Obama Healthcare

[Aerif]

Why people don't like Obama Care, is that it gives more power to the government. It's not that we're unconcerned with poor people, it's that we above all else, do not want to relinquish our freedoms.

The thing is that basically every country in the world, and most likely a lot of Americans, see this stand-offish approach to Universal Health Care to be completely selfish.

Some people CAN'T pay for their health-care and it's not fair that such a basic human right should be taken from them. The right to live.

I know that there are special clinics that give free treatment to the poor and many other different iniatives that try to stop poor people from dieing on the street. But think about it this way, because you're rich does that give you anymore right-to-life than a poor person?

With the current situation, a rich person can afford that life-saving surgery wheras a poorer person would not be able to. In the eyes of the world, it definetly looks like America is unconcerned about it's poor.

As we often say, and as Obama has himself said, here you can make yourself anything you want to be. You can make it through school, you can further your education, you can find any job you wish and make the most of it.

That's of course assuming that you're rich enough. You can't go to college if you're poor unless you get a scholarship in America. In 'socialist' Scotland every student has the right to a free University education assuming they have acceptable grades.

We're a country that believes in working hard for what you get and so why didn't more of these people graduate high school?

Most likely because they're parents couldn't afford to keep them in high school, they needed to get a job to help support the family.

Why didn't they work their way up in the work force?

There are only so many upper-level positions in any company. Most of these positions will go to college-graduates, another missed opportunity for the poor.

Why aren't they responsible with the money they do have?

They most likely are. The problem is that some things such as food and shelter do normally eat into pay-cheques.

Why am I supposed to support them when they've done little for themselves?

That is a rather selfish statement. You don't know what these people have to go through.

As a country you support every student under the age of 18. Remember the public school system? You're helping them with that, as everybody else did with your education. Do you think America would be as 'civilised' as it is today without free basic education.

Why would I believe in the most free country on earth that there is somebody who just can't do it for themselves?

The only countries in the world that believe that are the U.S. themselves, alongside a few poverty-stricken countries that don't know any better. Clearly a country that shuns the impoverish sick and refuses to allow legal immigration to unskilled workers cannot be considered free.

I'm talking about a girl I knew in high school who stone cold refused to finish school. Who wouldn't think of going to college. Who didn't dream of anything more than being a hotel housekeeper.

Do you really think every poor-person has this mentallity?

I'm talking about the low glass guy with the $200 cell phone and a $600 Playstation 3 who is now asking for me to pay for him to go the doctor.

This guy likely came from a fairly well-off family if he could afford this. However he has as much right to free health-care as anyone else in the world.

Also remember that it isn't just you who is paying for him to go to the doctor. Everyone is. The same as everyone would be paying for you to go to the doctor.

Bypass heart-surgery apparently costs $20,000. I'm not sure how insurance works in the US, however I doubt most insurers would cover the entire cost of the operation. Especially if there is a history in the family of heart problems.

In the UK, this procedure would be entirely free to the patient. And any other patient who needed the procedure. They may need to wait a little while longer than an American. But any cost of the surgery would already have been paid for by the tax-payers.

And before anyone starts about the taxes, remember this, America does not need to have such a massive millitary. They have alliances, and their 'friends have adequete millitaries. Why should America need a bigger millitary that requires funding that could easily be spent on healthcare with little changes to tax.

And that brings me to the idea of personal responsibility. In America we believe equally in success and sadly failure. You have the freedom of any success you can earn, and you have the freedom to fail. There is no true freedom without the freedom to fail and so you're told growing up, or you should be, that nobody is going to do it for you. You learn that if you don't work hard, then you're going to find yourself living on the street, and thus you're motivated to go out there and work to better your own life. You learn not to be dependant on others.

Freedom should have nothing to do with life or death.

The problem with Obama Care is that it requires the government to reappropriate money from those who have it, to those who supposedly don't, and that is a fundamental dissagreement with the principles America was founded on.

That's what taxes already do with education.

Our Government collects taxes and is charged with spending them only in service to everybody. It paves roads, for everybody. It prevents corporate monopolies, for everybody. It enforces laws, for everybody. It defends our boarders, for everybody.

But Obama Care doesn't promiss to help everybody. It promisses to help those who for whatever reason have not aquired it on their own. Tax dollars in America are not given to help any one segment of society, and that is a major problem with this plan.

Health-care does help everybody. It means that those who are paying too much need to pay less for the same services. Taxes would pay for health-care for everybody, like in Britain, France, Cuba, Belgium and countless other countries.

We're not a socialist nation, and we don't want to be. Our nation works, and it is strong. Cuba, the former Soviet Union, and many other Socialist countries have found themselves in economic ruin and under social dicatatorships.

Socialism is not directly related to dictatorship. To my knowledge there are no dictatorships in Europe, whilst there are plenty of Scoalist countries.

Our country is strong and lives in freedom. For over 2 centuries America has been the beacon of freedom for the entire world, and there is no reason to change now at the whim of those who fail to see our strength.

Except to those who know better. Then they see that America is often as oppresed as third world countries. Especially concerning things such as health-care.

[Zardoch]

EDIT: Didn't want to double post, so I'm adding my response to Alpha as well.

The thing is that basically every country in the world, and most likely a lot of Americans, see this stand-offish approach to Universal Health Care to be completely selfish.

Selfish? SELFISH?! How is allowing people the FREEDOM to succeed (or fail depending on THEIR responsibility) selfish? Are Europeans or non-Americans in general some enlightened group of intellectual free thinkers that tolerate anything except anyone or thing that disagrees with them? Universal healthcare destroys societies (which has been historically proven) and you have the balls to call Americans selfish because they don't want to give up the one thing that makes America greater than any other country. It's not selfish to want to protect the freedoms that were bestowed upon us because we don't want to jump onto the universal healthcare bandwagon.

Some people CAN'T pay for their health-care and it's not fair that such a basic human right should be taken from them. The right to live.

But most CAN pay for it. Out of the supposed 50 million who can't pay for it (which is mathematically improbable in itself), only 3 or 4 people out of 10 in the entirety of that 50 million can't truly afford health insurance. Quite often, these people also seem to be illegal, which creates a wall between actually helping immigrants and the law. Even then, no hospital refuses treatment to anyone.

Here's the thing about your argument. You're talking about semantics, NOT the basic God given freedoms of America. Yes, everyone has the right to live, but no one has the right to force other people to bend over so they can reap the benefits of leeching on the system. Furthermore, as sad as it sounds, illegals have no rights because they are illegal. It doesn't mean we won't treat them when they require medical assistance since they are human beings after all, but it also doesn't mean we're going to pay for their insurance out of our own pocket when we already have so much other economic issues besides health insurance.

As for those who are legal and don't have insurance, I can tell you most of them are people who choose to not have insurance. Hell, here are some figures for you.

About 201.7 mil have public or private insurance. 80.3 mil have government insurance. That totals to 282 million people who have insurance out of--wait for it--300 million people. So that leaves 18 million who are actually uninsured, for which most are--again--people who choose not to have insurance.

GetLiberty.org >> Home

I know that there are special clinics that give free treatment to the poor and many other different iniatives that try to stop poor people from dieing on the street. But think about it this way, because you're rich does that give you anymore right-to-life than a poor person?

First, how about the fact that a lot of those poor people are poor because they made the wrong decisions? And then, despite that, some of these same people choose to use any money given to them for drugs, alcohol, or sex instead of saving up and actually having the ambition or motivation to get a job. Again, these people are humans beings and deserve the right to be treated, but again we shouldn't have to pay for other peoples' mistakes.

Second, do you know how many rich people are actually in the U.S? About 1% of the freaking population. That's about 3 million. That leaves 297 million people who aren't rich, and for the most part, try to make it through the day working off debts and other economic issues. What you're trying to do is get a knee-jerk reaction out of people with the idea that rich people are some how an evil entity. In such a case, I have two questions for you.

Where do you think this country gets its' freaking jobs? Do you think someone with a 250,000 yearly salary would make a difference by being forced to donate money he or she earned for the sake of the commonwealth? Or do you think that it's even ethical to force someone to donate ANY of their money to people who more or less are leeches upon a society? Hell, here's a third question. Don't rich people (or people who are better off in general) have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just as much as any other American?

You know wanna know another fact? The more wealth people gain, the more common such people are willing to donate to groups such as the poor, illegal immigrants, minorities, or any other people who truly are suffering. And if you take that wealth away from them, they are less inclined to donate money when you take away the support that helps feed their families and their business and their communities.

With the current situation, a rich person can afford that life-saving surgery wheras a poorer person would not be able to. In the eyes of the world, it definetly looks like America is unconcerned about it's poor.

America is the most giving, donating, charitable country in the world, including all people within its borders. If you don't know that, you really are uninformed as the average obama supporter, and I don't say that to insult you. What I'm saying here is you need to gain a perspective and turn off your TV so you can actually learn about the issue; the why, the how, the what. Anyone who has watched Jon Stewart can make a statement such as yours and call it genius.

That's of course assuming that you're rich enough. You can't go to college if you're poor unless you get a scholarship in America. In 'socialist' Scotland every student has the right to a free University education assuming they have acceptable grades.

You know, some people--who also happen to be poor--actually decide to pick themselves, get a GED (which is equivalent to a HS diploma these days), and get into many colleges of their choice through hard work and the motivation to succeed. In a Socialist America, that wouldn't be possible. You would get a terrible education, especially since there would be a decrease in teachers the same way there will be a decrease in doctors and people studying to be doctors if this healthcare bill passes. You see, the compromising price for communistic socialism is the quality of everything decreases. Though, at this point, with liberals running our schools as it is, it's no surprise how bad education is now, but it's not because of capitalism, rich people, or selfish Americans.

There are only so many upper-level positions in any company. Most of these positions will go to college-graduates, another missed opportunity for the poor.

Yeah, because people who go to college, including those poor people who actually get off their ass to make something of themselves, work and learn enough to get the positions they deserve. You know the great thing about America though? More opportunities are created everyday. That won't last the way this country is going and again, it's not capitalism, rich people, selfish Americans, or college graduates fault.

They most likely are. The problem is that some things such as food and shelter do normally eat into pay-cheques.

Yeah, it's called getting a job, paying your bills, and having a life. It sucks, but at least you gain such things from your own work and responsibility.

That is a rather selfish statement. You don't know what these people have to go through.

Oh shit, my knee jerked into a 180 spin.

On a serious note, YOU have no idea what ANYONE has to go through but YOURSELF. Don't sit there in a seat a judgment and think that because some people don't want to be forced to pay for someone else when that someone else could get a job a pay for themselves that that they're any better or worse. Yeah, it sounds selfish, but it wouldn't be called freedom if it were selfish.

As a country you support every student under the age of 18. Remember the public school system? You're helping them with that, as everybody else did with your education. Do you think America would be as 'civilised' as it is today without free basic education.

What makes you think public schools are free? I'm pretty sure on the day before I went to my first day of school I remember my mom talking about paying the money required to enroll me into the public school. The money to PAY for all the crap schools use has to come from somewhere. Again, free education means less quality, which means less intelligence from kids who can't get the best education because people like you want everyone to get a cookie.

The only countries in the world that believe that are the U.S. themselves, alongside a few poverty-stricken countries that don't know any better. Clearly a country that shuns the impoverish sick and refuses to allow legal immigration to unskilled workers cannot be considered free.

Where the hell did you get such facts? America ENDORSES people such as legal immigrants because those immigrants have the balls to do the job many other people want. THAT is what started America in the first place as immigrants from all over the world worked their ass off to pay for their family and IF (a big IF) they ever were able to find some comfortable wealth, they'd pay for their communities as well.

Do you really think every poor-person has this mentallity?

I doubt he does, but he probably is explaining the very type of people who--in the millions--suck on the government programs like vampire sucking on a person who has an infinite amount of blood. Some poor people live their lives because they made it way. The poor people who actually had everything taken away, however, are in the few.

Also remember that it isn't just you who is paying for him to go to the doctor. Everyone is. The same as everyone would be paying for you to go to the doctor.

Yeah, which also means that the quality of both care and doctors will be worse. Yay for universal healthcare!

Bypass heart-surgery apparently costs $20,000. I'm not sure how insurance works in the US, however I doubt most insurers would cover the entire cost of the operation. Especially if there is a history in the family of heart problems.

Yeah, that's the point of insurance. It doesn't cover everything, but MOST of it so that you can comfortably pay off the rest with the money you earned from working your ass off. Sounds like a good deal to me.

In the UK, this procedure would be entirely free to the patient. And any other patient who needed the procedure. They may need to wait a little while longer than an American. But any cost of the surgery would already have been paid for by the tax-payers.

Yeah, and a lot of people were denied surgery and the like because they HAD to wait, which if they would have, they would've died. That's a bad thing. Furthermore, places like Canada bans private insurance or in the U.K. people are penalized for going to other countries (i.e. USA) to NOT die. There was even one issue where women who had breast cancer would either be denied coverage and it became illegal for them to seek outside help, mostly because the law-makers deemed such women worthless because of their disease.

-chants English anthem-

And before anyone starts about the taxes, remember this, America does not need to have such a massive millitary. They have alliances, and their 'friends have adequete millitaries. Why should America need a bigger millitary that requires funding that could easily be spent on healthcare with little changes to tax.

You know, this is one thing I almost agree with you on, but one other fact you have to remember is most people in the military volunteered. We have a massive military because there are people who want to serve their country AND the fact that our economy has done so well that we could afford it.

Freedom should have nothing to do with life or death.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It most certainly has nothing to do with death, but everything to do with life; Socialism, communism, universal healthcare; they are the bringers of death upon a civilization.

Health-care does help everybody. It means that those who are paying too much need to pay less for the same services. Taxes would pay for health-care for everybody, like in Britain, France, Cuba, Belgium and countless other countries.

Paying too much? How is that a bad thing? If someone is paying premiums on healthcare and getting what they pay for, where's the problem?

Socialism is not directly related to dictatorship. To my knowledge there are no dictatorships in Europe, whilst there are plenty of Scoalist countries.

No, but if socialism continues to gain ground, there WILL be dictators. I can predict that very thing happening within the future. You see, creating a commonwealth among everyone has a huge flaw. Not EVERYONE is exempted from the laws created under a socialistic country. Read up on the Soviet Union and you'll understand what I mean.

Except to those who know better. Then they see that America is often as oppresed as third world countries. Especially concerning things such as health-care.

Know better? That's why the U.K. is bankrupt, right? Because they somehow 'know better'.

BigGovHealth | Learn the Facts

Gain a new perspective.

I look at America, and think "God, I do not want to live there." I respect your nationalism, but be objective about it. Your country has some fundamental flaws.

That's your right to believe that and I won't deny there are flaws with our system. Most, however, are not created by the people who believe on the Constitution.

Obamacare will give the freedom of healthcare to anyone who requires it. He's not going to take your children.

And Obamacare is also going to happen to force everything into a single-payer option, which includes such things as forcing employers to force their employees to accept Obama's option or else pay overly expensive fees.

"Most free" country?

You betcha. When I look at Europe, South America, Africa, China, Australia, and Japan, I think to myself, "Good lord, I wish no one lived over there or at least had a chance to have the kind of freedom and prosperity we have." We are the most free, the most strong, the best of the best. Here's a video to help prove that.

Pajamas TV - Afterburner with Bill Whittle - Bill Maher, Barack Obama and the Truth About American Exceptionalism

There's your objectivity.

And people can't "do it for themselves" because not everyone can be rich. There are only so many top jobs, and if there were anymore, then people would be holding them already. Any capitalist nation is going to have inequality. It's what they are based on. But when inequality gets to the point where people cannot afford to be healthy (and thus to have a decent standard of living), then someone needs to step in and take responsibility. This someone is the government. I mean, are you going to do it?

Either you have some twisted understanding of what capitalism is or you simply are as uninformed as the average anti-war protestor. Capitalism creates the oppurtunity to get out from under the rock by having the determination to support yourself, your family, and in some cases, your community (as I said). If you think it's unfair, well, I suppose it is in the sense that it's about competition. If you're smarter than the other person who was interviewed for the same job, chances are you'll get the job. That's what drives a free economy; the ability to either do better than the next man or give the best deal to the person who requires your service. If you destroy that competition, then quality goes down (as I said) and it no longer increases economically.

So people have the freedom to fail. So what happens when they do (inevitably) fail? We can't all succeed. Should we just leave them be, and say, "well, should've tried harder when you were twelve." That is not a free society. That is not a fair society. That is why people look at America and realise how lucky they are to not live there.

Alright, well here's something I'm not sure you're familiar with. People have the freedom to succeed OR fail due to their responsibility. If someone makes responsible decisions and takes care of whatever wealth they have, gaining knowledge and investing in somethings, they might do well. In the case of failure, in the end, they still have what's most important; life. Which means they have another chance to succeed. In a socialistic or communistic society, you wouldn't have any chance, period. You're just another robot to get in line and do your job.

Furthermore, such things like socialism and communism take away individuality. When you have a country dedicated to helping every single person, it destroys the chance to have your own wealth to do the things you want to do and how you want to do it.

So yes, life not be may not be fair, but capitalism at least gives people a greater chance to succeed. That's the point.

So it does not accord with the Protestant work ethic. Does that mean that it can't be done? Look to the future, not the past. We don't live in the 1700s anymore.

Yeah, we're not in Soviet Union either, thank God.

It does not provide (free) healthcare, for everybody.

As well it shouldn't. In fact, it's against the Constitution and the bill of rights for the congress to even try to provide healthcare. Yes, it's actually illegal.

A beacon of freedom which has invaded multiple countries, notably Iraq, when the international community largely denounced an invasion? A nation which has propped up corrupt governments, given weapons to the Taleban to fight the Soviets, and then gone and fought the Taleban? Strength, or abuse of power? [Yes, this is off-topic.]

Invade? How about set free, minus Vietnam? I guess someone such as yourself wouldn't mind defending a man who killed thousands upon thousands of his own people to keep himself in power (i.e. Saddam). Or you might defend Hitler because he was such a misunderstood individual, especially since a lot of what he propagated was liberal and socialistic too.

Again, I won't deny such things as certain people in our government selling shit to our enemies (something that angers me quite a bit), but compared to any other country in history, the U.S. of A. has done such things the world never even knew existed. Great things, free things, wondrous things. And it's not because we're simply better than everyone. Hell, like the video I linked you to mentioned that after WW2, we had such military power that NO ONE could have challenged at that time. Yet what did we do? We went home. We even sent aid to those who would spit in our face.

If you were to judge us upon our actions and not our words, you'd stop and think for a moment what America truly represents. It may not be perfect. It may not be socialistic. But by God in heaven, it's the only thing that keeps this world sane even in the screams of people who hate us. You don't want to live here? That's a pity because as an America, even I would give you my bed if it meant giving you the feet to walk on your own.

[Alpha]

Universal healthcare destroys societies (which has been historically proven) and you have the balls to call Americans selfish because they don't want to give up the one thing that makes America greater than any other country. It's not selfish to want to protect the freedoms that were bestowed upon us because we don't want to jump onto the universal healthcare bandwagon.

Aside from the fact that I disagree with you on every conceivable level, how does universal healthcare destroy societies? Is that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed? Besides, they were communist, not socialist; there's a distinction. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Europe, many non-Western states (such as Morocco, apparently), have socialised healthcare. When exactly did they crumble?

...do you know how many rich people are actually in the U.S? About 1% of the freaking population.

Do you know that the richest 20% of the American population earns 80% of the wealth? And that the top 5 richest people in the united states have a combined wealth equal to that of multitudes of poor nations? That 1% sure are rich, and that bottom rung of society sure is poor. Fancy sharing some of that around?

[Zardoch]

Aside from the fact that I disagree with you on every conceivable level, how does universal healthcare destroy societies? Is that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed? Besides, they were communist, not socialist; there's a distinction. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Europe, many non-Western states (such as Morocco, apparently), have socialised healthcare. When exactly did they crumble?

If you would have read more of my response, you would have realized the how. Socialism leads a country where the quality of things degenerates. You can't suspect anything to get better when even the government can't pay for the services people like you want so bad. No civilization can live on such a system unless there is one global currency controlled by the largest central bank and that, my friend, is exactly what is described in revelations as the system of the beast. Not only that, but such a system would be the scariest thing when it comes to controlling peoples' lives on a maximum level. One of Obama's czars said they wouldn't mind a global currency too. Nothing can go wrong there, huh?

Do you know that the richest 20% of the American population earns 80% of the wealth? And that the top 5 richest people in the united states have a combined wealth equal to that of multitudes of poor nations? That 1% sure are rich, and that bottom rung of society sure is poor. Fancy sharing some of that around?

Did you know that 20% (probably less, actually) are the ones who pay for jobs, which in turn allows people to use the money they earned giving services to other people?

As for the 1%, why don't you ask them? I'm pretty certain they donating TONS of money to charities in the billions if not trillions, though half of the reason is based on taxes. I'd call that a win-win.

Did you also know that by "Rich" they don't just mean THEE rich? They also mean people in middle class. People who are well off and not using wellfare.. and are citizens. People like me.

Lol, if there's more people of the middle-high class in America, that's a good thing. It means more people are getting enough money to live comfortably, take care of their family, and in a lot of cases donate their money.

[Alpha]

Socialism leads a country where the quality of things degenerates. You can't suspect anything to get better when even the government can't pay for the services people like you want so bad. No civilization can live on such a system unless there is one global currency controlled by the largest central bank and that, my friend, is exactly what is described in revelations as the system of the beast.

Things can only improve in a system where some people cannot access the services they need and deserve due to a lack of money. They can afford socialised healthcare in New Zealand, but not in America?

And the Book of Revelations does not predict Obamacare, in fact it speaks of Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. Does Obamacare bring these?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._vasnetsov.jpg

It would be kind of cool if it did, but it doesn't. It brings equal and equitable access to healthcare - a First World luxury, no doubt.