 |
I'd have liked it if you had thrown in assisted suicide or cloning as well. I believe those were both not covered in the Constitution, and are considered illegal. Why is abortion legal and not assisted suicide? Don't we get the right to refuse medical care as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
In terms of volume, the Constitution with all the amendments, is minuscule compared with what comes out of Washington today.
It is written in shirt-sleeve English, which anyone with reasonableto comprehension should understand.
I believe the reason it has been violated is deliberate. The same forces that have brought about Communist tyrannies in other parts of the world have been at work here, and if our Constitution were not as good as it is, we would already be living under a tolalitarian regime.
But you still have not shown me where such a right IS enumerated. If it isn't listed in the Constitution, where is it listed.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And did you read the rest of my post about interpreting the 9th Amendment? I'll bet you did and are just ignoring it because you have no response. As usual. If you can't respond, just ignore it and change the conversation...
I'll take this one as another win...
Elliot
Congratulations on your win!Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I'm at my office and can't access your link, NK. What does it say?
As for my "win"... if the other guy REPEATEDLY doesn't answer the points you have made in a debate, ignores the salient points, and tries to change the topic, what do you call that?
In speech class in both high school and college, where I learned debate, they called that a "win".
Elliot
Well then congrats on your new job!Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Sounds to me like the rich people in the U.S. are a little upset that the middle and lower classes will be getting the same benefits as they receive now. What a shame? Get OVER IT! A lot of people really are sick and do not just have the sniffles or a cough and need medical attention but they can't afford it and do not have medical insurance.
Just last week as a matter of fact, my aunt had a possible stroke! She did not want to go to the hospital because she doesn't have the money. She has two kids and school will be starting back before you turn around and she has school clothes and supplies to buy. So she is one example of why we all should have right to medical insurance.
People like this make me sick, all for Obama when he first got in office and now that he wants to help the poorer people in America they are saying Hell no with Obama. Only the people who live in mansions and have cars that just sit outside for looks are the ones who should be getting medical. We pay for our medical why should the poor people get the rights to receive medical? Because it's fair for once, for once Obama isn't for all the rich celebrity people, he wants to help everyone. Why does it bother you anyway? It's not like you tried to be president and won, now is it? Thank God for that!!
Hello El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
This is NOT rocket science. In terms of rights, the Ninth Amendment says there are "others retained by the people", that AREN'T enumerated. You keep looking around for where the ARE enumerated (listed) but you ain't going to find 'em, because the amendment itself says THEY AREN'T there. I believe the amendment. Then you say, "I can't find 'em, so they must not be there." Duhhh!
If what you say is true, that because you don't find ANY other right's listed (even though the amendment says you won't), that there just AREN'T any, because you can't find 'em. Furthermore, you apparently think the Ninth Amendment means NOTHING.
And, I think it means exactly what it says.
What happened to the strict constructionist rightwing "do what the Constitution says - not what you THINK it says"?? Do you think the framers got bored and just wanted to fill in some space. What do you think the Ninth Amendment means. Oh, I know what you think it means. You said so.
I guess you agree with that idiot, Scalia when he spewed the following drek:
"the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be"
Let me see if I can dissect that crap. Even though the Ninth Amendment SAYS there "other rights", it really doesn't mean it. He's a fool.
excon
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No. We're not upset that other people will be getting the same benefits as us. We're just POed that WE would be the ones paying for it. What have I done that I should be penalized and be forced to pay for the insurance of others? What crime have I committed that a percentage of my income is going to be confiscated to pay for the insurance of those who have no income and aren't contributing themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet1028
NOR IS THAT EVEN WHAT OBAMA HAS PLANNED!! I would have less of a problem if this were what was happening. The problem is not that Obama is proposing that we pay for those who are uninsured to get the same care as we do. What he's planning is to make sure that everyone else has crappy insurance too. He's not proposing that everyone have their private health insurance covered. He proposing that everyone should have the same health insurance that Native Americans get and the same that Vets get in the VA system.
In other words, it's not enough that he wants me to pay for YOUR insurance... he want me to also give up MY insurance and take crappy health care instead.
First of all, why is that something that I should be penalized for? Why should I have to pay for the poverty of others? If someone gets fired and has no health insurance (or worse, if he never had a job to begin with, which is all too common), what makes it MY responsibility to pay for his insurance? When did I become indebted to him?Quote:
A lot of people really are sick and do not just have the sniffles or a cough and need medical attention but they can't afford it and do not have medical insurance.
Second of all, there are plenty of sources for FREE medical care, including ERs and free clinics throughout the USA, for them to get medical care. Every pharmaceutical company operating in the USA has programs to help poor people get drugs they need. There are plenty of free sources for medical care. There is also MEDICARE which covers anyone who is infirm and unable to work, and MEDICAID, which covers anyone with income levels up to 150% of the poverty line. There is no reason that anyone in the USA shouldn't be able to get medical care. ANyone who claims not to be able to get medical care when they need it is either LYING or hasn't looked into the matter and doesn't know what they are entitled to. In either case, it ain't my problem, and I shouldn't be paying for it.
I'm sorry for your aunt's possible stroke. But she's an idiot.Quote:
Just last week as a matter of fact, my aunt had a possible stroke! She did not want to go to the hospital because she doesn't have the money. She has two kids and school will be starting back before you turn around and she has school clothes and supplies to buy. So she is one example of why we all should have right to medical insurance.
There is no hospital in the USA that wouldn't take her in, care for her, give her the meds she needs, and then write off the bill if she couldn't pay for it. Especially for an emergency like a stroke.
So if your aunt decided not to go to the hospital, it wasn't because the system is broken. It's because she stupid. She had options and didn't take them. That's stupidity. And you are just as stupid for encouraging her stupid behavior. And I see no reason for me to be penalized for someone else's stupidity.
Gee... I never knew that the job of the President of the United States was to help the poor people. I thought it was to run the country.Quote:
People like this make me sick, all for Obama when he first got in office and now that he wants to help the poorer people in America they are saying Hell no with Obama. Only the people who live in mansions and have cars that just sit outside for looks are the ones who should be getting medical. We pay for our medical why should the poor people get the rights to receive medical? Because it's fair for once, for once Obama isn't for all the rich celebrity people, he wants to help everyone. Why does it bother you anyway? It's not like you tried to be president and won, now is it? Thank God for that!!
From the Constitution of the United States:
- Section. 2.
- The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
I see nothing in this that says that the job of the President is to help poor people.
BTW, if Obama is so in favor of the "poor people", why isn't he helping his brother in Kenya? His brother earns about $12 per month, lives in a box, and is TRULY in poverty. Obama could give him a couple of thousand dollars out of his own pocket without breaking a sweat to make his brother's life better. But he doesn't. That's because helping the poor isn't his real goal. His real goal is to screw over the rich and to remake the country in his father's socialist mold.
And what's your beef with rich people anyway? What do you have against people who earned their money instead of having it given to them by the government? What do you have against people who's PARENTS or GRANDPARENTS earned their money and gave it to their kids? Here's a little tip for you: RICH PEOPLE do more to help the poor than the government ever did. They employ millions of poor people. They give massive amounts of charity. They create charitable funds that keep hospitals, schools and charities operating.
What has the government ever done for poor people. What has Obama ever done for poor people?
Zilch, zip, nada.
I think you need to get over your sanctimonious anti-rich garbage and learn a little bit about how the real world works. Nobody gets anything for nothing, and nobody gives anything for nothing. If Obama creates a situation in which what I earn is taken away from me and I cannot get ahead because I'm being taxed into poverty, then I will have no incentive to continue working. Neither will any of the other "rich" people in this country. And THEN where will Obama get the money to fund his Marxist nationalized health care scheme? If I'm not making money to be taxed, who's going to pay for YOUR health care (or your aunt's)?
Elliot
Here's where I disagree with you on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Those non-listed rights are RETAINED by the people, and in the understanding of the framers of the Constitution, that meant the STATES, not the federal government.
So if there is to be any "right" to medical care or insurance coverage, it must be passed by the STATE legislatures and administered from there.
ONLY what is spelled out in the Constitution is the prerogrative of the federal government.
We have strayed far, no?
It says they aren't in the CONSTITUTION. But they have to exist SOMEWHERE. Even if it's just in past history. Otherwise it isn't a right. It's just made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think that all Americans should have the RIGHT to free maid service and free laundry service. After all, them rich folks have it, why shouldn't I? And the 9th Amendment says that just because it isn't written in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Therefore it must exist. So... when is the government going to start paying for my maid and my laundry?
The 9th says that not all rights are listed in the CONSTITUTION. It's doesn't say they aren't written ANYWHERE. Only YOU say that.Quote:
If what you say is true, that because you don't find ANY other right's listed (even though the amendment says you won't), that there just AREN'T any, because you can't find 'em. Furthermore, you apparently think the Ninth Amendment means NOTHING.
So do I. I think that just because it isn't written in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. But I also think that it must be listed SOMEPLACE for it to be a right. Again, even if it's just in past history.Quote:
And, I think it means exactly what it says.
Yep. I agree with that 100%. In fact, I'm the one who quoted it to you.Quote:
What happened to the strict constructionist rightwing "do what the Constitution says - not what you THINK it says"?? Do you think the framers got bored and just wanted to fill in some space. What do you think the Ninth Amendment means. Oh, I know what you think it means. You said so.
I guess you agree with that idiot, Scalia when he spewed the following drek:
"the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be"
Apparently you are having trouble disecting it.Quote:
Let me see if I can dissect that crap. Even though the Ninth Amendment SAYS there "other rights", it really doesn't mean it. He's a fool.
Excon
What he is saying is this: Just because the 9th Amendment says that there are other rights than those listed in the Constitution, it takes something other than the 9th Amendment do determine what those rights are. You can't just claim a right exists when you feel like it and point to the 9th Amendment as your proof.
So again... show me another source for a "right" to health insurance or health care.
You can try to spin this however you want, excon. But precedent in the interpretation of the 9th Amendment is clear. The 9th doesn't create rights. It simply says that other rights exist. It takes some other source (besides the Constitution) to determine what they are. Historical precedent, legal writings, new legislation, etc. Rights don't come into existence in a vacuum, much as you would wish they did.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
The rich stay rich because they have poor people like you carrying their water. I don't know why you do that.
If you're so rich, why didn't you take me to a better place for lunch?
excon
Distance from my office. Come again and I'll take you to Abigaile's. Higher-end kosher steak house and neuvelle tex mex place. Or we can go to Prime Grill... another high end kosher steak house. On me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And I'm NOT so rich. Problem is that Obama defines me as "rich", and is going to tax me for it so that folks like you can have their imaginary rights granted.
Elliot
One more point regarding ORIGINALISM and the 9th Amendment:
When Madison first presented the 9th Amendment to the Framers, he said the following:
''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''
It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.
From Findlaw at
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment
In other words, MADISON'S OWN WORDS make it clear what the original intent of the 9th Amendment was. It was there to state that other rights besides those listed exist and are protected from the federal government, but IT DOES NOT DEFINE THOSE RIGHTS. There must be some other source for those rights to exist than the 9th Amendment.
THAT is the originalist view. Scalia was right in his originalist view, and you are CLEARLY wrong on this one.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
No, it doesn't say that at all.
That's the cool thing about the framers. They wrote in simple easy to understand English. They made their intention perfectly clear - that would be to anyone who SPEAKS English...
It says, and I quote, "The enumeration IN the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
That's 21 words. They're clear as a bell. It doesn't say ANYTHING about NOT all rights are in the Constitution. It doesn't say anything CLOSE to that at all. It's ALL made up in your right wing head. You add words that aren't there to make it mean what you want it to mean. I don't know what happens to the strict constructionist over there in rightwingland...
It says, that the rights we've listed HERE, IN the Constitution doesn't mean that aren't others, that AREN'T listed here IN the Constitution.
You just don't LIKE what it says, or you aren't capable of reading ENGLISH.
See, here's the REAL problem. I've discussed it with you before. It's about LISTS. You can't seem to get along without lists. You have lists of people who don't qualify for rights... You LOVE lists. You bring up people on your lists all the time. Gay people comes to mind... However, I digress.
But, the framers KNEW that rightwingers like you would make hay of the LIST of rights the framers felt COMPELLED to specify, because of the rights NOT on the list...
That's WHY they wrote the Ninth Amendment. So that it is perfectly clear that our rights are NOT limited to the ones LISTED. There are OTHERS. Apparently the framers were smarter than we even give them credit for. They KNEW that circumstances would arise wherein those UNLISTED rights would become apparent.
That is exactly what is happening...
excon
Hello again, El:
Let's take it to the next level.
Of course, the framers could NEVER conceive of the air being fowled so badly that clean air becomes a commodity.
But, they provided for us.. Certainly, one of those UNLISTED rights, is the right to clean air. You, of course, wouldn't think we have a right to that because you can't find it in the Constitution.
You'd of course, be wrong, because it's right there, in the Ninth Amendment.
excon
Sorry, Ex. but you are wrong on this one.
All of this is coming from Washington. Don't you get it yet? The SOURCE of all these new found "rights" CANNOT Constitutionally be found in Washington. They must come from the states, because ANYTHING not listed is prohibited to the federal government.
I too understand simple English.
Hello again, gal:
We're close. As discussed before, the Ninth Amendment says the RIGHTS not listed belong to the people. The TENTH Amendment, though, says that POWERS not given to the federal government shall remain with the states..
One deals with right's. The other deals with power. They ain't the same thing. In fact, they are polar opposites.
excon
We're not done with this level yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You can't seem to explain how MADISON, who wrote the 9th Amendment, AND explained it's purpose as a matter of formal record at the Constitutional Convention, seems to disagree with your position. He himself said that the 9th was never intended to CONFER rights. He said that it was there to create a method of construction. But you still need that other source in order to "construct" a right.
I'm not taking it any further until you can explain this. Because until that is explained, there is no "next step". The argument ends here.
Yes, yes. Just like they never "conceived of any type of firearm with greater capacity for damage than a muzzle loader". So what? Is that a reason to give up the 2nd Amendment?Quote:
Of course, the framers could NEVER conceive of the air being fowled so badly that clean air becomes a commodity.
But, they provided for us.. Certainly, one of those UNLISTED rights, is the right to clean air. You, of course, wouldn't think we have a right to that because you can't find it in the Constitution.
You'd of course, be wrong, because it's right there, in the Ninth Amendment.
Excon
The framers DID create a method by which to fix any oversights, or to repair anything they could not conceive of.
It's called THE AMENDMENTS.
You don't just get to create rights or abrogate rights on a whim. There is a method by which it is done. Till then, you either have to find it in legal precedent, which doesn't exist, or in historical precendent, which also doesn't exist.
One more point, excon.
If the 9th Amendment means that the rights might not be listed ANYWHERE, including outside the Constitution, why did it specifically limit itself to lists within the Constitution?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Just because certain rights aren't listed IN THE CONSTITUTION doesn't mean that they don't exist. But they still have to be listed SOMEWHERE.
Enough is enough, excon. You are wrong. EVERY LEGAL expert agrees with me. LEGAL PRECEDENT agrees with me. MADISON, who wrote the Amendment agrees with me. The 9th doesn't confer rights. It only protects ones that already exist in law and precedent, but are not specifically listed in the Constitution. Just admit it and move on.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Nahhh, you got me mixed up with YOU. I don't want to take rights away. I want everybody to have 'em. Look, I think you should be able to own a bazooka, because the Second Amendment says to.
Unlike YOU, I don't pick which Amendment I support.
excon
Neither do I. I fully support the 9th Amendment... as it was intended by Madison and the other Framers. I just don't support what YOU THINK it says, and actually doesn't.
Same argument as about 9. If the power is not spelled out in the Constitution, then Washington doesn't legally have the power. Whatever is not spelled out belongs to the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Simple, no?
The bill of rights says that I have a right to worship as I please. The bill of rights does not mandate the gvt, must build me a church . The bill of rights says I can own weapons . The bill of rights does not say the gvt. Has to provide them to me.
If anything ;the health care bill being debated in the House would restrict my options regarding health care . It has already been demonstrated that private insurance will be on the fast track to oblivion and all Americans like it or not will be forced to participate in a gvt provider plan .
Also it has been revealed ,as Steve documented on another posting that Seniors will be obliged to regularly attend counceling to discuss 'end of life ' options. By definition this would appear to be a restricting of any right to health care the individual can make a claim to. Wouldn't a denial of treatment be the equivalent of an infringement of a right ?
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
IF we deemed health care a RIGHT, then it would... But, don't confuse ME with the congress. They ain't about to declare health care a right, even though that's absolutely what it is. Maybe in time...
But, I'm willing to have a REAL conversation about health care with you guys... But, you can't be doing any of this winking stuff. We got to start on a equal playing field... It starts with TRUTH.
So, until you admit that your health care IS being rationed by the health insurance industry, we can't have any discussion about government rationing... Cause you can't argue with people who are pretending.
excon
I don't buy the premise because of the rest of what I stated before the last line . Even if health care is a 'right' ,that does not mean the government must provide it .
Or perhaps you are a person ,like the President ,who bemoaned that the Constitution is a document of 'negative liberties' describing what the government is prohibitted from doing to the people ;and is lacking in what the government should be doing for the people .
YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We're getting closer... It's just semantics now...
I don't know. Do you think the government provides you with nice roads, or is it the paving contractor? Me?? I think the contractor "provides" you with nice roads and the government "pays" for it. Then it collects from you.
excon
But I don't think it is my right to drive on roads at all. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate post roads and claims some power under the commerce clause.Art 1 sec 8
Other than that there were clear questions of federalism associated with the construction of roads . More often than not they are property of local authority and yes to ride on them I have to pay for that service . I also would have to pay for the service of driving on someone's private road .
Other than that I don't see a connection . My "right " to travel on either public or private roads are contingent on many restrictive rules ;among them my ability to pay . That sounds more like a privilege than a right to me.
Ok ex, the truth is insurance companies do engage in rationing what they will PAY for. Pharmaceutical companies influence doctors to prescribe expensive new medicines when old ones may be just fine or even better and safer. Some things are broken, but the TRUTH is it doesn't require government bureaucrats reinventing the wheel to fix things.
The TRUTH is the cost of Obamacare is unsustainable.
The TRUTH is government will ration health care far more than insurance companies.
The TRUTH is Obama doesn't even know what's in this monstrous, unsustainable, spooky bill that not even he and Congres will commit to using themselves.
The TRUTH is Obama wants this bill passed NOW, before the bad news of his now delayed July budget bad news is released, even though he admits it needs work.
The TRUTH is Obama is too busy pushing this unsustainable bill he isn't familiar with that needs work, and punishing dissenters in his own party to actually lead on the issue.
The TRUTH is when Obama says it's not about him you can bet that it's ALL about him.
Not "you need to fix health care in America," but "You're going to destroy my presidency." Yeah, it's all about him... at all cost.Quote:
"Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "
So I googled "You're going to destroy my presidency" and guess what I found? Hearsay. Never does the name of that congressman EVER show up. In fact it's the same text that shows up everywhere... on neocon blogs everywhere. They even cal it a talking point. And some of the terms they use are the same as you just used here.
Nice try... again.
I suppose the rest of what I said is just hearsay as well? Wackos on the left built a whole Bush theocracy conspiracy on hearsay. Did you fall for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
There are wackos everywhere. Just ignore them.
Mocking them is so much more fun.
If one has nothing better to do.
Excon,
You can't ration something you don't have 100% control of. If one health insurance company tries to "ration" care (or deny a service), there are options outside that health insurance company. I can pay out of pocket or go to another insurance company that does cover that service.
No single company can cut off a service to the entire public or any individual in a free market economy. Therefore, insurance companies can deny a service, but they cannot RATION that service, because I can still get that service through other means.
But the government CAN ration a service in a single payer system. In single-payer nationalized health care, if they say someone doesn't get a service, they have effectively cut that service off from that person. Period. There are no other options. THAT is the definition of rationing a service... the ability to cut the person off from the service in order to limit the use of that service overall.
This is where you get mixed up. You seem to feel that "refusing to pay for a service" is the same as "rationing a service". They are NOT the same at all. If I have the option to get the service through other means, EVEN IF IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE OR MORE DIFFICULT, it is not rationing. But if I have no options whatsoever, THEN it is rationing.
So, no winking, no untruths. You're just wrong.
Elliot
It's funny ET, you spout off the neocon "rationing service" talking point ad nauseum but yet I live in a single payer system and have never been denied a service, nor has anyone in my family, or their extended family, or my friends, or co-workers.
Wow! All of this really hurts my feelings... NOT! I would laugh in the face of the "rich" people who have to have a little money taken out of their paychecks, and them not be able to buy a million dollar dress for one night out, and have cars that costs who knows how much just sitting around rusting, something for show and they don't even ride the stupid thing. Yes it will most definitely kill you to give up your pocket change to help someone who is possibly dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
What exactly is Obama trying to do? You seem to know what the man thinks on everything, and how do you know he hasn't gave his brother in a box any money? If it's Obama's real goal to "screw over the rich people" as you say, then I am 100% Obama. I think that would be the best thing for this country anyway. Take some of that beloved money that Great Grandmother Givesalottacash gave you and help someone with cancer or any other kind of sickness. At least it would be well spent and not wasted on some of the stupid things that rich people buy just to show it off and show how much money they have!
You have no right calling me or my aunt stupid. You are the stupid one if you ask me. Sitting pretty on your million dollar balcony and thinking that equal medical help for everyone is a luxury. What world do you live in? Medical attention is a luxury only for those people who go get their face lifted every week, their breasts redone over and over, their butt enhanced, or getting their lips injected so that they are "more full'. That is the luxury with it that you are talking about. Real medical help that people actually need is not a luxury at all, it's letting them live a little longer, so that they can get precious time with their loved ones.
Another thing you mentioned is people getting out and working for their money to let me and my aunt have medical. News Flash! Everyone I know does work, unless they are unable to, and I'm talking about labor not sitting in your pretty air conditioned office answering the phone all day and gossiping about the latest million dollar coat you are going to buy for Mr. Fluffles the CAT!! You need to look at it from another view, get off your high horse and look around, people need help, and If God was here right now, could you seriously tell him why that there is no way you could take some money and help people. He gave his own son to help people on earth, and you can't give a few dollars. So you tell me, I'm stupid. Go figure!!
Not yet anyway. Nk, you can praise your system all you want and that's fine, but there are problems. Only 57% of the Canadian public says they are receiving quality health care services. Less than half of the public believe that will improve over the next five years. Only 37% of doctors, 46% of pharmacists, and just 33% of nurses believe the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Of those who say timely access has worsened over the past 2 years:
Public: 49%
Doctors: 81%
Pharmacists: 78%
Nurses: 81%
Managers: 71%
And this one is interesting...
In your opinion, if Canadians were allowed to purchase private insurance for health
Services already covered under medicare, do you [agree] that this would:
public, agree or strongly agree:
Result in shorter waiting times: 63% (32% strongly)
Lead to a shortage of doctors and nurses in the public system, as they leave to
work in a new private system: 62% (36% strongly)
Create a two-tier system where those who can afford to pay will get better
Treatment than those who can’t: 59% (41% strongly)
Improve access to health care services for everyone: 57% (33% strongly)
Result in increasing costs of health care: 56% (26% strongly)
Lead to improved quality in health care services: 55% (26% strongly)
Add the boom in private practice and the scenario in Canada isn't as rosy as you want us to believe.
But you ignore the MILLIONS of other people in your system who HAVE been denied care, or had to wait for very long periods to get it. Your own Supreme Court acknowledged this as a problem when they ruled that "access to the queue is not access to health care". If it wasn't a problem, they wouldn't have had to address it. The fact that you PERSONALLY haven't experienced the problem doesn't mean that millions of others haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And I would check again with your friends and co-workers before speaking so freely about their experiences. You don't know what their experiences have been.
I gave you a list of websites that show just how bad your system is. But you ignore those stories and those statistics, and instead you talk about YOUR experiences in Canadian health care. No, your system isn't bad 100% of the time. But is sure isn't good 100% of the time. Or even 80% of the time.
"Well, it works for me" is a pretty stupid response when faced with statistical data that says that it doesn't work for MOST Canadians. But that's all you've got. Because you can't deny the overwhelming number of cases where it doesn't work.
So I'm glad that the Canadian health care system works for you. But it doesn't work to well for Canada. And it won't work very well for America either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet1028
Hey, dummy, here's a clue.
When Obama talks about "the rich", he doesn't mean Bill Gates. He means people who work. He means taking money from the MIDDLE CLASS to give to the poor.
As for your idea of soaking the rich to help the poor... without the rich the economy breaks down. Jobs are lost. EVERYONE becomes poor. NOBODY ends up better off.
You are a childish, jealous little twerp who thinks that everything bad that ever happened to you is someone else's fault. And you're going to get your revenge, by hook or by crook, no matter what it costs. Even if YOU get hurt in the process. And trust me, if Obama gets his way, you'll have your revenge against the rich, but you will be hurt.
You are a fool who has yet to grow up and live in the real world for any period, earn your money and have it taken away from you by a government that thinks that those who work should be supporting those who don't. You clearly have no idea what it feels like to have half (or more) of everything you earn taken away from you and given to others.
But under Obama you will. Especially if you live in a large city. Between Obama's tax hikes and the state and local taxes, you will be paying over 50% in taxes.
THEN you will know what Obama means by "taxing the rich". He's not referring to the RICH. He's referring to anyone that earns money.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Or don't. I really don't care.
You'll get screwed over either way.
Oh... BTW, I'm not rich. I own a one family 4-bedroom house in a nice residential area of New Jersey, and my total family income is under $100,000. (My father is wealthy, but not me.)
However, for all the fact that I'm definitely "middle class", Obama defines me and people like me as "rich" and is going to tax me as if I was rich. That 50% tax rate I was mentioning above applies to me. My federal tax rate is going to jump to 38% and my state and local taxes are over 10%.
THAT is why I'm so pissed off that some twerp like you thinks that it's OK to soak the rich to give to the poor. I'm the one who's going to pay for it, and I see no reason to be paying for your lazy @$$ to have what I earned. Every dollar I pay in taxes for you to have health insurance is a dollar that isn't used to pay my kids' tuition, make the mortgage payments, put food on the table, or save for retirement.
What exactly did you do with your life that I owe you something? What exactly did I do to put myself in your debt? Why should my money, the money that I earn working my @$$ off all day, be going to support YOU or YOUR AUNT.
Your aunt has Medicare and Medicaid to take care of her if she's too poor to aford medical insurance. We already pay billions into these systems. What right does she have to more of MY MONEY?? She's already getting money that doesn't belong to her to cover her medical needs. If she's too stupid to know that, it ain't my fault, and I shouldn't have to pay for her stupidity.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 PM. |