Are you saying that the federal government is called to “protect the health” of its citizens? Wht does that mean, exactly? And where is it written in the constitution?
Are you comparing the deprivation of liberty that was slavery to a federal governmental takeover of our healthcare system that will arguably result in lower quality healthcare to the citizens and less of it?
Republicans have spoken for a long time about reforming health care, making it easier for those with pre existing conditions to be covered. You do need ObamaTax for this to be enacted
No, I’m saying that some issues are so important that they cannot be left to the whims of the states. . There are some issues that must, in my view, be applied across the board, or not at all.
I’m glad you admit that…although I know it’s a typo. But your mistaken point is correct:
Yep, they have spoken about it for a LONG time. The President DID something about it.
Would it have passed congress if it had been declared a tax?
You do not need 60 to repeal ObamaTax, you need 50 plus 1 because supreme court declared ObamaTax a tax which means it can be repealed through budget reconciliation
Why are you opposed to the decisions that the voters of other states make? What business is it of yours? Do you also believe that the UN should step in and impose an international health care program, since all countries haven’t done it? If not, why not?
Of course not. There is no equivalence between the enslavement of human beings and health care programs.
I really don’t know…that was the SC rationale…not mine.
Because we are the United States…not a loose collective of people. I have an interest in seeing that all my fellow citizens have an equal protection under the law.
But, you ignored the UN/international question. Aren’t we a world community…“not a loose collective of people?” Don’t you have an interest in seeing that all your fellow human beings have equal health care?
No, the UN is a loose collective if ever I saw one, and an institution that has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had one.
As a US citizen…no. We can donate to agencies that assist in that, but we should take care of our nation first.
Fair enough. It doesn’t answer your preference for people in our country first. How is that different than preference for people in your own state first?
As a state citizen, we should take care of our state first. That is how our nation formed, and the way the Constitution is written. I’m guessing you believe states have outlived their usefulness, as well.
But what if states fail to do so? There’s a little thing in the Constitution called the Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment.
I believe I did when I said take care of our own first. That’s my preference. Regarding preferring people in my state, I can’t think of an instance offhand where that has been an issue for me.
Not at all…there are many issues that are better done on the state level…roads come to mind, police protection is another, small scale disaster relief, some portions of education, and so on…
Health care programs are not an Equal Protection issue. There is no requirement that every person in the country have the same program. You are presenting a complete straw man.
Right. Take care of our own first…states’ rights.
…health care… There is no way that a bloated federal bureaucracy is better than a bloated state bureaucracy.
I disagree, obviously, and how does my statement fall under a strawman? Have I, at any point, misrepresent your position. On the contrary, I responded to your question by asking what if the states fail to do so?
John
Who is being denied good health care?
I just read an article on it, and they’d need 60 votes in the Senate, which they can’t get.
The GOP members talked about it and did nothing and fought any reform presented.
Not to repeal an existing law, you need 60. At least that’s what I read this morning.
I believe you are referring to no one being turned away at the hospital. This is one of the major problems with health care today.