Originally posted by whodey Here is a thread dedicated to the notion of letting each individual state tackle health care reform and give the federal government the boot.
For those who oppose it, why do you oppose it?
The Federal Government offering a healthcare plan does no more to infringe upon a state's rights than does the Post Office.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper The Federal Government offering a healthcare plan does no more to infringe upon a state's rights than does the Post Office.
It infringes on the rights of the citizens who are taxed by the federal government for their health care plan. In addition, it will drive up the debt that all citizens are repsonible to pay down, thus, making it next to impossible for the state to impose taxes on its citizens for their possible plans.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra This would widen the gap between poor states like Texas and rich states like Massachusetts even more.
But the strange part is, Texans are conservative and those in Massachusetts not so much. So if by some odd chance the people of Texas decide to vote for their state to handle matters, who are you or I to deny them their right? In fact, what if they decide to vote down any state sponsered plan?
Originally posted by whodey Here is a thread dedicated to the notion of letting each individual state tackle health care reform and give the federal government the boot.
For those who oppose it, why do you oppose it?
Ha! Surely you jest. You are certainly a glutton for punishment my friend.
This will end with (I predict 3 - 4 at most) of your countryment locking arms with you. The vast majority of your countrymen, along with ALL of Europe and Asia (althogh they have no vested interest in the matter), will join in villifying you, your parents, children and pets for being mental midgets who had audacity to have given birth, co-habitated with or went on walks in your company, for being the ignorant, mindless savages for your even suggesting such a idea. 😀
Originally posted by whodey But the strange part is, Texans are conservative and those in Massachusetts not so much. So if by some odd chance the people of Texas decide to vote for their state to handle matters, who are you or I to deny them their right? In fact, what if they decide to vote down any state sponsered plan?
Well, you're all Americans aren't you? Why stop at the state level? Why shouldn't every county decide on its own health care plan? Or how about every household?
Originally posted by whodey It infringes on the rights of the citizens who are taxed by the federal government for their health care plan. In addition, it will drive up the debt that all citizens are repsonible to pay down, thus, making it next to impossible for the state to impose taxes on its citizens for their possible plans.
I can easily debate those, but was there something in your response about states rights?
Originally posted by MacSwain Ha! Surely you jest. You are certainly a glutton for punishment my friend.
This will end with (I predict 3 - 4 at most) of your countryment locking arms with you. The vast majority of your countrymen, along with ALL of Europe and Asia (althogh they have no vested interest in the matter), will join in villifying you, your parents, children and pets for b ...[text shortened]... your company, for being the ignorant, mindless savages for your even suggesting such a idea. 😀
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Well, you're all Americans aren't you? Why stop at the state level? Why shouldn't every county decide on its own health care plan? Or how about every household?
I suppose it depends on what the PEOPLE decide. Currently, the consensus about the federal plan is that the majority oppose it.
Originally posted by whodey I suppose it depends on what the PEOPLE decide. Currently, the consensus about the federal plan is that the majority oppose it.
Do they oppose it because it is run at the federal level? Would (any of) the same people who oppose the reforms on the federal level support the same reforms if they were applied on the state level?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper I can easily debate those, but was there something in your response about states rights?
There are a variety of ways to usurp state rights. The federal taxation for a health care plan is just an example. It is like telling someone they WILL buy a care, but then say you don't have to drive it. In fact, you can buy yourself a new car altogether. Of course, this makes it less likely you can buy another car and is simply ludicrous.
In short, the federal government should NOT be deciding such things. Under the constitution, their resposibilites include national defense and SECURING THE BORDERS and not so much as to how my child should be educated or the doctors he or she sees.
Originally posted by whodey I suppose it depends on what the PEOPLE decide. Currently, the consensus about the federal plan is that the majority oppose it.
The problem is just like Californians were LIED to about the bill for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, there are tons of people who still believe LIES about the healthcare bill.
1: The bill is for single payer coverage, i.e. Canadian style universal healthcare. That's a LIE.
Originally posted by whodey There are a variety of ways to usurp state rights. The federal taxation for a health care plan is just an example. It is like telling someone they WILL buy a care, but then say you don't have to drive it. In fact, you can buy yourself a new car altogether. Of course, this makes it less likely you can buy another car and is simply ludicrous.
In short, t ...[text shortened]... HE BORDERS and not so much as to how my child should be educated or the doctors he or she sees.
Didn't the constitution also say something about ensuring the wealth of the American people?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Do they oppose it because it is run at the federal level? Would (any of) the same people who oppose the reforms on the federal level support the same reforms if they were applied on the state level?
Thos within each state could decide this. That is the way that it was originally designed. Granted, you could use the same arguement about states deciding things as the federal government, however, there are advantages to the state deciding things over that of the federal government. I think we can both agree that the efficient way to go about governing is as close to the local level as possible. In addition, if all 50 states did their own thing, we could all sit back and watch some fail and some succeed. Then the models would be in place as to what to do and what not to do. In addtion, people could move to another state without leaving the country if they found the laws untenable.
15 Aug '09 14:20
state rights and health care
Back to Top