National Health Care
-
Trafik Jamz;286663 wrote:
Besides, auto insurance is cheap. Blown motors tend not to directly cause accidents either. What you are asking for is more like saying "why don't health insurance companies pay for toothpaste and deodorant"Auto insurance is relatively cheap, because it is actually insurance. Its only used when you have an accident or other major damage.
Health insurance is not really insurance. Its a convoluted savings plan where people throw money into a fund, and then take money back out according to the plan rules to pay for pretty much anything you go to the doctor/dentist for. Its stupid, why pay the insurance company money for a checkup so that they can charge you admin fees and pay the doctor instead of you paying them directly?
How cheap would auto insurance be if it covered day to day stuff like health insurance does? You can pay huge auto insurance premiums and then the insurance can pay for your gas, car wash, oil change, tires, a new turbo,
, etc. Would it be so expensive that 15 percent of the nation couldn't afford it, and we'd need government to supply it?DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;286662 wrote:
Damn Mitch, thats two posts in this thread that I don't really follow. :icon_scratch:So you are equating personal and government responsibility? Maybe I'm reading more into this than is there, but I read this as "you aren't loving your neighbor if you don't want the government to take money from everyone and supply health insurance in return.
This is the other post, I sort of chuckled at it, but I don't follow your point:
Originally Posted by DaveH
Using that argument, everyone should receive the same food and housing,etc, subsidized by taxes.obama wont live in the house across the street from me. you probably wouldnt either. i seriously doubt every american will be endowed with a fenced in home with rooms named after previous presidents and a security detail that could invade and capture botswana.
secondly, the govt already forces you to provide for others in the form of welfare and social security... where is the thread about personal responsibility and saving for your own retirement? why am i paying for you to retire? and why are you allowing me to? speak up dave and right the wrong. the govt is taking from me to make sure you can afford to drag race when your sixty five. i would sleep better knowing that money was spent saving lives and/or bettering those less fortunate, not padding an engineers vacation fund.
-
24valvenotak;286672 wrote:
secondly, the govt already forces you to provide for others in the form of welfare and social security... where is the thread about personal responsibility and saving for your own retirement? why am i paying for you to retire? and why are you allowing me to? speak up dave and right the wrong. the govt is taking from me to make sure you can afford to drag race when your sixty five. i would sleep better knowing that money was spent saving lives and/or bettering those less fortunate, not padding an engineers vacation fund.I think you'd be hard pressed to find a true conservative/libertarian who doesn't believe social security should also be done away with...
-
But...they had the house/senate/presidency for 6 consecutive years and there was never a concerted effort to eliminate any of those things.
And Dave, auto insurance also doesn't cover blown engines, bad belts, destroyed tranny's, busted axles/diffs, etc... So really you are comparing apples/oranges. there is no "major medical" for automobiles (aside from warranty's which could be argued is like paying for insurance on everything...only for a term) but more of an accidental death & disability policy (using health terms here for the analogy).
Of course you can argue that one does not NEED a car (especially in an urban environment....where they have public transportation) and that if you can't afford a car, you don't have one...whereas if you can't afford medical coverage required to live, it's not socially acceptable to just suggest that people off themselves.
-
24valvenotak;286672 wrote:
obama wont live in the house across the street from me. you probably wouldnt either. i seriously doubt every american will be endowed with a fenced in home with rooms named after previous presidents and a security detail that could invade and capture botswana.LOL. I'm still completely lost on this part ^^^^
24valvenotak;286672 wrote:
secondly, the govt already forces you to provide for others in the form of welfare and social security... where is the thread about personal responsibility and saving for your own retirement? why am i paying for you to retire? and why are you allowing me to? speak up dave and right the wrong. the govt is taking from me to make sure you can afford to drag race when your sixty five. i would sleep better knowing that money was spent saving lives and/or bettering those less fortunate, not padding an engineers vacation fund.^^^ Something we agree on, I would prefer SS were abolished. I would gladly bow out of it now if they would let me. Welfare.... Only to help someone who truly is trying but just had some shit luck and needs help for a short time. I'm not convinced that the government is the right entity to be deciding who gets help and how much $$ they get.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Trafik Jamz;286687 wrote:
But...they had the house/senate/presidency for 6 consecutive years and there was never a concerted effort to eliminate any of those things.Of course not, now that the government has taken everyones money and promised them a retirement fund, people are relying on SS. There isn't a snowballs chance in hades of repealing it. Thats the slippery slope of socialistic programs. You get people to rely on them and they just grow bigger, never smaller.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Trafik Jamz;286687 wrote:
But...they had the house/senate/presidency for 6 consecutive years and there was never a concerted effort to eliminate any of those things.Big problem here is you are assuming the people running as "conservatives" or "liberals" are actually in belief of the system they run off. Most of the time it seems they get elected and start voting with the old boys club and occasionally vote to please their constituents. Term limits on congress or the election of reps. who actually reflect the beliefs of the people who vote them in would be a good start...but that's assuming most voters give a shit or know what they are doing when they cast their ballot. BIG IF.
-
I agree with you 100%. Term limits are a must if we really want "change" in this country. Career politicians tend to think only of their own best interests it seems....and their constituents are basically forced to re-elect them as they don't want to give up the seniority.
-
StangerBanger96;286708 wrote:
Big problem here is you are assuming the people running as "conservatives" or "liberals" are actually in belief of the system they run off.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are two of the emptiest sounds in today's political vocabulary: they have become rubber words that can be stretched to fit any meaning anyone cares to give them - words that can be used safely by any speaker who wants to be misunderstood in the greatest number of ways by the greatest number of people."
-Ayn Rand -
-
US Constitution wrote:
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of CongressThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and <u>general Welfare of the United States</u>; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Ok, so I started reading the constitution to see what it has to say about the limits of social programs and so forth. The above is Article 1 Section 8. The first paragraph (Bold Italic above) talks about collecting taxes to pay debts, for defense and for the "general welfare" of the country. Ok, so I know that "welfare" now doesn't mean the same as welfare when the constitution was written, so I looked in the American Heritage Dictionary and found the following as the definition: welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD Whereas todays definition is 1(a): aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need (b) : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed.
Even with a differing definition from now vs then, I can see how someone can make the conclusion that since welfare was defined as "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being." and that the constitution allows for the taxing to help pay for the welfare of the USA, that it would then be constitutional for the government to tax it's citizens (albeit equally) to ensure the health and well-being of all be protected.
I'm still not in favor of it, but...well, you guys know me, I love a good debate.
-
Trafik Jamz;287175 wrote:
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD Whereas todays definition is 1(a): aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need (b) : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed.Then one could start debating what defines true health, happiness, prosperity, and well-being. I might say it's having clothes on your back, a roof over your head, and regular meals. Someone else might say it's universal healthcare, an xbox360/ps3 with a 56" 1080P LCD TV, 2 sports cars, etc.
The "poor" in this country are thousands of times better off than the poor in other countries...hell...poor people in this country often times have the items I just listed, they just lack money smarts. They'll buy dounuts, nice cars, A&F clothing, and then bitch that they don't make enough to support a family of 18 and provide health coverage and pay the rent.
-
The introductory statement to the article and section is where "General Welfare" appears, and the enumerated powers are listed subsequently.
Furthermore, the welfare is of the states, not of individuals.
IOW, providing for the general welfare of the United States is the pourpose of A1S8, and the specific enumerated powers of the federal government in doing so are thusly listed.
(You'll note that the constitution doesn't allow us to pay for an Army without re-funding it every 2 years. I wonder if that happens)
Can you, with a straight face, given what the enumerated powers of this section are, also say that "to give everyone health insurance to keep them healthy" belongs here?
-
thrash;287282 wrote:
The introductory statement to the article and section is where "General Welfare" appears, and the enumerated powers are listed subsequently.I guess I read that slightly different...that it wasn't an introductory statement but rather the first point of the listings of the powers of congress.
Furthermore, the welfare is of the states, not of individuals.
I agree with you on this. Though one might make the argument that the welfare of the people of the United States could be implied (depending how you define welfare).
IOW, providing for the general welfare of the United States is the purpose of A1S8, and the specific enumerated powers of the federal government in doing so are thusly listed.
Again, it depends if you read the opening line as one of the powers or as the introduction. I guess I read it as one of the powers based on punctuation (ends with a semicolon, meaning that it was the first point rather than a colon which would mean "here are the powers as follows")
(You'll note that the constitution doesn't allow us to pay for an Army without re-funding it every 2 years. I wonder if that happens)
No disputes
Can you, with a straight face, given what the enumerated powers of this section are, also say that "to give everyone health insurance to keep them healthy" belongs here?
Again, it depends on your interpretation of the first line. <u>While I have (repeatedly) said that I don't agree with a gov't provided healthcare solution,</u> I don't think it is unconstitutional to have one. The supreme court of the 1930's (which by most accounts was comprised of 4 conservatives, 3 liberals and 2 swing votes...one of which normally sided with the conservatives) apparently felt it was constitutional to create the social programs that we have today, otherwise they would have struck them down. Right?
Very good read indeed.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login