cultural things we'll be ashamed of in 50 years

[philpot123]

Yes, because free market healthcare works so great for everyone.

And socialistic healthcare works great for everyone? I'm friends with Canadians who moved here BECAUSE they were sick of the healthcare, another family who was perfectly fine with it and never had any problems. There are problems in every system. So why trade in a flawed system for a just-as-bad-or-worse kind of deal?

 

 

And this has nothing to do with TAKING power from the government!! It has EVERYTHING to do with upholding the constitution and not giving the government powers it shouldn't have!! I don't remember anything in the constitution about "all other powers being reserved for the states... EXCEPT healthcare and the war on drugs. Cuz the national government can do that too." The government, CONSTITUTIONALLY is not supposed to screw with that. But they wouldn't try to pass an amendment because it wouldn't be ratified. They just ignore the constitution. If they pass an amendment I *might* stop whining. I still won't agree with it, but for different reasons. Until then, it's still unconstitutional. Our nation was founded upon it and it's held us through this far, going away from it is what's making us screw up so bad.

Edited September 12, 2011 by philpot123

[Princess Artemis]

I don't have insurance at all because when I was still a teenager my mom's trucking company decided to switch up the dates on when people had to renew their insurance and didn't tell everyone about it. Now that I'm over 20 and not working at the moment I have no insurance, nor could I afford to get any. Even if I knew how. Haven't had it since I was 17.

I don't know what state you live in, but in California, there is MRMIP, which, while not being exactly awesome, is lightyears better than anything the Fed can currently offer, and it's much reduced in price. Other states probably have something similar.

 

Look into how you might get insurance. You'll need to learn how, might as well do it sooner rather than later.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[philpot123]

I don't know what state you live in, but in California, there is MRMIP, which, while not being exactly awesome, is lightyears better than anything the Fed can currently offer, and it's much reduced in price. Other states probably have something similar.

 

Look into how you might get insurance. You'll need to learn how, might as well do it sooner rather than later.

^ Agreed. Have you tried? In tennessee, if you can't afford insurance and are in a low income bracket you can get Tenncare. A lot of states have programs like that. You say you "couldn't afford it," but then you say "even if I did know how." Look into it some and you might see it's not as bad as you think. The government is not the answer to everything. Looking at politicians now, I certainly don't want to place my healthcare in ANY of their hands.

[7Deadly$ins]

Dirty shows like, Jersey Shore. Love In The Wild. Whitney. F.R.I.E.N.D.S.

 

ect.

 

I know some people like those shows, and thats not bad, but I know in 50 years I would be ashamed of that... >_< It's sad that there are so many bad shows on t.v. now. :\

 

And other things like the national debt. That's definitely something to be ashamed of! Some people don't live where I live, but it's horrible that a debt would get so high like that... That's also something to be ashamed of.

Friends, really? That isn't exactly a recent show, nor is it on the same level as Jersey Shore.

[RheaZen]

And socialistic healthcare works great for everyone? I'm friends with Canadians who moved here BECAUSE they were sick of the healthcare, another family who was perfectly fine with it and never had any problems. There are problems in every system. So why trade in a flawed system for a just-as-bad-or-worse kind of deal?

 

 

And this has nothing to do with TAKING power from the government!! It has EVERYTHING to do with upholding the constitution and not giving the government powers it shouldn't have!! I don't remember anything in the constitution about "all other powers being reserved for the states... EXCEPT healthcare and the war on drugs. Cuz the national government can do that too." The government, CONSTITUTIONALLY is not supposed to screw with that. But they wouldn't try to pass an amendment because it wouldn't be ratified. They just ignore the constitution. If they pass an amendment I *might* stop whining. I still won't agree with it, but for different reasons. Until then, it's still unconstitutional. Our nation was founded upon it and it's held us through this far, going away from it is what's making us screw up so bad.

Times change.

[philpot123]

Times change.

Times change huh? So we should just throw out the constitution, it's just outdated, is that it? Tell you what, because the politicians we have now are SO great, and our founding fathers just had NO idea about the real world, lets start over. Write a new constitution. We the people of the United Socialist States of America are officially subject to the wills of the government... yeah, I like that. You know, our constitution totally didn't help us become one of the most prosperous nations in the world or anything. And it definitely isn't the foundation and framework upon which the entire nation is built upon. Lets just chuck it out the window. Glad we're on the same page.

 

Yeah, times change. Too bad the constitution hasn't!!

Edited September 12, 2011 by philpot123

[RheaZen]

Times change huh? So we should just throw out the constitution, it's just outdated, is that it? Tell you what, because the politicians we have now are SO great, and our founding fathers just had NO idea about the real world, lets start over. Write a new constitution. We the people of the United Socialist States of America are officially subject to the wills of the government... yeah, I like that. You know, our constitution totally didn't help us become one of the most prosperous nations in the world or anything. And it definitely isn't the foundation and framework upon which the entire nation is built upon. Lets just chuck it out the window. Glad we're on the same page.

 

Yeah, times change. Too bad the constitution hasn't!!

Jeez, why are you so riled up? While some parts are still applicable, it is rather outdated and certainly doesn't cover all the new details in this modern world. Their "real world" =/= our world now.

 

Socialism =/= evil, depravity, etc. Plenty of countries are doing just fine with a more socialist system, while ours is crumbling as we cling to the idea of a free-market society and "winner takes all" ideals.

 

As for the "foundation" bit, that reminds me of that library they built... it was all fine and dandy, but they forgot to take into account the weight of all the books it would hold! So now it sinks a little bit each year.

 

And no, we're quite evidently not on the same page. If anything, I'd say you've ripped up and burned the book in your paranoia-induced rage.

[Princess Artemis]

While some parts are still applicable, it is rather outdated and certainly doesn't cover all the new details in this modern world. Their "real world" =/= our world now.

Which parts? What current details of modern life are so alien to our past that the document cannot cover them?

 

There are certainly things we can do now that we couldn't then, but that doesn't fundamentally alter the fabric of human nature.

[philpot123]

Jeez, why are you so riled up? While some parts are still applicable, it is rather outdated and certainly doesn't cover all the new details in this modern world. Their "real world" =/= our world now.

 

Socialism =/= evil, depravity, etc. Plenty of countries are doing just fine with a more socialist system, while ours is crumbling as we cling to the idea of a free-market society and "winner takes all" ideals.

 

As for the "foundation" bit, that reminds me of that library they built... it was all fine and dandy, but they forgot to take into account the weight of all the books it would hold! So now it sinks a little bit each year.

 

And no, we're quite evidently not on the same page. If anything, I'd say you've ripped up and burned the book in your paranoia-induced rage.

I'm riled up because it's this kind of thinking that is screwing us over as a nation, the government CANNOT pick and choose which parts of the constitution to uphold! It's there for a reason. If you start throwing pieces out, the whole thing is useless, and out the window goes our whole system of government, laws, etc. Please show me what parts are outdated? What parts are no longer applicable? Perhaps individual rights of assembly, free speech, free exercise of religion? Or maybe women voting. If you mean separation of powers and states rights then you are sorely mistaken, because that is in there for a reason. The national government is a beast to be contained. Give it too much freedom and it can destroy everything. The government is not intended to run everything, nor should they, nor could they handle it! That kind of thinking has led us further into debt, and further downhill as a nation. Look at where we are compared to what we used to be. America is despised globally. Our economic dependability is wasting away. Our military power is being cut. We are becoming less and less of a global superpower and bowing out to china more and more. THAT is something we will be ashamed of. Giving up our constitution.

[RheaZen]

Which parts?  What current details of modern life are so alien to our past that the document cannot cover them?

 

There are certainly things we can do now that we couldn't then, but that doesn't fundamentally alter the fabric of human nature.

True; most of it's pretty general. It's just that I don't think that amendment x can really stay valid without making the US lose cohesiveness. I've got a problem with amendment ii as well, but that's for another thread really.

 

phil: wut. Really, chill man. We haven't "given up the constitution", and what's been happening certainly can't all be blamed on "socialism". How can they destroy everything? It's not supposed to run everything, sure, but at the very least it needs to shoulder some duties - one of which I think is healthcare.

 

Aw, forget it, I probably don't know enough politics for this. But you really do sound rather irrationally angry.

Edited September 12, 2011 by RheaZen

[philpot123]

True; most of it's pretty general. It's just that I don't think that amendment x can really stay valid without making the US lose cohesiveness. I've got a problem with amendment ii as well, but that's for another thread really.

 

phil: wut. Really, chill man. We haven't "given up the constitution", and what's been happening certainly can't all be blamed on "socialism". How can they destroy everything? It's not supposed to run everything, sure, but at the very least it needs to shoulder some duties - one of which I think is healthcare.

 

Aw, forget it, I probably don't know enough politics for this. But you really do sound rather irrationally angry.

Amendment 2 prevents tyranny. A government should fear it's people, not the other way around. And, same with drugs, no gun control laws in the world will keep the bad guys from having guns. So I'm keeping mine.

 

I'm sorry, it's just a subject I feel strongly about. Plus I get worked up easy ^.^ I didn't blame it on socialism. Big government more like it. When the government controls every aspect of our lives, especially when it already been shown that things are rough as it is, things will NOT go well. America wasn't designed to work like that. Communitic governments fell, because the government CAN'T run everything.

And where is the money for all this free healthcare going to come from? Oh that's right, a printer. Either that or more debt. Because that is EXACTLY what our nation needs... More inflation and more debt...

[7Deadly$ins]

I also have a problem with the gun control laws.

[Princess Artemis]

True; most of it's pretty general. It's just that I don't think that amendment x can really stay valid without making the US lose cohesiveness. I've got a problem with amendment ii as well, but that's for another thread really.

I think the Commerce Clause could use some patching, mostly because I think it's been abused. Losing the 10th would be a pretty fundamental change, although seems like the Fed and the States act like it doesn't apply half the time; they forget that the People are the boss of the States and the States the boss of the Fed. Yeah, 2nd is a whole other thread.

 

Probably all of it is, so I'll leave it right there : )

[Layn]

I don't remember anything in the constitution about "all other powers being reserved for the states... EXCEPT healthcare and the war on drugs. Cuz the national government can do that too."

The problem with this statement is that you have to take into account the fact that the Constitution was written over two hundred years ago. When health care, in general, consisted of a variety of home remedies, and the concept of a centralized health care system was absurd. Back then, every family had its own list of "remedies" to be used for curing illnesses. Cancer didn't exist (because nothing could detect it). People just dropped dead. Back then, the "modern" medical techniques didn't require any kind of government run system. Goat's dung and horse blood were available in large quantities for practically nothing. Chamomile was grown in herb gardens.

 

The Constitution was written in the same age as the town laws that still exist to this day (not enforced, but no one's taken them out of the town law books yet) that say that every male of a certain age and older must bring a firearm to church "in case the indians attack". You cannot fault the people who wrote the Constitution for being unable to see the future simply because they did not have access to the various medical breakthroughs that have been made in this century that have made the concept of a centralized health system possible.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Layn

[hazeh]

DOMA.

Tea Party.

George Bush (x2).

 

Drunk Driving (hopefully).

 

^^

[hazeh]

I'm riled up because it's this kind of thinking that is screwing us over as a nation, the government CANNOT pick and choose which parts of the constitution to uphold! It's there for a reason. If you start throwing pieces out, the whole thing is useless, and out the window goes our whole system of government, laws, etc. Please show me what parts are outdated? What parts are no longer applicable? Perhaps individual rights of assembly, free speech, free exercise of religion? Or maybe women voting. If you mean separation of powers and states rights then you are sorely mistaken, because that is in there for a reason. The national government is a beast to be contained. Give it too much freedom and it can destroy everything. The government is not intended to run everything, nor should they, nor could they handle it! That kind of thinking has led us further into debt, and further downhill as a nation. Look at where we are compared to what we used to be. America is despised globally. Our economic dependability is wasting away. Our military power is being cut. We are becoming less and less of a global superpower and bowing out to china more and more. THAT is something we will be ashamed of. Giving up our constitution.

Amendment three is outdated, for starters. Soldiers have their own places now and ways to get to other places. This amendment is now moot because of how our modern society focuses on privacy of the individual. Our Soldiers wouldn't be taking up residence in a random stranger's house if this amendment didn't exist any more.

 

 

[elderberrysyrup]

Amendment three is outdated, for starters. Soldiers have their own places now and ways to get to other places. This amendment is now moot because of how our modern society focuses on privacy of the individual. Our Soldiers wouldn't be taking up residence in a random stranger's house if this amendment didn't exist any more.

Amendment three could be seen as upholding personal privacy as well. The double reason behind not holding soldiers in your house is that you have to hide anything unnationalistic of be threatened with treason.

[hazeh]

Amendment three could be seen as upholding personal privacy as well. The double reason behind not holding soldiers in your house is that you have to hide anything unnationalistic of be threatened with treason.

In all my years of history and government classes, I have never heard that reasoning behind that amendment. Perhaps with protection of personal privacy in general (i.e., you don't have to host a stranger in your home if you don't want), but I've never come across anything that had to do with treason and whatnot. That's upheld by a different amendment, really.

[TikindiDragon]

Was it someone on here that brought up that their socialized health care actually cost them less than our privatized health care costs us?

That would have been me and Sola, yes. I think we worked out that the amount we pay towards the NHS actualy costs us less than most people's private health insurance in the US.

 

For myself - I'm all for nationalised health care. The NHS has it's problems, sure, but I rather like knowing that if I have a major accident and need to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance I'm not going to be mortgaged to the hilt to pay for it.

 

Re: the climate change deniers thing - I always thought 'climate change deniers' were the people that completely deny that the climate is changing at all, not simply people that aren't convinced about the causes of said change?

[Kestra15]

It's called capitalism. It's good for everyone, and it's worked so far. Communism has always failed because of corruption within the system. If it were possible to keep it perfect, then yes, it would be fine. But I would prefer to choose my own coverage rather than the government choosing things for me. Ya know, because they do SO WELL with the economy and other things under their control, why don't we virtually hand over our lives as well?

 

<3 my free market capitalism.

I give you the NHS. That works pretty darned well.

Which parts?  What current details of modern life are so alien to our past that the document cannot cover them?

Americans don't need guns.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Kestra15

[philpot123]

I give you the NHS. That works pretty darned well.

 

Americans don't need guns.

Tell me you're joking -.- because that is ridiculous. An unarmed people might as well be slaves to the whims of the government. Plus, like I said before, those who are going to commit crimes with guns are ALWAYS going to find a way to get their guns, so why shouldn't I be able to get one legally if I can show that I know how to use it and be held responsible for what I do with it? This isn't the wild west, people with gun permits don't walk around pulling their guns out every second. Taking the legal guns away isn't going to do anything but hurt us. So to add to my list of things we'll be ashamed of, strict and useless gun control laws and those who support them.

[Thuban]

Smoking.

 

 

Come on, its gonna be illegal to smoke sooner or later.

[philpot123]

The problem with this statement is that you have to take into account the fact that the Constitution was written over two hundred years ago. When health care, in general, consisted of a variety of home remedies, and the concept of a centralized health care system was absurd. Back then, every family had its own list of "remedies" to be used for curing illnesses. Cancer didn't exist (because nothing could detect it). People just dropped dead. Back then, the "modern" medical techniques didn't require any kind of government run system. Goat's dung and horse blood were available in large quantities for practically nothing. Chamomile was grown in herb gardens.

 

The Constitution was written in the same age as the town laws that still exist to this day (not enforced, but no one's taken them out of the town law books yet) that say that every male of a certain age and older must bring a firearm to church "in case the indians attack". You cannot fault the people who wrote the Constitution for being unable to see the future simply because they did not have access to the various medical breakthroughs that have been made in this century that have made the concept of a centralized health system possible.

Today it doesn't REQUIRE a government runs system either. Privatized healthcare, medi-share programs, or STATE RUN assistance programs like Tenncare make it such that you should be able to find insurance no matter your income. Just because they did not have the concept of government run healthcare does not make nationalized healthcare an exception to the constitution. That's absurd. Once you start picking and choosing exceptions to the constitution, things fall apart. If national healthcare was TRULY necessary and most people wanted it, they would try to pass an amendment giving the government power in that area. But they know that there is such a general outcry over nationalized healthcare that an amendment would never be approved. So instead, we have a president who calls the constitution outdated and proceeds to trample on it in multiple ways (including use of the military unconstitutionally without congressional approval. People would have crucified George Bush for that!! Be reasonable people!!), and a law system that slaps fines and lawsuits, or suspension/expulsion on people "unconstitutionally" praying in public schools, or wanting the ten commandments in a local courthouse. So yes, let's pick and choose that A. The government can have all the power it wants and B. Part A of the first amendment should be grossly misinterpreted and upheld to the strictest extent possible. Wonderful system. Too bad the first amendment has absolutely nothing to do with keeping children from praying in school or keeping nativity scenes off courthouse laws or any of the other crap it's applied to nowadays...

[Layn]

Today it doesn't REQUIRE a government runs system either. Privatized healthcare, medi-share programs, or STATE RUN assistance programs like Tenncare make it such that you should be able to find insurance no matter your income. Just because they did not have the concept of government run healthcare does not make nationalized healthcare an exception to the constitution. That's absurd. Once you start picking and choosing exceptions to the constitution, things fall apart. If national healthcare was TRULY necessary and most people wanted it, they would try to pass an amendment giving the government power in that area. But they know that there is such a general outcry over nationalized healthcare that an amendment would never be approved. So instead, we have a president who calls the constitution outdated and proceeds to trample on it in multiple ways (including use of the military unconstitutionally without congressional approval. People would have crucified George Bush for that!! Be reasonable people!!), and a law system that slaps fines and lawsuits, or suspension/expulsion on people "unconstitutionally" praying in public schools, or wanting the ten commandments in a local courthouse. So yes, let's pick and choose that A. The government can have all the power it wants and B. Part A of the first amendment should be grossly misinterpreted and upheld to the strictest extent possible. Wonderful system. Too bad the first amendment has absolutely nothing to do with keeping children from praying in school or keeping nativity scenes off courthouse laws or any of the other crap it's applied to nowadays...

So you agree that the Constitution should only apply to men? And not to women? Because that's taking the Constitution at face value. And don't say "that's what an Amendment is for"

 

because the Amendments are for correcting outdated values/issues in the Constitution. And you are disagreeing with correcting outdated values in the Constitution.

 

You're also saying that you agree that people with type 2 diabetez should not be accepted by insurance companies that will pay for their insulin meters if they arent extremely rich. My mothers friend cannot afford a health insurance policy that will cover her meter that will not reject her for a "prior condition". Cheap privately owned healthcare is torture for people eith pre existing medicalconditions. And government run health care would be cheaper if SOMEONE would agree to raise taxes for people who use their bush era tax cits to buy three new yachts.

 

Sorry about the decreased spelling ability, getting used to nee phone

Edited September 12, 2011 by Layn

[TikindiDragon]

Tell me you're joking -.- because that is ridiculous. An unarmed people might as well be slaves to the whims of the government.

We have rather strict gun control here in the UK and I would say we're anything but slaves to the whims of our government.