Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Explained!

[Gunslinger's Gal]

Originally Posted by spot

The total lack of we should have to declare war before spending foreign lives is what marks the lack of humanity in your point of view - there's a hundred dead foreigners for every dead American, after all. That's the current estimate of a recent UK army commander. Every one of those foreign lives is as valuable as each American loss, and unlike the American losses the great majority of the foreign ones are non-combatants.

Can you explain whether "There is no one in the USA, legally or illegally, who does not have health care available" involves an open-ended commitment to personally pay for the health care from those not covered by insurance or by Medicaid/Medicare, short of acute life-or-death emergency cover? Because that's the gap the current proposals are trying to fill for those who can't afford the sums involved to treat chronic life-threatening conditions but have no such cover.

Puleeze! A majority of the loss of non-combatant lives in both Iraq and Afganistan are caused by insurgents and the Taliban, NOT U.S. soldiers. Get a grip.

I don't have health insurance and I do not, under any circumstances, support a government mandated health insurance plan. Do I think that insurance companies should be regulated? You bet! Do I think that illegal aliens should be getting free health care? Hell no!

But then, this is not the only plan the Obama government has proposed and voted on that I am against. And I will most certainly be keeping an eye on how my representatives vote so that I can take that into account the next time I vote.

[Nomad]

Originally Posted by Gunslinger's Gal

Do I think that insurance companies should be regulated? You bet!

Regulated by whom?

[Gunslinger's Gal]

Originally Posted by Nomad

Regulated by whom?

If I had all the answers - I would run for public office.

[Nomad]

[quote=Gunslinger's Gal;1227371]Puleeze! A majority of the loss of non-combatant lives in both Iraq and Afganistan are caused by insurgents and the Taliban, NOT U.S. soldiers. Get a grip.
[quote]

Im not sure how you came to that conclusion or if its merely an act of burying your head in the sand.

According to the Pentagon civilian casualties are an annoyance and a headache.

Not exactly stars, stripes and apple pie of us.

How many civilian deaths are acceptable? - The Boston Globe

[chonsigirl]

Originally Posted by Nomad

Yes it is on topic but I believe selective reasoning concerning constitutional objectives is also on topic.
I understand your views on abortion and Im in agreement with you but I have to revert to the countless lives lost in an illegal occupation at the cost of taxpayers. Why doesnt this bother anyone?

This bothers many of us, Nomad.

The war in Iraq is also unconstitutional, since it is an "undeclared" war.

[Nomad]

Originally Posted by chonsigirl

This bothers many of us, Nomad.

The war in Iraq is also unconstitutional, since it is an "undeclared" war.

Ok then. Thats all Im after but I dont hear people talking about it. I can only assume its because its not interrupting our daily lives. At least not the ones that dont have to bury their sons and daughters.
Wed be flush if we werent paying for that war. There are so many infrastuctural needs here in our own communities that should be taking precedence over running around in circles out in someone elses desert.

[fuzzywuzzy]

So it looks like America is catching up with the rest of the world?

[chonsigirl]

I don't think so, fuzzy. The US is figuring it out for herself. As you can see, it is a problem that many are divided over.

I am against socialized medicine.

It is not something mandated within the framework of our Constitution.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Nomad

Yes it is on topic but I believe selective reasoning concerning constitutional objectives is also on topic.
I understand your views on abortion and Im in agreement with you but I have to revert to the countless lives lost in an illegal occupation at the cost of taxpayers. Why doesnt this bother anyone?

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1227263-post14.html

[spot]

Originally Posted by chonsigirl

I don't think so, fuzzy. The US is figuring it out for herself. As you can see, it is a problem that many are divided over.

I am against socialized medicine.

It is not something mandated within the framework of our Constitution.

You surprise me chonsi and I'd quite like to know why you feel it's excluded. I'd have thought it fell squarely within the order to establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquillity and promote the general Welfare. It's arguably just, it could engender greater tranquillity and it might even promote the general welfare. Those are political questions but they're within the framework of the US Constitution.

The intent of Capitalism is to extract the greatest profit from the wage slaves. Improving their education and health is cost-effective to the extent that they generate extra profit as a result. That, at least, is the reason universal health care was introduced within Europe, for all the namby-pamby do-gooder rhetoric which piously attempted to explain the humanitarian aspect of the reforms. It strikes me that the same arguments apply even more in the USA, I'm amazed there's any resistance to the measures at all.