Obama's Health Care Bill: Unconstitutional

[Serious Mozzarella]

So it was just reported today that a part of Obama's health care bill was ruled unconstitutional:

(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional -- setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

You read that right. Everything that you've been afraid of, being forced to buy health insurance, yeah, that was ruled unconstitutional.

You know, I loved the first incarnation of the bill -- the part of the bill that included the public option funded by taxpayer money and subsidiaries. That was a step in the right direction. But, due to a compromise to the GOP because the Democrats are weak, the bill took a complete 180 turn into a bill that everybody hated, Republicans and Democrats alike -- that is, the Republicans and Democrats that weren't being funded by the insurance companies.

Question is, how do you feel about this? Are you happy that the bill was ruled unconstitutional? Would you prefer a public option?

 

[klunderbunker]

First of all, I wasn't afraid of it. It was a good thing, but that's another story.

Anyway this doesn't surprise me and if it goes to the Supreme Court it's dead as that thing is so conservative it's ridiculous. This of course doesn't mean that healthcare reform is dead as only a piece of it is. This isn't good of course but it means more bullshitting by the GOP of "we told you so" when it's their fault he had to go with this in the first place. This doesn't surprise me and it's more headaches for Obama as his entire administration has been.

 

[Барбоса]

Talking about it as mandatory health insurance was always going to fail and of course maybe that was the ploy of those opposed to it.

However, it still astounds me that a developed nation like America fails to have a national health service. And I fear that it will never happen as America is simply too big to impose what would have to be an enormous system on top of existing practices; certainly not in the way it works here in the UK, with it being paid for out of taxes.

I am sure that someone has done some kind of calculation for what Obamacare would cost but even my rudimentary sums suggest that the financial outlay to cover the entire United States would be colossal. The British National Health Service currently sucks up about £100 billion a year. America has a population 5 times that of the UK stretched over an area 40 times the size of the UK, suggesting that universal health care across USA would push the $1 trillion a year mark.

Clearly there are people in the US who are unwilling to consider directing 7% of GDP to health care

 

[RockFan89]

You know, I loved the first incarnation of the bill -- the part of the bill that included the public option funded by taxpayer money and subsidiaries.

Well I hated that idea. Guess what will happen with a public option, either the private insurance companies will go out of business because the government would undercut them and force us into a completely government run system, or people will just not buy insurance (or at least good insurance) and just go into the government option when they get sick. So either situation will give us another massively underfunded entitlement program.

if it goes to the Supreme Court it's dead as that thing is so conservative it's ridiculous.

The Supreme Court is 5-4 conservative and if you actually look at some of their decisions, they don't always toe the partisan line as you seem to think.

it still astounds me that a developed nation like America fails to have a national health service

Well it doesn't astound me because that is what separates this country from all others, freedom. If you want to mess up your body with drugs, no exercise, junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. that's your right, just don't expect someone else to cover the bill to get you fixed.

In regards to the unconstitutional aspect of this, that's a no brainer. Of course the government cannot require you to buy something. It is your money and in this country you are free to use it the way you want. What part of the constitution would allow the government to do this?

 

[Davi323]

the biggest issue is that they forgot a key provision in the bill that allows them to strike certain parts but not others...which means if the Supreme Court finds that
Congress exceeded its authority by requiring mandatory health insurance, then the entire thing gets stricken, not just that part of it. Its called severability, and was omitted from the bill...probably a tactical decision by democrats believing no judge would dare strike the whole thing down. They essentially made it an all or nothing proposition that could seriously bite them in the ass.

this decision wasn't really about politics, despite what some liberals may try to spin it as. This was about common sense. Congress's only authority to pass this was based on the commerce clause, which is what they used to justify it. However, it is incredibly difficult to argue with a straight face that the lack of commerce counts as commerce. It is an entirely ridiculous notion. If I choose not to purchase something, how in the blue hell am I participating in commerce? Simple answer, I am not participating in commerce if I am not participating in commerce. Duh.

But even that isn't what scares me about the health bill. If the Supreme Court (it will definitely end up there) agree that the US government can compel citizens to participate in commerce of the Government's choosing, that opens the door for a heap of potential problems. If the government can force you into buying one product, what stops them from forcing you to buy other products that they deem necessary? Maybe they force you to buy american made cars to help the auto industry. Maybe they force you to buy a 42,000 Chevy Volt that can't even come close to affording, because its "good for the environment"? If the precedent gets set, can you REALLY trust the government not to abuse it? Allowing the government to force you to buy a specific product is a very scary prospect, because we all know it won't stop with one thing. You cannot open this door, even a crack.

 

[LSN80]

I think it's rediculous to be honest. All of the talk that came out of the Obama camp oif the bill being mandatory really shot this bill in the foot, and gave the GOP a leg to stand on.

This really doesn't surprise me in the slightest bit. It's a bit ironic though, the biggest superpower in the world can't even come up with a rational, sound healthcare system that works for all people. I don't think it will ever happen as we as a country are far too large to ever "impose" a universal healthcare system.

That being said, I don't believe that this bill is dead in the water. I think it will provide a larger barrier for Obama and his staff. You have a conservative government that will do everything they can to make this a public option. Im mixed on the ideas, but I think that all people should have healthcare, so I still support the bill. I think this is a small roadblock that will eventually be rectified. I don't think this is really that big of a deal, and I have little problem with it. I think much of this is common sense, and once those things can be hammered out, Im hopeful things will be worked out.

 

[Барбоса]

Well it doesn't astound me because that is what separates this country from all others, freedom. If you want to mess up your body with drugs, no exercise, junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. that's your right, just don't expect someone else to cover the bill to get you fixed.

So America does not have a National Health Service because it is a free country?

That just sounds like the worst kind of schoolboy excuses... "it's a free country." Last I checked, I live in a free country and yet am fully covered by a National Health Service - the two are not mutually exclusive.

Are you really worried that universal healthcare will enable drug addicts to keep snorting, sniffing and injecting? Surely the arguments for/against Obamacare do not focus on such a small percentage of the population? Surely it should be seen in the good it would do for what is the biggest group in the western world - over 65s.

I am a big fan of America. I might even think about living there some day but at times she uses her arguments regarding "freedom" to treat her own citizens like shit.

Is it not one of the abiding tenets of the free and prosperous to help those who are less fortunate? That is what Americans should see a National Health Service as - an investment in its own future.

 

[RockFan89]

So America does not have a National Health Service because it is a free country?

That just sounds like the worst kind of schoolboy excuses... "it's a free country." Last I checked, I live in a free country and yet am fully covered by a National Health Service - the two are not mutually exclusive.

I mean true freedom, beyond just freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. Yeah, the UK is free in comparison to North Korea, but I'm talking freedom in all aspects of life, for better or worse. In the U.S., you get to decide what to do with your money (ideally), not the government. If you don't want to pay for health care, that's your right, but it's your responsibility to pay your bills.

That is what has distinguished America from other countries, you are responsible for yourself.

Are you really worried that universal healthcare will enable drug addicts to keep snorting, sniffing and injecting? Surely the arguments for/against Obamacare do not focus on such a small percentage of the population? Surely it should be seen in the good it would do for what is the biggest group in the western world - over 65s.

Did you not read the other things I listed like poor diets, lack of exercise, alcohol, and/or cigarettes which characterize the MAJORITY of Americans?

And people over 65 already have medicare, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? (And medicare is filled with fraud and waste as it is, so expanding it would be a dumb idea)

 

[Барбоса]

I mean true freedom, beyond just freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. Yeah, the UK is free in comparison to North Korea, but I'm talking freedom in all aspects of life, for better or worse. In the U.S., you get to decide what to do with your money (ideally), not the government. If you don't want to pay for health care, that's your right, but it's your responsibility to pay your bills.

That is what has distinguished America from other countries, you are responsible for yourself.

Free to do what you want with your money? That is nonsense. You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you want to drive a car legally, you have to pay insurance, don't you? Americans are no more free than British citizens.

Did you not read the other things I listed like poor diets, lack of exercise, alcohol, and/or cigarettes which characterize the MAJORITY of Americans?

I apologise for zeroing in on a single example.

However, I would argue that a National Health Service could be used to help those people mend their unhealthy ways.

And people over 65 already have medicare, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here?

I will plead ignorance here as Medicare is not something I am familiar with.

(And medicare is filled with fraud and waste as it is, so expanding it would be a dumb idea)

Such fraud and waste are clearly a consequence of your free society. Free to make a fast buck by screwing over pensioners. But we have that kind of problems here too but that does not mean that universal healthcare is a bad idea. It just means that the systems in place are underegulated

As I said in my opening post, it may well be too late for America with regards to universal healthcare as it has become too big (not being an island like the UK doesn't help either), too set in its ways and perhaps even too corrupt to do what is necessary to fully embrace Obamacare.

And frankly I am surprised for if there is one thing that characterises Americans (in my mind anyway) more than anything else, it is their "can do" attitude.

 

[RockFan89]

Free to do what you want with your money? That is nonsense. You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you want to drive a car legally, you have to pay insurance, don't you? Americans are no more free than British citizens.

We pay taxes so that the government can function, not take care of us. The government doesn't pay for my food or shelter, that is my responsibility, and the same should go for health care.

With regards to your car analogy:
1) Each state mandates car insurance, not the federal government (huge difference for conservatives)
2) You have to get insurance for the PRIVILEGE of driving a car (which isn't a right). If you don't drive a car you don't have to get insurance. But you can't say the same about health insurance.
3) The only car insurance required is liable insurance so that if you hit someone, you will have the money to pay for their damages. It is not meant to look out for the consumer but to protect the public.

Such fraud and waste are clearly a consequence of your free society. Free to make a fast buck by screwing over pensioners.

I don't follow your logic here? Fraud is still illegal in the United States. The problem is the government does not run things efficiently which makes it wide open to such problems. It has nothing to do with the United States being a free country.

 

[Барбоса]

We pay taxes so that the government can function, not take care of us. The government doesn't pay for my food or shelter, that is my responsibility, and the same should go for health care.

So in essence what you are saying is that healthcare should only go to those who can afford it? Doesn't sound very free or fair to me.

If you are in financial difficulties, does the government not provide money to help you pay for food and shleter? Why should healthcare be any different? (although, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the government about to cut some unemployment benefits(?) too?)

I don't follow your logic here? Fraud is still illegal in the United States. The problem is the government does not run things efficiently which makes it wide open to such problems. It has nothing to do with the United States being a free country.

What I meant is that America is so free that it allows itself to be just as corrupt as any other government and, from what I can see, more useless in looking after its tax paying citizens.

 

[Minnesota Connection]

There should be a national healthcare option to help people who simply cannot afford 2,500 dollars to the emergency room.

I was hoping the health care plan would go threw, because its a step in the right direction. At least people are talking about it, at least its in the national spectrum. Something needs to be done, if this isn't it...Then there needs to be something else.

I find it ridiculous that this country has no healthcare system, that it is so expensive and the costs we have to pay/would have to pay if something terrible had happened.

Healthcare is a basic human right. We have the right to exist. Simple as that. If you deny that this right exists... That is just unconscionable.

 

[Davi323]

I think the problem a lot of you are having shows how little you understand the way United States laws operate. Its all well and good to want a national health care program...this lawsuit challenged the METHOD used to obtain it. There are certain things that the US Constitution gives power to the Federal government to, and it is fairly broad, but for any powers not specifically granted to the Feds, those powers belong to each state. This is where the lawsuits stem from, and why the leaders of all of the lawsuits are the various state's attorney generals. These lawsuits are about federal rights vs. states rights, and numerous states beliefs that the federal government tramped all over states rights in enacting this, by doing something they are constitutionally allowed to do.

I do have to wonder...how many of you have actually read the US Constitution? You hear about it all the time, you probably know a few of the more famous amendments....but how many of you actually know what it says in regards to all the other stuff? I am willing to bet that very few of you commenting on this have actually read it. I have.

Congress claims that its authority to require individual citizens to purchase a specific consumer product rests on the commerce clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

The states involved in all of these lawsuits argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds, that it has no legal authority to force citizens into buying health care, because in every single case where the commerce clause has gone to court, its always involved a citizen actively doing something, not inactively non-participating. Essentially, the states argue that not participating in commerce doesn't count as participating in commerce, thus congress has no authority to regulate it.

To that point, I ask a few questions who think it is absolutely appalling that there is no national health care system...and please, put away the emotional aspect, and focus strictly on the legal aspects.

1. Is it okay for the federal government to pass laws that it's charter does not actually grant them the power to pass? The authority of the federal government is derived from the Constitution, and if the Constitution does not allow them to do something, do you believe that they should go ahead and do it anyway, and not be challenged? Is that a legal precedent you are comfortable with?

2. Do you think that it sets a good legal precedent for the federal government to dictate to you what you are required to buy? That they have a right to force you into purchasing a specific consumer product, and can fine you if you refuse to purchase that product?

3. If you accept this premise, that the government should have the right to legally force you to buy something specific, where will the limits be? If you can be forced to purchase health care insurance, what stops them from forcing you to purchase other products that they deem to be in your best interests? Would you accept the premise if they decided that in the best interests of the American economy, that you now had to purchase American made cars only? Would that still be okay? Keep in mind, health care insurance is a consumer product, from a privately held corporation. This isn't a public option, where the producer of the insurance is the government, these are private companies.

To that point, I will answer my own questions first.
1. It is not okay for the government to surpass what it has the authority to do. The Constitution says what they can and cannot do. If they intentionally go past what they are legally authorized to do, then they have lost their authority over its citizens. Health care insurance requirements fall into the domain of individual states. Constitutionally, Michigan, California, New York, Florida etc can require its citizens to purchase health insurance, as Massachusetts does, the Federal government cannot. This would be one of those things where the power rests with the states, not the federal government. The wording of the Constitution is clear: the federal government gets powers a,b,c,d,e,f and g, any other powers not specifically granted to the federal government go to the states.

2/3. I do not accept the premise that the federal government can force me to purchase a specific consumer product. This concept has never been accepted before, why should it be accepted now? They have the right to grant me tax incentives for purchasing something, but they cannot compel me to purchase something. If they had framed it so that people with health insurance received an increased deduction on their taxes, that would probably be Constitutionally sound. But they cannot levy a fine if someone refuses to purchase a private consumer product, there is no authority provided for to allow for it.

Get away from the fact that it is health care insurance, this is about whether or not the federal government has the right to exceed its legally provided for mandate or not.

 

[Барбоса]

As already mentioned, the waters have been well and truely muddied by the associating of a National Health Service with compulsory health insurance. Indeed it is the whole insitution and prevelance of health insurance that seems to be the main obstacle to Obamacare as the bastardised version of it called for the compulsory purchase of health insurance.

While I do no claim to understand the ins and outs, dos and don'ts of the US Constitution, I can understand how compulsory health insurance is incompatible with how the American government was formed and has evolved in the passed 200 years.

However, the US Constitution has been proven to be fallible or lacking in the past, hence the Amendments and (although this could be me showing my ignorance again) I do not see how a British-style National Health Service would be infringing upon on the kind of "freedom" arguments that opponents of Obamacare have been hiding behind.

In Britain, the National Health Service is paid for by taxes and means that I do not need health insurance. There is no compulsory purchase involved. Some people may get additional coverage as part of their jobs like my mum who is a school teacher and there is still the option to go private if you want it but being covered by the NHS is one of the basic rights of being a British citizen.

Again maybe the American tax system with its numerous levels and sources of taxation may not want to add in another but an extra $35 a year per head does not seem like that much for an American National Health Service, particularly when the American tax burden is so much lower that most of the developed world.

 

[Davi323]

The main problem is that compulsory health care insurance (note, this bill is about insurance only, and has nothing to do with actual health care itself) cannot be done by the federal government, that power would be reserved for the states. States can require their citizens to have mandatory coverage at the state level, that would be 100 percent Constitutional. I think it would still set a bad precedent about being forced to purchase a specific product, but if it was done at the state level, there wouldn't be any Constitutional issues that I can see. By not inserting the severability language, the Democrats potentially fucked up big time. Now, if that section gets stricken by the Supreme Court whenever it gets to them, the entire law is invalid. Usually bills contain a severability clause that permits sections to be stricken without killing the entire bill...but they didn't include it with this. This is an all or nothing bill. If any part is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is.

Again, I am not arguing on the basis of emotion, whether the bill is right or qrong from an ethical/moral perspective, merely that the method in which it was inacted violated American law, meaning that the law needs to be stricken down so they can start from scratch with a Constitutionally sound way to reform health care insurance. Reform needs to happen, but they need to go about it differently.

 

[RockFan89]

Healthcare is a basic human right. We have the right to exist. Simple as that. If you deny that this right exists... That is just unconscionable.

With all due respect, your statement that healthcare is a human right is based on nothing but your emotions. That's like saying everyone has a right to food and shelter, which they don't. Nobody can have a right to someone else's service or property. Human rights can not require other people to do something for someone else. People have the right not to be killed and raped by others, but that is different from having a right to medicine that can cure a cold.

And think about this, about 80% of healthcare costs in this country are related to lifestyle choices. So 4 out of every 5 dollars is spent treating smokers for lung cancer, the obese for diabetes, etc. It is not, as some will try to to paint, people who are victims to diseases beyond their control. Your body is your responsibility and if you don't want to take care of it, then you must bare the costs.

Now I am not in favor of the current system. For one, it is set up to encourage employers to provide insurance over consumers getting to pick for themselves. Second, insurance currently covers TOO MUCH. My car insurance doesn't pay every time I see a mechanic or get an oil change, only with major repairs. The same should hold true with health care. My insurance should not pay every time I see a doctor or get prescription medicine.

Now you're probably thinking that those things are way to expensive to pay for, but the reason they are expensive is because insurance is currently paying for it. No one cares what the cost is as long as someone else is picking the tab. So doctors and pharmaceutical companies get away by over charging patients. In a free market, the cost of both would be pushed down.

So in essence what you are saying is that healthcare should only go to those who can afford it? Doesn't sound very free or fair to me.

The idea that goods and services are only provided to those who can afford it doesn't sound free? Then I think you have a warped since of freedom. Freedom doesn't mean you can get whatever you want. It means nobody can force you to do or not do something (in this case by insurance).

If you are in financial difficulties, does the government not provide money to help you pay for food and shleter? Why should healthcare be any different? (although, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the government about to cut some unemployment benefits(?) too?)

We have medicaid for the poor already.

 

[Барбоса]

With all due respect, your statement that healthcare is a human right is based on nothing but your emotions. That's like saying everyone has a right to food and shelter, which they don't.

Clearly, you do not know what your "human rights" are.

"everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care"

This was adopted by the United States over 60 years ago. The fact that America does not subsidise the fulfilling of the human right to medical care does not mean that it ceases to be a human right.

People have the right not to be killed and raped by others, but that is different from having a right to medicine that can cure a cold.

I would agree that some people do exploit healthcare by going to the doctor for something that can be cured with a good rest, a hot drink and some over-the-counter medicine but is that reason enough to not have universal coverage? If the argument that such a system would be exploited is one of the main problems then you wouldn't do anything.

And think about this, about 80% of healthcare costs in this country are related to lifestyle choices. So 4 out of every 5 dollars is spent treating smokers for lung cancer, the obese for diabetes, etc. It is not, as some will try to to paint, people who are victims to diseases beyond their control. Your body is your responsibility and if you don't want to take care of it, then you must bare the costs.

That kind of stereotypical approach is so arbitrary. Not everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker. Not everyone that has diabetes is obese or not every obese person that gets diabetes gets it because they are obese. It could be a genetic predisposition towards a disease. It is forces doctors to play God.

Now you're probably thinking that those things are way to expensive to pay for, but the reason they are expensive is because insurance is currently paying for it. No one cares what the cost is as long as someone else is picking the tab. So doctors and pharmaceutical companies get away by over charging patients. In a free market, the cost of both would be pushed down.

As far as I can see, this is the biggest problem with American medical care. It is seen as just another business. Another way to fleece the hard working citizen out of their hard earned cash.

In Britain, the National Health Service is not a profit making business. Indeed its main financial aim each year is to break even, something which it has failed to do mind you.

The idea that goods and services are only provided to those who can afford it doesn't sound free? Then I think you have a warped since of freedom. Freedom doesn't mean you can get whatever you want. It means nobody can force you to do or not do something (in this case by insurance).

Again what I meant is that healthcare is a human right and therefore not something that I want, it is something that I am entitled to. Without it, someone could be forcing me to die when I do not have to.

We have medicaid for the poor already.

So you already have Medicaid and Medicare that covers up to 100 million people, a third of the population. Then what is stopping you going to whole hog into full national coverage? You can certainly afford it.

Again this is the fundamental difference between America and Britain. Being a British citizen affords me the right to coverage under the National Health Service. I just cannot see what the obstacles are to an American citizen expecting the same thing, other than perhaps the pride of some and the greed of others.

 

[RockFan89]

This was adopted by the United States over 60 years ago. The fact that America does not subsidise the fulfilling of the human right to medical care does not mean that it ceases to be a human right.

Why don't you post the entire sentence:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Although I still don't agree with the idea that a human right can require someone else to provide you a good or service, even this declaration made a distinction by focusing on people who were victims of circumstances, not their own decisions. A large percent of the uninsured are either 1) People who make over $75,000 which is enough to purchase your own insurance 2) People who qualify for government insurance but don't utilize it and 3) Illegal Immigrants. Those remaining often can't afford insurance because of the problems I mentioned before that have inflated the costs of the current system. There are charities out there where money is raised or doctors donate their time and resources to help those who fall in the gap and if only those who truly needed help used these resources, all Americans would get care.

That kind of stereotypical approach is so arbitrary.

It may be stereotypical, but it is true, and it is safe to say that most people who get lung cancer or diabetes do so because of choices they made.

I should also clarify, just because I don't think health care is a right, doesn't mean I don't think we should help the poor. I absolutely believe that we should, but not through the government. The government's job is to provide structure, rules, and laws to keep order. The idea of helping the poor and needy is a responsibility on us as individuals. Just because I am against the government doing something doesn't mean I am against it being done.

 

[Minnesota Connection]

I should also clarify, just because I don't think health care is a right, doesn't mean I don't think we should help the poor. I absolutely believe that we should, but not through the government. The government's job is to provide structure, rules, and laws to keep order. The idea of helping the poor and needy is a responsibility on us as individuals. Just because I am against the governmentdoing something doesn't mean I am against it being done.

No.

You are for turning the blind eye and seeing that nothing gets done at all. Basically, the status quo. Nothing gets done by meeting the status quo. We should always strive more out of ourselves and out of government; getting the government out of the business of helping people is a ridiculous notion..

 

[RockFan89]

We should always strive more out of ourselves and out of government; getting the government out of the business of helping people is a ridiculous notion..

The United States was built on the idea of minimizing government's role in society.

And don't act as if believing the government should takes care of other people makes you some how more caring then those who don't. It is conservatives who give more to charity (despite making less money) than liberals (source: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1). As someone once said, "You can't be charitable with others people money."

Listen to Milton Friedman give a logical, non emotional response to government's responsibility to the poor:

[YOUTUBE]Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Minnesota Connection]

The United States was built around a lot of things, mainly the constitution. A flexible framework of laws, that we amend to fix today's problems. The basis of our entire government. Politics today centers around what the framers of the constitution would have done.

The first few lines, known as the preamble, lays down the spirit of the constitution.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of our liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and...."

Our streets won't be so tranquil with homeless lined up around the block.

Just a thought.

We should always strive to make ourselves great, our country greater and the human race in itself as a hole shine.
_________
Fitting how your statistics show that Republicans give money to more poor charities and that Democrats make more(Which I choose to disregard as being BS.) why is it that Republicans spend more? More on bombs, more on war and Democrats want more social programs to help the poor? Sorry, I think the money for war should be turned into money for the poor.. Not in form of cash assistance, but social programs that educate...

Investing in Education would solve half of our problems. Our public schools plain suck. Only reason I bring this up, is that for the last eight years the republicans shoved war down our throats unconstitutionally, and when the Democrats are up and something productive and useful is passed, Republicans over turn it.

Does not matter who is in charge of government, should always note that Conservatives will always rule the government and this is why there will never be any useful changes and we'll continue to jump from war to war every ten to fifteen years, investing in more weapons instead of people.

 

[Davi323]

You may choose to ignore RockFan89, and you would be entitled to your opinion...but you are not entitled to wrong facts. RockFan89 is correct in stating that Republicans make less than Democrats but give more to charity. He didn't post a link to a right wing blog site, his link goes to ABC News. Not exactly a right wing haven of misinformation. Or are you going to suggest that ABC News is a Republican propaganda machine like Fox News? You guys can continue your argument, but if you are going to call out RockFan89 for BS with the charity thing, might be a good idea to find out if he was telling the truth first or not. Just a suggestion.

 

[RockFan89]

The United States was built around a lot of things, mainly the constitution. A flexible framework of laws, that we amend to fix today's problems. The basis of our entire government. Politics today centers around what the framers of the constitution would have done.

The constitution is very hard to amend and it was designed as such. 2/3 of the congress and the states must propose an amendment and 3/4 of the states must ratify it. That is why only 17 amendments have been added since the bill of rights.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of our liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and

That line is way to vague to use as a justification of government run health care, especially given the government that was implemented by the men who crafted those words.

We should always strive to make ourselves great, our country greater and the human race in itself as a hole shine.

I agree, but that onus is on us as individuals. We have no right to force others to comply with that edict and using the government to achieve that goal is using force.

Fitting how your statistics show that Republicans give money to more poor charities and that Democrats make more(Which I choose to disregard as being BS.)

Davi323 said all that needed to be said about this

why is it that Republicans spend more?More on bombs, more on war and Democrats want more social programs to help the poor?

Two points. 1) Obama has pushed just as hard as Bush did on the wars. 2) Republicans also believe in taking care of the poor, they just don't think it is primarily the government's job to do so.

Investing in Education would solve half of our problems. Our public schools plain suck. Only reason I bring this up, is that for the last eight years the republicans shoved war down our throats unconstitutionally, and when the Democrats are up and something productive and useful is passed, Republicans over turn it.

Really? You think money is the problem with our schools? Why don't you listen to Robert Hardaway of the Denver Post:

If money were the solution, America's schools would be the best in the world. In fact, American public school students ranked 19th out of 20 countries in international achievement tests (nudging out Jordan), although American students did excel in "self-esteem" and the number of hours watching TV.

In the U.S., a study has shown that Iowa, which ranked No. 1 in the nation in SAT scores, ranked 27th in per-capita student expenditures. Utah, which ranked dead last among the states in per capita expenditures, finished 4th in test scores. Harrison, Ark., which spent less than one-third as much per student as New Jersey, ranked in the top 5 percent in student performance. ,

In Japan, where public schools students consistently finish first or second in international tests, per-student expenditure is about a third of that in the U.S., despite a higher cost of living. It is not unusual for classes to have 40-45 students. To reduce expenses, students are routinely asked to perform janitorial functions that would be considered beneath the dignity of U.S. students. Japanese students are issued cheap paperback books costing about a dollar or less. Such amenities as counselors, cafeterias and carpets considered to be necessities in American schools have been described as nonessential in Japanese schools. Even school libraries are poorly stocked. The average Japanese would simply be overwhelmed with the facilities in U.S. public schools.


Read more: School spending myth - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5982482#ixzz18QvzLx9J
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

I suggest you read the whole article if you have the time

Does not matter who is in charge of government, should always note that Conservatives will always rule the government and this is why there will never be any useful changes and we'll continue to jump from war to war every ten to fifteen years, investing in more weapons instead of people.

America has done more for the people of the world then any other country in history. You probably don't know this, but President Bush is extremely popular in Africa because of all that he has done for that continent(source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-aid-than-any-other-us-president-783387.html). Yeah we have dropped a lot of bombs and we have made mistakes, but in the aggregate the world is better off because of this country.

 

[Minnesota Connection]

The constitution is very hard to amend and it was designed as such. 2/3 of the congress and the states must propose an amendment and 3/4 of the states must ratify it. That is why only 17 amendments have been added since the bill of rights.

What am I, four?

That line is way to vague to use as a justification of government run health care, especially given the government that was implemented by the men who crafted those words.

The Preamble is the first few lines of the constitution. Its not very vague at all. It basically says the government is obligated to protect its citizens. Its perfectly clear, not vague at all.

Provide for defense, promote the general well being of its citizens and how do you do that? Gun nuts LOVE that opening line. Right-wingers love to preach about their gun rights. Well, now im preaching about my Right to health care.

I agree, but that onus is on us as individuals. We have no right to force others to comply with that edict and using the government to achieve that goal is using force.

No right to force someone to get something they need? Ok there buddy. In a way, but not really, its like Seat-belt laws and other government laws that already intervene in your life. Its for your own good, its for your safety and overall, it saves lives.

But you don't care about the bold part do you?

Two points. 1) Obama has pushed just as hard as Bush did on the wars. 2) Republicans also believe in taking care of the poor, they just don't think it is primarily the government's job to do so.

Bush pumped wayyyy more into the wars than Obama did and the truth of the matter is, after Obama's presidency is done in 6 years..(I said it, he's a two-termer) Bush will still have outspent him in war costs.

Anyone else remember the 10 billion dollars that went missing in Iraq? HELLO!?

Really? You think money is the problem with our schools? Why don't you listen to Robert Hardaway of the Denver Post:

If you honestly believe our schools are rockin' then more power to you. I live in the real world. I live in St. Paul. These schools out here are downright shit. Minnesota is in the top 10 in the country. Why is this?

Because in cities like St. Paul, or any other major cities/capitals, there schools are absolutely horrible. Why?

Budget cuts. http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/80485532.html

It's like this all over the country, our students are 35 to 1 teacher and climbing. Our scores are dropping and our schools are in need of repair. Yet, funding has been frozen and with 1.2 billion this state is still in the whole, we'll be slashing Education. Again. If Minnesota is a top 10 educator, then we are in bad shape all over the country.

Now to get to what you said.

We spend way to much on Education? No. We don't spend enough and we are not smart enough with where our money goes. The biggest problem in our school system today is instability; instability in form of "Are we getting what the government/state promised us." The answer, No.

America has done more for the people of the world then any other country in history. You probably don't know this, but President Bush is extremely popular in Africa because of all that he has done for that continent(source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...nt-783387.html). Yeah we have dropped a lot of bombs and we have made mistakes, but in the aggregate the world is better off because of this country.

My favorite thing about conservatives is there undying heart to protect their country with no criticism, where as realistically.. No. We don't do more good then harm. We've killed thousands, bully millions and perpetuate our global interests under the guise of "We are doing more good than harm," by giving rice and water to people in Africa. Ok.
___________
You didn't get mad when 2.3 trillion dollars went missing the day before 9/11.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us. You didn't get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.

You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks. You didn't get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades.

You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.

You didn't get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.

No. You finally got mad when,

When a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick...Oh, Hell No!!
____________
Conservatives read above. Maybe some common sense will spark and ignite that brain of yours that you've seemingly forgotten to turn back on for the last two years.

 

[RockFan89]

No right to force someone to get something they need? Ok there buddy. In a way, but not really, its like Seat-belt laws and other government laws that already intervene in your life. Its for your own good, its for your safety and overall, it saves lives.

But you don't care about the bold part do you?

Well, the original point I was making is that you can't make other people do what you think is right, as in giving to the poor.

But let's follow your reasoning. So you're someone who believes it's the government's job to look after you. I guess you favor the marijuana prohibition then. Following you're logic, the government should also start banning cigarettes, alcohol, trans fat, sugar, and anything else it deems bad for us.

Given your interpretation of the Constitution, you should also be in favor of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed under the belief that it would keep us safe and based on the Preamble of the constitution, the government has to protect us. See how vague the preamble gets and how that line shouldn't be used as the basis of our laws because it is open to interpretation.

If you honestly believe our schools are rockin' then more power to you. I live in the real world. I live in St. Paul. These schools out here are downright shit. Minnesota is in the top 10 in the country. Why is this?

Because in cities like St. Paul, or any other major cities/capitals, there schools are absolutely horrible. Why?

Budget cuts. http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/80485532.html

It's like this all over the country, our students are 35 to 1 teacher and climbing. Our scores are dropping and our schools are in need of repair. Yet, funding has been frozen and with 1.2 billion this state is still in the whole, we'll be slashing Education. Again. If Minnesota is a top 10 educator, then we are in bad shape all over the country.

Now to get to what you said.

We spend way to much on Education? No. We don't spend enough and we are not smart enough with where our money goes. The biggest problem in our school system today is instability; instability in form of "Are we getting what the government/state promised us." The answer, No.

First off, Minnesota has an average of 15.7 students/teacher
source: http://www.parentsunited.org/MNRankings.html

Secondly, if you actually read the article I mentioned, you would have seen that Japan, which always ranks high in education, spends a third of what we do per student on education and often has classes with 40-45 students.

To reduce expenses, students are routinely asked to perform janitorial functions that would be considered beneath the dignity of U.S. students. Japanese students are issued cheap paperback books costing about a dollar or less. Such amenities as counselors, cafeterias and carpets considered to be necessities in American schools have been described as nonessential in Japanese schools. Even school libraries are poorly stocked. The average Japanese would simply be overwhelmed with the facilities in U.S. public schools.

Read more: School spending myth - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5982482#ixzz18UerRy1b
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Does it sound like money is the reason why Japan does so well with education?

As your governor was quoted as saying in the article you cited:

One thing that we are particularly interested in learning more about are school districts who claim they aren't receiving enough money from the state, but somehow have funding for salary and benefit increases

Sounds like that is where all the money is going.

I'm actually glad you used Minnesota as your example. Your state is top ten when it comes to education, but they spend less than the majority of the states do on education:

Minnesota ranked 36th on total school revenue (all sources) and 40th on total school spending as a percent of personal income for the 2007-08 school year

source: http://www.parentsunited.org/MNRankings.html

So your state is able to do very well in terms of education but spends less than most others? I guess money is not the determining factor when it comes to quality of education.

And I said this before, but I'll say it again. The United States spends more on education per student than any other nation in the world. That fact is indisputable and thus you cannot argue that schools are bad because of lack of funding.

Everything else you said is just a typical left wing rant about this country that somehow ends with you suggesting I am a racist. You have added so much to the dialogue!