What do you think should happen to the health care reform bill?

As many Americans may have noticed, President Obama is trying to jam a trillion-dollar health care bill down our throats when the debt we have right now is severely unsustainable. Not only that, but government intervention in health care has already driven up prices, stifled competition, and destroyed doctor-patient relationships. What makes the bureaucrats in Washington think more government will make things better? This garbage they call legislation is just another insurance company bailout.

I hope this bill dies a horrible, horrible death and is sent back to Hell from whence it came.

I agree with you 100% michelle; The fact that we have to pay for the poor is bs imfao. Yes, we should help the poor/sick, but this way is bs. I don't understand: Obama spent god knows how much money on a trip to Hawaii for the new year. Why not use some of that $ to pay, instead of having us pay. The whole thing is bs imo, and since i'm white, if I say anything i'm "racist" because the president is black... :mad:

Unfortunately, I fail to see how a plan to fix America's Currently Broken Privatized Health care system is "should be sent back to hell where it came from." The only reason these kinds of things don't work out to well is because the conservative coalition and some moderate democrats keep adding so many amendments to it that essentially neutralize it's effectiveness.

Fzerowii wrote:

I agree with you 100% michelle; The fact that we have to pay for the poor is bs imfao. Yes, we should help the poor/sick, but this way is bs. I don't understand: Obama spent god knows how much money on a trip to Hawaii for the new year. Why not use some of that $ to pay, instead of having us pay. The whole thing is bs imo, and since i'm white, if I say anything i'm "racist" because the president is black... :mad:

I'm glad to see that someone gets it! I've had the same problem before. I agree we should help the poor as well, but not through the barrel of a government gun. We should be able to keep our money so that we can donate to private charity as we wish. I'm not against free health care. I'm just against other people having to pay for it against their will. Those funds should come from voluntary donations. In fact, we used to have hospitals, shelters, and schools that provided free or discount health care for poor people. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Ahmadinejad wrote:

Unfortunately, I fail to see how a plan to fix America's Currently Broken Privatized Health care system is "should be sent back to hell where it came from." The only reason these kinds of things don't work out to well is because the conservative coalition and some moderate democrats keep adding so many amendments to it that essentially neutralize it's effectiveness.

First of all, we don't have a privatized system. The government controls sixty cents of every dollar spent on health care. It taxes the poor and middle class for Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs. It subsidies various individuals, insurance companies, hospitals, and corporations over others. The special interest groups are fed all the pork while the poor and middle class have to pay for it. That's not exactly market-based health care. We need less government, not more.

Secondly, today's Republicans are anything but conservative. They're big government, tax-and-spend socialists, and on top of that, they're warmongers, just like Democrats. We don't have a conservative party in Washington anymore. We have one party - the Big Government Party. If Republicans were conservative, they wouldn't be proposing a lighter version of Obamacare instead of demanding that the government get out of health care entirely. They wouldn't be proposing massive budgets and using money from taxpayers and China to build an empire around the world. They wouldn't side with Democrats and tax the poor and middle class through monetary inflation. They'd stay out of people's lives, and they'd stay out of the market. Democrats and Republicans are the same. There's no real difference.

Hmm this seems to be a heated debate!

Everything is fine in Canada.And when this is solved,help Haiti.

Lol canada is like the only neutral contry in any contraversy...
I think i'm movin' to canada...

1) Canada's health care system is just as bad, if not worse.
2) You can't own a gun in Canada.
3) Canada's government, like ours, is huge and intrusive.
4) Even though America has strayed far from the free market economic principles it used to uphold, Canada's markets are even more government-controlled.
4) Setting up military bases, providing government aid, and using taxpayer money to rebuild Haiti will send America spiraling further into bankruptcy. Private charity, not government, is what we should be using to help.

I was jk...
But I really don't think America is all that great. I find many flaws in our so-called "free country"...

My problem is not with America itself, but rather with the American government, which has become the opposite of everything America used to stand for. We have abandoned free markets for socialism, threw out our humble foreign policy for aggressive interventionism, denounced sound money for inflationary banking, and destroyed our Constitution in the name of the "greater good." Our Founders would be ashamed of us. America is a great country, but our government is evil.

That's what I ment!

Congratulations. You are one of very few people I know that has any common sense left whatsoever. Wisdom has not made its departure from your soul. Thank God for that.

Lol I though that too...
It seems we are the only ones who think correctly

All we have to do is wait 3 years.

3 years for what?

If the whole big government party thing were true, "republicans" wouldn't bleed the state's public education system dry.

Fzerowii wrote:

Lol I though that too...
It seems we are the only ones who think correctly

You're on the right side of history, my friend. Have you heard of Ron Paul?

Ahmadinejad wrote:

If the whole big government party thing were true, "republicans" wouldn't bleed the state's public education system dry.

The Department of Education expanded under Republicans. Bush was the one who created No Child Left Behind. They may not be as eager to push public education as Democrats are, but that doesn't mean that they don't succumb to the same big government tendencies.

I side with neither Democrats or Republicans on education. I would prefer that education be privatized. Leave it up to the states. In my state, I'd like to see more privatization for the purpose of efficiency, productivity, improvement, and consumer choice. Even public education is more efficient at a state - or even better - local level.

Lazero wrote:

3 years for what?

You should know.

Michelle wrote:

Fzerowii wrote:

Lol I though that too...
It seems we are the only ones who think correctly

You're on the right side of history, my friend. Have you heard of Ron Paul?

Ahmadinejad wrote:

If the whole big government party thing were true, "republicans" wouldn't bleed the state's public education system dry.

The Department of Education expanded under Republicans. Bush was the one who created No Child Left Behind. They may not be as eager to push public education as Democrats are, but that doesn't mean that they don't succumb to the same big government tendencies.

I side with neither Democrats or Republicans on education. I would prefer that education be privatized. Leave it up to the states. In my state, I'd like to see more privatization for the purpose of efficiency, productivity, improvement, and consumer choice. Even public education is more efficient at a state - or even better - local level.

The no child left behind act was flawed. Aside from allowing families to transfer their students from under performing schools, it did little to improve the standing of the american education system, it punished schools by lowering funding for bad schools, causing states like Mississippi to dumb down the state standards in order for students there to be able to pass the state standards (87% passed) and allow the state to get more funding, but when those same students took a federal test less than 18% passed. It did little in short, to help the truly gifted students succeed.

I agree, Ahmadinejad, but I feel that way about all federal involvement in education. The Department of Education isn't even constitutional. Although Jefferson famously promoted the Tenth Amendment as the cornerstone of the Constitution, it is totally ignored by judicial activists who reside in the Supreme Court today. The federal government's powers are meant to be few and limited. We fought for self-government in the American "Revolution" (which was about preservation of traditional rights, as opposed to a radical restructuring of society). Education is a states' rights issue, and in my own state, I would prefer more privatization. Nevertheless, public schools managed by small communities are much more efficient than those excessively controlled by the federal government.

vin-a-cent wrote:

Lazero wrote:

3 years for what?

You should know.

Um what is that implying? :?

Woah, it's gettin' hot and fiesty in here!!

EDIT: Oh, Do you mean 2012 vin-a-cent? Lol I was just confused because that's in two years! lol

This is a very civil debate! I like it.

Yeah, It's kind of like a seperate forum! lol

Lol.

lol