Mandatory but affordable health insurance.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa It won't necessarily lead to dictatorship, but certainly to corruption. Propaganda exists to convince people that Clinton really does have their welfare at heart. She's actually in the pockets of insurance companies, whcih isn't hard to find out. Of course, another slimy propaganda tactic (one basically evident in this thread) is the term "America haters" (and what have you). Many would have me believe that this country has such a proud history and that to criticize it is some great sin. But that's nonsense, fit only for totalitarian minds. True libertarians would never go for it. Nationalism is almost totally incompatible with basic libertarian principles. It's slightly off-topic, I know. But some "libertarian" posters practically compel me to make these corrections.

First, grandpa, I think he was talking about liberals and not libertarians.

I agree on your stance on America haters, however, the current health care system in America needs to be changed. From your point of view it should be a step in the right direction. You try "shock therapy" and just switch to your ideals in one night, and you end up the same as post cold war Russia. A body of people not ready for the change.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind I agree on your stance on America haters, however, the current health care system in America needs to be changed.

I would hope so. It's such a see-through tactic that it barely merits comment. Still, it's amazing how many people claim they represent "America" when they speak to me. And I agree healthcare needs to be changed, but not by government corruption a la HillaryCare.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Still, it's amazing how many people claim they represent "America" when they speak to me.

I just got where the book title "I am America! and so can you!" came from.

I do find that odd, yes.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa I would hope so. It's such a see-through tactic that it barely merits comment. Still, it's amazing how many people claim they represent "America" when they speak to me. And I agree healthcare needs to be changed, but not by government corruption a la HillaryCare. Grandpa h.

What corruption?

What do find wrong with the Hillary plan?

[Winter wind]

I think he means the rather large sums of money Hillary gets from insurance companies, and how that may effect her policy making process.

I don't know if it's a huge deal, but it's worth noting.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Winter wind I think he means the rather large sums of money Hillary gets from insurance companies, and how that may effect her policy making process. I don't know if it's a huge deal, but it's worth noting.

I do not know if that is so because he did not document that with a link.

However, Hillary was working on her concern for affordable health care way back when she was just the first lady in the White House, and as the first lady she was not getting any donations from any such special interest groups, and although the Republicans voted no to her plan back then it should be noted that she had the ideas long before she got involved in this current election. Perhaps insurance people did donate to her platform if they like her idea, what else would you expect, but that does not mean she is in their pockets. She will not personally profit from donations given to the Democratic party. And she has no reason to worry about money for her personal useage, she is okay off in that respect without getting corrupted to get more money.

This plan allows the health system to remain somewhat in the hands of private businesses rather then being a totally socialistic program run only by the government. Therefore the plan is more compatable with Republicans who must also vote on the final version of the plan once she is elected. A combinaton of capitalism and socialism being put together to suit everyone's philosophy.

Everyone in Congress already has an insurance policy identical to the one she is proposing for everyone else.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Winter wind I think he means the rather large sums of money Hillary gets from insurance companies, and how that may effect her policy making process. I don't know if it's a huge deal, but it's worth noting.

There's a useful website you should know about.

Opensecrets.org - PAC Contributions to Clinton, Hillary (D-)

Opensecrets lists a lot of this sort of information. A quick scan of Hillary Clinton does not reveal any large donations directly from insurance companies. Am I missing something?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul What corruption? What do find wrong with the Hillary plan?

What Winter Wind noted.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership. ...Senator Clinton has received $150,600 in contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which she accused in 1993 of “price gouging” and “unconscionable profiteering.” Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton - New York Times

Grandpa h.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Mandatory but affordable health insurance.

1. Set the limit for lawsuits
2. Set and monitor healthcare coverage.
Other than that, is (more or less) a claptrap.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: grandpa Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton - New York Times Grandpa h.

Point taken.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul I like the idea but I have one big problem with that idea. It is my experience that the government often under-estimates what I can afford. For example: Let us say you claim you cannot afford extra money for mandatory health insurance. The government can say " but wait, you drive a car which is not a must have expendature, as you could walk or take a bus everywhere you go". So first you must sell your car and then when that money runs out then you would qualify for free or super cheap health care insurance and the Government would pick up the tab. They cite that many migrational people from Mexico walk, ride bikes, or use the bus to go to work and to the store. Thus, anyone can do the same thing as those real poor working people do. But I do not want to give up my car and walk everywhere. And if I pay to continue to use the car then paying for the health insurance would prevent me from buying gas or food and so that would force me to downsize my quality of living, one way or the other, to remain lawful. In effect the government would be in the business of telling me how to mangage my own family budget. What I can or cannot do without. However if the government is willing to take MY opinon on what I can afford to budget for health care insurence then fine. I am all for it. And each time the price of gas goes up, or the cost of a dozen eggs go up, I should have the right to pay that much less for my health insurance, so each month I should be able to adjust how much I must pay for that insurance so that it is always relative to the rising cost of living. If they up a utility bill, I pay less that month to the company providing health insurance. Is that not fair?

And just who the hell do you think you are to dictate that I or anyone else MUST BUY health insurance?

[Matt W]

This is a debate, Chancellor - how about you chill out and actually debate the topic at hand?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Morality Games Well, at least my ethical attitude doesn't smack of the Nazi mentality.

Well, actually it does. You want government to control people's lives from cradle to grave with your socialist (the Nazi party was a socialist party) policies.

It seems to me you ignore the existence of the elastic among other clauses, all of which were intended to confer a certain degree of flexibility on the powers of the federal government when it comes to the parameters of the Constitution, for the necessity of dealing with the obstacles produced by the passage of time and the changing circumstances of the world.

Another damned idiot that doesn't know how to read!!!!! THERE IS NO ELASTIC CLAUSE! Read the words:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The "foregoing powers" refers to everything up to that point in Article I of the Constitution and "all other powers" refers to all the powers in Article I for the legislative branch, Article II for the executive branch and Article III for the judiciary. In other words, Congress has the power to pass the legislation necessary and proper for carrying out the powers given to the government in the Constitution. It doesn't mean Congress can pass legislation to give the federal government powers the Constitution doesn't give it. If something isn't vested by the Constitution, Congress can't pass legislation on it.

You seem to assume The Constitution states there will be no interpretations of the Constitution aside from straightforward, literal ones of explicited text, which isn't really possible for a document of abstract law, especially not in this day and age. Lateral approaches and implication are instrumental to maintaining the health and security of contemporary society, and for that matter conserving the rights of individuals.

The Constitution does not give any branch of the government the authority to interpret the Constitution at all. And, yes, it means exactly and only what the writers and ratifiers meant by it.

[Domino]

If you set the limit for lawsuits, you might as well set the limit for provided care. If a profit-munching corporation knows it can never lose more than $x to a lawsuit, it will never provide more than $x worth of healthcare.

So long as the corporations responsible for providing healthcare are looking for any possible excuse to deny care, it won't matter how cheap insurance gets.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Matt W This is a debate, Chancellor - how about you chill out and actually debate the topic at hand?

I am debating the topic at hand and part of the topic is the original poster dictating that people MUST buy health insurance. What part of the word "mandatory" in the title did you not understand?

[Matt W]

Quote by: Chancellor I am debating the topic at hand and part of the topic is the original poster dictating that people MUST buy health insurance. What part of the word "mandatory" in the title did you not understand?

What part of 'no personal insults' do you not understand?

Address the argument rather than focussing on the poster.

[Morality Games]

Well, actually it does. You want government to control people's lives from cradle to grave with your socialist (the Nazi party was a socialist party) policies.

Not comparable. Nazi government had a wildly excessive degree of control in the sense they placed no inhibitions on themselves, with no checks and balances or formal recourses to the people. In my Third-Way economics, the people exercise a large degree of control over the government, and that inhibits the government.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Morality Games Not comparable. Nazi government had a wildly excessive degree of control in the sense they placed no inhibitions on themselves, with no checks and balances or formal recourses to the people. In my Third-Way economics, the people exercise a large degree of control over the government, and that inhibits the government.

There's no doubt that the Nazi government was wildly excessive.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Morality Games Well, at least my ethical attitude doesn't smack of the Nazi mentality. It seems to me you ignore the existence of the elastic among other clauses, all of which were intended to confer a certain degree of flexibility on the powers of the federal government when it comes to the parameters of the Constitution, for the necessity of dealing with the obstacles produced by the passage of time and the changing circumstances of the world. You seem to assume The Constitution states there will be no interpretations of the Constitution aside from straightforward, literal ones of explicited text, which isn't really possible for a document of abstract law, especially not in this day and age. Lateral approaches and implication are instrumental to maintaining the health and security of contemporary society, and for that matter conserving the rights of individuals.

The problem is that the corrupt corporation have bribed government into letting them run rampant over the citizens, creating problems that the corporations want answered by tax dollars to absolve themselves of the liability of providing for their workers.


Sorry, but I'm not falling for this crap, I see right through it.


I know you guys think you have the answer, but your solution is not the answer to the problem. The solution id kicking these crooked bastards out of Washington.