HillaryCare is back!

[Pabster]

Clinton AP Interview

This is interesting...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview ? like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I am willing to bet all I have that you haven't even seen the movie.

You're right. I don't watch left-wing propaganda.

Fixed. You're a funny one, alright.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Fixed. You're a funny one, alright.

At least you admit Sicko is nothing but left-wing propaganda...

I don't watch propaganda films no matter their political leanings.

 

[michaels]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Clinton AP Interview

This is interesting...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview ? like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

WOW wtf

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Clinton AP Interview

This is interesting...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview ? like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

My college required me to show proof of insurance or buy their insurance in order to attend.
It's nothing new, nor is it a bad idea. But of course just because she could envision it happening, doesn't mean she herself is proposing it.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: manowar821
Fixed. You're a funny one, alright.

At least you admit Sicko is nothing but left-wing propaganda...

I don't watch propaganda films no matter their political leanings.

You can't judge a movie without seeing it. I don't expect anything less than this kind of stupidity from you.

Judging something without seeing it.. and you think people take you serious when you blast things you haven't seen.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: ElFenix

and no 'health care' plan can work without proper support for the basics of health care: diet and exercise. otherwise it's really just medical care.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that.

i didn't say that anyone was disputing it. i'm saying that hillary's $110 billion dollar insurance industry subsidy (and it'll probably end up being more than that) isn't a health care plan. it's a medical care plan.

If anything, a government-funded healthcare plan would be more likely to stress diet and exercise: while the private healthcare industry relies on people coming in requiring service (and thus a sick person is better for business than a healthy person). A government program, by contrast, would benefit by spending less, and thus a healthy person not costing any money would be ideal.

insurance doesn't get anything from people being sick. they pay when people are sick, they don't pay when people are healthy. insurance has a profit motive to encourage healthiness. government has no particular motive for people living healthier lives.

doctors, on the other hand, do benefit from people being sick. but insurance companies are the debbil! (and doctors have worked harder than anyone to increase the cost of being healthy over the last century. without insurance companies we'd probably be paying even more.)

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp


Promote General Welfare?

three cheers for authoritarianism!

Okay...I guess that means being compelled to pay for a public fire department is also authoritarianism too, isn't it? Same deal with public education, police, sanitation, etc.

just because states (which have general police powers to begin with) are authoritarian in nature doesn't mean i have to like extending authoritarianism to the limited federal government as well, especially in ways that so benefit hill-dog's friends in the insurance industry.

 

[BarneyFife]

Like it or not, national health care will eventually come to the US. The rate at which health care costs are rising is taking away profits from big business. Give it 20 years and we will see a national health care plan not because of liberals but because the rich republicans will want to save money.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Like it or not, national health care will eventually come to the US. The rate at which health care costs are rising is taking away profits from big business. Give it 20 years and we will see a national health care plan not because of liberals but because the rich republicans will want to save money.

I certainly dont hope you have any illusions that once the government steps in it will be anywhere reasonable in cost...you think the high prices will be cut?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: manowar821
Fixed. You're a funny one, alright.

At least you admit Sicko is nothing but left-wing propaganda...

I don't watch propaganda films no matter their political leanings.

I wasn't admitting anything, I was putting words in your mouth for you, since you forgot to mention that you only skip on "propaganda" that doesn't fit your bill.

Whether or not I think it's propaganda is irrelevant (I actually haven't even seen it yet, so I'm still reserving judgment), the topic of my response was your blind partisan mentality.

I'll try not to make it so complicated next time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Promote General Welfare?

Promote != to provide.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Like it or not, national health care will eventually come to the US. The rate at which health care costs are rising is taking away profits from big business. Give it 20 years and we will see a national health care plan not because of liberals but because the rich republicans will want to save money.

And yet the democrats will be the ones who bring it to life.

Amazing how that works...................

 

[senseamp]

The current system is broken. Period. It had 15 years after it killed HillaryCare to do better its way. It failed miserably. Health coverage is even less affordable, and even more people are not covered. Time to stick a fork in it and start over.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't.

Ummm... I believe it could... and SHOULD... be considered well within the bounds of the mission statement of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you think otherwise, remember that when Marie Antoinette was told that the citizens had no bread, she lost her head when she told them, "Then, let them eat cake." Those grand benefactors of the Bushwhacko tax cuts for the wealthy may want to remember that, if you get enough people pissed because they're too poor to relieve their suffering, and you've got the makings of a fine revolution. :shocked:

Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.

And exactly what qualifies you as a Constitutional scholar?

Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Amazing the idiocy of some people who blame the problem, itself, instead of the morons who blew off their responsibilities and fscked up their job of taking care of it. :roll:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.

And exactly what qualifies you as a Constitutional scholar?

Probably listening to AM radio

 

[Starbuck1975]

Last I checked, we don't use Madison's opinions instead of the Constitution. We use what's written in the Constitution, which is the Congress can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, and medical care qualifies, which is why Medicare is perfectly constitutional and hasn't been overturned. You are going to tell me healthcare for the elderly is constitutional and healthcare for the young isn't? I'd like to see where YOU find that in the Constitution.

And last I checked, the writings of those who attended the Constitutional Convention have come into play in coming to understand the spirit and intent of the more broadly worded sections of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers could not envision the problems facing modern government, yet the Constitution continues to function as envisioned because of the broad language used to PREVENT the federal government from assuming an increasing number of powers and responsibilities.

Documentation such as the Federalist Papers, and other writings, are very much a part of our nation's heritage, and how we continue to interpret the Constitution.

It is open to debate as to whether or not medical care qualifies as general welfare...however, per your example, it would be against the general welfare if medical care became a function of class, race, gender or age.

yeah, amazing what is being accredited to being in the Constitution when THEY want its support, yet they are the first to scream "thats not whats really in there" when gun nuts for the same papers

Well that is the beauty of the Constitution...sometimes I think the Founding Father wrote the Constitution in vague terms for the sole purpose of ensuring that emerging topics and debates remained as such...and open to different viewpoints and perspectives...if the Constitution allowed the government to make decisions on all such topics in the name of general welfare, imagine the mess we would be in today.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Last I checked, we don't use Madison's opinions instead of the Constitution. We use what's written in the Constitution, which is the Congress can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, and medical care qualifies, which is why Medicare is perfectly constitutional and hasn't been overturned. You are going to tell me healthcare for the elderly is constitutional and healthcare for the young isn't? I'd like to see where YOU find that in the Constitution.

And last I checked, the writings of those who attended the Constitutional Convention have come into play in coming to understand the spirit and intent of the more broadly worded sections of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers could not envision the problems facing modern government, yet the Constitution continues to function as envisioned because of the broad language used to PREVENT the federal government from assuming an increasing number of powers and responsibilities.

Documentation such as the Federalist Papers, and other writings, are very much a part of our nation's heritage, and how we continue to interpret the Constitution.

It is open to debate as to whether or not medical care qualifies as general welfare...however, per your example, it would be against the general welfare if medical care became a function of class, race, gender or age.

You can interpret the Constitution or the Founders' intent however you want, but only what is written in the Constitution is the governing document of the United States, not opinions written by its authors elsewhere. If there was agreement on those opinions and that they were important, they would have been in the Constitution itself and ratified. You don't get to claim something is unconstitutional unless it violates the actual Constitution, not Madison's papers or Federalist papers, etc. Plus you completely dodged why Medicare hasn't been overturned as unconstitutional by the courts which are tasked with interpreting the Constitution if your case is so strong.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Clinton AP Interview

This is interesting...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview ? like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

My college required me to show proof of insurance or buy their insurance in order to attend.
It's nothing new, nor is it a bad idea. But of course just because she could envision it happening, doesn't mean she herself is proposing it.

Expect for the fact that you could have picked another college if you wanted. One that didn't require you to have health insurance.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Clinton AP Interview

This is interesting...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview ? like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

My college required me to show proof of insurance or buy their insurance in order to attend.
It's nothing new, nor is it a bad idea. But of course just because she could envision it happening, doesn't mean she herself is proposing it.

Expect for the fact that you could have picked another college if you wanted. One that didn't require you to have health insurance.

Really, which 4 year college would that be?

 

[ProfJohn]

Senseamp let me get this right:
I have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, the right to own guns, the right to a trial by my peers, the right to privacy (so I can have an abortion), the right to be secure in my person, houses, papers and effects, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to vote if I am a female or under 18 yet I don?t have the right to NOT have health insurance?

I don?t believe the courts will allow the government to ?force? people to have private healthcare insurance.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Senseamp let me get this right:
I have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, the right to own guns, the right to a trial by my peers, the right to privacy (so I can have an abortion), the right to be secure in my person, houses, papers and effects, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to vote if I am a female or under 18 yet I don?t have the right to NOT have health insurance?

I don?t believe the courts will allow the government to ?force? people to have private healthcare insurance.

Force, maybe not. Incentivise, yes. Why would an employer want to hire you if you decide to forgo government subsidized insurance? So it can have a sick employee making others sick?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

Where do you see Hillary proposing forcing anyone to do anything? Show that to me in her specific proposal. From what I see it's all incentives.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

Where do you see Hillary proposing forcing anyone to do anything? Show that to me in her specific proposal. From what I see it's all incentives.

From the article
"The New York senator said her plan would require every American to purchase insurance"

"The centerpiece of Clinton's latest effort is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance "

Require = force

BTW I love this bit:
"Clinton adviser Laurie Rubiner said the mandate could be enforced in a number of ways, such as denying certain tax deduction to those who refused to buy insurance. But she stressed that a specific mechanism would be worked out once the plan was passed."

Vote for the plan and let us work out the little details later.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think coming up with a way to help poor people get insurance is a good thing.

Having the government 'force' or 'require' you to get health insurance is a bad thing.