pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 69,967
- 26,946
- 2,210
No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.
Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?
Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?
Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.
". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."
So I tell you what the problems are. . . the endemic problems? And your solution is. . More of the same?
Oh look, your house is on fire, maybe you should put it out?
". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."
What I see here is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You argue we do not have socialism.
We have Medicare. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM"
We have publicly funded education. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM".
Localities fund education, not the Feds. It is against the Constitution to do that.
No it isn't.
I have no problem helping the young, old and disabled to medical care. .. If you get Medicaid, you don't get to have toys or vacations. There is no disposable income. The government knows this.
People should not have to choose between being healthy and having any sort of life outside of that.
My problem is with those folks who have this belief that they should have government cover their medical care so they can spend their money on investments, real estate, vacations, shopping, toys, etc.
Most everyone will pay and those that don't will at some point. No one is arguing there will be no costs to anyone. That is a totally made up position to demonize people.
Healthcare IS NOT a human right, it is an investment in your future and it is a commodity. Primarily, it is an after thought of those who do not prioritize eating and drinking well and taking care of their health.
If the government takes it over? IT will become EVEN MORE expensive and filled with corruption and bloat.
As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.
O.K.
It is at this point, I think we are done having a productive conversation.
It has become clear to me one of two things. Either A) you are not a U.S. citizen, or B) you were not educated here or failed to understand and take to that education. Because anyone that has gotten involved in local politics understands and KNOWS that educations is the job of State and local governments. The Federal Government can only influence it through something called block grants that it attaches strings to that the states must adhere to if they want the money.
The only other reason for the Federal Dept. of Ed. is student loans.
You really don't now a whole lot about this, do you?
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
Now you are responding just like any person from the Common Wealth or other nations trying to subvert our society would. Folks deserve free stuff? Why?
"People should not have to choose between being healthy and having. . . (free stuff)"
Why? Eat right, exercise, save, invest, and buy the right health plan.
Education has largely been dealt with on the local level. You said it was unconstitutional to do otherwise. I said you were wrong. As opposed to showing where I am wrong and defending your position you made your post about me.