ineedone

It most certainly does translate. No one can absolutely say that they will never be involved in an accident, or develop a disease/cancer. Now if you allow people to not purchase healthcare, and an accident or anything of the sorts happens, problems arise. I highly doubt anyone can foot the bill for something of that sort, and, most likely will file for bankruptcy or just never pay. That leaves the hospital with "x" dollars unpaid, the cost transfers to the health insurance companies, who then raise your premiums. Now, hospitals, especially non-profit hospitals that have emergency rooms, must take you whether you have insurance or not. So yes, you can definitely "harm" someone in a monetary shape/form. Either way, you are "forced" to pay for others healthcare who can not or do not purchase their own.

cc4usmc

I'm not talking about a single man. I'm talking about the Founding Fathers. I only quoted Jefferson because the quote because it was somewhat related to the thread. A book(s) might not put you in their head, but a book(s) will tell you the direction they wanted to go so that you can better interpret the Constitution.

From that quote alone, imo, you can conclude that Jefferson would never agree with Welfare or the new Health Care plan. Of course it wasn't just Jefferson who believed that, I just can't provide quotes from others off the top of my head, let alone more supporting information to back that. I don't go to school for this, I read these books for pleasure. So again, I'm not an expert, it's just what I believe.

Like I said, I can provide many likes that say that quote is false.

Anyway, I'm out...at least for the night.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

fckillerbee

Keep on with the debate....it's a good read. Just so you guys know. If you have enough money, you don't have to have to pay for insurance...you just put down a cash deposit at the dmv....sounds like a load of shit....but you won't have to pay for insurance. no one I know will do this.....but it is available.

and for the person that said about breaking your leg and not hurting anyone....what if you get sick....like swin flu sick...your telling me you are at no risk to anyone...i'm sure the gov will use this one to counter your statement.




Insurance Requirements for Vehicle Registration

Types of financial responsibility

• A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
• A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
• A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
• A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

kingkilburn

That is the state government, being coerced by the Feds because they can't do it themselves(legally).

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

ineedone

“If we’re going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry”. - Thomas Jefferson

This quote is often cited for the right to education, it could also be the model for the right to healthcare.

Corbic

No. No one is forced to drive or own a car. You can own and drive one, without insurance, legally on any closed course/private property.

But the "agreement" is, if you wish to operate a motorvehicle on shared public roads, you need insurance.

Also, the level of insurance is only mandated by the state, not by the FedGov. There is no "insurance tax" because you have "too much coverage", the is no "public option" and no penalities if you don't own a car and don't want insurance.


Auto/Property insurance work quite well with agreeable rates and the companies providing coverage are typical prosperous (unlike Ded service (mail, Medicare, SS, medicade).


Maybe that should have been the "sollution". Allow medical insurance companies to compete across state boarders, and let them provide service based on risk.


Why should a 49 year old man, working at wallmart, 350lbs, chain smoker; pay the same as a 21 year old girl who is in shape and works as an aerobics instructor.

jspaeth

This is the most relevant thing I've read in the whole thread.

__________________

Daily driven

ineedone

Do you even read the things you quote? I started it off with "this is not the best example" obviously the government does not force you to own and operate a vehicle on public roads. However, unless you live in a major city, I doubt you can get by without having a vehicle. But that was not the argument. Where the analogy starts is when someone has a car, that will be potentially used on a public road.

If you are pulled over, or involved in an accident and you do not have insurance, there damn sure is a penalty. Ps. the police is part of the government, therefore, it is the government (state or federal) that exercises the "penalty" for lack of insurance. Again, you need to realize that I was not saying this is completely analogous, and that yes, there are major differences because people can hypothetically choose to not own/operate a vehicle. However, lets work on the assumption that the general population does need to own or operate a vehicle on a public road at some point in their lifetime.


Property insurance works well? I guess you forgot about Katrina. What happened there was people were told they would not be covered by their insurance because they did not have "hurricane" insurance, however, they did have "flood" insurance. Explain that one?

Auto insurance companies are not looked at upstanding members of the community either, ever hear of anyone enjoying having their auto insurance agent appraise their vehicle after a accident? The whole business model is to find something that will allow them to say you violated some term of the contract so they do not have to pay.

To say any "insurance" works well is a huge stretch. I am not saying that it is always flawed and it is all dirty/corrupt/slimey but I would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that the industry is awesome.


Pre-existing conditions, heard of those? Health care should not be operated on a profit basis, at least that is my view, it should be operated as it was initially intended. The original health care systems were operated through the church. I am no fan of the church, but, I can not argue that there have been some things they have done that were great.


Can they both fall over and die for unexpected reasons? You can not prevent certain diseases/accidents. I know plenty of old, fat, unhealthy people who never had a medical problem, and I know plenty that do have medical problems. However, waiting until a serious problem arises then having to pay for that, is much more expensive then that same person having the ability to have ongoing medical care which may prevent a serious medical problem down the road.

Also, since we love the car analogy so much, why should someone who never uses a public road be forced to pay (through taxes obviously) for the maintaining of those roads?

cc4usmc

Everyone already has the right to health care. Now we're just paying for the people who can't afford it. Right? Those same people on Welfare maybe?


Here is an excerpt from one of my books:

Nearly all of the Founders seem to have acquired deep convictions that assisting those in need had to be done through means which might be called "calculated" compassion. Highlights from their writings suggest the following:

1. Do not help the needy completely. Merely help them to help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of "earned achievement"
3. Allow the poor to climb the "appreciation ladder"
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce the scale of "fixed responsibility." The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is his family; then the church; next the community; finally the country, and, in disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor. No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare.


And as far as your quote goes, if I didn't know any better, I would have guess that he was referring to his time. The Founders knew that in order to keep the American eagle from tipping to either side, they had to educate the people. They wanted their fundamentals to carry on.

"No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness....Preach....a crusade against the ignorance' establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [of misgovernment]."
Thomas Jefferson

And that's what happened. They made it law that if your community had at least 50 families in it you had to have a free public grammar school. If it was 100 families or more, they were also required to have a secondary school.

Check this out

Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States

They used to teach the Constitution to children. Pretty neat huh? Does that happen anymore? Nope.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

kingkilburn

This debate is just ridiculous. Now you(ineedone) are just reaching for straws with ideas that are neither based in the Constitution or legal precedent.


I am happy to be done with this. lol

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

Corbic

That is life insurance, not health insurance. That too is based on demographics and research data.

Corbic

Thank you. The only way to encourage people to be healthy is to "Reward" them for it.

If being 50lbs over weight and smoking is costing you an extra $100 a month, maybe you'll lose weight and drop the habit. If you don't have that incentive, then why would you live a healthier lifestyle if you know when you do have a heart attack, need insulin shots, have to get your lungs cut our or go through cancer treatment... shit, its all covered, no worries.

ineedone

We pay for public education, whether or not you go to public school. I am merely saying people argue that quote is the justification for a public education system, and by that you could argue that healthcare should act the same.


Remember the times they lived in, and how they themselves were hypocrites of the things they believed. Slavery being a huge one. That is why it is literally impossible to truly know what they meant. It is also why most believe federalism to be figuratively dead. Though there are those that believe some of it still is around.

I would not doubt it to be true that people seeking to become citizens (immigrants both legal and "illegal") know the constitution better than the majority of the population.

Who is William Huff? I have never heard of the guy, not quite sure how I feel about the things that I pulled up on him, but interesting none the less. Is this the same guy though THREE TITLES [3] for the PRICE OF ONE.?

I know the war is racket (Butler) and I have seen the speech that the soldier in the bottom video gives. But if you listen to him, he is preaching socialism in a sense, not that I disagree with him in the slightest either way.

ineedone

Reaching for straws? and legal precedent? Your the one that can not get over that the 10th amendment is nothing but a truism (legal precedent!).

ineedone

Merely "working out" and being "healthy" does not correlate into not having "pre-existing" conditions. Women were being denied their benefits because of yeast infections... because clearly that is a "pre-existing" condition.

Because losing weight is that easy for everyone? How do you begin to determine what is "overweight" or what is "unhealthy" are you going to be the one to make sure no one smokes cigs or eats bad foods? Are you going to be the one to determine who can eat what and when? Look, you can not base your arguments on the extremes, that is not how the world works. Focus on gray area of the issue. Where does the line exist from when you go from health - unhealthy. From normal - overweight.

I am assuming your knowledge on the whole issue is elementary at best, so read this article so you are not so scared of SOOOOOCCCIALIZZZED MEEEDDDDIIICINNNNEEE!!!!! (I said that in the spooky voice by the way) The Many Myths Of European Health Care - CBS News

cc4usmc

And how much financial influence does the Federal Gov have on public education? According to

Federal Role in Education

only about 10.5% of the $1.1 trillion (in 09-10) can from the Federal Gov. The majority comes from the State, local and private sources, just like it was intended. If you CHOOSE not to go to public school, that's YOUR decision. If you CHOOSE not to pay for your own health care, that's also YOUR decision. If you CHOOSE not to take care of yourself and end up needing health care, that's YOUR fault. But now they don't have to worry about that, because it will come from everyone's pocket.

Here is some information about the earliest form of Federal Heath Care:

President Pierce was doing EXACTLY what was intended by the Founding Fathers.


Again, you're not reading the right book. President Pierce read the right book.

Don't pay any attention to Huff, that's the "Revised Edition." Look at the original, dated 1828.

Most people are obese due to their own actions, so certainly they can lose the weight. They just have to have the desire to do so.

And those cases related to genes are most likely due to obese parents. You know you've seen obese couples and their kids are just as obese.

If it's preventable, then it's something people can control. Do they CHOOSE to? Most don't.

And I shouldn't have to point out that being obese is the cause for many additional health issues.
It's called the Body Mass Index.

Healthy Weight: Assessing Your Weight: Body Mass Index (BMI) | DNPAO | CDC

Here are a couple more links about Obesity.

The Surgeon General?s Vision for a Healthy and Fit Nation Fact Sheet
Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics | DNPAO | CDC

It's nobody's job but the obese persons to lose weight. It's called "Personal Responsibility," and this country lacks is hard core. The Founding Fathers probably would have called it "Public Virtue."

The Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute: The Foundation of Public Virtue


Ok, I'm done here. I can't keep spending so much time going back and forth, although it has been fun. Honestly.

*1 History of health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*2 Obesity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

ineedone

Again, I am merely pointing out that money does in fact come from your wallet and go to a federal system which funds public education. I do believe though that property taxes are the major funding for public schools (on the state level). No one can CHOOSE to not pay taxes, no one can CHOOSE where there tax dollars will go.
Can we both agree that the issue faces President Pierce, in no way, reflect the same issues we face today?




What? I did not get that from a book. I got that from how the government and more importantly, how the law, functions in modern society. I would even go as far to say that we now have a 4th branch of government (Agencies within the APA that have sub agencies, think SEC and their sub parts) which neither the judiciary or the legislature has any way to check and the Executive has no power to fire. This would be clearly against what the founders wanted correct? I would also argue that the original principals of federalism are inherently/logistically impossible to strictly adhere to in modern society.



You can not fault children for their parents. You also need to take into consideration poverty as well as the resources available to them. It is no secret that people who live below the poverty line do not have access to fruits and vegetables. Most of their diet consist of saturated fats and high sodium not only because that is what they may choose to eat, but also because they may be the only thing available to eat. Just think, when was the last time you saw a decent grocery store in the hood. Again, I am not trying to make excuses, just merely stating that it is an issue that is extremely complex and not as simple as "eat healthy" and "exercise." I think we can agree on that.


It is widely known that the BMI of most athletes will classify them as "overweight" or "unhealthy" and it is an arbitrary test. I did a lot of research on BMI back in undergrad and found that it is only fairly accurate when you use it on the "average" person. If you are slightly above or below average height, the BMI is nor representative of the actual person. You would literally have to require everyone to go through a extensive medical exam to truly determine whether or not they are healthy. It is almost unique to every individual.
The is a sweeping generalization, though I may agree with you in some instances, I do realize that there is an infinite number of factors that also may attribute to it.

Personally, I train MMA, I played D1 soccer, and have been "athletic" my entire life. However, I have a buddy who has never lifted a day in his life and the kid is twice the size of me and cut. He eats like shit too. To the eye we would look equally as healthy, but we know that is not the truth.
It has been fun! It is great to have intellectual debates with informed people. Too many times on this forum it is reduced to some joker with no clue, and no grasp of grammar. However, I will gladly keep countering, clarifying, or agreeing!

supervenom

Tea Party movement...? They are a bunch of freakin morons. They complain and complain but have no answers! They make it seem as if they had control, things would be rainbows and sunshine. But, they only say things like that because all of their rhetoric doesn't have to stand up to real world situations. They say they have step one figured out, but then what. The plan is always good until it isn't. They would have screwed up royally. And then would have shrugged their shoulders and said, oops. Like little Bush.

TOTAL FUCKING MORONS!!!

raz0rbladez909

If that isn't opinionated I don't know what is; You forget that there are idiots in all camps whether it Rep, Dem, or any other party, and those are the ones that usually end up on TV. I like the discussion, Kingkilburn, CC4USMC, and ineedone were having, and it is what I meant to bring around, but just running in here and bashing a specific party with no real reason has no relevance here. At least provide some FACTS

__________________
2004 Corvette Z06 / 1971 240z

zeitgeist

Just to put this in here.

Everyone should go and read what the original Tea party was all about. It wasnt about taxation without representation.

And the people that were dumping the tea into the harbour werent your all around stand up citizens like american history books have made it out to be

kingkilburn

Rebellious people rarely are.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

Dr.Fate

They used to teach the Constitution to children. Pretty neat huh? Does that happen anymore? Nope.[/QUOTE]

That's a damn shame! I don't care what side you are on left or right, The Constitution is something that should be taught in school along with Spanish & French.
When I was in grade school in Chicago, The FULL UNDERSTANDING of the U.S. Constitution was a requirement just to graduate the 9th grade! Even in Catholic or Public schools.

__________________
The 240sx/Silvia is not just a car it's a lifestyle.

ericcastro

I just call em Poor Loser's.

They lost the election, so instead of trying again, they try and quite and go off to play a different game.

Perfect example of the kind of people they seem to be.
Also, from my experince with them, they aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
And they seem to be a little crazy as well, talking about stock piling guns to take over the government with.

Im actually waiting for an anti terrorist group to take some of them down.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9K∙RACING™ If you were such a baller and had standards you wouldn't be on this forum..