Discussion in 'Politics' started by KMAN, Jul 29, 2009.
American Thinker: Why public health care is philosophically wrong
Why is this person, a Canadian? telling us about American freedom. Let him run for office in Canada on a platform to remove their healthcare and you won't hear from the tool again.
And examples of bad situations can be found anywhere, especially in the USA, so this means what exactly?
And since the majority of Americans want UHC, they have exercised their freedom and spoken, he needs to work on Canadians and see how well his freedom goes over up there.
Need for UHC
Midcan - Out of curiosity, are you for the government to control healthcare? Also, do you voluntarily take your extra money from your paycheck and pay for other who do not have health insurance?
Where in the US constitution does the federal government get the right to take over health care?
One last thing, I'm not sure where you are getting your information but I don't think the majority of Americans want this... In fact the more they find out about the details the more they hate it... I guess that's why Obama is in a hurry to pass this.
Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
That's gotta be among the dumbest articles I have ever read:
"Socialized medicine is SO horrible... SO vile... SO ineffective... SO philosophically wrong... SUCH a failure in every respect of the word...
... that they voted its inventor the greatest of their countrymen."
In a real sense Gov already controls healthcare through regulatory structure. But do we as citizens want corporations, the AMA, the insurance companies and the hospitals to control healthcare - cause people, average working people sure don't. So yes, we need more competition even if it is government pulling some strings.
The constitution thankfully misses a lot and we then can fill in the blanks based on what works best.
I have read often that the majority want UHC, survey questions are hardly the place for a decision on something so critical to our small businesses and to us.
Why is it that so few (if any) good examples of anything that the federal gummint runs can be found, hmmmmmm??
And if the majority of Americans all wanted 10,000 sq. ft. homes with an indoor swimming pool, should they be given that, at the expense of everyone else, too??
I often hear people say that the constitution fails to cover some things but nobody can ever give an example...
Regarding the majority of people that want UHC, I find that hard to believe, being that from what I've seen about 80% of the people are happy with their health care... However I do believe that 100% of the people want some sort of reform...just not the government to take over the entire health care industry...
Like Dude said...It's hard to find anything that the government does better than the private sector.... at least I can't think of one...
Sorta depends upon what political philosophy you subscribe to, doesn't it?
The military is pretty good, although I have to say they could save money too having been there done that.
Social security is excellent for lots of Americans.
Post service for a few cents gets my packages to me and from me.
Internet works well.
Weather forecasting excellent.
Love those backroads and travel, good work there.
Police have helped a few times. Money is insured. Food is safe. Planes are safe.
And the museums and parks and history - all good.
But hey, Dude, I'm sure your cave is warm and comfy too. Oh, and since you gave those houses to the rich by allowing them to exploit the resources of the nation, what the heck, yes, give to all. But efficiently.
Wanting something, even by a majority, does not make it right, nor constitutional
Freedom comes with positives AND negatives
Separate names with a comma.