15 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyThe Federal Government offering a healthcare plan does no more to infringe upon a state's rights than does the Post Office.
Here is a thread dedicated to the notion of letting each individual state tackle health care reform and give the federal government the boot.
For those who oppose it, why do you oppose it?
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIt infringes on the rights of the citizens who are taxed by the federal government for their health care plan. In addition, it will drive up the debt that all citizens are repsonible to pay down, thus, making it next to impossible for the state to impose taxes on its citizens for their possible plans.
The Federal Government offering a healthcare plan does no more to infringe upon a state's rights than does the Post Office.
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut the strange part is, Texans are conservative and those in Massachusetts not so much. So if by some odd chance the people of Texas decide to vote for their state to handle matters, who are you or I to deny them their right? In fact, what if they decide to vote down any state sponsered plan?
This would widen the gap between poor states like Texas and rich states like Massachusetts even more.
15 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyHa! Surely you jest. You are certainly a glutton for punishment my friend.
Here is a thread dedicated to the notion of letting each individual state tackle health care reform and give the federal government the boot.
For those who oppose it, why do you oppose it?
This will end with (I predict 3 - 4 at most) of your countryment locking arms with you. The vast majority of your countrymen, along with ALL of Europe and Asia (althogh they have no vested interest in the matter), will join in villifying you, your parents, children and pets for being mental midgets who had audacity to have given birth, co-habitated with or went on walks in your company, for being the ignorant, mindless savages for your even suggesting such a idea. 😀
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyWell, you're all Americans aren't you? Why stop at the state level? Why shouldn't every county decide on its own health care plan? Or how about every household?
But the strange part is, Texans are conservative and those in Massachusetts not so much. So if by some odd chance the people of Texas decide to vote for their state to handle matters, who are you or I to deny them their right? In fact, what if they decide to vote down any state sponsered plan?
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyI can easily debate those, but was there something in your response about states rights?
It infringes on the rights of the citizens who are taxed by the federal government for their health care plan. In addition, it will drive up the debt that all citizens are repsonible to pay down, thus, making it next to impossible for the state to impose taxes on its citizens for their possible plans.
15 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwain:'(
Ha! Surely you jest. You are certainly a glutton for punishment my friend.
This will end with (I predict 3 - 4 at most) of your countryment locking arms with you. The vast majority of your countrymen, along with ALL of Europe and Asia (althogh they have no vested interest in the matter), will join in villifying you, your parents, children and pets for b ...[text shortened]... your company, for being the ignorant, mindless savages for your even suggesting such a idea. 😀
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI suppose it depends on what the PEOPLE decide. Currently, the consensus about the federal plan is that the majority oppose it.
Well, you're all Americans aren't you? Why stop at the state level? Why shouldn't every county decide on its own health care plan? Or how about every household?
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyDo they oppose it because it is run at the federal level? Would (any of) the same people who oppose the reforms on the federal level support the same reforms if they were applied on the state level?
I suppose it depends on what the PEOPLE decide. Currently, the consensus about the federal plan is that the majority oppose it.
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThere are a variety of ways to usurp state rights. The federal taxation for a health care plan is just an example. It is like telling someone they WILL buy a care, but then say you don't have to drive it. In fact, you can buy yourself a new car altogether. Of course, this makes it less likely you can buy another car and is simply ludicrous.
I can easily debate those, but was there something in your response about states rights?
In short, the federal government should NOT be deciding such things. Under the constitution, their resposibilites include national defense and SECURING THE BORDERS and not so much as to how my child should be educated or the doctors he or she sees.
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyThe problem is just like Californians were LIED to about the bill for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, there are tons of people who still believe LIES about the healthcare bill.
I suppose it depends on what the PEOPLE decide. Currently, the consensus about the federal plan is that the majority oppose it.
1: The bill is for single payer coverage, i.e. Canadian style universal healthcare. That's a LIE.
2: Euthanasia: LIE
3: Coves illegal immigrants: LIE
4: Death Panels: LIE
5: Rationing: LIE
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyDidn't the constitution also say something about ensuring the wealth of the American people?
There are a variety of ways to usurp state rights. The federal taxation for a health care plan is just an example. It is like telling someone they WILL buy a care, but then say you don't have to drive it. In fact, you can buy yourself a new car altogether. Of course, this makes it less likely you can buy another car and is simply ludicrous.
In short, t ...[text shortened]... HE BORDERS and not so much as to how my child should be educated or the doctors he or she sees.
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThos within each state could decide this. That is the way that it was originally designed. Granted, you could use the same arguement about states deciding things as the federal government, however, there are advantages to the state deciding things over that of the federal government. I think we can both agree that the efficient way to go about governing is as close to the local level as possible. In addition, if all 50 states did their own thing, we could all sit back and watch some fail and some succeed. Then the models would be in place as to what to do and what not to do. In addtion, people could move to another state without leaving the country if they found the laws untenable.
Do they oppose it because it is run at the federal level? Would (any of) the same people who oppose the reforms on the federal level support the same reforms if they were applied on the state level?