Unconstitutional

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

As I said above, I agree our VA system needs work, but lets face it, its a govt run system, so its bound to be inefficient, sub-par, and overly expensive for the tax payer. It needs revamped, like so many other govt run programs, but at least its a benefit other non-vets do not get. The point is, we, as tax payers, are not obliged to ensure all our veterans own homes and lead productive lives despite their poor life choices.

Too many leftists think charity comes from the barrel of a gun (aka government), it comes from the heart of its people not by government force. Which is also why I think it is funny how the left demands rights that actually take away our freedom. Millions of people donate to charities like the wounded warriors.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

I wouldn't worry too much. The Supreme Court will eventually rule it unconstitutional with it's 5-4 conservative tilt.

 

[CHEMMINS 10+ year member]

Without your vets, you wouldn't have your "freedoms and liberties" that you love so much. It is because of them you are a society that is for individual profit. But yet you see no obligation to to help them past medical care? Maybe in the next war, you should all sign up, and protect your freedoms and liberties.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Without your vets, you wouldn't have your "freedoms and liberties" that you love so much. It is because of them you are a society that is for individual profit. But yet you see no obligation to to help them past medical care? Maybe in the next war, you should all sign up, and protect your freedoms and liberties.

Marxist much?

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Without your vets, you wouldn't have your "freedoms and liberties" that you love so much. It is because of them you are a society that is for individual profit. But yet you see no obligation to to help them past medical care? Maybe in the next war, you should all sign up, and protect your freedoms and liberties.

People with insurance consume almost a third of uncompensated care, while most uninsured end up paying at least a quarter or so of their health expenditures out of pocket with the rest unpaid. This amounts to around 5% percent or so of total current health care expenditures per year. In other words, even if the individual mandate works exactly as planned, it will affect at best a mere 5 percent of health care expenditures. I agree that when recipients don't pay for their care, the rest of us end up footing the bill one way or another. I just don't agree with the way some are trying to use this to justify this over reaching individual health care mandate.

You cannot force someone to buy a product simply because it is assumed it may or may not help the community as a whole (especially in cases where the pre req is breathing) . That would essentially make the USA's capitalist system similar to the ideology under which socialist and communist governments tend to operate. Our individual right to choose still trumps any perceived benefit to society that may occur as a result of our decision outside of the taxes we already contribute to, as America is based and founded on individual rights first and foremost. Under Obama's reasoning, the government should be able to FORCE a person to buy into anything they think might be more beneficial to the collective, regardless of their personal right to choose to do so. Do we really want the fed telling us for example, that we HAVE to buy our next new vehicle from a Ford plant in our state (or be forced to pay a fine or go to jail for buying elsewhere) using the excuse that failure to do so could result in a loss of state auto workers jobs and therefore may affect interstate commerce? (Commerce Clause) Look folks, we all want people to get health care if they need it, but we shouldn't be forced to sacrifice our rights in order to do so. In America the government protects our basic rights (per Bill of Rights) which most people in the world are not able to enjoy. These are what Americans have fought and died for for centuries. It's still up to the individual to decide how their life turns out, regardless of the hand they were dealt in life, good or bad, healthy or sick. If you are dying, no one is going to throw you out of the ambulance, and you will still receive care, but it still should be up to you to figure out how to pay for it. Life can **** sometimes, but it's not the government's responsibility to make sure that it doesn't **** for everyone (Because that would only be fair for everyone right?). Considering that about 47 percent of people in the USA paid almost no federal income taxes at all for 2009, (Getting most of it back in refunds, or because they get credits for various things like children, etc) I don't think this is too much to ask. We already cover much of uncompensated care through our current tax dollars anyway.

Basically we shouldn't be looking in other people's pockets to fund our personal beliefs on how America should operate, and/or in the name of "fairness". We have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What we earn is ours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes us anything, except to respect our privacy and our rights. I don't make very much money, and am by no means rich, and even I understand this basic fact. If I was a uber rich I would pay more to help others voluntarily, In addition to the higher tax rates i would already pay, but don't threaten me with fines or jail for choosing not to pay into additional entitlements for health and other various services for everyone in the name of perceived fairness...Especially services which are in many cases administered by independent or private health care providers. It's still should ultimately be MY choice on that front.

"It is thus necessary that the INDIVIDUAL should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all, the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." [Adolph Hitler, 1933]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

Sound like the general mindset of any liberals and/or socialists we have had the chance to talk to? I know a good many personally that subscribe to this type of ideology.

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." [Ayn Rand]

"When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?" [Henry David Thoreau]

I'm sure we can all agree these last two quotes are more encompassing of the principles and spirit America was founded on vs the first two.

/End rant

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

So.... what would make this new health care initiative at all, in anyway, different?

Nothing that I know of. Ive been preaching for a while now that we need some serious govt reform, instead of continually throwing money at the problems our politicians create for us, or simply voting out the party that is in power while expecting the other party to make any real or substantial reform. Both parties play that same game, neither wishes to see their goose that lays golden eggs go away.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Without your vets, you wouldn't have your "freedoms and liberties" that you love so much. It is because of them you are a society that is for individual profit. But yet you see no obligation to to help them past medical care? Maybe in the next war, you should all sign up, and protect your freedoms and liberties.

Who are you talking to, bro?

 

[-01limited- 10+ year member]

this thread has a lot of mad jelly up in it.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

instead of continually throwing money at the problems our politicians create for us

Yeah, there was never any poverty before we started election politicians and people were never greedy!

Sorry, I know I've been nowhere to be seen (and I know how sad you are about it), but I just thought I'd mention that. The only problems politicians have ever created for us were removing solutions to problem other politicians put in place earlier.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Yeah, there was never any poverty before we started election politicians and people were never greedy!
Sorry, I know I've been nowhere to be seen (and I know how sad you are about it), but I just thought I'd mention that. The only problems politicians have ever created for us were removing solutions to problem other politicians put in place earlier.

Yes yes let us ignore everything prior to 1900 and pretend SS, medic care, medic aid and life long welfare work and are cheap and work very well.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Which is why either party's involvment is a bad thing.

That is the problem with how people think in this country. Both parties lie about politics, but only one party lies about policy. The problem is most people are too stupid to see past the horrible politics of both parties to see that while the politics of both parties are the same, the policies are radically different and they both have serious repercussions on the people in this one, both very good and very bad.

audioholic insults me for being too much of a Democrat sheep because I'm too biased in terms of policy. The problem isn't people being too biased or opinionated about policy, it's people not seeing past the bullshit politics of both parties and realizing that one party's policy is good for the average person and one isn't. They just see that both play a beyond ****** political game and think, because they're the same politically, that they're both the same in terms of policy in terms of net result for them, and it's completely false.

The irony is that it's these people who think they see the "truth" in politics, when they don't at all. Which is why I've said that audioholic tries so hard to NOT be biased so he can see the truth, that the truth flies right by. It's like if one side says the earth is flat and one side said the earth is round, audioholic would come in and say that both sides are biased and the truth must be that the earth is a hexagon.

And I'm not just picking on audioholic here just to pick on audioholic, I'm just doing it to exemplify the real problem in this country. They see two sides to an issue, and they give equal weight to each opinion and think the truth is in the middle. There is one truth, and it's not subject to bias, and it's not subject to opinion.