To me, that is stretching quite a bit. How did this country survive and thrive for 200+ years without mandated government run healthcare? I don't buy that a right to life is a right to health care. Was health care even an issue when Jefferson wrote that? I doubt it.

 

I agree, I told you I was playing Devil's Advocate.

 

As to the notion of "how did we survive?", I don't know. How did we survive 100 years of slavery and another 60 or so of Segregation? I doubt the Civil Rights Amendment was on Jefferson's mind at the moment he wrote the above.

For those of you upset at what insurance companies are doing vis a vis health care, shouldn't we pass laws to severely punish/regulate their behavior rather than nationalizing the health care?

I agree, I told you I was playing Devil's Advocate.

 

As to the notion of "how did we survive?", I don't know. How did we survive 100 years of slavery and another 60 or so of Segregation? I doubt the Civil Rights Amendment was on Jefferson's mind at the moment he wrote the above.

 

 

You got me there. :thumb: I always hated going up against devil's advocates.

 

I guess my biggest concern is what happens after healthcare is government mandated?

For those of you upset at what insurance companies are doing vis a vis health care, shouldn't we pass laws to severely punish/regulate their behavior rather than nationalizing the health care?

 

That would be great but who would oversee that they followed the laws? I support Obama's plan that doesn't mandate coverage but allows the gov't to take the proper steps to fix the process. I dont want the gov't to run the healthcare system but I definitely don't want the medical providers to have a blank check.

 

My main liberal tendency is to address problems. If something could be better then I feel we need to change it. Many that oppose healthcare changes must be okay with our current medical situation. I am not!! While I have insurance, a paycheck, a house, food on my table, a retirement plan, etc. I KNOW that many do not. While I can go to the doctor whenever I need, many cannot. I feel that it is pathetic that the supposed "greatest country in the world" with the motto, "everyone is created equal", to allow tens of millions of people to live without medical treatment.

 

If you are okay with how things are, that is your right. But instead of saying things are bad & still not doing anything, I am for fixing problems!!

 

We have made many changes in our country where those rights werent stated.

1. Slavery - Amendments were added after the fact!! It wasnt a "right" to not be a slave until after these.

2. Voting - Women didnt have the "right" to vote until 1922 & many of these same "rights" were abused until the 1960's

3. Roads - were does it say we have a "right" to drive? But we know the gov't will provide roads & this is VERY expensive.

For those of you upset at what insurance companies are doing vis a vis health care, shouldn't we pass laws to severely punish/regulate their behavior rather than nationalizing the health care?

 

I thought you guys took care of punishing/regulating their behavior?:D

That would be great but who would oversee that they followed the laws? I support Obama's plan that doesn't mandate coverage but allows the gov't to take the proper steps to fix the process. I dont want the gov't to run the healthcare system but I definitely don't want the medical providers to have a blank check.

 

My main liberal tendency is to address problems. If something could be better then I feel we need to change it. Many that oppose healthcare changes must be okay with our current medical situation. I am not!! While I have insurance, a paycheck, a house, food on my table, a retirement plan, etc. I KNOW that many do not. While I can go to the doctor whenever I need, many cannot. I feel that it is pathetic that the supposed "greatest country in the world" with the motto, "everyone is created equal", to allow tens of millions of people to live without medical treatment.

 

If you are okay with how things are, that is your right. But instead of saying things are bad & still not doing anything, I am for fixing problems!!

 

We have made many changes in our country where those rights werent stated.

1. Slavery - Amendments were added after the fact!! It wasnt a "right" to not be a slave until after these.

2. Voting - Women didnt have the "right" to vote until 1922 & many of these same "rights" were abused until the 1960's

3. Roads - were does it say we have a "right" to drive? But we know the gov't will provide roads & this is VERY expensive.

 

I think it is admirable your desire to help your fellow man/neighbor. For many, there is no greater calling. There are several agencies to which you can donate time and money to assist those in need.

 

I merely oppose the government controlling many aspects of private industry. If you ran a car insurance business, would you want the government to oversee all that you do and control your prices and profits? What if the next step is that all Americans have a right to cars and car insurance? It boils down to another form of wealth redistribution and a huge step towards socialism, which I disagree with strongly.

That would be great but who would oversee that they followed the laws? I support Obama's plan that doesn't mandate coverage but allows the gov't to take the proper steps to fix the process. I dont want the gov't to run the healthcare system but I definitely don't want the medical providers to have a blank check.

 

My main liberal tendency is to address problems. If something could be better then I feel we need to change it. Many that oppose healthcare changes must be okay with our current medical situation. I am not!! While I have insurance, a paycheck, a house, food on my table, a retirement plan, etc. I KNOW that many do not. While I can go to the doctor whenever I need, many cannot. I feel that it is pathetic that the supposed "greatest country in the world" with the motto, "everyone is created equal", to allow tens of millions of people to live without medical treatment.

 

If you are okay with how things are, that is your right. But instead of saying things are bad & still not doing anything, I am for fixing problems!!

 

We have made many changes in our country where those rights werent stated.

1. Slavery - Amendments were added after the fact!! It wasnt a "right" to not be a slave until after these.

2. Voting - Women didnt have the "right" to vote until 1922 & many of these same "rights" were abused until the 1960's

3. Roads - were does it say we have a "right" to drive? But we know the gov't will provide roads & this is VERY expensive.

 

Everyone is created equal in this country. The difference comes as a result of what they do after they were created. I know that people born into poverty, dysfunctional families (or no families at all for that matter), etc. have a tougher row to hoe, but there is many a person born into those situations that has been able to rise above it. Our country's history is replete with people who had nothing but were able to overcome it through hard work. But a person has to be driven to want to better themselves. The more welfare programs and entitlements this govt provides the poor, the more we do to chain them to poverty. And while some may claim that no one wants to stay in poverty, I've read way too many posts on here from posters who know of lots of people content to live off of the welfare programs to disregard what they are saying.

 

Parents can spoil their kids (isn't that one of the main reasons liberals point out people like Paris Hilton when arguing their support of a steep estate tax?). Well if parents can spoil their kids, then a country can spoil its people. If a person has a job that doesn't provide health insurance or pay him enough money to buy his own health insurance, whose fault is it that he didn't work harder in high school or college, or even go to college, so as to be able to get a better job? And I know plenty of poor people that got their total college tuition covered by financial aid (I went to college with some). I got a lot of financial aid and took out lots of loans to be able to attend college. I worked two jobs at Centre and worked almost full time in law school while going full time to law school. Dang it, if I could do it everyone can do it. You just have to want it enough. Making it easier to be poor is not helping the poor. I appreciate the compassion that people have to help the poor, I just think it hurts them more than it helps them in the long run.

Everyone is created equal in this country. The difference comes as a result of what they do after they were created. I know that people born into poverty, dysfunctional families (or no families at all for that matter), etc. have a tougher row to hoe, but there is many a person born into those situations that has been able to rise above it. Our country's history is replete with people who had nothing but were able to overcome it through hard work. But a person has to be driven to want to better themselves. The more welfare programs and entitlements this govt provides the poor, the more we do to chain them to poverty. And while some may claim that no one wants to stay in poverty, I've read way too many posts on here from posters who know of lots of people content to live off of the welfare programs to disregard what they are saying.

 

Parents can spoil their kids (isn't that one of the main reasons liberals point out people like Paris Hilton when arguing their support of a steep estate tax?). Well if parents can spoil their kids, then a country can spoil its people. If a person has a job that doesn't provide health insurance or pay him enough money to buy his own health insurance, whose fault is it that he didn't work harder in high school or college, or even go to college, so as to be able to get a better job? And I know plenty of poor people that got their total college tuition covered by financial aid (I went to college with some). I got a lot of financial aid and took out lots of loans to be able to attend college. I worked two jobs at Centre and worked almost full time in law school while going full time to law school. Dang it, if I could do it everyone can do it. You just have to want it enough. Making it easier to be poor is not helping the poor. I appreciate the compassion that people have to help the poor, I just think it hurts them more than it helps them in the long run.

 

 

What he said.:thumb:

We have made many changes in our country where those rights werent stated.

1. Slavery - Amendments were added after the fact!! It wasnt a "right" to not be a slave until after these.

2. Voting - Women didnt have the "right" to vote until 1922 & many of these same "rights" were abused until the 1960's

3. Roads - were does it say we have a "right" to drive? But we know the gov't will provide roads & this is VERY expensive.

The problem I have with this logic is that it at its root, its says that everything from the past is bad. And I've seen it used by both sides.

Everyone is created equal in this country. The difference comes as a result of what they do after they were created. I know that people born into poverty, dysfunctional families (or no families at all for that matter), etc. have a tougher row to hoe, but there is many a person born into those situations that has been able to rise above it. Our country's history is replete with people who had nothing but were able to overcome it through hard work. But a person has to be driven to want to better themselves. The more welfare programs and entitlements this govt provides the poor, the more we do to chain them to poverty. And while some may claim that no one wants to stay in poverty, I've read way too many posts on here from posters who know of lots of people content to live off of the welfare programs to disregard what they are saying.

 

Parents can spoil their kids (isn't that one of the main reasons liberals point out people like Paris Hilton when arguing their support of a steep estate tax?). Well if parents can spoil their kids, then a country can spoil its people. If a person has a job that doesn't provide health insurance or pay him enough money to buy his own health insurance, whose fault is it that he didn't work harder in high school or college, or even go to college, so as to be able to get a better job? And I know plenty of poor people that got their total college tuition covered by financial aid (I went to college with some). I got a lot of financial aid and took out lots of loans to be able to attend college. I worked two jobs at Centre and worked almost full time in law school while going full time to law school. Dang it, if I could do it everyone can do it. You just have to want it enough. Making it easier to be poor is not helping the poor. I appreciate the compassion that people have to help the poor, I just think it hurts them more than it helps them in the long run.

 

Nail on the head!:thumb:

 

The role of government should be to make sure that the rules of the game are setup in order to teach a person to fish. Not to continue to give out fish.

I think it is admirable your desire to help your fellow man/neighbor. For many, there is no greater calling. There are several agencies to which you can donate time and money to assist those in need.

 

I merely oppose the government controlling many aspects of private industry. If you ran a car insurance business, would you want the government to oversee all that you do and control your prices and profits? What if the next step is that all Americans have a right to cars and car insurance? It boils down to another form of wealth redistribution and a huge step towards socialism, which I disagree with strongly.

 

So, while gasoline & oil is at an ALL TIME high. Oil companies are making their highest profits. I assume this is okay, as well?? Do you like paying over $3 per gallon for gas while companies are making billions of dollars.

 

In this same instance you must also support MONOPOLIES and oppose anit-trust laws. Well in a capitalistic country & free markets is it okay for monopolies. So, when we establish anti-trust laws those were steps towards socialism. In your responses I am going to assume that you do not like anti-trust laws & unions. As our history has shown, IF A COMPANY can do what it wants, it will pay low and provide unsafe condition for the bottom line ($$)

 

To get on topic, Gov't oversight has been necessary & is necessary so business do not harm the citizens. Do you disagree that companies provided unsafe meats & food, allowed children to work, provided unsafe conditions & injuries before workmans comp or disability, they had monopolies on railroads, phones, etc. How were these problems fixed?? I'm sure the Rockefellers would have gladly limited profits to provide these things, if they were asked. but I, personally as a realist, would not. would you?

The problem I have with this logic is that it at its root, its says that everything from the past is bad. And I've seen it used by both sides.

 

So slavery wasn't bad?

So not allowing minorities or women wasn't bad?

 

What do you mean? I did not say that EVERYTHING IS BAD. I said that Slavery wasnt a right until it was added as an amendment. do you disagree?

 

Everything from the past is not bad but everything from the past is not wrong. If one thing is bad, then couldnt that be changed? or am I being to liberal to thing that bad things should be changed. If i'm wrong to think that we should have slavery & that women shouldnt vote, then I'll just have to be wrong.

So, while gasoline & oil is at an ALL TIME high. Oil companies are making their highest profits. I assume this is okay, as well?? Do you like paying over $3 per gallon for gas while companies are making billions of dollars.

 

In this same instance you must also support MONOPOLIES and oppose anit-trust laws. Well in a capitalistic country & free markets is it okay for monopolies. So, when we establish anti-trust laws those were steps towards socialism. In your responses I am going to assume that you do not like anti-trust laws & unions. As our history has shown, IF A COMPANY can do what it wants, it will pay low and provide unsafe condition for the bottom line ($$)

 

To get on topic, Gov't oversight has been necessary & is necessary so business do not harm the citizens. Do you disagree that companies provided unsafe meats & food, allowed children to work, provided unsafe conditions & injuries before workmans comp or disability, they had monopolies on railroads, phones, etc. How were these problems fixed?? I'm sure the Rockefellers would have gladly limited profits to provide these things, if they were asked. but I, personally as a realist, would not. would you?

 

 

Simple economics. Supply and demand. If you do not like $3 gasoline, seek alternatives.

 

By the way what level of profit is "okay" for you?

 

Socialism is great in theory but stinks in application.

Nail on the head!:thumb:

 

The role of government should be to make sure that the rules of the game are setup in order to teach a person to fish. Not to continue to give out fish.

 

I wish I could say things as succintly as you and others.:thumb:

I wish I could say things as succintly as you and others.:thumb:

 

Your post made it easy. Now if we can just figure out how to get everyone on the same page... That is the real struggle.