Obama Care

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I think a society that can ensure that it's citizens are provided for heathwise, must. For me, it goes back to how you define your level of civilization. What makes one country "third world" while another is first? A large component of the answer to that question is the quality of life of its citizenry. There is no more important issue than health, and there is absolutely no good reason that a society as advanced as ours should have a segment of the population without access to healthcare. In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.

so right now we are closer to 3rd world because we have private healthcare that provides above average healthcare to atleast 70% of the population, and emergency care to anyone who walks into an emergency room. In 1950s and 60s we were 3rd world?? what you speak of is madness sir. it is a failed philosophy that government can provide all. the backbone of america was in fact individuals holding their own responsibility for their needs, and the government providing an environment that allowed them to pursue it however they saw fit. as Trample said before, if you want to give your checks to the government fine, I prefer to give mine to charities and those in my area and my life who are needy. if we do that, those who are truly needy will certainly be cared for, even if they are reported as uncovered for the government's purposes.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

so right now we are closer to 3rd world because we have private healthcare that provides above average healthcare to atleast 70% of the population, and emergency care to anyone who walks into an emergency room. In 1950s and 60s we were 3rd world?? what you speak of is madness sir. it is a failed philosophy that government can provide all. the backbone of america was in fact individuals holding their own responsibility for their needs, and the government providing an environment that allowed them to pursue it however they saw fit. as Trample said before, if you want to give your checks to the government fine, I prefer to give mine to charities and those in my area and my life who are needy. if we do that, those who are truly needy will certainly be cared for, even if they are reported as uncovered for the government's purposes.

I know you didn't actually take anything i said to mean that we were closer to the 3rd world than first. My take is that to stay a first world going forward, we need to look at the areas we are currently lacking in. To me, that is healthcare, pure and simple. I don't think the gov't needs to be involved in all aspects of life, but this is one with which I have no issue.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I know you didn't actually take anything i said to mean that we were closer to the 3rd world than first. My take is that to stay a first world going forward, we need to look at the areas we are currently lacking in. To me, that is healthcare, pure and simple. I don't think the gov't needs to be involved in all aspects of life, but this is one with which I have no issue.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?

Well maybe we sould look at the current stuff that the goverment is doing wrong and fix them first before it tries to take on anything else. I'd take goverment run health Care if I could opt. out of SS and have back 1/2 of the money they have allready taken from me.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well maybe we sould look at the current stuff that the goverment is doing wrong and fix them first before it tries to take on anything else. I'd take goverment run health Care if I could opt. out of SS and have back 1/2 of the money they have allready taken from me.

See, that I'm ok with.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

See, that I'm ok with.

Problem is they don't have that money to give back to start with. They stole the money from SS and if any investor did anything close to that they would be in jail. See SS sould have been very easy for the goverment to run. You take in the money but it in a safe place then pay it back when the person retires. They even had the advantage if the person died with no family they goverment got to keep the money unlike a private investment companies. Now people want me to have the confidence in them to run Health Care which is 100% more complicated then saving for retirement.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Problem is they don't have that money to give back to start with. They stole the money from SS and if any investor did anything close to that they would be in jail. See SS sould have been very easy for the goverment to run. You take in the money but it in a safe place then pay it back when the person retires. They even had the advantage if the person died with no family they goverment got to keep the money unlike a private investment companies. Now people want me to have the confidence in them to run Health Care which is 100% more complicated then saving for retirement.

LOOOOL....they did, and many of them aren't going to go to jail.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOOOOL....they did, and many of them aren't going to go to jail.

Which investors stole money that are not getting prosecuted?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?

pursuit of happiness - for me, that means someone has a right to seek out happiness, thus limiting a government's right to interfere in your life; it does not mean that you have a right to medical care, simply that in the condition you are, no governmental rules or structures should infringe upon your abilities to your life's pursuits (obviously the most limited since your pursuits can't degrade another person's equally valid pursuit etc.)

life - health is intrinsic to this, but saying your health is a "right" is not the same as saying the government would give you healthcare... more so it means that others can't kill you or deprive you of health maliciously and get away with it

liberty - n/a for this discussion

again, being a part of a right does not immediately make it a government obligation to provide it. If the government ruled tomorrow that all Redskin fans are banned from using any doctor or seek out any medical treatments, that would be denying an inalienable right.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I know you didn't actually take anything i said to mean that we were closer to the 3rd world than first. My take is that to stay a first world going forward, we need to look at the areas we are currently lacking in. To me, that is healthcare, pure and simple. I don't think the gov't needs to be involved in all aspects of life, but this is one with which I have no issue.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?

also fascinating is that the Declaration of Independence was a treatise declaring freedom from oppressive government behavior. That your partial quote was actually used to say government should stay the heck away from these things. And now you use it to beg big brother to please please put people back under its thumb.

The founders wrote that to break from government and let men rise and fall on their own merits.

We certainly have come a long way my good people.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

also fascinating is that the Declaration of Independence was a treatise declaring freedom from oppressive government behavior. That your partial quote was actually used to say government should stay the heck away from these things. And now you use it to beg big brother to please please put people back under its thumb.

The founders wrote that to break from government and let men rise and fall on their own merits.

We certainly have come a long way my good people.

I don't see that a gov't option as being "oppressed." Let's not get crazy here, no one is inviting Queen Elizabeth over the pond. Specifically regarding taxation without representation, no one is doing anything with that. IF our elected officials pass some form of this plan, then it's the will of the people, maybe not all of the people, but the majority. It's not something being forced upon the taxpayers by the divine will of Lord Obama.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I don't see that a gov't option as being "oppressed." Let's not get crazy here, no one is inviting Queen Elizabeth over the pond. Specifically regarding taxation without representation, no one is doing anything with that. IF our elected officials pass some form of this plan, then it's the will of the people, maybe not all of the people, but the majority. It's not something being forced upon the taxpayers by the divine will of Lord Obama.

We don't need anyone else's queen, we've got our King Obama to save us.

The English were content as well under King George, they did not revolt, but our country was founded on individualism and limited government. We are well past anything King George ever imposed on the colonists. He would, in fact, have loved the trappings of the Presidency.