Well, it passed

You're bringing freedom of speech into a health care debate despite the fact that you just said that it's a non-partisan issue. Health care is a very partisan issue. Universal health care is a very liberal idea.
 
It is a very liberal idea, but the liberals among us are not all democrats. I am saying that just because someone is a republican, they are not always conservative. Examples are McCain, Nixon, Bush, and so on.
 
Actually, you have it backwards. Both the parties in the United States are extremely conservative compared to other countries. Someone who's considered liberal in the United States could be considered rather conservative in Canada.
 
Well I guess those communist <censored>s are even more evil than the liberals we have here. America is a conservative country and has always been. I do not want this to end. To me, countries like France are on the wrong page. We should not become like France, we should stay with the strong principles of the constitution.
 
Cosmic said:
Well I guess those communist <censored>s are even more evil than the liberals we have here. America is a conservative country and has always been. I do not want this to end. To me, countries like France are on the wrong page. We should not become like France, we should stay with the strong principles of the constitution.
Click to expand...

How are guys like France and us communists, exactly?
 
Have you?

If you are trying to tell me that it is a flawed document, then I would not be surprised. Liberals typically despise it, as it places limits on how they can "control the people".

@elcanadiano: Spreading the wealth.
 
I have read the Constitution. It's not a flawed document, and the health care bill is not a violation of its principles.
 
What, in the constitution, says they can force people to buy services? The constitution is a document giving government power, not limitations. what it does not say they can do, they cannot do.
 
The government is a document giving government power, not limitations. what it says they cannot do, they cannot do.
Click to expand...
You just essentially contradicted yourself.
 
You could fairly easily argue that this health care bill is constitutional because Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The commerce clause has been used similarly before.
 
It can be argued that they can regulate, but not mandate. They can not require you to engage on commerce.
 
This violates the constitution. (sarcasm)

I think you should check over it, the health care bill does not violate anything 😉
 
As I said, it has to comply with it, not just fail to violate it. The constitution grants the government 100% of its power. without that, they are common citizens.
 
Cosmic said:
It's all about freedom and the right to do what you want to do with your money. You can donate as much as you like to funds like that, but should you have to? No! Is it the government's job to dictate everything we do, including what career we get into and how we spend our money? NO! The government is comprised of elected representatives, not gods. they are just like us, and in many cases they are dumber than us. A few days ago an admiral was discussing moving 5,000 extra marines and their families to the island of Guam. A congressman, who was there, asked "Is not Guam just x miles long and x miles wide?". The admiral said yes, it was. The congressman replied, "Well, my concern is that if Guam becomes overpopulated... it will tip over... and capsize...". The admiral's priceless reply was: "...................... We don't anticipate that". The American government has a long history of being inefficient and bureaucratic.

These benefits you speak of can be accomplished by starting charity funds. Why does the government have to mandate them? THIS IS ABOUT FREEDOM! The freedom to spend your money how you want it, the freedom to chose your healthcare plan, the freedom to do what you want when you want, and the freedom to say anything you like. America was supposed to be a country of Freedom with free speech.
Click to expand...
What about the freedom of good health for those who can't buy health insurance? Or freedom to good education to those who can't pay for private schooling? What about the freedom of knowing that if your home catches on fire, a firefighter can come and put it out?

You're looking at this completely the wrong way. Yes, you pay more in taxes, but the benefits far outweigh it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319
Read that and tell me that isn't a good thing.

What, in the constitution, says they can force people to buy services?
Click to expand...
Service? When did receiving good health become a 'service'? Just because your country had a price tag slapped on it for ages doesn't mean it should be treated as such. -_-
 
If Obama made jobs instead, people could afford these things. Also ,what do you mean about fire-fighters? I may be mistaken, but my impression was that hat was not on a federal level so much.

You have to buy health insurance, under Obamacare. It is not free, you have to buy it.

I propose that people actually get jobs so they can afford these things. You say they can't find work? That is because Obama is too busy spending $$$ on DESTROYING BUSINESS AND THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. His massive regulations and mandates will do more bad than good. small businesses cannot buy their employees insurance, necessarily, especially when costs will rise.
 
I find it funny, that the only people opposing this live in the US, which does not have universal health care, and most people for it live in Australia/Canada/UK, which do have universal health care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Since 2007, Forum Promotion has specialized in providing advertising solutions to webmasters looking to promote their communities. We pride ourselves in being the bridge that connects forum administrators, bloggers, and more.

Sponsors

Affiliates

    Universal Gaming The Coffee House

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom