Trading Liberty for Health Care - Page 2
Blogs > Joedaddy |
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
| ||
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On December 06 2011 12:57 Romantic wrote: All it did was pass a tax increase and then waive it if you meet certain requirements. Boo hoo. President Obama specifically said that it was not a tax. | ||
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
For the record, Switzerland has a very similar system. Oh us poor unfree Swiss people. | ||
Primadog
United States4411 Posts
| ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:21 Primadog wrote: We don't have anything else to tie us together. Also, it's a pretty cool document. Really? Does it have nice binding. Binding is way cool ![]() Seriously though, it does seem weird to an outsider. I mean the constitution has been amended "many" times. It is not like it is a perfect document. Times change and it would be unreasonable to expect the people the framed the constitution would have any idea about the current world we live in. Except perhaps for their stance on government restraint. I can understand the argument about the legality of the legislation under the law. It just seems weird that a law about commerce regulation is what defines whether the Health Care is legal or not. Seems like a mountain out of a mole hill. I guess that means I just don't fully understand the situation. Oh well ![]() | ||
TheGiz
Canada708 Posts
Two-tier healthcare is the best possible system. First of all, hospitals in Ontario are rich SHOPPING MALLS more than hospitals. I haven't even shown Princess Margaret, St. Joseph's (which is older), Sick Kids, or St. Michael's. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The bottom two are being built right now. I've seen the CAD and specs on the last one and it is magnificent. If the current system of healthcare in Ontario at least can support this kind of excess then my argument is invalid. If however it doesn't work then two-tier is the better option: everyone has the basic level of insurance that covers publicly run hospitals, while private ones - which receive NO government funding - are available for those who want to pay more. This prevents the "if you can't pay you die" shit we see in the States, while at the same time allowing rich motherfuckers to pay for more-than-necessary high quality care. Since nothing appears to be outwardly broken at the moment (I don't know how true that is, but I do know the hospital in my area is a glorified morgue), the system appears to work. | ||
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:19 Orome wrote: I'm really curious about where Americans' religious devotion to their constitution comes from. Naturally a constitution is an extremely important document and should not lightly be changed, but people in the US seem to treat their constitution as a holy document that's the final word on everything regarding the country. Your argument too doesn't even address why 'regulating inactivity' would be the downfall of civil liberty, it merely goes on and on about the constitutionality of such a law and hints at an obscure slippery slope that might stem from this. For the record, Switzerland has a very similar system. Oh us poor unfree Swiss people. I happen to like the Constitution because it was written by men who knew how important and valuable freedom is. They fought and died for their freedom. The founding fathers and the original pilgrims knew what it was like to live in countries of tyranny and oppression. They knew that freedom is not something we should take for granted. The founding fathers created the constitution to make sure that the US Government would never turn into what they all hated so much. I think that people today don't truly appreciate freedom, and how lucky we are to live in free countries, and not countries like North Korea or China. The Constitution was created to protect the individual freedoms of the people, and to make sure the government does not take them away. That is why I like the constitution so much. | ||
| ||