Forcing people to buy health insurance

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 25, 2010, 08:09:20 PM

Surely there can be no issue with trying to modify a system that leaves so many people without healthcare. That is Obamas motive here. And the companies providing insurance are not charitites. They are in it to make money and that is the real problem is sorting the playing field out. Obama only had two options, to create a governement funded (by taxpayers) NHS (as we have in the UK) or to regulate the insurance industry to force them to cover everyone without condition. Neither option was going to please everyone. Even in the UK we have a private healthcare service for those who what to pay for that and insurance options are available. But whatever the Americans argue about over this issue there is no excuse for millions of people being left out of healthcare because they are too poor to buy insurance. That's just not where a country as wealthy as America should be.

Since we are so wealthy, why do we have people too poor to buy insurance?

Because the wealth is not distributed evenly. There are very wealthy people and very poor people.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 25, 2010, 08:24:33 PM

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 25, 2010, 08:09:20 PM

Surely there can be no issue with trying to modify a system that leaves so many people without healthcare. That is Obamas motive here. And the companies providing insurance are not charitites. They are in it to make money and that is the real problem is sorting the playing field out. Obama only had two options, to create a governement funded (by taxpayers) NHS (as we have in the UK) or to regulate the insurance industry to force them to cover everyone without condition. Neither option was going to please everyone. Even in the UK we have a private healthcare service for those who what to pay for that and insurance options are available. But whatever the Americans argue about over this issue there is no excuse for millions of people being left out of healthcare because they are too poor to buy insurance. That's just not where a country as wealthy as America should be.

Since we are so wealthy, why do we have people too poor to buy insurance?

Because the wealth is not distributed evenly. There are very wealthy people and very poor people.

So, you'd agree that, in order to give to some, you have to take from others?  And what do they get in return?  Nothing?  Sounds like stealing to me.
Don't worry, when the government steals from you for being a hard working individual, it will be fair.

And isn't a lot of healthcare insurance tied up with jobs..ie the employer pays some. Although i saw a doc on Walmart where many of their employees couldn't afford their helathcare plan and had to use medicaid (or whatever it's called). People without jobs, where do they get health insurance from as well? And on that point many people become ill and find they can't work, and then have insurance companies refusing to insure those who become long term ill as well - that was something that needed to change. The only problem with insurance companies is they won't let their profitability drop so I would expect them to put their prices up now to offset the cover they will be forced to provide to less profotable clients. I still think the better option would have been a state funded not for profit insurance plan for the low income and unemployed.

Insurance companies won't let their profitability drop, you're right.  And thanks to federal regulations, insurance carriers can't sell insurance across state lines.  And thanks to state and federal regulations, only properly licensed and bonded companies can sell insurance.  So, you can see how this limits competition in the marketplace.

As far as long term ill, that's where charity comes in.  If there was not social security and income tax, believe me, I'd be highly inclined to donate more to the poor.
And as far as preexisting conditions go...sometimes you just have to play the hand you were dealt.  Unfortunately, some people are born totally blind or deaf.  No amount of insurance can fix this.

I totally think that community or state funded hospitals should exist for emergency care.  Just like the rescue service is a good idea.  Similarly, I think it's my choice to decide to live in a state that offers these services (or a city for that matter), or one that doesn't.  However, if another state decides they don't want to have a single payer system, or mandated insurance, they shouldn't have to.
There's a big misconception about American that needs to be corrected.  The federal government is NOT SUPERIOR to the states.  You can think of the federal government as a mix between NATO and the EU for the states of america.  American states are independently sovereign, not districts of the federal government.

A right by definition is:  The sovereignty to act without needing the permission of a higher authority.  This definition has two requirements, first, the ability to act, and second, being the highest authority.  God is not required for either of these requiremnents, but according to the American system, rights by that definition are pre existing.  However, having something provided to you is certainly not a right in of itself.  It certainly is an entitlement if it is required by law.

The declaration of independence does not have ANY legal significance in the U.S., it was merely a fuck you to the King of England.  The Constitution makes no mention of the authority of God, or any deity, only the people have the highest authority.

All of those points are right but I still think to leave health to 'the hand you are dealt' is unfair. No-one has a say in the luck of birth. That could be you in 20 years time and you'll think differently if it is. It is not impossible for a state to have a state funded healthcare service for as you say emergency and treatment that absolutely requires medication. And your taxes already are being spent on things you will never use personally. Like the point I made before...tax pays for schools but not every tax payer has children.

A right by definition is:  The sovereignty to act without needing the permission of a higher authority.  This definition has two requirements, first, the ability to act, and second, being the highest authority.  God is not required for either of these requiremnents, but according to the American system, rights by that definition are pre existing.  However, having something provided to you is certainly not a right in of itself.  It certainly is an entitlement if it is required by law.

The declaration of independence does not have ANY legal significance in the U.S., it was merely a fuck you to the King of England.  The Constitution makes no mention of the authority of God, or any deity, only the people have the highest authority.

I can't argue with this, it is sound, and I agree, except the fact that rights were endowed by God.  That and my whole point with the declaration was to give an accurate understanding when it comes to 'rights' in America.
As far of the constitution making no mention of the authority of God, where do you suppose the 'blessings' in "and secure the Blessings of Liberty" come from?

To EarthISroundISproven:
'The hand you are dealt' is unfair, I don't dispute this, and this is where we disagree.  The great thing about disagreeing is both of us can be right in America.  You could live in Massachusetts, where this idea is of the utmost importance, and I can live in another state.  I ultimately think it's foolish, but you'll never hear me complain about what they're doing in Massachusetts because it doesn't affect me (I live in Virginia).

America is a big place and foreigners who've never been there don't realise that. So i can totally see how one state is different to another and I guess some states who have more need for a cheap or free healthcare system than others and that give national politics other problems.

As for the constitution and religion....america was founded by religious pilgims and religious overtones permeate everything. That is obvious to many outside looking in. When did you last see a president not say 'God bless America' in some key speech. You never see a British or Eurpoean president say such a thing.

They don't sing, "God Save the Queen?"   

There are some odd misconceptions about the founding of America.  The pilgrims (akin to the Roundheads) were the second bunch of English settlers here; they got lost trying to find Virginia, peopled with ordinary CofE entrepreneurs.  I suspect Washington Irving's fine hand in this misreading.  Washington, Jefferson and that ilk were not in any way, shape or form Pilgrims; they were Virginians.

As for the constitution and religion....america was founded by religious pilgims and religious overtones permeate everything. That is obvious to many outside looking in. When did you last see a president not say 'God bless America' in some key speech. You never see a British or Eurpoean president say such a thing.

Similarly, it's very unlikely to hear a US President say "Long live the queen," lol.
Also, I don't dispute the fact that Christianity permeates American government.  Christian beliefs are the foundation of our government.  This whole 'seperation of church and state' argument isn't an issue.  The first amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So basically, all it's saying is that Congress won't interfere with religion, not that the government won't incorporate Christian beliefs.
A lot can be learned from actually reading the constitution, which sadly, most Americans haven't, or haven't since high school.  I haven't read any other country's constitution, so I can't blame others for not reading ours, but I do think there is a lot of misconceptions about what America is, and what it's supposed to be.

Reading the constitution is a waste of time.

Well no politicians say long live the queen in any speech...they just don't. In fact the monarchy seems to be off limits in any form, but maybe that's because the Queen is technically the head of the CHurch of England (thanks to Elizabeth 1st) and religion is a definite no no in British politics. The closest we get to it is the National Anthem but there's no conflict there as the Queen is head of the church. American presidients by contrast seem obliged to reference God and it's an important disitinction becasue it infers that God is a fundamental part of everything America is, whether or not that is born out in reality (I think it depends on the president of course). The idea behind the American constitution is a good one I think but there's also a myth there, this idea of America as the land of the free, the bastion of democracy, the American dream and so on. The truth is that is has the same troubles, conflicts and inequalities of any modern western nation. It's just not very good at admitting that.

I was just make a joke about the queen thing, I'm not very versed in European politics.

You are right, most Americans are not self critical.  They cannot see blatant truths right in front of there eyes (this is coming from someone who is half in the pot for FET).
It doesn't take much American history to know how corrupt and evil our government is, but people refuse to see it.

Let's talk just about the wars:
First, there was the American Indian genocide campaign of the late 17 and early 1800's.
Second, there was the American Civil war.  For some reason, most of America thinks Lincoln is a hero for 'preserving the union' by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Americans, and imprisoning thousands of politcal prisoners.
Third, WWII Japanese internment camps.  This should be self evident.
Fourth, Korea.
Fifth, Vietnam.

This is just a basic list of what I would consider real atrocities of liberty.
I'm sure we appear in the same light as Stalinistic Russia in the eyes of the rest of the world.  Too bad there isn't a mirror big enough to make us confront ourselves.

Guantanamo Bay could finish that list off nicely but looking at it I'm not suprised you have a foot in the door of FET lol

Thing is, history is history and nothing can be done to change it and anyway most people, Americans included are just trying to get by from day to day taking care of themselves and their families. There's little room to worry about anything bigger.

For me it's not that America is rubbish at war or foreign affairs (which it has been on occasions) it's the myth of the 'United' States that jumps out. I think the slow response to New Orleans genuinely shocked a lot of the world. And the cultural differences from state to state almost says that America will struggle to find a common ground internally in parts. But that's the nature of a massive continent. There are many things I admire in America. There are some extremely intelligent journalists and writers for example and movies.

The American people are okay, just prone to being manipulated and are otherwise apethetic to real world issues.  It's the government that you need to worry about.

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

Most people have a sense of entitlement when it comes to their money, no matter how much or how little. I can't blame them really, because it belongs to them and they see no reason to share it against their will. Where I see things differently is their definition of how a community works. If you want a healthy, stable community it's in everyones best interest to "pitch in", instead of putting FREEDOM on your banner and hold on to every last penny. I know that Socialism is somehow scary to Americans and I can certainly agree that it has it's flaws, but there are aspects to it that work and make sense.

I find it staggering that some people don't want to use their money to help others. I thought it was just what happens if you're a human being, but I guess not...

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

Key word there is "taking."  If the rich people didn't 'give' the money, then it's stealing.  Plain and simple.

I have no fear of socialism.  It just won't work on an American scale.  It will lead participants to fail behind economically in the long term.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:22:47 AM

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

Key word there is "taking."  If the rich people didn't 'give' the money, then it's stealing.  Plain and simple.

I have no fear of socialism.  It just won't work on an American scale.  It will lead participants to fail behind economically in the long term.

How is it? How is tax not stealing then?

Quote from: Mizzle on March 26, 2010, 01:37:59 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:22:47 AM

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

Key word there is "taking."  If the rich people didn't 'give' the money, then it's stealing.  Plain and simple.

I have no fear of socialism.  It just won't work on an American scale.  It will lead participants to fail behind economically in the long term.

How is it? How is tax not stealing then?

Great question!  I think that tax is stealing!  If tax was voluntary, then people a) probably wouldn't pay it; b) property and assests wouldn't be seized for not paying it, and people wouldn't be jailed for not paying it.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:42:00 AM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 26, 2010, 01:37:59 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:22:47 AM

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

Key word there is "taking."  If the rich people didn't 'give' the money, then it's stealing.  Plain and simple.

I have no fear of socialism.  It just won't work on an American scale.  It will lead participants to fail behind economically in the long term.

How is it? How is tax not stealing then?

Great question!  I think that tax is stealing!  If tax was voluntary, then people a) probably wouldn't pay it; b) property and assests wouldn't be seized for not paying it, and people wouldn't be jailed for not paying it.

So you are essentially an anarchist?

No, I'm not an anarchist.  I believe governments are servants, not authorities.
Just as any private club or organization:
You are free to join or leave as you see fit.  I don't believe in the notion that government should be able to coherce any action out of people.  Government should serve as a protector of rights, not a stripper (imprisonment).
I'm also aware that this doesn't fit the preconcieved notion of what government is/should be.
I guess I'm just a free thinker.

I guess I'm just a free thinker.

No I don't think you qualify for that title

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:22:47 AM

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

Key word there is "taking."  If the rich people didn't 'give' the money, then it's stealing.  Plain and simple.

I have no fear of socialism.  It just won't work on an American scale.  It will lead participants to fail behind economically in the long term.

Socialism is a red herring. America already has a form of welfare state and has free schooling for all and also Unions...those are socialist ideas. Not sure what an American scale is. Size is never a barrier to culture whatever it is. But it would be too great a leap for American culture at present, yes to describe itself as socialist in any form. Truth is though that if there were no socialist principles in play there would be anarchy.

Either taxation is stealing or it is not. The general consensus would be that it's not and the wealthy pay higher taxes anyway (when they are not hiding income offshore). They might moan about it but the reality is that society isn't static and the needs of it change and evolve. In times of high unemployment more is needed for welfare, in prosperous times taxes can be used elsewhere but that is for government to decide and manage, the role being the pursuit of a healthy society. If it were left to taxpayers themselves to decide there would be no welfare amongst other things and some people would be left to starve, resort to crime etc and then sentenced to death for it lol - extreme example I know but just making the point that thee are sensible reasons for helping those at the bottom.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on March 25, 2010, 09:22:20 PM

A right by definition is:  The sovereignty to act without needing the permission of a higher authority.  This definition has two requirements, first, the ability to act, and second, being the highest authority.  God is not required for either of these requiremnents, but according to the American system, rights by that definition are pre existing.  However, having something provided to you is certainly not a right in of itself.  It certainly is an entitlement if it is required by law.

The declaration of independence does not have ANY legal significance in the U.S., it was merely a fuck you to the King of England.  The Constitution makes no mention of the authority of God, or any deity, only the people have the highest authority.

I can't argue with this, it is sound, and I agree, except the fact that rights were endowed by God.  That and my whole point with the declaration was to give an accurate understanding when it comes to 'rights' in America.
As far of the constitution making no mention of the authority of God, where do you suppose the 'blessings' in "and secure the Blessings of Liberty" come from?

That certainly does not translate to, "God's granted us rights".  Again, liberty is simply the ability to act freely, god is not required for you to have that.  You are free to believe that God ordained you with the ability to act, that does not make it true, because such a thing would still exist if there really was no god.

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 25, 2010, 09:53:27 PM

As for the constitution and religion....america was founded by religious pilgims and religious overtones permeate everything. That is obvious to many outside looking in. When did you last see a president not say 'God bless America' in some key speech. You never see a British or Eurpoean president say such a thing.

Similarly, it's very unlikely to hear a US President say "Long live the queen," lol.
Also, I don't dispute the fact that Christianity permeates American government.  Christian beliefs are the foundation of our government.  This whole 'seperation of church and state' argument isn't an issue.  The first amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So basically, all it's saying is that Congress won't interfere with religion, not that the government won't incorporate Christian beliefs.
A lot can be learned from actually reading the constitution, which sadly, most Americans haven't, or haven't since high school.  I haven't read any other country's constitution, so I can't blame others for not reading ours, but I do think there is a lot of misconceptions about what America is, and what it's supposed to be.

That's horse shit except for the interference part.  The first amendment bans the establishment of a state religion as well as government interference, it was the general theory of the time that religion needed to be established in government, which led to the oppression of other religions that were not the "government sanctioned" religion.

Our founders understood this, the original colonists came here to escape that very same persecution, but then started persecuting each other in the exact same way.  When it came time to write the Constitution, our founders realized that allowing a state established religion would simply lead to the same end, so they banned it.  They realized that the only way to have freedom of religion is to have freedom from religion.  That is what the first amendment means, but it is also established before that in article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Therefore you cannot require an elected official to be of a certain faith, etc.

Madison, who authored the first amendment and most of the Constitution, has this to say on religion in our government:

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others. [James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]

It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]

A Christian nation will only lead to the same persecutions our founders sought to remedy.

More from a different founder:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Quote from: Mizzle on March 25, 2010, 10:19:15 PM

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 25, 2010, 09:53:27 PM

As for the constitution and religion....america was founded by religious pilgims and religious overtones permeate everything. That is obvious to many outside looking in. When did you last see a president not say 'God bless America' in some key speech. You never see a British or Eurpoean president say such a thing.

Similarly, it's very unlikely to hear a US President say "Long live the queen," lol.
Also, I don't dispute the fact that Christianity permeates American government.  Christian beliefs are the foundation of our government.  This whole 'seperation of church and state' argument isn't an issue.  The first amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So basically, all it's saying is that Congress won't interfere with religion, not that the government won't incorporate Christian beliefs.
A lot can be learned from actually reading the constitution, which sadly, most Americans haven't, or haven't since high school.  I haven't read any other country's constitution, so I can't blame others for not reading ours, but I do think there is a lot of misconceptions about what America is, and what it's supposed to be.

That's horse shit except for the interference part.  The first amendment bans the establishment of a state religion as well as government interference, it was the general theory of the time that religion needed to be established in government, which led to the oppression of other religions that were not the "government sanctioned" religion.

Our founders understood this, the original colonists came here to escape that very same persecution, but then started persecuting each other in the exact same way.  When it came time to write the Constitution, our founders realized that allowing a state established religion would simply lead to the same end, so they banned it.  They realized that the only way to have freedom of religion is to have freedom from religion.  That is what the first amendment means, but it is also established before that in article VI:

Quote

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Therefore you cannot require an elected official to be of a certain faith, etc.

Madison, who authored the first amendment and most of the Constitution, has this to say on religion in our government:

Quote

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

Quote

t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others. [James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]

Quote

It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]

A Christian nation will only lead to the same persecutions our founders sought to remedy.

The first Ammendment might say what it says but there's no denying the influence of the christian right in republican politics. The Bush campaign was funded in part by the christian right. It's well documented.

I agree, but that movement came after the founding, the right is now trying to re write history in Texas by removing the ideas of Jefferson and Madison, because it does not support their view of the founding of the U.S.

Under God, and In God we Trust were not incorporated into our government until much later.  They are unconstitutional without a doubt, and dangerous too.