New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

ConservaBill said:

BIG NEGATIVE! It DOES say "general welfare" but ABSOLUTELY NOT the "citizens"... You may interpret it differently, but the word "citizens" is a COMPLETE fabrication.. It is NOT there!

You may wish to argue but unless you live in a different country with a different constitution then the words speak for themselves without your extensions of progressive pseudo-logic.

BUT feel free to SHOW us all where it does say citizens of the State.. it would settle a LOT of arguments and support your pro-bloated government position.

Click to expand...

Who the hell else would general welfare be referring to? This is literally the weirdest argument I've ever heard.

ConservaBill said:

BIG NEGATIVE! It DOES say "general welfare" but ABSOLUTELY NOT the "citizens"... You may interpret it differently, but the word "citizens" is a COMPLETE fabrication.. It is NOT there!

Click to expand...

That's why he didn't put citizens in quotes, professor.

But if the general welfare isn't for the citizens of the U.S., who is it for? :roll:

Deuce said:

Who the hell else would general welfare be referring to?

Click to expand...

Apparently it's not the general welfare, but specific welfare.

ConservaBill said:

BIG NEGATIVE! It DOES say "general welfare" but ABSOLUTELY NOT the "citizens"... You may interpret it differently, but the word "citizens" is a COMPLETE fabrication.. It is NOT there!

You may wish to argue but unless you live in a different country with a different constitution then the words speak for themselves without your extensions of progressive pseudo-logic.

BUT feel free to SHOW us all where it does say citizens of the State.. it would settle a LOT of arguments and support your pro-bloated government position.

Click to expand...

Preamble to the U.S. 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 defence, 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.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

Now, if the Constitution was not written with the sole purpose of providing government with a blue print for governing and caring for this country's citizens, I don't know what document does!

You lose!! Thanks for playing...please try again. :2wave:

Objective Voice said:

Preamble to the U.S. 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 defence, 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.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

Now, if the Constitution was not written with the sole purpose of providing government with a blue print for governing and caring for this country's citizens, I don't know what document does!

You lose!! Thanks for playing...please try again. :2wave:

Click to expand...

The operative word is PROMOTE and it does appear that many here don't understand the difference between that and PROVIDE. Promoting means creating conditions where the people of this country can prosper. I see nothing in the healthcare bill that promotes the general welfare but I do see promoting bigger govt., more involvment by that govt. and forcing people to buy a personal responsibility healthcare policy.

If you allow the govt. to get involved in the personal responsibility of healthcare where does it stop in your world? that is a slippery slope you are allowing the govt. to get involved in all because you PERCEIVE healthcare to be a serious problem. The serious problems in this country stem around job creation and failure to accept consequences for failure. If someone can afford healthcare but chooses not to purchase it then that is an individual responsibility that they are responsible for and they are responsible for payment. Those that truly cannot afford healthcare have the option of going to the churches, charities, or individuals for help.

Local and state governments are closer to the issue and thus are the ones that should solve the problem, not the Federal Govt. with federal dollars.

What church or charity do you know of that will pay an individual's medical expenses? Same goes for their prescription medicine(s)? Sure, there are hospitals that will take on surgeries pro bono on a case-by-case basis, but those are few and so very far between. So, what you're suggesting, though noble, just isn't realistic.

Now...

Promote v. 1. To contribute to the progress, development, or growth of; further; encourage.

I can certainly see where the health care bill "contributes to the progress" of this country by "developing" healthier citizens, thereby advancing the "growth" of a nation. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

Objective Voice said:

What church or charity do you know of that will pay an individual's medical expenses? Same goes for their prescription medicine(s)? Sure, there are hospitals that will take on surgeries pro bono on a case-by-case basis, but those are few and so very far between. So, what you're suggesting, though noble, just isn't realistic.

Now...

Promote v. 1. To contribute to the progress, development, or growth of; further; encourage.

I can certainly see where the health care bill "contributes to the progress" of this country by "developing" healthier citizens, thereby advancing the "growth" of a nation. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

Click to expand...

So you think that offering the uninsured medical insurance will change personal living habits and what people eat, smoke, or how they exercise? Like all naive individuals you somehow believe this govt. program is going to save money when the reality is no social program has ever cost what was intended, did what was intended, and solved a problem.

Different day, same old rhetoric coming from supporters of bigger govt. You just don't have a clue as to the true role of govt. when it comes to personal responsibility issues.

Conservative said:

I spent 35 years working for one and can tell you that you don't know what you are talking about on that issue.

Click to expand...

Then you should be well aware we passed peak oil in this country 40 years ago.

Catawba said:

Then you should be well aware we passed peak oil in this country 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

As I stated, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about but that doesn't stop you from thinking you are an expert on every topic

Conservative said:

As I stated, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about but that doesn't stop you from thinking you are an expert on every topic

Click to expand...

Just a question, if you didn't have a clue, wouldn't you think others didn't?



:mrgreen:

Boo Radley said:

Just a question, if you didn't have a clue, wouldn't you think others didn't?



:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt but now realize that you are naive, gullible, very misinformed. Why do you buy the rhetoric from an Administration that has lied to you on every subject?

My experience gives me credibility as well as historical data.

Conservative said:

I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt but now realize that you are naive, gullible, very misinformed. Why do you buy the rhetoric from an Administration that has lied to you on every subject?

My experience gives me credibility as well as historical data.

Click to expand...

Does this mean you can't answer the question?

Boo Radley said:

Does this mean you can't answer the question?

Click to expand...

It means I answered the question which insinuated that I didn't have a clue. Experience and history say it is I that has a clue and you don't.

In spite of all the historical evidence that shows govt. waste, fraud, abuse along with a 13 trillion dollar debt you continue to believe what Obama Administration tells you. Where will you ever wake up?

Conservative said:

It means I answered the question which insinuated that I didn't have a clue. Experience and history say it is I that has a clue and you don't.

In spite of all the historical evidence that shows govt. waste, fraud, abuse along with a 13 trillion dollar debt you continue to believe what Obama Administration tells you. Where will you ever wake up?

Click to expand...

Try reading the question.

SORRY this is response to Misterman:

Welfare of the States..!!!

Remember Jr. high-school composition? Define the term paragraph then re-read the document with at least that Jr. High level of comprehension...

NO WHERE in the CONSTITUTION does ANY concern of the citizens become a duty of the federal government (or until the 14th)... NO WHERE...


BTW is there any level of civility you DO possess?

ConservaBill said:

SORRY this is response to Misterman:

Welfare of the States..!!!

Remember Jr. high-school composition? Define the term paragraph then re-read the document with at least that Jr. High level of comprehension...

Click to expand...

Does my graduate-level degree in political science count? :roll:

NO WHERE in the CONSTITUTION does ANY concern of the citizens become a duty of the federal government (or until the 14th)... NO WHERE...

Click to expand...

Really? So you're saying the Constitution has no concern for American citizens at all (up to the 14th)? Hmmmm. It doesn't specifically mention them until then, but even people who got as far as jr. high school composition know that there are different levels of meaning beyond plain written words. Pretending that's not true can lead to all kinds of bizarre conclusions. Such as yours.

Boo Radley said:

Try reading the question.

Click to expand...

Try responding to the facts presented.

Conservative said:

So you think that offering the uninsured medical insurance will change personal living habits and what people eat, smoke, or how they exercise? Like all naive individuals you somehow believe this govt. program is going to save money when the reality is no social program has ever cost what was intended, did what was intended, and solved a problem.

Different day, same old rhetoric coming from supporters of bigger govt. You just don't have a clue as to the true role of govt. when it comes to personal responsibility issues.

Click to expand...

Again, I've never advocated for bigger gov't. I was against forming the Health Services Committee because I believe that the Dept of Health and Humans can handle most if not all of the administrative tasks listed in the health care reform bill just fine. Add more staff, but not another level of bureaucrisy. And I really wish you'd get off this "personal habits" kick. It really shows your bias against people of certain dispositions. As I've said before, not everyone who can't afford health care are lazy or shiftless. Some simply just can't afford it. Be fortunate good fortune befell you where you don't have to worry about things like that. But there are some who do and through no fault of their own just need help. Try being a compassionate human being for a change instead of sounding like some old, angry crouse wrinkle-bag. You might like it and that heart of yours may grow two sizes larger.

Objective Voice said:

Again, I've never advocated for bigger gov't. I was against forming the Health Services Committee because I believe that the Dept of Health and Humans can handle most if not all of the administrative tasks listed in the health care reform bill just fine. Add more staff, but not another level of bureaucrisy. And I really wish you'd get off this "personal habits" kick. It really shows your bias against people of certain dispositions. As I've said before, not everyone who can't afford health care are lazy or shiftless. Some simply just can't afford it. Be fortunate good fortune befell you where you don't have to worry about things like that. But there are some who do and through no fault of their own just need help. Try being a compassionate human being for a change instead of sounding like some old, angry crouse wrinkle-bag. You might like it and that heart of yours may grow two sizes larger.

Click to expand...

You don't think this healthcare bill grows the size of govt? who administers it and who manages it?

What bothers me about the pro healthcare crowd is how they use the number 47 million as an attempt to magnify their claims. You and I both know there aren't 47 million people in this country UNABLE to purchase healthcare but that the number of those who cannot afford healthcare insurance is around 10 million or 3% of the population. To cover those 3% who are spread all over the nation we need this bill?

Ever hear the phrase "charity begins at home"? Home in this case means the local and state governments along with actual charities. It is not the Federal Taxpayer responsibility to fund healthcare insurance but instead personal responsibility first then let the local and states handle the issue.

My charitable giving isn't at question here nor is it relevant but it is substantial. Yours and my tax liability is going to go up and like with all govt. run programs going to be wasted, and that is the point.

Conservative said:

You don't think this healthcare bill grows the size of govt? who administers it and who manages it?

What bothers me about the pro healthcare crowd is how they use the number 47 million as an attempt to magnify their claims. You and I both know there aren't 47 million people in this country UNABLE to purchase healthcare but that the number of those who cannot afford healthcare insurance is around 10 million or 3% of the population. To cover those 3% who are spread all over the nation we need this bill?

Ever hear the phrase "charity begins at home"? Home in this case means the local and state governments along with actual charities. It is not the Federal Taxpayer responsibility to fund healthcare insurance but instead personal responsibility first then let the local and states handle the issue.

My charitable giving isn't at question here nor is it relevant but it is substantial. Yours and my tax liability is going to go up and like with all govt. run programs going to be wasted, and that is the point.

Click to expand...

Here's something positive I found on Medicare. Although I'm conservative I do get scared when I think what could happen if I lost my HC insurance. From my experience the state run HC programs have not been very successful. Our governor in Tenn was in the HC industry before he became governor, so I don't know why, but we've had problems with the cost of our state run HC.

Here's a link to the article about Medicare:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090729_the_marvel_that_is_medicare/

Excerpt:

Posted on Jul 29, 2009

By Marie Cocco

Happy Birthday, Medicare.

It’s a fine time—perfect, in fact—to celebrate the government-run, taxpayer-supported colossus in the American health care system that turns 44 this week. Medicare has done all it was supposed to do, and more.

It thrives despite apocalyptic warnings from its original opponents that “socialized medicine” would hamper doctors, hospitals, patients—perhaps even doom the entire American health care system. Medicare is exceedingly popular and remarkably well-functioning despite its current critics’ claims that it is singularly wasteful, out of control in some never-specified way or, at the very least, holds the potential to bankrupt us all in the next generation.

Medicare is where political posturing runs headlong into historical truth: It is, along with Social Security, the most successful government program—other than its unrivaled military—that the United States has ever created.

And it has delivered for elderly people what President Barack Obama and at least some Democrats say they want to deliver for the rest of us: universal coverage ensuring that people with medical problems will not become impoverished by their illness, with patients offered a guaranteed set of services and a choice of private doctors, hospitals and other practitioners when they need treatment.

Click to expand...

Marilyn Monroe said:

Here's something positive I found on Medicare. Although I'm conservative I do get scared when I think what could happen if I lost my HC insurance. From my experience the state run HC programs have not been very successful. Our governor in Tenn was in the HC industry before he became governor, so I don't know why, but we've had problems with the cost of our state run HC.

Here's a link to the article about Medicare:

Marie Cocco: The Marvel That Is Medicare - Truthdig

Excerpt:

Click to expand...

Never forget that Medicare is funded in part by individual "contributions" just like SS thus we are entitled to get the benefits due to those "contributions."

My concern continues to be that both are put into the general fund and are being spent only to be replaced by IOU's. I see that happening with the healthcare bill as well.

What I would like to see is both SS and Medicare put into individual IRA's that are untouchable until retirement. Can you imagine how much money you would have in both accounts based upon simple interest?

Medicare then could be that individual health insurance account and SS that individual retirement account.

I believe we need healthcare reform but not THIS healthcare reform since it doesn't reform healthcare. Provide incentive to individuals and we all would get a better program.

Conservative said:

You don't think this healthcare bill grows the size of govt? who administers it and who manages it?

Click to expand...

Once again, either you're not paying attention or you're purposely attempting to inject your own particianship into the equation.

Objective Voice said:

Again, I've never advocated for bigger gov't. I was against forming the Health Services Committee because I believe that the Dept of Health and Humans can handle most if not all of the administrative tasks listed in the health care reform bill just fine. Add more staff, but not another level of bureaucrisy.

Click to expand...

And with that I'm done with this debate. You're going to believe what you believe and never grasp that capitalism does have a moral responsibility to the under priviliaged. And where public entities and private enterprise falls short local, state and federal gov't has a moral duty to render assistance. Key word: "assistance"...not pay their way for life, just provide assistance until those in need are able to get back on their feet.

In the case of the health care debate, the numbers may be scewed but that doesn't elilminate the fact that many people are going without health care because they can't afford it. And many who can are one tragedy away from bankruptcy. Some things within the health care system needed to be fixed. I'm sure the approved legistlation will be changed over the years - hopefully for the better - but I believe that this monumental legistlation is a step in the right direction for the nation.

Conservative said:

What I would like to see is both SS and Medicare put into individual IRA's that are untouchable until retirement. Can you imagine how much money you would have in both accounts based upon simple interest?

Medicare then could be that individual health insurance account and SS that individual retirement account.

Click to expand...

Both are novel ideals...until you recall what happened to the IRAs of millions of Americans in the wake of the housing bubble. If such personal retirement investments could be protected where the people who invest in them never lose more than a small fraction of their investment, if any, I'd be just fine with this idea. Unfortunately, that's not how Wall Street works. Good idea, just not very realistic.

I believe we need healthcare reform but not THIS healthcare reform since it doesn't reform healthcare. Provide incentive to individuals and we all would get a better program.

Click to expand...

The incentives concept I agree with. Question is what would those be?


And with that, I'm out.

Objective Voice said:

Once again, either you're not paying attention or you're purposely attempting to inject your own particianship into the equation.



And with that I'm done with this debate. You're going to believe what you believe and never grasp that capitalism does have a moral responsibility to the under priviliaged. And where public entities and private enterprise falls short local, state and federal gov't has a moral duty to render assistance. Key word: "assistance"...not pay their way for life, just provide assistance until those in need are able to get back on their feet.

In the case of the health care debate, the numbers may be scewed but that doesn't elilminate the fact that many people are going without health care because they can't afford it. And many who can are one tragedy away from bankruptcy. Some things within the health care system needed to be fixed. I'm sure the approved legistlation will be changed over the years - hopefully for the better - but I believe that this monumental legistlation is a step in the right direction for the nation.



Both are novel ideals...until you recall what happened to the IRAs of millions of Americans in the wake of the housing bubble. If such personal retirement investments could be protected where the people who invest in them never lose more than a small fraction of their investment, if any, I'd be just fine with this idea. Unfortunately, that's not how Wall Street works. Good idea, just not very realistic.


The incentives concept I agree with. Question is what would those be?


And with that, I'm out.

Click to expand...

This program is going to cost trillions according to CBO so it better be something other than a good first step. Problem is not many can comprehend how much a trillion is so let me help you.

One trillion dollar bills laid end-to-end would stretch from the earth to the sun … and back … with a lot of miles to spare.

One trillion dollars today would allow you buy Coca Cola, Apple, IBM, Bank of America, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Motorola, AT&T, as well as Exxon Mobil and STILL have enough left over to live comfortably on just the interest from the billions left over– not to mention the profits these companies generate.

Conservative said:

This program is going to cost trillions according to CBO so it better be something other than a good first step. Problem is not many can comprehend how much a trillion is so let me help you.

One trillion dollar bills laid end-to-end would stretch from the earth to the sun … and back … with a lot of miles to spare.

One trillion dollars today would allow you buy Coca Cola, Apple, IBM, Bank of America, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Motorola, AT&T, as well as Exxon Mobil and STILL have enough left over to live comfortably on just the interest from the billions left over– not to mention the profits these companies generate.

Click to expand...

CBO says it's going to reduce the deficit so saying that it will "cost trillions" is rather disingenuous wouldn't you say?