Anoyone wonder?

[Metalject]

For the sake of argument, let's say the new health care reform bill is the morally right thing to do, it's what's fair. Now ask this question, There's a starving man out in the street, I have no food and not quite enough money to feed my family. So should I buy the starving man a sandwich or should I feed my family?

And to the guy who said it's no coincidence most civilized western nations have socialized healthcare, is it also no coincidence that these countries are going broke and the EU economic system is on the verge of collapse because of entitlements?

As for the right to life, yes, we all have the right to live, but the system in the U.S. that was put in place does not go beyond that. The right to life means the government has no right to take this right away, but it does not mean the government has the responsibility of keeping you alive. That's what's great about the U.S. or what's supposed to be and what's made it unique, we are all responsible for ourselves, which in turn allows us to be responsible and decide what actions we take in life. This doesn't mean we will all end up on equal ground, equal ground is impossible.

Personally, I would rather live free, truly free beholden to no man or government and if I die I die but during what life I had my decisions and choices were mine to make so as long as they do not hinder anyone else from that same right.

This is not a right or left or liberal or conservative argument. That's the first thing we need to realize. It's an argument of liberty and nothing more. If you're guying into this being a left/right argument, regardless of the side you're taking, you're missing what this is. It's about control, you having control or the government having control over you. The more responsibilities we give to the government, the more power we take away from ourselves. And in the U.S. the government was NEVER meant to have any power over the people; it was put in place in an effort to make sure the individual's right to hold power over his own life was never taken away. That's all it is and nothing more.

[basketballfan22]

For the sake of argument, let's say the new health care reform bill is the morally right thing to do, it's what's fair. Now ask this question, There's a starving man out in the street, I have no food and not quite enough money to feed my family. So should I buy the starving man a sandwich or should I feed my family?

And to the guy who said it's no coincidence most civilized western nations have socialized healthcare, is it also no coincidence that these countries are going broke and the EU economic system is on the verge of collapse because of entitlements?

As for the right to life, yes, we all have the right to live, but the system in the U.S. that was put in place does not go beyond that. The right to life means the government has no right to take this right away, but it does not mean the government has the responsibility of keeping you alive. That's what's great about the U.S. or what's supposed to be and what's made it unique, we are all responsible for ourselves, which in turn allows us to be responsible and decide what actions we take in life. This doesn't mean we will all end up on equal ground, equal ground is impossible.

Personally, I would rather live free, truly free beholden to no man or government and if I die I die but during what life I had my decisions and choices were mine to make so as long as they do not hinder anyone else from that same right.

This is not a right or left or liberal or conservative argument. That's the first thing we need to realize. It's an argument of liberty and nothing more. If you're guying into this being a left/right argument, regardless of the side you're taking, you're missing what this is. It's about control, you having control or the government having control over you. The more responsibilities we give to the government, the more power we take away from ourselves. And in the U.S. the government was NEVER meant to have any power over the people; it was put in place in an effort to make sure the individual's right to hold power over his own life was never taken away. That's all it is and nothing more.

I think that is a ridiculous question. Saving a stranger's life over one of your own family members is completely different than socialized healthcare. You are taxed based on income; so if you don't have much, you won't give much.

The EU economy is going downhill? Have you not watched the economy of the US? Many countries are experiencing economic hardships, including the good ole US of A.

You have a problem with a too powerful of a government which is understandable, but your argument can be used to make a case that there should be absolutely no taxes too. If you are fine paying some taxes, then you are contradicting your own argument against socialized healthcare. On the other hand, if you believe we shouldn't pay any taxes at all; then I think you are sorely mistaken.

[Metalject]

I think that is a ridiculous question. Saving a stranger's life over one of your own family members is completely different than socialized healthcare. You are taxed based on income; so if you don't have much, you won't give much.

The EU economy is going downhill? Have you not watched the economy of the US? Many countries are experiencing economic hardships, including the good ole US of A.

You have a problem with a too powerful of a government which is understandable, but your argument can be used to make a case that there should be absolutely no taxes too. If you are fine paying some taxes, then you are contradicting your own argument against socialized healthcare. On the other hand, if you believe we shouldn't pay any taxes at all; then I think you are sorely mistaken.

The example I used about saving a strangers life was because many who support the new healthcare legislation do so because they believe it is a moral obligation. Maybe it wasn't the best example to use, but currently it's what comes to mind. If you're going to make an argument based on morality, you can only compare it to other moral situations.

And you're absolutely right, both the EU and U.S. economies are hurting and largely for the same reasons, spending more than they have because of entitlement programs that have continually added up more and more as the years go by. The EU is simply further along this disastrous hole because they've been playing that game longer and are working on a smaller scale, but if it continues, both the EU and U.S. end up with the same disastrous end.

And I am not saying I have a problem paying taxes. Yes, I have a problem with giving 30% of my income to the federal government, plus all the other taxes we pay. That is injustice by any definition, but it's also a separate argument. But in this case, I do have a problem being forced to buy any good or service. Sure, you can call it a tax and that's what the supreme court decided to call it, but the court is not God, and they've made bad calls before and such bad calls have often been reversed in time. The court's decision is not the end all be all set in stone for eternity decision. But yes, I do have a problem paying for a tax that forces me to buy any good or service I do not want and that I did not choose to buy myself. If I wanted to be forced to buy healthcare I would move to one of the other 100 countries in the world that force this.
The bottom line, Obama Care is not a tax no more than owning a slave is a right or prohibiting alcohol is a right the court can enforce. The court once said both were legal but that did not make either right.

On the topic of the EU and U.S. and the economy, I do think we will definitely see a period of time much like pre-WWII where the economy of nearly every country in the world goes into collapse. Possibly worse but it will at least be similar. Neither the EU or U.S. is on the road to recovery by any stretch of the word. But what will be interesting is how both sides react this time. Last time you had very different reactions, the U.S. handled themselves much differently than most of Europe and I wonder if that will repeat.

[basketballfan22]

The example I used about saving a strangers life was because many who support the new healthcare legislation do so because they believe it is a moral obligation. Maybe it wasn't the best example to use, but currently it's what comes to mind. If you're going to make an argument based on morality, you can only compare it to other moral situations.

And you're absolutely right, both the EU and U.S. economies are hurting and largely for the same reasons, spending more than they have because of entitlement programs that have continually added up more and more as the years go by. The EU is simply further along this disastrous hole because they've been playing that game longer and are working on a smaller scale, but if it continues, both the EU and U.S. end up with the same disastrous end.

And I am not saying I have a problem paying taxes. Yes, I have a problem with giving 30% of my income to the federal government, plus all the other taxes we pay. That is injustice by any definition, but it's also a separate argument. But in this case, I do have a problem being forced to buy any good or service. Sure, you can call it a tax and that's what the supreme court decided to call it, but the court is not God, and they've made bad calls before and such bad calls have often been reversed in time. The court's decision is not the end all be all set in stone for eternity decision. But yes, I do have a problem paying for a tax that forces me to buy any good or service I do not want and that I did not choose to buy myself. If I wanted to be forced to buy healthcare I would move to one of the other 100 countries in the world that force this.
The bottom line, Obama Care is not a tax no more than owning a slave is a right or prohibiting alcohol is a right the court can enforce. The court once said both were legal but that did not make either right.

On the topic of the EU and U.S. and the economy, I do think we will definitely see a period of time much like pre-WWII where the economy of nearly every country in the world goes into collapse. Possibly worse but it will at least be similar. Neither the EU or U.S. is on the road to recovery by any stretch of the word. But what will be interesting is how both sides react this time. Last time you had very different reactions, the U.S. handled themselves much differently than most of Europe and I wonder if that will repeat.

I understand anyone's frustration for paying for goods and services they don't want, but it is impossible for each citizen to pay taxes and allocate exactly where that money goes. We pay taxes, and the government uses everyone's tax dollars the same. There are people who don't have children and genuinely don't like taxes that help the education system since they don't have a child that will benefit. Does this mean we should eliminate taxes that fund our country's education system just because some people don't want their tax dollars going there? There will always be areas that are funded that a person doesn't necessarily support. Polls have shown that less than half of the American people think "Obamacare" is a bad idea; therefore it is not as universally hated as many try and paint it.

[Metalject]

I understand anyone's frustration for paying for goods and services they don't want, but it is impossible for each citizen to pay taxes and allocate exactly where that money goes. We pay taxes, and the government uses everyone's tax dollars the same. There are people who don't have children and genuinely don't like taxes that help the education system since they don't have a child that will benefit. Does this mean we should eliminate taxes that fund our country's education system just because some people don't want their tax dollars going there? There will always be areas that are funded that a person doesn't necessarily support. Polls have shown that less than half of the American people think "Obamacare" is a bad idea; therefore it is not as universally hated as many try and paint it.

CNN Poll May 27 2013: 54% oppose the law, 47% supporthttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/27/poll-do-you-support-or-oppose-the-health-care-law/

MSNBC Poll May 28 2013: 54% oppose, 43% approve
Americans still don’t like Obamacare, but Dems do — MSNBC

Rasmussen Poll July 1 2013: 48% oppose, 41% approve, 11% undecided
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

The polls show more oppose than approve. Is it a massive difference percentage wise? No, but it's enough percentage wise to put millions more opposing than approving, so we can't say it's supported by more than unsupported.

You're right, the government will never be able to spend every dime it collects in taxes just as every single person would like them to. This doesn't mean we cannot force our government to allocate money where we want them to. This is something many Americans have forgotten, we are not beholden to our government, our government is beholden to us. We were never intended to be ruled by rulers, we were intended to place people in government who were charged with protecting our right to rule ourselves.

And while it's a different topic, yes, I would support taking away all federal tax dollars being spent on education, every last dime. Why? Because we have to look at the track record. The Federal government has done nothing to improve education. For more than 50yrs they've tried and they have failed miserably. Money spent on education should be left up to the individual states and the citizens of that state. If someone doesn't like how their state is spending money on education, they can move to another state. There are 50 states and their bound to find one they like more in this regard and for that matter all regards.

[gixxerboy1]

CNN Poll May 27 2013: 54% oppose the law, 47% supporthttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/27/poll-do-you-support-or-oppose-the-health-care-law/

MSNBC Poll May 28 2013: 54% oppose, 43% approve
Americans still don’t like Obamacare, but Dems do — MSNBC

Rasmussen Poll July 1 2013: 48% oppose, 41% approve, 11% undecided
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

The polls show more oppose than approve. Is it a massive difference percentage wise? No, but it's enough percentage wise to put millions more opposing than approving, so we can't say it's supported by more than unsupported.

You're right, the government will never be able to spend every dime it collects in taxes just as every single person would like them to. This doesn't mean we cannot force our government to allocate money where we want them to. This is something many Americans have forgotten, we are not beholden to our government, our government is beholden to us. We were never intended to be ruled by rulers, we were intended to place people in government who were charged with protecting our right to rule ourselves.

And while it's a different topic, yes, I would support taking away all federal tax dollars being spent on education, every last dime. Why? Because we have to look at the track record. The Federal government has done nothing to improve education. For more than 50yrs they've tried and they have failed miserably. Money spent on education should be left up to the individual states and the citizens of that state. If someone doesn't like how their state is spending money on education, they can move to another state. There are 50 states and their bound to find one they like more in this regard and for that matter all regards.

and if you look at those people deeper that asked a follow up question, some people oppose it because it didnt do enough. They want more done

[Metalject]

and if you look at those people deeper that asked a follow up question, some people oppose it because it didnt do enough. They want more done

While I do enjoy talking about these types of things I also understand this is one of those things that just going to have to run its course for people to change their mind one way or another. Once this deal is fully implemented, if it improves healthcare and does not damage the economy, small business and the every day man's pocket book, people like me we'll just have to say we were wrong. However, if it does cause these negative things to occur, I would hope all the people who have supported it will be willing to say they were wrong and accept that we need to do away with it. But my concern is even if it fails and causes all these negative things people like me believe it will, those who currently support it will only say it didn't work and caused problems because it wasn't enough. Either way, regardless of what happens, people who support it win the argument in their mind regardless of what happens.

[Metalject]

and if you look at those people deeper that asked a follow up question, some people oppose it because it didnt do enough. They want more done

Your comment has stuck in my mind all afternoon, especially "They want more done." I think the correct phrase is "They want more" which is one of the primary reasons people like myself do not support it.