Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree healthcare should be treated as a right. Not a constitutional right but a civil right. I see healthcare as similar to police and fire protection.
As far as responsibility goes, it is still up to the individual. No one is proposing mandatory treatment. If you break your leg, no one will force you to see a doctor.
Again, what is being proposed is government funding, not mandatory treatment.
But Governmental Funding does legislate morality, doesn't it?
Do you consider police and fire protection to be legislating morality? What about the military?
To me, legislating morality would be laws against pornography, prostitution, drugs, blue-laws, etc.
Military is allowed based on the Constitution, and police and fire protection are state run (as should be anything not explicitly stated in the Constitution).
I think the federal government is getting involved in issues that should be beyond its control.
I also think (as harsh as it sounds) that health care is not a right. This will mean some people will be without care. I believe health care is a moral issue, and as such I donate money to charities that help people who need it. I think when we say something is 'right or wrong' we are getting into moral grounds, and unless the Constitution explicitly covers the issue, the federal government needs to stay out of it.
Suggestion, why not pull all of the troops from Iraq and put them on the borders with orders that anyone that is going South are allowed free passage and anyone trying to come into this country ILLEGALLY is fair game?
We could use the money saved to pay for health care FOR US CITIZENS, and what is left could go for the IMMEDIATE deportation of the ILLEGALS!!
Irrelevant. I'm asking what you mean by "legislating morality." Telling me something is provided by the Constitution does not answer that question.
Quote:
and police and fire protection are state run (as should be anything not explicitly stated in the Constitution).
Again, whether something is legislated federally or by the state is irrelevant. Both are legislated. Furthermore, there are federal police and fire protection agencies.
Quote:
I think the federal government is getting involved in issues that should be beyond its control.
I also think (as harsh as it sounds) that health care is not a right. This will mean some people will be without care. I believe health care is a moral issue, and as such I donate money to charities that help people who need it. I think when we say something is 'right or wrong' we are getting into moral grounds, and unless the Constitution explicitly covers the issue, the federal government needs to stay out of it.
Okay, but you haven't explained yourself. Why is healthcare a moral issue? Why is healthcare a moral issue but police protection not?
Irrelevant. I'm asking what you mean by "legislating morality." Telling me something is provided by the Constitution does not answer that question.
Again, whether something is legislated federally or by the state is irrelevant. Both are legislated. Furthermore, there are federal police and fire protection agencies.
Okay, but you haven't explained yourself. Why is healthcare a moral issue? Why is healthcare a moral issue but police protection not?
The level of government in which something operates has everything to do with this. If individual states tried to start a health care system you would not hear me argue, as it is within their rights. The federal government, however, should not.
Morality is, by definition, a system of what is right or wrong. The federal government HAS a list by which it should operate, namely the Constitution.
Legislation is, by definition, the act of making or enacting laws. The problem with legislating morality (creating laws on issues of right or wrong) is that there is already a predefined system for the federal government to follow.
Now that we have defined the terms of the debate, let's get to the point. Anything that the federal government attempts to legislate beyond the scope of the Constitution should not happen. If we look at the Constitution (which I suggest you do) you will see the tenth amendment states the following
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So do you see? The fact that the federal government is legislating morality means it is treading in waters reserved to the rights of the States. Hopefully this makes a little more sense, if any of this was unclear I will be more than happy to expand on the points previously listed.
The level of government in which something operates has everything to do with this. If individual states tried to start a health care system you would not hear me argue, as it is within their rights. The federal government, however, should not.
Morality is, by definition, a system of what is right or wrong. The federal government HAS a list by which it should operate, namely the Constitution.
Legislation is, by definition, the act of making or enacting laws. The problem with legislating morality (creating laws on issues of right or wrong) is that there is already a predefined system for the federal government to follow.
Now that we have defined the terms of the debate, let's get to the point. Anything that the federal government attempts to legislate beyond the scope of the Constitution should not happen. If we look at the Constitution (which I suggest you do) you will see the tenth amendment states the following
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So do you see? The fact that the federal government is legislating morality means it is treading in waters reserved to the rights of the States. Hopefully this makes a little more sense, if any of this was unclear I will be more than happy to expand on the points previously listed.
I understand you now. I disagree with your terms, but I understand what you mean.
To me, the Constitution defines what is legal, not what is moral. Indeed, most would agree that slavery was immoral, but it was perfectly legal. Furthermore, though I do not subscribe to objective morality (such as that of religion), I do not feel morality is subject to the whims of the (super)majority, as constitutional amendments are.
The most obvious tax increases are those surrounding the social security taxes in the 30's and 50's. The next big wave was with the expansion of benefits in social security and medicare from the mid 50's through the early 70's. I realize that seems like a long time ago, but in the context of America's history those events are very recent. Now, I really don't want to sit here and teach you a history lesson on taxes in the united states. Payroll taxes today pay for many more social programs than (I would argue) they were ever intended to support. This is a dangerous trend, and one which must be kept in check.
Payroll taxes haven't gone up in 20 years and I might add they are one hell of a bargain for what we get. let's take a look at the largest tax of all health insurance. No other country puts this burden on companies. You expect companies to compete in a world economy how?
Quote:
Although the article you posted is interesting, I will have to respectfully disagree. Relying on deficit spending is foolish at best. Simply put, spending money you don't have (or rather, borrowing money you don't have a plan to repay) is a fairly stupid risk.
That seems to be the republican way. At least Democrats want to raise taxes and pay as they go.
Quote:
Entrusting our government to a greater control of our lives is the exact same scenario.
They'll have no greater control that's just pure BS. Look at the other countries that have UHC then try to tell me that again.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, universal health care is a very noble goal, however we have to look at the situation with a degree of realism - at this time our country simply can't afford it.
I believe we can't afford to not do it. With Insurance going up between 12-20% a year how long before the country hits it's breaking point. With Gas it was 4 dollars what's your bet 2000 a month 3000 what will it take to break the country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
