparently willing to support a law that exceeds the limits of the power granted to the fed Gvmtn because you think its a good idea.

So, what argument do you have against the gvmnt doing ANYTHING that exceeds its power, if all thats necessary for exceeding its power being acceptable is that whatever it is, its a "good idea"?

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Goobieman,

While I love the argument you persent I think it is a bit off topic. We should focus on the viability of NHS. Do you think it can work?

 

[Goobieman]

Goobieman,

While I love the argument you persent I think it is a bit off topic. We should focus on the viability of NHS. Do you think it can work?

Well, aside from the fact that the Constitutional, personal responsibility and property rights issues are perfectly legitimate arguments against NHC...

No.
Take a look at the VA system. Extrapolate that to the health care system across the entire US.

NHC is nothing more than a way to get more governmental control over peoples' lives.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Goobieman,

Well, aside from the fact that the Constitutional, personal responsibility and property rights issues are perfectly legitimate arguments against NHC...

No.
Take a look at the VA system. Extrapolate that to the health care system across the entire US.

NHC is nothing more than a way to get more governmental control over peoples' lives.

I see so that's what your getting at... Thank you.

 

[The Mark]

National Health Care:

At the moment, I think it is a bad idea.

However, I might change my mind if it could be shown that creating a NHC system would:

1. Lower or at least not increase my taxes.

2. Increase the availability of affordable health care to everyone.

In general, I might support some kind of system if it was better than the current system in terms of how much money it required (efficient, less money needed, etc.), and at the same time increased the quality and quantity of health care available to people who required it.

This seems to be a very unlikely possibility, because most times when some government-run thing gets "better", it requires more money to do so.

So, if someone who thinks it is a good idea would please post information that supports said idea (links to people saying that it is a good idea do not count), I would be happy to try and find the problems with their arguments (if there are any).

 

[aquapub]

do you have any links or evidence for this?

1) I wrote a paper on this using data from a couple books on the subject, sources on Lexis Nexis, and at the Library of Congress. I am at work right now and don't have access to it all, but here are a couple things I remember from it:

Socialist economies are always running at a crawl...

France's economic growth rate was 2.2%, and falling, for years. Germany's growth rate was 1.1%, and falling, for years. The U.K. was slightly better, but not by much.

America's growth rate was 5.4%, and growing, for years...and 5.4% of AMERICA'S economy is much more than 5.4% of France's, Germany's economies, even combined.

Socialists try to argue that this can be explained by our superior resources, but look at Hong Kong...Devoid of ANY natural resources from go, yet one of the most thriving metroipolises in existence. Not coincidentally, Hong Kong has spent nearly every second of its existence as one of the LEAST regulates-i.e., LEAST Socialist-countries in the world.

They have policies in socialized countries that make it nearly impossible to fire incompetent workers (until recently, which is one of the reasons they are rioting in France)...thank you, Socialism.

Socialism has gone so far in many European countries that people have stopped reproducing (between abortion, contraception, no need for children due to abundant social programs, etc.). By around 2050, these countries will find themselves having to import huge immigrant workforces to generate wealth (to support the ENORMOUS costs of all the expensive programs) and they will become drastically Asian and Muslim nations seemingly overnight.


2) An MSNBC report trying to explain the recent riots mentioned that it takes an average of FIVE YEARS for people to find jobs in France after college.


3) Socialism is why gas prices in Europe are at, what is it now, $6.00/gallon?


4) John Stossel (Libertarian ABC reporter) wrote a book called, "Give Me A Break." He writes about how places like India, which have traditionally been EXTREMELY Socialist (hence, economically stagnate) have recently exploded economically as they have enacted more and more deregulation-i.e., as they have moved AWAY from Socialism.

5) Everything public sucks. Everything private is cheaper, faster, and better (because profits dictate making things cost effective)-i.e., Socialism sucks at meeting people's needs and at allowing an economy to function.

Think about it...

Public schools, private schools; public housing, private housing; how well is your BMV run? My guess is, not well-because it is controlled by the government, as are ALL things under Socialism.

And don't tell me it's about funding. Washington D.C. schools are the most over-funded schools in the country and they are near the bottom.

 

[The Mark]

Very interesting, aquapub.

It seems to me that if you follow that train of thought a little bit farther, you should come to the conclusion that there needs to be fewer regulations here in the US.

 

[aquapub]

Very interesting, aquapub.

It seems to me that if you follow that train of thought a little bit farther, you should come to the conclusion that there needs to be fewer regulations here in the US.

Of course. I strongly advocate aggressive deregulation.

 

[jfuh]

Socialists try to argue that this can be explained by our superior resources, but look at Hong Kong...Devoid of ANY natural resources from go, yet one of the most thriving metroipolises in existence. Not coincidentally, Hong Kong has spent nearly every second of its existence as one of the LEAST regulates-i.e., LEAST Socialist-countries in the world.

Hong Kong has a huge resource known as the Zhu River. China allowed hong kong to essentially utilize that entire region as it's factory.
HK does have socialized medicine.

They have policies in socialized countries that make it nearly impossible to fire incompetent workers (until recently, which is one of the reasons they are rioting in France)...thank you, Socialism.

SCandanavia seems to be doing just fine. Is it the socialist policies or corrupt officials that work in the interest of big business?

Socialism has gone so far in many European countries that people have stopped reproducing (between abortion, contraception, no need for children due to abundant social programs, etc.).

What does reproduction have anything to do with anything? More industrialized nations or automated nations require less manpower. SErvice based economies do not require a large population. Not to mention the fact that you're premise is completely false. Middle European countries exhibit an equilibrated population growth.

By around 2050, these countries will find themselves having to import huge immigrant workforces to generate wealth (to support the ENORMOUS costs of all the expensive programs) and they will become drastically Asian and Muslim nations seemingly overnight.

Global economy, no need to import workers, just outsource. Finally what's wrong with opening doors for immigration? You make it sound like a bad thing.

2) An MSNBC report trying to explain the recent riots mentioned that it takes an average of FIVE YEARS for people to find jobs in France after college.

Yep, this is a bad thing, but with a lowered population as per your former response this seems to be a self limiting problem.

3) Socialism is why gas prices in Europe are at, what is it now, $6.00/gallon?

It's always using the American formula to judge isn't it? For countries that do not require driving the way America does, gas prices are not that big an issue.

4) John Stossel (Libertarian ABC reporter) wrote a book called, "Give Me A Break." He writes about how places like India, which have traditionally been EXTREMELY Socialist (hence, economically stagnate) have recently exploded economically as they have enacted more and more deregulation-i.e., as they have moved AWAY from Socialism.

Yet even India still maintains it's socialized medicine.

5) Everything public sucks. Everything private is cheaper, faster, and better (because profits dictate making things cost effective)-i.e., Socialism sucks at meeting people's needs and at allowing an economy to function.

Total bullshit.
The healthcare program that Senators enjoy is quite good.
Not to mention are you questioning the quality of the US military? Last I recall the US military is very much publicly funded.

Public schools, private schools; public housing, private housing; how well is your BMV run? My guess is, not well-because it is controlled by the government, as are ALL things under Socialism.

HOw does the US military function, I guess by your logic not very well.

And don't tell me it's about funding. Washington D.C. schools are the most over-funded schools in the country and they are near the bottom.

It's not about funding alone, it's about allowing teachers to do what they do without restraining them this and that.
In Taiwan, the top schools are all public, oh yeah, there's also an excellent National Health Care System.