The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[SkywardET]

Can someone PLEASE explain to my dumb ass how NOT passing gov't run healthcare is going to cause the federal gov't to go bankrupt? Cause I just don't get it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldne...-if-health-care-costs-are-not-reigned-in.html

The argument is essentially this:

1. Government already pays for enormous portions of health care, beyond MediCare and MedicAid.
2. Costs will continue to climb at double-digit rates, further increasing the price paid until the US Government cannot afford it any longer.

What is not really being addressed is, say, the trillions in bailouts/stimulus passed between the Bush's second and third terms, as well as all of the enormous commitments to welfare and warfare the government has obligated itself to.

Also not addressed is the fact that all policies being seriously considered right now will, in fact, only increase the cost of health care access.

 

[Clux4]

As do I. But don't bring up the Constitution in the name of compromise if you are unwilling the accept it as it is. Great, the Founders compromised, which is even more reason why it should be more closely followed. The issue I have is that we (the right) have to keep compromising and compromising and compromising in the direction of the left. The Founders did the compromising for us, yes?

Definitely not on healthcare reform.

 

[SkywardET]

Definitely not on healthcare reform.

The whole concept was not a compromise at all between left/right. Any traditional measure would clearly define it as partisan, with the only driving consideration being vote number 60. Some will benefit from the changes, but the balance of change will be negative.

 

[Random8145]

Certain things I would say simply cannot be compromised. For example, the Democrats would want a healthcare "reform" bill with the public option, and for "compromise" they might want to give Republicans some tax cuts.

But on something like that, there is no compromise, because a public option is a trojan horse to create single payer. Plus, considering we cannot afford Medicare and Medicaid as is, it seems ludicrous to add yet another entitlement.

So Republicans would stonewall the entire bill nonetheless.

 

[Flash]

you may want to pass that little tidbit of compromise along to your fellow Democrats.

I think the current health care debate is a perfect example of compromise in our government, the proposed bills are full of them. But then again, you might think the whole thing is unconstitutional.

As do I. But don't bring up the Constitution in the name of compromise if you are unwilling the accept it as it is. Great, the Founders compromised, which is even more reason why it should be more closely followed. The issue I have is that we (the right) have to keep compromising and compromising and compromising in the direction of the left. The Founders did the compromising for us, yes?

As it is or as it was? You keep claiming that we should follow the Constitution as closely to the original intent as possible, but what exactly about the current structure of our government is unconstitutional? That includes the onerous government regulation and intrusion of it into our lives that you have been railing against.

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that prohibits that type of structure or regulation. Nor do I see that realistically being done away with. Especially since every modern society in the world has much of the same, show me a place that doesn't and I will show you a third world shithole.

Well, we'll see, won't we?

Yes, one thing we can agree on.

Interesting points that sparked a thought here. Should the allegiance of the government be to the desires of the people, or to the Founders who purposely built in mechanisms within our system of government so that it would grow with an evolving society. At what point does a strict constructionist view of the Constitution become a handcuff on society, whose opinions, views and philosophies have changed over the years? One can argue that the constitutional amendment is the proper vehicle to accommodate such change. If you buy that argument, then the 16th amendment ought to be viewed as the will of the people until such time as it is repealed. Discuss.

Brett

I don't think it is an either/or proposition, I think they have been and continue to be compatible even today.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Definitely not on healthcare reform.

You're right on that one. Universal Health Care (which really isn't universal) is getting rammed down our throat. See my first point in that same post. There are lots of ways we can reform health care and make it more affordable/accessible for folks without spending a dime. The Dems are not interested in pursuing any of those notions because they actually decrease the amount of power they would have over you instead of increasing it, which is what they're after.

 

[Clux4]

You're right on that one. Universal Health Care (which really isn't universal) is getting rammed down our throat. See my first point in that same post. There are lots of ways we can reform health care and make it more affordable/accessible for folks without spending a dime. The Dems are not interested in pursuing any of those notions because they actually decrease the amount of power they would have over you instead of increasing it, which is what they're after.

I think you missed my point. You claim that the right is compromising in the direction of the left. With regards to healthcare reform, that was not the case. There is no compromising anywhere.

If Republicans were truly concerned about healthcare reform, they would have proposed a plan to show their supporters as a viable alternative, but they did not. They are bitter about the fact that they are the minority and that the political horse trading can continue without acknowledging their presence.

There is compromise in Washington when everyone is getting something. Republicans are being left out of this pie sharing and they hate it. Of course no one here is naive to believe the bill is not being filled with pork. I mean, when was the last time a bill was passed without pork?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I think you missed my point. You claim that the right is compromising in the direction of the left. With regards to healthcare reform, that was not the case. There is no compromising anywhere.

No, what I claim is the right HAS compromised in the direction of the left. If they hadn't we wouldn't be in the position we are today.

If Republicans were truly concerned about healthcare reform, they would have proposed a plan to show their supporters as a viable alternative, but they did not.

They have but I'm guessing because of your political leaning, you have chosen to disregard it or you get your news from liberally biased sources. I honestly don't know. But they have proposed ideas that have been ignored. But to be perfectly honest all that is moot to me. I really have no desire for the Republicans to compromise on a bill that at it's core is unconstitutional.

There is compromise in Washington when everyone is getting something. Republicans are being left out of this pie sharing and they hate it.

Pie sharing of what? I thought all this was for the good of the people.

Of course no one here is naive to believe the bill is not being filled with pork. I mean, when was the last time a bill was passed without pork? [/QUOTE][/quote]And you're ok with this?

 

[exhelodrvr]

If Republicans were truly concerned about healthcare reform, they would have proposed a plan to show their supporters as a viable alternative, but they did not. They are bitter about the fact that they are the minority and that the political horse trading can continue without acknowledging their presence.

Actually, they did. There were at least 3 proposals sponsored by Republicans or co-sponsored by Repubicans and Democrats.

 

[Clux4]

And you're in the military??

You bet!
If we are going to spend our lives worrying about how the founder's intended it.

We need to stop worrying about the founders and bring ourselves to the realization to the fact that we need to do what is necessary in our time. Much credit is to be given to our founding farthers for the near infallible constitution that they created. But we also have to remember that we are so many years removed from that span of time and some variables might not necessarily hold true. (I think I am paraphrasing something Brett mentioned a few days back).

So, I don't agree with you that universal healthcare is unconstitutional. It is the right thing considering where we are today.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

You bet!
If we are going to spend our lives worrying about how the founder's intended it.

We need to stop worrying about the founders and bring ourselves to the realization to the fact that we need to do what is necessary in our time. Much credit is to be given to our founding farthers for the near infallible constitution that they created. But we also have to remember that we are so many years removed from that span of time and some variables might not necessarily hold true. (I think I am paraphrasing something Brett mentioned a few days back).

So, I don't agree with you that universal healthcare is unconstitutional. It is the right thing considering where we are today.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

You bet!
If we are going to spend our lives worrying about how the founder's intended it.

We need to stop worrying about the founders and bring ourselves to the realization to the fact that we need to do what is necessary in our time. Much credit is to be given to our founding farthers for the near infallible constitution that they created. But we also have to remember that we are so many years removed from that span of time and some variables might not necessarily hold true. (I think I am paraphrasing something Brett mentioned a few days back).

So, I don't agree with you that universal healthcare is unconstitutional. It is the right thing considering where we are today.

If we as a country decide we don't care about what the Founders intended, why don't we do it properly and amend the Constitution. If anytime we want to do something that may be outside the bounds of the Constitution, we just use the excuse, 'well times have changed,' then what is the point of having a Constitution? Shouldn't we clarify what parts fit the needs of our time and what parts don't? Even if universal healthcare is the 'right' thing to do, that doesn't make it constitutional.

Serious question, if the majority of our country does not want this bill (which they don't), is it still the right thing to do?

And on a more pragmatic level, does anyone really believe this bill will actually save money and decrease the deficit? Will future Congresses really have the fortitude, or the motivation, to make the unpopular cuts promised by the current bill? If not, shouldn't we figure out how we can pay for it?

 

[Spekkio]

I don't see any way it is possible, nor would do I think most Americans would want it when they see the reality of such an idea.

What reality? People were fine before social security, medicaid, medicare, a billion different federal agencies dedicated to digging holes, and universal healthcare.

I suppose the best thing that the Democrats have accomplished since FDR is convincing the public at large that all these things are essential to our lives. They aren't.

As far as SCOTUS, there are many cases where it has contradicted itself -- segregation, abortion, the death penalty, and drug laws come to mind. So when this occurs, are we supposed to believe that the current justices are more enlightened than the old ones? Vice versa? Or maybe, just maybe, we can read and interpret the document ourselves. It's written in plain English... doesn't take a rocket scientist...or a lawyer.

There is also the issue that not every law is challenged in front of the SC, and the SC can deny to hear cases.

 

[Brett327]

Shouldn't we clarify what parts fit the needs of our time and what parts don't?

Like what, the federal income tax? What other examples/issues are to talking about?

Serious question, if the majority of our country does not want this bill (which they don't), is it still the right thing to do?

How do we know they don't? Please don't cite the latest FOX Opinion Dynamics or CNN poll. Besides, we can't determine whether the people support "this bill" until the bill in question is in its final form, so it's a little premature to be declaring what the will of the people is. At any rate, as some have already pointed out, this is a republic, not a pure democracy, so if our representatives are going off the reservation, then it's the fault of the voters and they should be defeated during the next election. The people reap what they sow, and if the general public is too stupid or lazy or distracted by what Paris Hilton is wearing to get involved in the issues, then they deserve the crappy system of socialized medicine that is bearing down on them like a freight train.


Brett

 

[jtmedli]

You bet!
If we are going to spend our lives worrying about how the founder's intended it.

We need to stop worrying about the founders and bring ourselves to the realization to the fact that we need to do what is necessary in our time. Much credit is to be given to our founding farthers for the near infallible constitution that they created. But we also have to remember that we are so many years removed from that span of time and some variables might not necessarily hold true. (I think I am paraphrasing something Brett mentioned a few days back).

So, I don't agree with you that universal healthcare is unconstitutional. It is the right thing considering where we are today.

Where are we today? What happens tomorrow when we're 1.4T more in debt because of this Healthcare Bill. Don't even begin to think that's what this is going to actually cost.

I think you're missing the point all-together. The bill IS unconstitutional because it A)interferes with American way of life and the ability for us to choose what we want by allowing the govt to create socialist options and laws which interfere with insurance company's ability to offer us what we want and B)the general welfare clause (which is the whole basis for this bill) has little to nothing to do with healthcare or other economic basis.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AND

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

IF you interprete the constitution loosely enough to think that Universal Healthcare falls under that clause then the whole thing may as well be toilet paper to you. The fact of the matter is that this bill has more to do with what people want govt to do for them, than what they want to do for themselves (demonstrated so well by your previous post). The republicans have put plenty of viable alternatives to bringing costs down that the dems wouldn't even look at so don't even tell me that this bill is what the American People want. Furthermore, this administration knows that this monstrosity of spending and carelessness wouldn't even pass if they waited 6 more months and that should say something for itself.