|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:39 pm
H.R. 3200What do you think about the country's present state of limbo over public health care? Are you for or against public health care? Is it the health care currently on vote in the legislature or another type? Is there anything you would change about the health care bill? Why? Discuss! (To read the Bill for yourself, click on the title "H.R. 3200" above.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:15 pm
I'm not familiar with all of the terms, but public health care sounds like a pretty good idea. I know they already do it in alot of countries. There are so many problems with having private insurance. Right now, I have my health care through my college. Whenever I need to go to the doctor, it's paid for by the college. I'm also able to get medicines that cost over a hundred dollars for less than $20. But, once I graduate, I won't be able to afford my medicine. Just being out of college and not having a job (and having to pay back student loans as soon as I graduate) will suck away any chance I have of being able to pay for medical expenses. I also know a guy who died recently from heart failure. He didn't have the money to go to the doctor to get treatment for his heart. So yeah, I don't know all of the particulars, but there should be something to protect poor/unemployed people's lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:46 pm
From someone that works in the health care field, I find that the bill is full of b.s. Everyone is going to have health insurance but the quality of care is going to drop tremendously. Countries that have socialized medicine have already realized that it is a bad idea and some are trying to get out of it. It's going to bankrupt us, even more than we already are. There is a reason that Canadians drive across our borders for difficult and dangerous surgeries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:03 pm
But what about the people who can't even afford the surgeries they need? Wouldn't they have a better chance with the new system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:08 am
Well now that everyone can afford the surgeries, there is going to be a longer waiting list. That is going to be ordered by the government wants it. They are giving themselves the right to decide who waits or not; who lives or dies. The elderly are basically screwed because in socialized medicine, the elderly have no use anymore and therefore can no longer get surgeries to prolong their lives after they reach a certain age. If you are 80 and need something done you are going to be placed in line a 40 year old who needs the same operation because they have more use to society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:16 am
Was that part of the same bill that just passed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:04 pm
It is just how socialized medicine has turned out in other countries. If you talk to a group of people from places like Canada or Poland they will give you a lesson on the negative sides of Universal Healthcare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:40 pm
Well, there are bad things about the current system too, so I guess it's just a choice of the lesser of two evils.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:42 pm
My main problem with it is that it wasn't exactly the peoples choice and most of the people who could vote for it didn't listen to what their people wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:12 am
shadowflameguardian My main problem with it is that it wasn't exactly the peoples choice and most of the people who could vote for it didn't listen to what their people wanted.
This is a really good point. The majority of Americans [reference pending, if anyone really wants it] did not wish to pass the bill that was passed on Sunday night. Now, I don't know why they didn't want that particular bill passed, but it is frightening to me that Congress passed it without any deference to the American people.
It is inappropriate for Congress to pass it without the consent of the people because health care is not a right according to our constitution. Our rights are, rather, the right to freedom, the pursuit of happiness, to bear arms (however you interpret that), etc.
Once our government starts stepping all over our Constitution, where does that leave our country? confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:48 am
Well now there is a group of states preparing to sue the federal government because the bill that they just passed is unconsitutional. The attorney general of South Carolina said they are going to fight it and I just heard that Pennsylvania is too. I'm not sure who else yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:59 am
I think the governor of my home state, Florida, also said he would sue.
I should turn on the news, actually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:37 pm
How is it unconstitutional? Don't we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? This is just something to support our right to life. And I'm actually kind of surprised that so many people are opposed to it. The health care reform bill is getting quite a bit of positive support from most of the people on campus. I've only seen a few people that are opposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:09 pm
Well, the health care bill itself isn't unconstitutional. The way they passed it was. I'm confused about the process, as I was a bad student in American Government (shame on me!), but I know they skipped one of the two houses of the senate and went straight to the other one to pass it, which is against the law. It is supposed to be approved by the one before it goes to the other. But the first house couldn't pass it, so they just moved it along instead of keeping it there and letting it either succeed or fail.
That's why fourteen or so states are suing the senate; on the grounds that they passed it unconstitutionally.
Even assuming that the health care bill was A-okay and completely benign (which I doubt), it is wrong to allow a law to exist that was turned into law unlawfully. It's a contradiction, you know? xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:14 pm
GreenInkling Well, the health care bill itself isn't unconstitutional. The way they passed it was. I'm confused about the process, as I was a bad student in American Government (shame on me!), but I know they skipped one of the two houses of the senate and went straight to the other one to pass it, which is against the law. It is supposed to be approved by the one before it goes to the other. But the first house couldn't pass it, so they just moved it along instead of keeping it there and letting it either succeed or fail.
That's why fourteen or so states are suing the senate; on the grounds that they passed it unconstitutionally.
Even assuming that the health care bill was A-okay and completely benign (which I doubt), it is wrong to allow a law to exist that was turned into law unlawfully. It's a contradiction, you know? xd It is unconstitutional to tell people that they have to have health insurance or else, which is what they are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
