Are you for the Health Care bill?

[Sammy Sofa]

Since this this is just a tangent from the political thread I'll share this here, too:

 

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/obamas-moderate-health-care-plan

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SxyVY8X94lI/AAAAAAAABb4/qblR4eEhryA/s400/hc.png

 

That said, opinion polls aren't some kind of end-all-be-all. The majority of Americans still think a conspiracy killed JFK, but that doesn't make it so. It more often than not just reflects uninformed, partisan opinions.

[Skyballer]

I am by no way advocating the idea that public opinion reflects the truth. I'm advocating the idea that Congressmen are elected to represent the people. That is a key idea this country is built on. Congress did not represent the people with the passing of the Health Care Reform Act.

[Sammy Sofa]

The government often has to enact legislation that at the time is technically "against the will of the majoroty" for the good of the country. It's unrealistic to think it should only take such steps when most of the population is for it.

[Derwood]

I'm relishing the fact that the GOP is pinning their hopes on SCOTUS being "activist judges"

[Skyballer]

The government often has to enact legislation that at the time is technically "against the will of the majoroty" for the good of the country. It's unrealistic to think it should only take such steps when most of the population is for it.

Not if we are to have a government of the people. Ever heard of serve the majority and protect the minority? The current health care system before this law obviously did not do that. Neither does this law though.

[CubbieBum]

The government often has to enact legislation that at the time is technically "against the will of the majoroty" for the good of the country. It's unrealistic to think it should only take such steps when most of the population is for it.

Not if we are to have a government of the people. Ever heard of serve the majority and protect the minority? The current health care system before this law obviously did not do that. Neither does this law though.

 

The majority includes all the uneducated people who are dumb enough to elect W. Bush to a second term. They aren't always right.

[Skyballer]

The government often has to enact legislation that at the time is technically "against the will of the majoroty" for the good of the country. It's unrealistic to think it should only take such steps when most of the population is for it.

Not if we are to have a government of the people. Ever heard of serve the majority and protect the minority? The current health care system before this law obviously did not do that. Neither does this law though.

 

The majority includes all the uneducated people who are dumb enough to elect W. Bush to a second term. They aren't always right.

Way to make a point that no one is debating

[Sammy Sofa]

The government often has to enact legislation that at the time is technically "against the will of the majoroty" for the good of the country. It's unrealistic to think it should only take such steps when most of the population is for it.

Not if we are to have a government of the people.

 

That's unrealistically idealistic.

 

Ever heard of serve the majority and protect the minority? The current health care system before this law obviously did not do that. Neither does this law though.

 

At this point, I somewhat agree. That said, I think it's necessary stepping stone to better legislation and to force the issue to stay on the table.

[CubbieBum]

The government often has to enact legislation that at the time is technically "against the will of the majoroty" for the good of the country. It's unrealistic to think it should only take such steps when most of the population is for it.

Not if we are to have a government of the people. Ever heard of serve the majority and protect the minority? The current health care system before this law obviously did not do that. Neither does this law though.

 

The majority includes all the uneducated people who are dumb enough to elect W. Bush to a second term. They aren't always right.

Way to make a point that no one is debating

 

Then what the heck are you arguing? You whole argument has been based on how it goes against the constitution because them majority of people are against it (yet to be proven btw). Yet here you are saying the majority aren't always right. So what you are saying is the majority are wrong but we should go with them simply because they are the majority?

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the polls out there over this are wildly back and forth. You'll see a lot of polls where the majority states they are against this specific plan or against "Obama's plan" or "the Democrats' plan," etc., but then there are also polls where people are asked their opinions about the main goals of the plan and how it's proposed they will be accomplished (minus the context that these are the specifics of the Democrats' proposed plans or the one that passed) and the majority is in favor of them.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I've never heard of "violating The Preamble".

 

I'd be pretty careful about citing the preamble if I were a conservative. It gives the government a directive to promote the general welfare.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I am by no way advocating the idea that public opinion reflects the truth. I'm advocating the idea that Congressmen are elected to represent the people. That is a key idea this country is built on. Congress did not represent the people with the passing of the Health Care Reform Act.

 

The people who built the country were *very* big on the idea of an educated elite doing what they think is best for the rest of us.

[Derwood]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

 

Hey look, it passed and suddenly people like it!

 

Polls are stupid, everyone should stop looking at them

[TruffleShuffle]

This bill will eventually lead to the companies being taken out of the medical industry and thus no more gauging the people for something that should be a right not a privilege.

Or an over crowded system like Canada. "You need and MRI, we'll book you for one in three months." The law will be a disaster. There's a reason every republican and even 34 democrats voted against it. Most polls show the majority of the people are against it. It is also a direct violation of capitalism, free choice, and state's rights.

 

hate to break it to you, most canadians are happy with their health care. it costs less and their outcomes are generally just as good.

 

if you're going to get bent out of shape by things that are in "direct violation of capitalism", you're going to be complaining a lot.

[TruffleShuffle]

Its certainly been a controversial bill, even after being passed the overwhelming majority of AG's have got their legal pens out ready to sign to sue the federal government over it. Between its length(I'll be surprised if most congressmen have read it through), its constitutionality, its cost, and the issue of government funded abortion it has quickly become seemingly one of the least approved bills to make it through Congress.

 

Where does NSBB stand?

 

this question is straight out of the Fox News school of polling. you might as well have thrown in "Most people who support this bill have been shown to be child molesters. Do you support this bill?"

[Sammy Sofa]

Plus it's a loaded question in that a lot of people who are "for" it are only for it in the sense that it's a platform for further reform, and not that this plan is the solution.

[MWV]

Its certainly been a controversial bill, even after being passed the overwhelming majority of AG's have got their legal pens out ready to sign to sue the federal government over it. Between its length(I'll be surprised if most congressmen have read it through), its constitutionality, its cost, and the issue of government funded abortion it has quickly become seemingly one of the least approved bills to make it through Congress.

 

Where does NSBB stand?

 

this question is straight out of the Fox News school of polling. you might as well have thrown in "Most people who support this bill have been shown to be child molesters. Do you support this bill?"

 

The "length argument" is one that really irks me. The health care bill's much bemoaned length is consistent with most major spending bills, including Bush's 2007 budget (1482 pages), which republicans had no trouble plowing through. Unlike the aforementioned budget, however, it is projected to decrease the deficit.

[NewUserName]

I am by no way advocating the idea that public opinion reflects the truth. I'm advocating the idea that Congressmen are elected to represent the people. That is a key idea this country is built on. Congress did not represent the people with the passing of the Health Care Reform Act.

 

USA is a republic not a democracy. Representing your constituents in a Republic is not always about the majority rule. If some intelligent congressman realized in 2003 that the outcome of the War in Iraq was very predictable and would lead to what it basically has become, should have still been in favor of funding the war because a large majority of Americans were for the War?

[Roast]

Also, as a side note, I love how people are getting all bent out of shape because the gov. is going to require that everyone be covered by health insurance. What, you mean like it is required that everyone who drive be covered by auto insurance? THE HORROR!

[CubbieBum]

Also, as a side note, I love how people are getting all bent out of shape because the gov. is going to require that everyone be covered by health insurance. What, you mean like it is required that everyone who drive be covered by auto insurance? THE HORROR!

 

I wasn't going to bring up the auto insurance because I thought it might turn into a broader argument than just heath reform but I'm glad someone was willing to.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's not a very good analogy because nobody has to own a car.

[Tracer Bullet]

It's not a very good analogy because nobody has to own a car.

 

Not everyone has to be alive either, buddy

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Car insurance remains a stupid argument.

 

One is the government putting restrictions on giving you a license to operate your motor vehicle on government roads. I can drive my car all day long on private property without insurance, if I am so inclined.

 

The other is the government requiring you, no matter what you choose to do, to purchase a product from a private company.

 

They aren't remotely the same thing.

[Sammy Sofa]

Which is why the "federal option" in regards to insurance/care makes so much more sense if you're going to require that people have to have it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Which is why the "federal option" in regards to insurance/care makes so much more sense if you're going to require that people have to have it.

 

A lot more sense. And even better would be a pervasive system of public hospitals, just like the roads.