I believe adequate health insurance policy implemented at the federal level would increase voter confidence.
Apologies if you answered this already - I looked, but couldn’t find anything.
Why is it desirable to preserve the distinction between federal and state powers?
So voters are generally adequately informed AND only vote for people whose political beliefs matches theirs perfectly one on one? For that matter, the desires of the majority are always what’s best for everyone as a whole?
I’d be more persuaded that your way was the best if your political side weren’t simultaneously loudly and firmly AGAINST changing the laws in the way you deem necessary to make government involvement in health care okay, and AGAINST (for only somewhat related reasons) giving those most vulnerable under our health care system any reasonably substantial help whatsoever other than “go ask someone for money.”
I may have missed it, but have you yet argued in this thread that the House version of the health care system is better for the people of the country, especially the ones who really need it? (In some way related to health care, I mean, not "they’re better protected against future completely hypothetical tyranny.) If it is, how?
Again, conservatives in power seem content to just walk away from the issue, saying it’s not their problem people are dying and going bankrupt, and that those really affected by this change don’t matter because they didn’t vote with the majority, and that nobody dies from lack of access to health care anyway (as reported spoken by a GOP representative). If the House bill truly reflects their ideas after seven years of complaints, why does anyone wonder why so many people are loudly against it? Why don’t their opinions (their LIVES) matter?
Let’s just go to a recognized authority on the matter, shall we?
Matthew 25:35-40, New International Version (NIV)
But some antebellum school of constitutional theory probably matters more, I get it.
…lets just be clear here Bricker. This isn’t a Great Debate.
This is witnessing.
“Unwise” is not an objective measure. Its a personal opinion. Without a way of objectively determining the degree of “unwiseness” then what is left to debate?
I think it is unwise to throw millions of people off healthcare so that “people understand that there is even a difference between federal and state power.” Do you know what would be an effective way of making sure people understood there is a difference between federal and state power? An education programme. Run by the states. Or by the feds. It wouldn’t really matter. (It doesn’t matter to me, anyway. I’m sure it matters to you.)
You think a lesson in civics is more important than peoples lives and wellbeing.
From the outside world looking in, this is quite simply horrific. The reverence for a document put together by a bunch of long-dead-white-dudes is astonishing. We live in a different world now. Maybe those long-dead-white-dudes got some things wrong. Maybe its time to listen to some other voices. Native Americans. People of colour. The LGBT community. Women. Because holy fuck there is a problem with diversity in the White House at the moment. The eight years of Obama showed a glimmer of what life would be like with more diverse voices in power. And what we are witnessing now is the backlash to that. (I’m not talking about you Bricker.) And that backlash is cruel, heartless, ill-thought-out and reactionary. It is a brutally horrible thing to watch.
I have a huge amount of reverence for the constitution…and a national health service act, creating a program like that of England, Canada, Australia (it’s a long list!) would not threaten the constitution in any way!
That’s the madness of this argument. It makes me think of people who damn the commerce clause, because it allows the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce…which means pretty much all large corporations.
You’re right: this isn’t 1835 any longer! It isn’t even 1935.
Is Social Security a danger to the Republic? Of course it is not! Every single argument made against universal health care in this thread, on the basis of constitutional vigor, could just as easily be made against Social Security – and yet we’ve had that for eight decades, and the states have not been subsumed under the Federal auspices.
Can anyone think of an instance when the argument of “state’s rights” has been not been used to the advantage of the majority over the minority?
The feds trying to take action against “sanctuary cities”.
H’m. Are the cities framing it that way?
Gay rights, marijuana decriminalization.
For the last time, health insurance is not health care.
Seems like a nitpick without a point.
Or BFD if you prefer.
No, it’s actually not a nitpick.
Yes. There is no other defence.
Then expand on it, explain why it’s so critical and actually contribute something to the thread.
H’m. Consider me schooled.
I’m not sure if John Mace is mocking the concept of tradition.
But tradition and precedent are very important. If we have a system in place that could provide the desired outcome why not work through the system?
Anyways, states vs national government? The states and individuals have many reserved powers. Why? That’s the historical and philosophical foundation of the US government.
But what would we lose or gain if the states ceased to exist? That’s a fascinating question.
I honestly have no clue but when I get to a computer tomorrow I’ll make an effort of pretending that I might.
All those people have a voice. They can use it. They can also get off their butts and vote.
And civic lessons are very important. And a lot of that backlash is against globalism.
…in the United States healthcare and health insurance are intrinsically linked: and I see no problem linking them together. If you aren’t covered by decent health insurance, you can’t get decent health care (unless you qualify for medicaid, etc.)
That isn’t the case in the rest of the world.
For example: I’m self employed. Over the last couple of years I have found it harder and harder to breath. Being the stubborn person that I am I didn’t do anything about it. And things got worse and worse and worse.
And then one day I was photographing a wedding and I couldn’t finish. My assistant had to pick up the camera and finish the job for me. The next day I went to the doctors, and he told me to go to the hospital.
I spent the next week in hospital. I had pneumonia: a complication due to the fact that I also was dealing with several major blood clots. “The good news” the doctor said to me “is that you aren’t dead.”
It took me about six months to get back to about half strength. I go to the hospital every three months for a check up with the cardiologist. The sleep unit identified problems with my sleep patterns, so I now a CPAP machine at my bedside and I wear a mask to sleep every night.
Total out-of-pocket expenses to me? $50.00 for the initial doctors appointment. $2.00 per item/per prescription for my drugs. Petrol and car parking fees. Thats it.
I don’t have to worry about getting bankrupted because I got sick. The people of my country have agreed that getting people better is a net-benefit to society. For me that means I continue to be self employed, paying GST monthly, paying income tax yearly. And business is better now than it was before I got sick. I had to completely restructure as a result of my illness. I have contractors working for me now covering events. My focus now is on marketing and growing the business. In the next couple of months I will be employing my first casual employees.
(From wiki)My country spends $3590.00 per person for the sort of healthcare I recieved. In the United States that figure is $9451.00. How can you guys be spending that sort of money and not be able to offer the same level of basic care as I get here? How on earth is that possible? We don’t have the same economies of scale. We are an isolated nation surrounded by oceans. What the fuck are you guys doing wrong?
…which people are you talking about? I’m speaking from the perspective of an outsider looking in. I don’t get a vote.
Then you should be advocating for civic lessons then. How many millions do you want to spend on an education programme to teach civics?
How effective has the last week been in teaching people there is a difference between federal and state power? Why do you think healthcare is the appropriate place to dish out civics lessons, and not the classroom?
How has the House passing “repeal and replace” been a backlash against globalism?