Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
-
Get rid of State governments.
The federal government can do everything states do, and try to already. States have been leaning on federal grants, funds, and aid for decades. What's the point?
The amount of money saved on redundant bureaucracy will be more than enough to fund socialized healthcare for several decades at least. -
It's not real, he thinks he's being clever. Probably posting with a ayn rand picture hanging above the screen.
-
Wow what a joke. First of all get rid of federal government. Only state govenments. Then take this idea of socialized healthcare and forget about it. Problem solved.
-
Universal healthcare is not cheap. Welcome to higher taxes, if this comes in. Welome to higher taxes if this doesn't get in. I think Obama wants to expidite this as taxes will be increasing regardless, and wishes to have some shiny thing to deter the masses.
-
So the federal govvernment can efficiently build roads across 3000 miles. They can create the worlds strongest military, but they can't issue you antibiotics? I see.
-
Well the Constitution says the feds can create a military and build roads. Where does it talk about antibiotics?
-
Preferably not. Obviously they can do whatever they want. Ask GM.
-
comparing medicare/medicade is so intelectually dishonest. Especially since whats proposed isn't a true universal system ala canada. Since the option for privatized option will be available its not comparable to medicare.
Jaybone what exaclty are you talking about? Like which specifically?
There is lots of stuff that isn't in the constitution. doesn't mean it isn't necessary. -
*patiently awaiting a DMV and uni health care comparison*
-
phils i'm not getting what you are saying. Are you saying that medicare is forced on people over 65 and they can't get private health care so government run health care is different than government run medicare?
please splain -
Ammendment 10
Originally Posted by phils08
There is lots of stuff that isn't in the constitution. doesn't mean it isn't necessary.
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.
The authors recognized this which is why they allowed for this "stuff" to be taken care of by the state and local governments. -
No they aren't forced, they simply have no other alternative. therefore the result is the same.
to clarify, they have an alternative, but an unattainable one. -
ok man, thought we were having an intelligent debate here, but you just said people over 65 can't have private insurance
-
the same state governments that are running out of unemployment benefits?
Originally Posted by cminer25
Ammendment 10Originally Posted by phils08
There is lots of stuff that isn't in the constitution. doesn't mean it isn't necessary.
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.
The authors recognized this which is why they allowed for this "stuff" to be taken care of by the state and local governments.
the same state governments that are completely broke?
People who make this argument tend to be selective in their view of what should, and shouldn't be intervened with. Imo. -
no i didnt. I said they cant afford it.
This doesnt exclude the possibility of getting it for a select few who can. -
no actually what you said is it's unattainable, need a definition? over half the population of seniors have a supplement dude. Quite a few retired people with pensions still have company insurance, quite a few retired government, i.e. a whole fucking lot of people still have their state insurance.
and medicare is still going broke
why the rush anyway? let's fix the healthcare problems first before we jump into this. Have we learned nothing for the rediculous stimulus package we absolutely had to pass right away or the country would implode? If we had actually thought it out, came up with a plan that might have worked instead of rushing shit through we might actually have real jobs starting by now instead of just work.
edit: sorry if it seems i'm picking on you Phils, but you did call me intellectually dishonest and healthcare is my life. I and those who work with me know more about this subject than Obama, you really can't believe what he's telling you. Do a google on senate and congress benefits from healthcare, insurance and pharmaceuticals and see if you really trust them to have your best interests in this. It's political, that's all. -
Stop being a super nit, you know exactly what im getting at. the majority of 65 and older cannot afford it. Sure there are some who still have privatized benefits, but that accounts for a tiny %, no? Your claim of a whole lot is just a nice way of saying very few. Even if it's half, it's still totally unacceptable.
Originally Posted by ginwilly
no actually what you said is it's unattainable, need a definition? over half the population of seniors have a supplement dude. Quite a few retired people with pensions still have company insurance, quite a few retired government, i.e. a whole fucking lot of people still have their state insurance.
and medicare is still going broke
why the rush anyway? let's fix the healthcare problems first before we jump into this. Have we learned nothing for the rediculous stimulus package we absolutely had to pass right away or the country would implode? If we had actually thought it out, came up with a plan that might have worked instead of rushing shit through we might actually have real jobs starting by now instead of just work.
the rush? some of us have been waiting since hilary last presented her plan. This time is as good as any.
You have absolutely no way of proving if the stimulus is successful or not. Unemployment keeps rising, which doesn't automatically indicate the failure of a plan that was said to take time to positively affect the economy.
If were having this conversation in 2011 maybe i'll say you're right.
you probably wont be surprised but im in the krugman camp that think that stimulus should have been even bigger. -
I really wasnt calling you intelectually dishonest, just the argument it self which is used by man who oppose the plan. I trust you know way more then me being a medical professional, but i still have eyes, and read alot, and understand those in the healthcare industry have the most to lose out of this.
Originally Posted by ginwilly
no actually what you said is it's unattainable, need a definition? over half the population of seniors have a supplement dude. Quite a few retired people with pensions still have company insurance, quite a few retired government, i.e. a whole fucking lot of people still have their state insurance.
and medicare is still going broke
why the rush anyway? let's fix the healthcare problems first before we jump into this. Have we learned nothing for the rediculous stimulus package we absolutely had to pass right away or the country would implode? If we had actually thought it out, came up with a plan that might have worked instead of rushing shit through we might actually have real jobs starting by now instead of just work.
edit: sorry if it seems i'm picking on you Phils, but you did call me intellectually dishonest and healthcare is my life. I and those who work with me know more about this subject than Obama, you really can't believe what he's telling you. Do a google on senate and congress benefits from healthcare, insurance and pharmaceuticals and see if you really trust them to have your best interests in this. It's political, that's all.
I dont want to see anyone suffer slashed paychecks, but im of the belief medicinal care should be of the non profit persuation. Im a commie, i know ;) -
bigger, smaller, whatever you think doesn't matter. But you'd have to be an idiot to think it had to pass that week and couldn't have been presented better with a little more time and effort. All they did was put in shit they'd been wanting for awhile to make their voters happy back home. Very very very few careers will come from this, a few temporary jobs yes, but not much lasting. They set it up to have to pass another stimulus plan next year.
the problem is with the healthcare system itself, and it's not being addressed in the right way before we go ahead with this. It will be costly, inefficient and watered down if they don't do it right. And the motivation to do it right now is purely political. -
ZOMG!!!!! Standard invocation of the 10th Amendment. yawn. oh wait - Article I is nifty.
Originally Posted by cminer25
Ammendment 10
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.
The authors recognized this which is why they allowed for this "stuff" to be taken care of by the state and local governments.
Article I Sec 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.
Later on Article I. Sec 8 also gives the federal government the power to do anything that is "necessary and proper" in carrying out constitutional powers...which happens to include the general welfare clause.
The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the significance of the General Welfare Clause in US v. Butler (1936)
The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
So really - the 10th Amendment doesn't bar Congress from authorizing money be spent on "stuff". Nor was that the intent of the Amendment. It had more to do with pre-existing police powers rather than a pre-existing welfare state as you seem to be suggesting here.
With that said this thread is a disaster. Between the lame attempt at being cute by the OP and the people who took him seriously in the thread, it leaves me scratching my head. -
ginwilly,
at least we finally got down to the jist of your argument.
obama bad, gotcha. -
ok man, unattainable doesn't mean what you said, you say i was intellectually dishonest now you say those in the health fields have the most to lose.
you really should stop now, i work in physical therapy and if Obama is true to his word the alternative medicines will be utilized more. That means before you have that surgery come to me. Instead of expensive pain pills come to me. Done right my business could actually boom by this. In fact i see a shortage brewing which always drives our salaries up. Under this plan working in the health fields will be the most sought after and stable carreers out there. The CEOs and surgeons will lose money because more than likely they will soon be dictated by the Fed but that's not me.
fix healthcare before you pile on. Don't pile on first then fix it. -
saying something over and over again wont make it true.










