When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system - Las Vegas Sun News
As many have said from the start... the plan: destroy it, so we can take over the whole thing. [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Well they're doing a pretty ****ty job of destroying
Good, they should have started with a single payer system to begin with.
We knew this in the early primaries in 2008. This is why we didn't vote for him. Your information is 5 years behind the times.Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system - Las Vegas Sun News
As many have said from the start... the plan: destroy it, so we can take over the whole thing. [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Reid cited the post-WWII auto industry labor negotiations that made employer-backed health insurance the norm, remarking that “we’ve never been able to work our way out of that” before predicting that Congress would someday end the insurance-based health care system.
People may assume that single payer health care is something most conservatives should and don't support, but for this conservative, I consider basic health care for all to be something that a government should take on because of the massive nature of its impact on society and the wellbeing of its citizens.
We knew this in the early primaries in 2008. This is why we didn't vote for him. Your information is 5 years behind the times.
People may assume that single payer health care is something most conservatives should and don't support, but for this conservative, I consider basic health care for all to be something that a government should take on because of the massive nature of its impact on society and the wellbeing of its citizens. No first world society should have its people fearful of getting sick because such illness could bankrupt them and their family.
I'm not talking of the government taking over full control of the healthcare system, just ensuring all people have access to basic care and then leave the "extras" to individuals to purchase supplementary insurance for. Here in Canada, the system is evolving all the time, becoming more streamlined, and delisting serviwe ces which are then up to patients to cover, often through their own insurance. But purchasing that extra coverage is their choice, not a government mandate.
We have a Constitution. It limits what the federal government can do. Healthcare for all is not one of the items listed that they have the power to do. Amend the Constitution and then they can, until then, they have overstepped their boundaries. At a state level it is all fine and good (legal) but not at a federal level.
Could they work out a federal system that covers catastrophic only? Yeah, if they actually cared about the citizens and doing the right thing in the right way. But they do not, so they didn't go for that.
I think your Supreme Court, in its decision on Obamacare, indicated that the constitution did allow for universal healthcare at the federal level through the taxing authority granted the federal government under the constitution. It ruled the mandate was a tax. As such, there is no need for a constitutional amendment for the federal government to do what I suggested.
That the Supreme Court says something, does not mean it is correct. It is the same court that upheld slavery and segregation as legal at one point in time.
Even what they said as far as taxing was related to the mandate, and was pretty shallow on legal grounds.
ok, arboWe have a Constitution. It limits what the federal government can do. Healthcare for all is not one of the items listed that they have the power to do. Amend the Constitution and then they can, until then, they have overstepped their boundaries. At a state level it is all fine and good (legal) but not at a federal level.
Could they work out a federal system that covers catastrophic only? Yeah, if they actually cared about the citizens and doing the right thing in the right way. But they do not, so they didn't go for that.
i have emphasized the salient portion which gives basis for a national single payer systemWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
ok, arbo
here is the preamble to the Constitution:
i have emphasized the salient portion which gives basis for a national single payer system
Do you really not understand what a preamble is? Really? Because that's poor.
so, you want to wrap yourself in the Constitution while ignoring the preamble which asserts that we the people have adopted it
not surprising you would choose to ignore that which proves your ideology wrong
I don't ignore the preamble. I simply know what the purpose of a preamble is, whereas you appear not to. The preamble states the purpose of the document, why it was written, what it will cover. It is not 'law' as the rest of the document is. I don't know why you and so many others continue to not get that reality. To think the preamble is anything else it to show ignorance.
what you are telling us is that it is inconvenient for you to accept what the preamble says,
And they should've started with single payer to begin with. Too bad the country gets its panties in a wad with anything that smells remotely close to "socialism."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?