Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well first of all, guess who still gets to have private insurance? Thats right- everyone who works in the government (including Obama himself). Shouldn't the government have to comply with the rules they make? Also, in England they have socialized medicine. From waht I know about socialized medicine, it's not a good thing. Will America become like that?
Also, in this healthcare plan, President Obama plans on giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, too. Shouldn't he be helping his country before paying for illegal immigrants to have healthcare? And lastly, who is going to pay for all of this? If the government is paying for healthcare, taht means all our taxes go up! It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession? And, they will also decrease the money of the pharmacys. If pharmacies aren't getting enough money, then why are they going to want to continue in medical research.

Like P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Any responces? if you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

tomder55

The Founders were clear about the role of government .

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 51

That is why the founders made the powers of the national government few and enumerated in the constitution. The rest of the governing authority rests in state and local authority through the will of the people.

phlanx

It was alos the founders who decided that the old way of doing things was not working about for them

So the decided to change things

Of course things can always be changed in the future, I just hope that when change does occur it is done by peaceful means and not war

ETWolverine

Haven't I answered this enough times already.

Government is there to
1) maintain a physical infrastructure for the country... roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, and a mail service,
2) maintain a military and police force to protect the nation from enemies both foreign and domestic, and
3) create and maintain an economic environement that is conducive to the production of goods and services, the selling of those goods and services, and the accumulation of wealth.


Why? It's actually very simple.

Exactly 100% true. We really don't need representation if the government is simply sticking to those three requirements only. However, they don't stick to those three mandates, and if the government is going to tax us... and they do... then we require representation with regard to how those taxes are spent.

Elliot

tomder55

They also made provisions for change.It is through the amendment process. It has happened 27 times in our brief history .

My biggest beef is that too often the process is bypassed. That is the quickest way to erode the firewalls built into our system.

ETWolverine

Actually, that's NOT what excon said. Excon was trying to give a pithy response that he knows is inaccurate. He said nothing about raising money. He talked about making war vs. looking out for people, and assumed that one was the purview of the right, and the other was the purview of the left.

In actuality, however, the right both PREVENTS wars when they can and FIGHTS them when needed. It also protects the rights of individuals. The left neither prevents wars nor fights them and their domestic policies eliminate the right of free choice of individuals and create an under-class of slaves that are beholden to the government for all their needs while growing the power of the government over-class.

See, I can do pithy responses too. ANd mine are more accurate.

Elliot

phlanx

I think that your founders had the right idea for its time, the same as when rebels forced the King to sign the magna Carter, and Oliver Cromwell with his rebellion

Democracy in any form has taken along time to devolop in any country

I just find it interesting that people constantly refer backwards, as if to say, well if they didnt want it then we shouldnt have it now

In the magna carter is describes fairness and equality - this was a major step. After a few more steps, we arrive at your doorstep with equality for men

Again at this stage equality is a descriptive word

Moving forward, we still seem to have dificulty in providing equality for all men, especially in the US where it is the inequality that makes america what it is

I do not argue against captilism - I am all for it, but it is the hypocrisy that is persued so vigoursly that I find so amusing

Nobody states that not all should goto school, as people agree all children should have a fair crack of the whip and it was that do with that that matters

However, in a system that by its very nature requires people to work low paid jobs, without which the economy would collapse, and yet they will not provide a basic health care system that will show that they are rewarded for doing the jobs that most of us do not want to do

The argument against this is simple though, Why Should I Pay for someone elses mistakes - well why should I pay for someone to not listen in school?

If the US doesnt want a healthcare system for all, because it would be unfair against those that have worked for their cover, then why not expel those children that are wasting everybodies time at school - you are paying for them to do that

phlanx

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Sir Winston Churchill

ETWolverine

That's because you are defining "equality" as equal result. That is a false definition. The correct definition of "equality" is equal;ity of opportunity. And that EVERYONE in the USA has equally.

Actually, that is an ongoing debate. Should everyone go to school? Should the state pay for it? It's not as simple as you think it is... especially when the discussion includes higher education... post high school. Is education actually a "right"? Or is it a service that we have the right to purchase if we so desire? The difference is important.

Can you name such a job? Fact of the matter is that if people work for the government in low-paid jobs, they have some of the best health care available in the USA. Not to mention having union protection. And if they work for PRIVATE COMPANIES in such jobs, chances are better than 80% that they have health care as well. There are actually very few people who AREN'T covered by some form of health care... less than 3% of Americans, actually (roughly 12 million). So your assumption that there are huge tracts of people in low-paying jobs, forced to work as virtual slaves without health care in this country is just plain wrong.

Exactly. Again, this is an ongoing debate. Don't assume that it is a done deal and that education is universally considered to be a "right".

Yep. I'm fine with that. Your point?

Elliot

tomder55

I think it's timeless.
Not a good example. Our public school system is a monumental failure precisely because of the centralization of it. Like I said (and what I believe the founders meant by leaving power as much as possible to local authority ) ,such things are better left to the level of government closest to the people . The more madates on education come from the central government the more children fall through the cracks.
If the people become so slothful the society is lost anyway. But you got that wrong. You know why I pay electricians ,plumbers ,auto mechanics big bucks ? Because they provide a service I can't do. My lawncare and gardening I'm capable of doing myself.

phlanx

Tom

Lowest paid jobs are those that work in fast food resturants - Forbes 2007 and covers approx 15m americans

These jobs are always going to be needed, as I assume you like to take yourself, family, partner whatever out for at least a cup of coffee every now and again

These jobs are needed, nay, demanded by a capitalist economy, so who are you kidding when you state, Slothful Scoiety?

Even if you had every single child graduating from college with a recognised degree, somebody from this list would still have to be paid crap wages to bring you a cup of coffee

So why shouldnt these people, who lets face it work in some terrible conditions at time - imagine working for maccyds!, get a fair crack at having a good healthcare system?