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.
Again, I can easily debate those.
But you're brining up that individuals shouldn't have to pay taxes for things they don't approve of (good luck with that one) as a form of *individual rights.* That has nothing to do with states rights.
By offering Federally funded healthcare what rights are STATES being denied? What rights have STATES lost with the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper 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.
2: Euthanasia: LIE
3: Coves illegal immigrants: LIE
4: Death Panels: LIE
5: Rationing: LIE
Well perhaps instead of writing a bill that is thousands of pages long and written so that only a few can understand it misconceptions would not be so easily attainable, assuming they are misconceptions. In fact, why not introduce small reforms here and there that are easily understandable and easy to read? Oh thats right, then they could not sneak any of their agendas or pork in the bills. My bad.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper Again, I can easily debate those.
But you're brining up that individuals shouldn't have to pay taxes for things they don't approve of (good luck with that one) as a form of *individual rights.* That has nothing to do with states rights.
By offering Federally funded healthcare what rights are STATES being denied? What rights have STATES lost with the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid?
It is arguements such as this which has created such a bloated monster that the federal government has become. So I guess if the citizens like it and continue to like it if this bill is passed without a consensus approval, they can continue business as usual. However, if not, they need to work towards change.
Originally posted by whodey Well perhaps instead of writing a bill that is thousands of pages long and written so that only a few can understand it misconceptions would not be so easily attainable, assuming they are misconceptions. In fact, why not introduce small reforms here and there that are easily understandable and easy to read? Oh thats right, then they could not sneak any of their agendas or pork in the bills. My bad.
It is extremely difficult to cover all aspects of a new law, and in particular a large new program without it being lengthy. In addition, in order to cover all LEGAL ground and possible loopholes much of it has to be written using complex, legal jargin.
That being said, these "misunderstandings" are not misunderstandings. They are deliberate lies, misleads and deception.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper It is extremely difficult to cover all aspects of a new law, and in particular a large new program without it being lengthy. In addition, in order to cover all LEGAL ground and possible loopholes much of it has to be written using complex, legal jargin.
That being said, these "misunderstandings" are not misunderstandings. They are deliberate lies, misleads and deception.
Well when you INSIST on CREATING a new all encumpassing program such as this, perhaps there is no way around it. However, why must they create such monster programs to begin with? In fact, why not start with tort reform? Oh, thats right, the ones making these laws are lawyers so apparently we have a conflict of interest here. In fact, where in the bill is tort reform?
Originally posted by whodey 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 ...[text shortened]... people could move to another state without leaving the country if they found the laws untenable.
Why is it better if people in states decide rather than the American people as a whole (Obama clearly stated in his election campaign he wanted to reform the health care system)?
Originally posted by whodey Well when you INSIST on CREATING a new all encumpassing program such as this, perhaps there is no way around it. However, why must they create such monster programs to begin with? In fact, why not start with tort reform? Oh, thats right, the ones making these laws are lawyers so apparently we have a conflict of interest here. In fact, where in the bill is tort reform?
Sing it!! "Hello silence my old friend...."
A conflict of interest for who? What selfish conflict do which politicians have for offering people healthcare who otherwise couldn't afford it?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper A conflict of interest for who? What selfish conflict do which politicians have for offering people healthcare who otherwise couldn't afford it?
Originally posted by daniel58 They want power and control.
Oh, brother. You can argue that any bill is about "power and control"
But usually when someone says, "conflict of interest" it points to something specific. Like Cheney's affiliation with Halliburton and no-bid contracts can be interpreted as a conflict of interest.
Originally posted by generalissimo you're talking about the insurance companies right?
You can always trust the corporations. But the politicians whose election campaigns have been paid for by the same corporations are obviously foul and corrupt!
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Why is it better if people in states decide rather than the American people as a whole (Obama clearly stated in his election campaign he wanted to reform the health care system)?
Why? Are you seriously asking why? Would it not be better to please as much people as you can? The way to do it is to divide the power and let people live their own lives aside from king Obama and his cronies. Of course, I guess it would not please the oligarchy that are in power currently nor would it please those who dutifully defend them.
Originally posted by whodey Why? Are you seriously asking why? Would it not be better to please as much people as you can? The way to do it is to divide the power and let people live their own lives aside from king Obama and his cronies. Of course, I guess it would not please the oligarchy that are in power currently nor would it please those who dutifully defend them.
So why do you argue for the use of the state as "reasonable" place where power should be centered, instead of e.g. counties?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper Oh, brother. You can argue that any bill is about "power and control"
But usually when someone says, "conflict of interest" it points to something specific. Like Cheney's affiliation with Halliburton and no-bid contracts can be interpreted as a conflict of interest.
Where is the conflict of interest in this case?
So lets say, for the sake of arguement, that you are wrong and the proposed legislation ends up chasing all other health care packages away and we are left with no other choices? Is the federal government not empowered? They not only have access to your medical records, but they then are in a position to determine how and if you will get treated. Aside from this, the sheer amount of money flowing into the system and away from tax paying Americans further incrase the class gap between the elitists who serve in government and the average Joe.
Originally posted by whodey So lets say, for the sake of arguement, that you are wrong and the proposed legislation ends up chasing all other health care packages away and we are left with no other choices? Is the federal government not empowered? They not only have access to your medical records, but they then are in a position to determine how and if you will get treated. Aside fro ...[text shortened]... further incrase the class gap between the elitists who serve in government and the average Joe.
Providing insurance for all will increase the class gap...
state rights and health care
15 Aug '09 14:57
Back to Top