Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

The minimum wage has zero to do with Marxism. Why the heck would you refer to it?

 

Now, address the 45 goals.

 

Because like most leftist he's ignorant on the subject. Now, back to ""Free"" health care

 

An understanding of economic relations will naturally lead to left wing conclusion

 

{{""Public goods have non-rivalry in consumption..""}}

Please site some.

 

That rarely work

 

We've already seen it here. I benefit from the positive spillovers from health care and that doesn't stop you from also benefiting from them

 

Hahahaha.... O.K., Reiv, I'll give you that one.

 

But not a one of us signed up for this;

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. Public or private, people that means your private vehicles

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
allows the government to seize and control the communication media. Public or private

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. and any fuel you have because again, it's public or private

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998
allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999
allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. public or private

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000
allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. And put them in work camps even if it means spliting up families

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001
allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002
designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons. You are now a number just like a prisoner

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003
allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004
allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. And take over all housing

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005
allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051
specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.


EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310
grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049
assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921
allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President,Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate the... National Security Act of 1947 allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities. 1950 Defense Production Act gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy. Act of August 29, 1916 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency. International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.

And where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government to declare nation wide Martial Law???

 

There ISN'T any such thing.

 

-----------------------------


''the U.N.''

The UN did not benefit from stealing oil wells from Iraq they war Bush did. See the Downing Street Memo/


"Margaret Sanger ... few took her seriously"

You need to do your homework for she got tons of money from her Republican benefactors. That's how Planned Parenthood got started and ultimately became a multimillion dollar group.


"1960s and 1970s - I was there"


I'm older than you are and was there as well. So spare me the history lessons as I know all that better than you do.

"taxes"

We have gone over that already.


"Democommies"

Read Anthony Sutton whose books I have already posted links to ~ your Republicon heroes financed them.





"separation of church and state"

Again, read Madison's Remonstrance which was done two years before the Constitution was approved thereby proving that our Founding Fathers intended to keep that division:

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html



And contrary to the rest of your delusional rants above, I find that libs endorse the Constitution more than the right wingers. For example, libs condemn police hassling of people who drive their cars while Brown or Black. Why don't right wingers do the same? Libs say enforce the immigration laws on a uniform basis. Why don't righties do the same? Our Founding Fathers condemned corporations and their abuses - why don't righties do it as well?? Separation of church and state? The Founders demanded that we stay out of foreign wars. Why do righties love foreign wars? Well, obviously it's because they love to profit from it.

I could go and on. But history clearly shows that for the most part it is the delusional right wing that despises the Constitution and what our Founders stood for. Some do uphold the Constitution such as antiwar.com, lewrockwell, rense, and a few others - but not enough.

 

You are indeed correct, SR.

The only way we can ever provide free health care to all Americans is if the doctors, hospitals, nurses, administrators, clinics, laboratories and emergency rooms work and operate for free.

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times'

Raising the debt ceiling doesn't increase the nation's debt, Pres. Obama declared in a speech today.

In a speech at the Business Roundtable headquarters in Washington, D.C., Obama dismissed concerns about raising the debt ceiling by noting that it'd been done so many times in the past:

"Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you've already racked up, Congress. It's a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved."

Obama went on to suggest that "the average person" mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt:

"It's always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we're running up our debt, so people don't like to vote on it, and, typically, there's some gamesmanship in terms of making the President's party shoulder the burden of raising the -- taking the vote."

But, isn't the fact that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling "over a hundred times" - and, thus, has had to keep raising it - proof that raising the limit does, in fact, lead to increased debt?"

Either Obama is intentionally lying to us, or this fellow does not understand basic economics! Mr. Obama if charging more on your credit card each month than you can pay off does not increase the amount of debt you owe, that what pray tell does?


http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig...does-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

 

Watching too much Fox News?
I don't have proper words to describe how ridiculous this is. You, sir, have never been to Europe, have you?
Seriously, where exactly does this utter nonsense come from?

 

Its true fewer people own cars but they have something funny mass transportation that is widely available and bicycle lanes that are in most cities safe to use, so you don't need a car. And mopeds and light transports like that are also common. I found when I was with my family there to get around in my wheelchair far easier than in the USA.

 

I see your point and I don't disagree, but these are two different things (imo).
I've been living in Europe all my life.
In the sense of

, meaning only the rich can afford to drive a car etc. it's just completely wrong.
I'm not rich, just normal middle-class, and I've had a car since I was 18 years old. Most of my friends are not what some would consider rich (however you would define this term) and everybody has a car. Some people don't want a car although they could easily afford one.
Europeans tend to use public transport a lot more due to infratructure (long distances like in Texas are rare here) or, as you mentioned, they use small mopeds, bicycles (ask the Dutch), but not because only the rich get to drive cars regularly and ordinary folks have to make do with other means of transport. That's utter nonsense.

 

No. It is not the governments job to provide anything for the people other than is inummerated in the Constitution. If a state wants to provide free health care for its denizens that is completely up to them. The Feds have no business whatsoever though. What's next, free housing and food? Housing and food are even more important to sustain life than healthcare. Maybe people have a right to free transportation because in todays world you can't have a job unless you can get to work and that requires transportation. These are decisions that should be at the state levels only, not the Federal level.

 

Actually, in countries with universal health care there is more contact with doctors, more health monitoring, and as a result better diet and less obesity.
Telling people that sugar is bad for them doesn't stop everyone from eating themselves into diabetes, but it does reduce the numbers who do.
Pre-natal care doesn't eliminate infant mortality, but it does reduce it.
The private insurance system does not have the incentives to reduce overall health care costs in the long term, their goal is to reduce immediate health care costs, their incentive is to get you to age 65 and then you are on Medicare, and off their books.

There are three health care systems currently operating in the United States, a private insurance system, a single payer system and a government run system.
When adjusting for age, the private system is the most expensive (in the world, bar none), the single payer system (Medicare) comes next and the government run system (VA) has the lowest costs of all.

That's not an "America is different from France" situation, those are the actual results for three types of systems currently operating in the United States.

 

There should be universal health care for all Americans, but in know way would it be free. It should be paid through payroll deduction and taken off the backs of business except for what the owners pay themselves. We'd have 2% unemployment by lunch time tomorrow.

 

Israel, Japan, Canada, the European Union all have universal health care. Not one of them compels medical staffs to work for free.

 

OF COURSE the govt should Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans. Not only that, it should provide free universal veterinary care for our animal pets too. The current situation regarding pet health insurance in America, is even worse than the human health care situation. Much worse. See the link.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=324378

 

Perhaps the real question ought to be should ANY health care in America ever be not provided for by the government ? Should any health care ever be run by private companies ? (hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc)

 

Republicans applaud paying taxes to finance Iraq's and Israel's health care. But they condemn using those same tax dollars to save American lives.



NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON

 

Sarah Palin believes in SOCIALIZED medicine:



http://www.codewit.com/north-america/13898-sarah-palin-i-ll-go-to-canada-for-health-care


Sarah Palin today claimed she would rather go to Canada for her health care needs than remain in the United States as long as Obamacare is in effect.

The former governor of Alaska ripped into the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, during a GOPAC fundraiser in Columbus, Ohio, in which she attempted to point out the new law's multiple flaws.

"Since President Obama forced this so-called Obamacare on all Americans, we are seeing costs go up and people lose their health insurance," the Tea Party darling told hundreds of supporters. "Right now I am scared to enter a hospital because I don't know how much it will cost me, if my health insurance will cover me or if I will even receive quality care. Let me tell you folks, this never happened before Obamacare took effect.

"I love America but as long as Obamacare is the law, every time I need to visit the doctor or buy medicine, I'm just gonna head across the Alaska border to Canada. At least Canada has the kind of efficient, cost-effective health care that conservatives can support."

Going Canuck
Canada's health care system, which is comparable to the popular U.S. program Medicare, provides publicly funded health insurance to all citizens and is administered by the provinces, with guidelines set by the federal government. Unlike the Affordable Care Act, Canada's system cut out the private health insurance companies instead of requiring U.S. citizens to buy from them.


Palin previously claimed Obamacare's failings are meant to build support for single-payer health care, although she has struggled to explain her alternate proposal.

However, Palin's unwitting endorsement of Canada's government-run health care system -- which is often dismissed by U.S. conservatives as "socialist" -- did not seem to faze the crowd as she continued to favorably contrast it to the United States.

"I can't tell you how many of my Canadian friends say how much they like their health care," she said. "As Americans, we should be embarrassed that Canadians have a higher life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than we do. On top of that, I'm told Canadians spend less money than we do.

"Why is that? Maybe it's because the president of Canada, Stephen Harper, is a conservative who doesn't like to waste the people's money, so he demands an efficient health care system."

Palin also blasted Republicans and the Supreme Court for "standing by and doing absolutely nothing" to stop Obamacare.

"I bet you that if anyone tried to go to Canada or even Europe and took away their health care and replaced it with something worse, the people would take to the streets in protest. We should do the same."

 

Thanks to Obamacare ... "I'm going to be a Democrat"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...9dc6e0-5465-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_print.html


Places such as Breathitt County, in the Appalachian foothills of eastern Kentucky, are driving the state’s relatively high enrollment figures, which are helping to drive national enrollment figures as the federal health exchange has floundered. In a state where 15 percent of the population, about 640,000 people, are uninsured, 56,422 have signed up for new health-care coverage, with 45,622 of them enrolled in Medicaid and the rest in private health plans, according to figures released by the governor’s office Friday.

If the health-care law is having a troubled rollout across the country, Kentucky — and Breathitt County in particular — shows what can happen in a place where things are working as the law’s supporters envisioned.




Thousands are signing up for care - lives will be saved. This saddens so many right wing **********s but it's the law and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

No. Why, because the quality and availability of health care will become substandard. What we needed to do was to regulate Health Insurance Companies and take away their protection under the Sherman Act and other laws. We long needed to regulate the terms of their contracts and stop the price fixing of premiums and payments to health care providers. These regulations make up the "patient protection" portion of the ACA. But, because these needed regulations would mean loss of profits for the Insurance Companies, the Democrats added the individual mandate to compensate for the loss of profit the new regulations would bring. As it turns out, the insurance companies are now the biggest winners in ACA. Taxpayers and those currently insured are the biggest losers.

Regulation of companies should have done away with canceling insurance where premiums are current, setting maximum lifetime payouts, refusing to renew insurance where payment of premiums are current, refusing to cover newborns borns regardless of the status of their health care needs, cancelling those insured based on diagnosed costly illnesses. In essence, no insured should be cancelled except where they fail to pay their premiums as contracted.

As to those applying for insurance that have costly illnesses and/or determined to have been in need of surgery to correct illnesses or deformities; I believe this is where the Federal Government could have played a role by offering an exchange for these individuals. Clearly not all individuals with a pre-existing condition be costly to the insurers, many may never need treatment for the illness or disease again, or the cost will be minimal while those diagnosed with cancer or previously treated for cancer or another highly costly illness will cost the insurer much more. The Federal Government should be subsidizing these individuals premiums. Others should not be forced to pay higher premiums or forced to pay for benefits they will NEVER need just to help pay for those with pre-existing conditions.