I'm interested in hearing your opinion about this new law here in the U.S. Are you...
1) Totally for it.
2) For it, but would like to see some parts repealed.
3) Totally against it and would like to see the system remain the same as before the law.
4) Totally against it but would like to see something else in its place.
5) Don't care... Shut it... Next!
I think I covered all the possible categories. But if you don't like them, let me know what you think. Personally, I'm #4.
So what you aresaying is that you do not know the constitution because one of the jobs of congress is to promote the general welfare which is different then welfare programs. Become familiar with the Constitution first then we'll talk.
This discussion was certainly not intended by me to upset you nor anyone else. So I'll be happy to continue if you are ok with setting aside the personal attacks. Of course, I have read the Constitution. I am quite familiar with the phrase 'general welfare'. The question is its interpretation. Just because you may believe it to be interpreted to include healthcare does not mean it was intended nor should it be intended to be interpreted as such. I do appreciate your opinion and comments though. Maybe you can provide me your knowledge on how the Constitution actually defines 'general welfare' to include healthcare? Thank you.
I'm in the minority here but I think it can't be repealed fast enough. I'm against a government mandate and the mandate is only one of the problems of this bill. Any bill that is well over 2000 pages should send off alarm bells for that reason alone.
It's a maze of new burdensome regulations that will only hurt the economy. Some things should be addressed like companies dropping people when they get sick, that's a breach of contract as far as I'm concerned. They're happy to take your money when your healthy but leave you high and dry when the reason you bought their product arises? That has to be addressed and something about preexisting conditions but that is a more delicate issue.
What reason would a company have for taking someone who will with 100% certainty cost them far more than they would ever pay in? Health insurance is a gamble. The health insurance is gambling you won't cost them more than you pay them for coverage, if it's a sure thing they'll get sick there's no gamble, they will lose money. There has to be a solution but it has to be more subtitle then saying you have to take them and damn your business. Maybe give them tax credits for taking people with preexisting conditions. I don't know but something should be done.
I agree with you about being against the mandate. But I'm pretty sure the new bill does not allow insurance companies to deny or drop coverage due to preexisting conditions. I think there are some good aspects of the law. But for me, taken as a whole, it is the wrong approach.
I think the saddest part about this whole bill is what the insurance company's have already admitted. They want the money now from healthy young people to make them pay in to a system those young people will be a part of in the far off future. In other words, the Baby Boomers (the ME generation) are going to get a free ride. Where were they, paying into the system when they were young? LOL Another "Do as I say and not as I do." lesson from them.
One of the things that Obama pushed was to stop insurance companies from dropping people with preexisting conditions.
You could start by actually answering the question I posed.
I am certain I did answer the question you posed. So, I'll make you a deal. You offer your opinion and any reasoning supporting it (for, against, whatever) and I will be happy to restate my opinion on your question of 'general welfare'.
With you, it has become a one-way conversation. The closest you've come to offering an opinion, and the reasoning behind it, is to say you agreed with someone else. That's fine. But if you want to trash someone else's opinion, then offer the opposing reasoning up for debate like everyone else. I think all the nice people out here would appreciate that. Thank you.
I'm in full agreement that the only way this issue should be addressed is through a public mandate. Constitutionally, I am only forced to be in a contract with my local, state and federal government. No one can tell me I have to be in business with anyone in the private industry.
You are right on target with taking the best out of HC systems from other countries to implement here. Of course the Dems were never going to get something like that passed over the Repubs. This is why I have to blame the Repubs for this new bill. They had 8 years (2 of which they controlled both Houses and the Exec.) to do something about this. They knew full well that HillaryCare was still on-the-table and how big this issue was. Yet they chose to spend all the surplus on making a few private individuals richer. Everyone making these decisions is wrong on this issue. I wonder if the Supreme Court might be our only salvation. [Wishing in one hand...] ROFL
I must admit, I am confused by this line of questioning!
There's a questionable leap from recognizing access to health care is a basic human right to saying the government is obligated to guarantee health care, much less that a particular law is the way to go about it!
Not to say it wouldn't be nice for the government to provide these things. In general the government does well to provide for people beyond the bare minimum of protecting our rights. But the Right to Health Care seems more about prohibiting governments from denying access to health care, which is certainly a problem that comes up in the world, including in the United States.
It feels somewhat analogous to making the leap from recognizing that people have the right to persue happiness to interpreting this as the governments obligation to make everyone happy. Or claiming that one is rejecting this Right because they are concerned about, say, a new law attempting to address widespread unhappiness by requiring all cities to pay for clowns in public parks.
I must admit, I am confused by this line of questioning!
Why is it confusing? One of the jobs of congress is to promote the general welfare. You have just admitted that basic healthcare is promting the general welfare.
I am not sure whyyou think it is analogous to the pursuit of happiness. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a pursuit of happiness?
I am confused by why you feel the question is relevant to the conversation or to the specific comment you were responding to. Unless you are simply curious about the OPs thoughts on tangentially related topics, which is of totally fine, just a little random :-)
To your other question:
Yes. The job of Congress is to promote the general welfare. But that does not mean anything that could promote the general welfare is the obligation of congress. My example/analogy intends to illustrate this in a more concrete (albeit humorous) way.
Admittedly, you might be confused by my response because the relevance of this observation to your comment might be diminished by my confusion. I probably would've done better to clarify the relevance of your comment and any point you might've been trying to make before injecting any other observations that might potentially be relevant to this this thread.
A more specific confusion that might help clarify: why is the Constitution the document you feel is most relevant to this thread?
To clarify: While i recognize that both the Declaration of Human Rights (which informs my understanding of "right to health care") and the Declaration of Independence (from which we get our articulation of the societal notion of "right to pursue happiness") are not legally binding in the same way as the Constitution is, they do seem relevant to the conversation about how people feel about this specific law, and what the government can and should do to alleviate a growing health crisis.
After all, rights are rights, whether they are encoded into our laws or not.
The problem I see with you including the Declaration of Independence is that leaves open all the nutters who claim that this country is a Christian nation.