Politics

[blue cobra]

[<SNIP>with one big difference. The people there pay very little for their medical care.<SNIP>

In countries with single-payer, the government just decides what it's going to pay. So of course they are going to choose to pay less. It's still not the answer to our health care cost.

<SNIP>Why shouldn't the government only let doctors go to certified schools? <SNIP>

To make health care cheaper. As I said, there definitely needs to be a certification process for the reasons you mentioned. But if you can make their education cheaper and have proplerly educated doctors, it could bring down costs. The things I mentioned were just ideas to reach that goal.

..take out the people that don't want insurance...

I'm positive that almost everyone wants insurance, just not everyone wants to pay for it.

We don't have the best system in the world, one of the Scandinavian countries (I'd probably go with Sweden) with government run care does. I'm not saying that it would make us better either...We may just be too big.

Apparently, not everyone wants insurance. A portion of the uninsured people are people making over $70,000 a year; plenty of money for some type of insurance, but they choose not to. If they don't want to buy insurance, who are we to force them?

I'm sticking with my claim that we have the best health care in the world. Whenever you rank things, you need certain criteria, and the criteria used by certain groups put us low on the list, but with the criteria that I feel is important, America comes out on top.
______
I have a sincere question: Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to make a public option or a single-payer system?

[fmtiger124]

I'm sticking with my claim that we have the best health care in the world.

I am simply not going to bother.......it's to insane of a statement for me to bother trying

I have a sincere question: Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to make a public option or a single-payer system?

Where in the constitution does it give congress the power to do a lot of the things it does?
Heck if you read the powers it gives congress there are a lot of things congress does its as you would say "not allowed" to do.
For example: Social Security? Gun Laws? and a lot of other stuff
If we went strictly by what the constitution says we "can" do a lot of things would be a mess right now

EDIT: Also (thank you randomperson for this thought) how in the world would our founding fathers be able to foresee every possible kind of law we would need and put it in the constitution? If we had to amend the constitution every time we wanted to make a law where would we be?

[blue cobra]

So does the Constitution not matter!? Just because the Congress does something, that doesn't make it Constitutional!

Alien and Sedition Act: Unconstitutional; Congress passed it anyway
Patriot Act: Unconstitutional; Congress passed it anyway

SS is the epitome of idiocy.
As for gun control, the federal government is granted the power to regulate commerce between the states, including firearms.

The Constitution is for the federal government. If there are laws, which I can't think of any, that are needed but not granted to Congress, they are to be taken care of by the states. You live in a state, not a province. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The states are responsible for governing their own people. If they feel health care should be provided by the government, the states can create whatever system they want. That's how you have universal health care in Massachusetts and a public option in Maine.

The founding fathers knew the Constitution would have to be changed. That's why they created Article 5. What's wrong with amending the Constutution? Would you rather the government be able to do anything they wanted (think Bush here)? The people and their representatives vote, and if the people wish to change their Constitution, then it is changed.

And I end with a question: What unconstitutional laws, have they not been passed, would have left us in a "mess?"

[eyeball138]

Apparently, not everyone wants insurance. A portion of the uninsured people are people making over $70,000 a year; plenty of money for some type of insurance, but they choose not to. If they don't want to buy insurance, who are we to force them?

I'm sticking with my claim that we have the best health care in the world. Whenever you rank things, you need certain criteria, and the criteria used by certain groups put us low on the list, but with the criteria that I feel is important, America comes out on top.

What criteria are those, and where did you find that information?

[blue cobra]

Where did I get that information that some people make over $70,000 a year and choose not to buy insurance? I had heard it from several news sources, but, just for you, I went and found a link . Page 4 of this PDF. There are people who feel they don't need insurance, and it is their right to choose not to buy it.

What are the criteria I used for judging the US's system as best? Again, that is my opinion. I didn't sit down one night and formulate algorithms for ranking health care. Man, it seems these days you have to label everything that comes out of your mouth, "in my opinion." None of this is directed specifically at you, but of course it's my opinion, it's coming out of my mouth. Just like if I said the PS3 was better than the 360-that's my opinion. Deer tacos are better than cow tacos-also my opinion.

[eyeball138]

I really was just curious to why you were making a claim that I do not agree with. For an opinion like that, which it seems a lot of people on here disagree with, yes, you absolutely need to state your criteria. By the way, you didn't tell me the criteria you used, you just said it was your opinion, and then got angry that I was asking you.

[denmarksoccer]

You can not buy insurance over state lines.

I actually didn't know if this was true or not, so I asked by dad where we got our insurance from, and he said it was Blue Shield, in California. I don't know how this works with your statement, so if you can please find proof for it...?

[fmtiger124]

. What's wrong with amending the Constutution?

Well basiclly what you're saying is that laws shouldn't be passed if they are unconstitutional and that we need to amend the constitution to pass them. The problem is IT TAKES TOO LONG amending the constitution is a very long process and we cant afford to have to go do that every time we want to pass a law you say is unconstitutional.

[gyourkoshaven]

Explain why PATRIOT and Alien/Sedition acts are unconstitutional.

[blue cobra]

I really was just curious to why you were making a claim that I do not agree with. For an opinion like that, which it seems a lot of people on here disagree with, yes, you absolutely need to state your criteria. By the way, you didn't tell me the criteria you used, you just said it was your opinion, and then got angry that I was asking you.

I did state my criteria-in the second sentence of my long post. We have high quality care, most people are covered by insurance, and if you really need health care, you will get it. I'm sorry I came across as being angry at you, but I really wasn't. My little rant at the end was not directed toward anyone in particular, but rather an annoying sign of the times.

You can not buy insurance over state lines.

I actually didn't know if this was true or not, so I asked by dad where we got our insurance from, and he said it was Blue Shield, in California. I don't know how this works with your statement, so if you can please find proof for it...?

I don't know about about your specific health insurance, nor am I an expert on insurance law, but what I understand is that insurance companies need to be licensed in the individual states they want to sell insurance in, which means they need a plan that conforms to that specific state's standards. This site contradicts my claim by saying that selling insurance over state lines would not work, both proving my statement and urging everyone to see all sides of all arguments.

. What's wrong with amending the Constutution?

Well basiclly what you're saying is that laws shouldn't be passed if they are unconstitutional and that we need to amend the constitution to pass them. The problem is IT TAKES TOO LONG amending the constitution is a very long process and we cant afford to have to go do that every time we want to pass a law you say is unconstitutional.

Firstly, there is little grey area in unconstitutionality. Second of all, yes, I absolutely am saying laws should not be passed if they are unconstitutional! So you should not be passing laws that are unconstitutional, thus it doesn't matter if it delays its passage. If, like the founding fathers knew, a time comes where a large majority of the people want a change in the Constitution, it can be done in a relatively short amount of time for such a huge change. Plus, the Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be done within some reasonable time of the proposal.

Explain why PATRIOT and Alien/Sedition acts are unconstitutional.

Parts of the Patriot Act have been ruled unconstitutional because they violate the fourth amendment by allowing search warrants to be issued without showing of probable cause.

The Alien and Sedition Act is unconstitutional because it violates both the first and tenth amendments.
_____________
Phew! You guys are keeping me busy!