• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for

Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

If you notice, I am not against soldier's receiving benefits... I have said I can agree with it. People view my comments as controversial because they think my core message is that the military should not get benefits at all.

My argument is two-fold...

One, I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy innate to the anti-UHC arguments created by Conservatives. Whether or not I agree with the military getting said benefits is not the issue, but rather it is clearly okay for socialized health care to exist in some instances. It's just a matter of who we think is more deserving, and that is subjective no matter what way you slice it. I just happen to fall on the side that thinks giving it to the military is okay.

Secondly, because I come from a nation that supports UHC, I think it is double standard to give it to the military but not to civilians who are in turn paying for military health care anyway. Clearly there is a system of standarized care that can exist in a financially abundant sector of the U.S. (the military), so why is it so unfathomable and controversial to expand this system to everyone else? Like I said, I understand giving it to the military and they should receive it, but on those grounds, so should everyone else.

Orius, you can do one of two things:
1) ignore my post and keep saying the same thing over and over
2) address it

It's up to you.

Also, your ignorant stereotyping of the members of the military is not appreciated.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

What you (and others) continue to fail to see (or refuse to admit) is that health care for soldiers (or any other government employee) is NOT 'socialized medicine'. Its a benefit paid to employees by their employers as part of their job, rather than an entitlement owed to the citizenry in general, created by legislation.

And so, there is no 'conservative hypocricy' on this matter.

The premiums are paid for by tax payers, therefore it is publically subsidized and socialized. This has been addressed already by more than one person in the thread. Try to keep up.

Next...
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

The premiums are paid for by tax payers, therefore it is publically subsidized and socialized. This has been addressed already by more than one person in the thread. Try to keep up.

Next...

:waiting:...
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

The premiums are paid for by tax payers, therefore it is publically subsidized and socialized.
Wrong.
The difference has been explained to you.
You can continue to argue your error, but it will forever remain an error.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius, you can do one of two things:
1) ignore my post and keep saying the same thing over and over
2) address it

It's up to you.

Also, your ignorant stereotyping of the members of the military is not appreciated.

There is nothing in your post but partisan rants about your perception of the left (which I am not a member of), and a quote by Jallman which I already directly responded to earlier.

How am I stereotyping the military?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Wrong.
The difference has been explained to you.
You can continue to argue your error, but it will forever remain an error.

The most intelligent debaters in this thread have already agreed that it is socialized health care. Government workers and the military all receive benefits for working on the job, but the premiums for those benefits are paid for with tax dollars, hence socialized health care. You can continue to deny this point all you want... I will not argue it further. It is health care paid for through a socialized process, end of story.

If you post a valid counter argument I will gladly answer you, but if you continue to rehash the above over and over, a response will not be forthcoming.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I don't think that's money she receives. When you get a disability ranking that is just a percentage of your retirement pay that is tax-free. I'm not sure if that's what you were saying or not. Just wanted to clarify.

Not all people retire from the military, so not all are getting retirement pay.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

The most intelligent debaters in this thread have already agreed that it is socialized health care.
Logical fallacy -- an appeal to popularity.
If you were among the most intelligent debaters here, you'd realize that.

Thus:
The difference has been explained to you.
You can continue to argue your error, but it will forever remain an error.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

There is nothing in your post but partisan rants about your perception of the left (which I am not a member of), and a quote by Jallman which I already directly responded to earlier.

How am I stereotyping the military?

There was no partisan rant. Universal healthcare is a leftist doctrine based on redistribution of wealth. Please address my post.

If the legislations is on a go-forward basis, and does not include those already enlisted (and thus legally binded to what the original contract said they'd be entitled to), then I see no foul play. If you volunteer for the military, you are volunteering to potentially die. You know the risks.

Practically all of the recent American wars have been offensive and not defensive. The soldiers aren't protecting anything that justifies dishing out billions to their health care. Also, how many people enlist in the military just to get those benefits? The same goes for their education.

The military shouldn't be a free ride when everyone else has to pay out of pocket. And frankly, in these economic times, the military should not get half a trillion dollars in budget per year. I applaud Obama for seeking cut backs.

Nope, nothing wrong with that at all. "They're just in it for the benefits." The military's just a "free ride." Get a clue.

You do realize that this is because they are considered the "property" of the United States government, right? That they have their rights severely restricted during the course of their service and that the government is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of its property.

Since the government pays for oil changes and maintenance on its motor fleet, do you think it should pay for yours, too? Tell you what...when you start reporting for duty, gun in hand, ready to die for your country then you can bitch about the military being taken care of medically. When you let the government tell you where you can live, for how long, and when you can come and go when you get there, then you bitch about the benefits of the military.

Quoted again for truth.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

There was no partisan rant. Universal healthcare is a leftist doctrine based on redistribution of wealth. Please address my post.

If you truly believe that all your post mentioned was that UHC is an idea of the left, then there is nothing to discuss, as I agree.

Nope, nothing wrong with that at all. "They're just in it for the benefits." The military's just a "free ride." Get a clue.

That's twisting my words. Why don't you try addressing my reply to CC? I summarized my viewpoint therein. Until you attempt to form some kind of tangible argument, you have no business demanding replies from me.

What I said to Goobieman about further replies from me goes double for you.

Quoted again for truth.

I already responded to Jallman directly. Don't use his own arguments to back up your lack of one.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

What I said to Goobieman about further replies from me goes double for you.
This is usually what happens when someone knows he is wrong.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

If you truly believe that all your post mentioned was that UHC is an idea of the left, then there is nothing to discuss, as I agree.



That's twisting my words. Why don't you try addressing my reply to CC? I summarized my viewpoint therein. Until you attempt to form some kind of tangible argument, you have no business demanding replies from me.

What I said to Goobieman about further replies from me goes double for you.



I already responded to Jallman directly. Don't use his own arguments to back up your lack of one.

I'm not "demanding" anything. You look like an ass when you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Yeah, socialized anything is okay if you're willing to give up your liberty, become dependent on government, deal with layers of complex bureaucracy, and get ****ty service. The left will never grasp the inextricable link between economic freedom and social freedom, will they?

My post had very little to do with the fact that UHC is a leftist doctrine. I'm more concerned about the curtailment of liberty that happens when you are beholden to the government. Do you really want the US to be like England where they're considering taxing people based on their Body Mass Index? Do you really want to subsidize health-based propaganda? Don't you understand that when you are dependent on the government (especially for absolutely vital items like say... your HEALTH) they will automatically seek to control your behavior?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

My post had very little to do with the fact that UHC is a leftist doctrine. I'm more concerned about the curtailment of liberty that happens when you are beholden to the government.

I sympathize with this line of thought, but to be honest I don't wish to go down the road of having a UHC debate in this thread. The only point I wish to maintain is that if socialized health care can exist in one sector of society, then it could just as easily exist in all; and yet, we feel because the military are protecting us, that they should somehow be more deserving.

Who decides?

Do you really want the US to be like England where they're considering taxing people based on their Body Mass Index? Do you really want to subsidize health-based propaganda?

What is true of England does not have to be true of anywhere else. You can compare all of the developed nations that have UHC, and they all tackle the issue differently. Even comparing England with Canada, our UHC systems are not the same. Canada has not considered taxing people based on their BMI, or their personal choices in life. Everyone is taxed according to the standard taxation scales, and all their healthcare contributions go into the same pot.

Don't you understand that when you are dependent on the government (especially for absolutely vital items like say... your HEALTH) they will automatically seek to control your behavior?

I'm not sure I follow. Why does UHC equal the government controlling your behaviour? It is not the government paying for your health care, it is you via your own tax dollars. The government is not entitled to control you just because they pay out what they owe you.
 
Last edited:
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I sympathize with this line of thought, but to be honest I don't wish to go down the road of having a UHC debate in this thread. The only point I wish to maintain is that if socialized health care can exist in one sector of society, then it could just as easily exist in all; and yet, we feel because the military are protecting us, that they should somehow be more deserving.

Who decides?

The Founders. Deal with it.

What is true of England does not have to be true of anywhere else. You can compare all of the developed nations that have UHC, and they all tackle the issue differently. Even comparing England with Canada, our UHC systems are not the same. Canada has not considered taxing people based on their BMI, or their personal choices in life. Everyone is taxed according to the standard taxation scales, and all their healthcare contributions go into the same pot.

I'm not sure I follow. Why does UHC equal the government controlling your behaviour? It is not the government paying for your health care, it is you via your own tax dollars. The government is not entitled to control you just because they pay out what they owe you.

1) That's bs. You should already know that the top 50% of the country already pays almost 100% of the taxes.

2) You should be able to extrapolate from what's going on at AIG. As soon as your will is subjugated to that of the collective, the collective is going to naturally seek to eliminate what they perceive to be an "inefficient" allocation of the collective's funds.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I sympathize with this line of thought, but to be honest I don't wish to go down the road of having a UHC debate in this thread. The only point I wish to maintain is that if socialized health care can exist in one sector of society, then it could just as easily exist in all; and yet, we feel because the military are protecting us, that they should somehow be more deserving.

Who decides?

The Founders. Deal with it.

Can you elaborate on your answer? How did "The Founders" make this decision?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Can you elaborate on your answer? How did "The Founders" make this decision?

I'm afraid that question is too broad to cover. Research the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution as well as the theoretical framework (Federalist Papers etc.) if you want an answer.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I'm afraid that question is too broad to cover. Research the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution as well as the theoretical framework (Federalist Papers etc.) if you want an answer.

Oh brother. In other words, aps, I can't answer the question. Orius asked a question. You answered it in two words, but you then cannot support your answer with evidence. Okay.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

This is usually what happens when someone knows he is wrong.

No, this is almost always what happens when someone has had enough of dealing with you. It happens to almost everyone who deals with you eventually.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

No, this is almost always what happens when someone has had enough of dealing with you. It happens to almost everyone who deals with you eventually.
Yes, they do tend to run away when they know they have been beaten.
You're no exception.
 
Last edited:
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Oh brother. In other words, aps, I can't answer the question. Orius asked a question. You answered it in two words, but you then cannot support your answer with evidence. Okay.

US Constitution said:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; 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 a 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, dockyards, 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.

Tell me where you see "to provide Universal Health Care."

To understand how the Constitution relates to the doctrines of the founders, you're going to need to study a lot more.
 
Last edited:
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

This is usually what happens when someone knows he is wrong.

No, actually it's what happens when someone is tired of watching you post inaccurate information, and continue to refuse to admit you are wrong...which you are. It has already been explained to you that what the military receives is socialized medicine. And I have already pointed out precisely why folks like you would stay in denial and refuse to acknowledge that. Keep presenting your inaccurate information. Doesn't change that it's inaccurate.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

No, actually it's what happens when someone is tired of watching you post inaccurate information, and continue to refuse to admit you are wrong...which you are. It has already been explained to you that what the military receives is socialized medicine. And I have already pointed out precisely why folks like you would stay in denial and refuse to acknowledge that. Keep presenting your inaccurate information. Doesn't change that it's inaccurate.
And, I have already explained to YOU that what the military receives is NOT socialized medicine. And I have already pointed out precisely why folks like YOU would stay in denial and refuse to acknowledge that.

Keep presenting YOUR inaccurate information. Doesn't change that it's inaccurate.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

If you notice, I am not against soldier's receiving benefits... I have said I can agree with it. People view my comments as controversial because they think my core message is that the military should not get benefits at all.

My argument is two-fold...

One, I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy innate to the anti-UHC arguments created by Conservatives. Whether or not I agree with the military getting said benefits is not the issue, but rather it is clearly okay for socialized health care to exist in some instances. It's just a matter of who we think is more deserving, and that is subjective no matter what way you slice it. I just happen to fall on the side that thinks giving it to the military is okay.

I was the one who brought this up and I agree with you...to a point. The hypocrisy is not universal. It is only contained by those who refuse to see the socialized aspect of the military's health care.

Secondly, because I come from a nation that supports UHC, I think it is double standard to give it to the military but not to civilians who are in turn paying for military health care anyway. Clearly there is a system of standarized care that can exist in a financially abundant sector of the U.S. (the military), so why is it so unfathomable and controversial to expand this system to everyone else? Like I said, I understand giving it to the military and they should receive it, but on those grounds, so should everyone else.

And this is where we part ways. I am OK with the military receiving this entitlement. They deserve it because of their service to their country. Those who have not served. IMO, do not.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Tell me where you see "to provide Universal Health Care."

To understand how the Constitution relates to the doctrines of the founders, you're going to need to study a lot more.

Hmmm, maybe we're not speaking the same language. Orius asked who decides who is deserving of UHC. You responded with, "The Founders." I read that as, "The Founders" chose to allow the military to receive different health care benefits than non-military Americans. That's what did not make sense to me. The health system the military uses now wasn't created by the Founders, as far as I know. That was why I asked you to elaborate on your answer.

What specific question were you answering when you said, "The Founders"?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

And, I have already explained to YOU that what the military receives is NOT socialized medicine. And I have already pointed out precisely why folks like YOU would stay in denial and refuse to acknowledge that.

Keep presenting YOUR inaccurate information. Doesn't change that it's inaccurate.

You have presented nothing of the sort. But keep presenting your inaccuracies, Goobieman. With each post you show that YOU apply to my original post in this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom