1 edit
Originally posted by monster truckA) The link is to a poll carried out in June 2007. What exactly does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
Apparently #1maurder doesn't actually know many people in Mass or access polling data to support his position.
http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1043
It's a mess in Mass, unless of course you're one of the people looking for handouts.😉
You may now continue with the unsupported, blanket generalizations.
Carry on smartly.
B) Here's an interesting Q & A from the poll:
4. Do you believe everyone has a right to healthcare?
Yes — 92%
No — 7%
Oddly enough, I would have answered "no" to that question.
Originally posted by no1marauderFunny, I would say no as well, because of the wording... The right to have health insurance.
A) The link is to a poll carried out in June 2007. What exactly does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
B) Here's an interesting Q & A from the poll:
4. Do you believe everyone has a right to healthcare?
Yes — 92%
No — 7%
Oddly enough, I would have answered "no" to that question.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt is the only way that representatives from various states may have a voice in stopping legislation that their constituents oppose nationally.
[b][...] matters like health care should be left to the states and not taken on by the federal government.
Maybe, but what does that have to do with filibustering?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy not leave it up to individual states? For example, if the people of MA want to continue their NHC program via big brother, let them. However, if the people of, say Texas, oppose state intervention then let them. After all, I thought the Democratic party was the party of being pro-choice?
A) The link is to a poll carried out in June 2007. What exactly does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
B) Here's an interesting Q & A from the poll:
4. Do you believe everyone has a right to healthcare?
Yes — 92%
No — 7%
Oddly enough, I would have answered "no" to that question.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThat's like saying, "Why not allow someone to detonate a nuclear bomb within city limits? I thought you were pro-choice"
Why not leave it up to individual states? For example, if the people of MA want to continue their NHC program via big brother, let them. However, if the people of, say Texas, oppose state intervention then let them. After all, I thought the Democratic party was the party of being pro-choice?
Apparently you think the term pertains to anything and everything so I'll educate you. "Pro-choice" is the commonly accepted label to describe someone who is pro - a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. The term specifically pertains that to that particular issue.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSo you are equating the people of a state voting not to have state run health care to detonating a nuclear bomb?
That's like saying, "Why not allow someone to detonate a nuclear bomb within city limits? I thought you were pro-choice"
Apparently you think the term pertains to anything and everything so I'll educate you. "Pro-choice" is the commonly accepted label to describe someone who is pro - a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. The term specifically pertains that to that particular issue.
Originally posted by whodeyWhy have a Federal government at all according to such "logic"?
Why not leave it up to individual states? For example, if the people of MA want to continue their NHC program via big brother, let them. However, if the people of, say Texas, oppose state intervention then let them. After all, I thought the Democratic party was the party of being pro-choice?
Originally posted by whodeySome states are trying to do just that. Virginia, for example..
Why not leave it up to individual states? For example, if the people of MA want to continue their NHC program via big brother, let them. However, if the people of, say Texas, oppose state intervention then let them. After all, I thought the Democratic party was the party of being pro-choice?
------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020103674.html
Virginia’s Democratic-controlled state Senate passed measures Monday that would make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a direct challenge to the party’s efforts in Washington to reform health care.
The bills, a top priority of Virginia’s “tea party” movement, were approved 23 to 17 as five Democrats who represent swing areas of the state joined all 18 Republicans in the chamber in backing the legislation.
The votes came less than a week after President Obama implored Democrats in Washington not to abandon their health-care efforts, urging them in his State of the Union address not to “run for the hills” on the issue.
But the action in Virginia, a state that backed Obama in 2008, could indicate that the president is failing to reassure members of his own party that current reform efforts remain worthwhile. The votes also suggest that Democrats on the state level fear that supporting health-care reform could be politically damaging, and their action could put pressure on members of the state’s congressional delegation who have been behind the effort.
------------
Colorado, and apparently 30 others as well..
------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/19/federal-health-care-foes-plot-for-state-opt-outs/
Lawmakers in 30 states are pressing for constitutional amendments to exempt individuals from the requirement to purchase health care, a pivotal piece of the legislation under debate in Congress.
In Colorado, organizers of a proposed ballot measure filed language with the state elections office Friday. They would like the state legislature to place the amendment on the ballot, but given that both houses are controlled by Democrats, that's unlikely.
"I want Colorado to become a sanctuary state for good health care," said Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, who is leading the ballot effort. "People are angry, and rightfully so. If the legislature's not going to step up and do something, then we're going to have to."
------------
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe question is: what method is most efficient? At what level of government should health care be regulated to get the best results? I don't think it would be a very good idea if a poor state like Texas has no health care for all its people while e.g. Massachusetts does, this will make the differences in wealth between the states even bigger.
Why should states not be allowed to deal with their own health care issues in favor of federal meddling?
Originally posted by SleepyguyApparently some people haven't got the news from 1865.
Some states are trying to do just that. Virginia, for example..
------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020103674.html
Virginia’s Democratic-controlled state Senate passed measures Monday that would make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a direct challenge to the party’ ...[text shortened]... s not going to step up and do something, then we're going to have to."
------------