Is the American notion of freedom harmful at times?

Okay, guys. I just wanted to say that I am new here and this is my first post and stuff and yea. Nice to meet you all! Please go easy on me! So here we go:

The United States was founded upon principles that empowered the individual and limited the government from interfering with said individuals, as most of us know. The thinking that more government is bad was and still tends to be very prevalent. And from a historical standpoint, one can understand why.

Now, call me a progressive, but I think the continuing change of the private sector that began after the Industrial Revolution, among other things, changes this. Regardless, it was not my intended goal to have this devolve into an argument about political fundamentals (though I suppose it will anyways...), but I want to call in an example of the "more government is bad" mentality and how it can hurt the people.

Obamacare, something that unarguably helped millions with pre-existing conditions and fought more against insurance companies that strove only for profit, was not debated because of the people it helped, but if it met a technicality in the Constitution. And so many people disapprove of it today even after it has been passed and began helping millions.

Now, for those who think it is a tax, I agree that still allowing it to pass only on the fact that it helps people may be unconstitutional and enter us into a grey area that rarely bodes well in the long run, but do you think that focus on this ideal has dragged on too far to the point where it is a tool of bipartisanship and begun impeding progress that is beneficial to the people?!

Looking forward to your responses.

 

Welcome to the forum but beware of what you wish for LOL

 

I'm not a US citizen, but I try to keep informed on US politics, given the impact they have on world events. One thing that is repeatedly said about this issue that I have noticed is along the lines of "well, why do I have to pay for someone else's healthcare?"

This is a strangely selfish notion, but also an incredibly short-sighted one. Do the American public really feel that having to pay the full cost of their medical care is more sensible than paying small amounts to a public system that they can have access to at any time?

In the UK, I pay around £10 a month (about $15) for the National Health Service, and in exchange I, like anyone else in the country, can go into a hospital when I have a problem, or go to a GP, and have my problems delt with for no additional charge. Sure, I might not need it now, but do I think that I'll never need it? Of course not. Even if I somehow never need it, say I die in an accident, if I'm laying there bleeding out do I care that I spent 20 years paying into a system I didn't benefit from? Of course not, if anything I'll think "well, at least I have helped others".

And I'm not even a Christian.

 

You seem to be missing the point.
No one wants to deny folks of healthcare so don't believe the libs when they make that argument. The truth is that we believe there are better ways to go about it & we should have the freedom to decide for ourselves whether ot not we want to join the government's bureacracy where our healthcare is concerned. There is also the matter of how the legisaltion was forced upon us. The speaker of the house at the time famously told us "we will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it". Obama lied on several occasions as he campaigned for it's passage then there's the matter of bribes & sweetheart deals being offered to politicians & union bosses in order to gain their endorsement.

 

I can see your point, truly. But what you are saying seems to be more anti-universal healthcare (and I must agree, don't get me wrong). Now, I'm guessing you think universal healthcare is an extreme, right? Well, likewise, I am trying to show that the "less government no matter what, this is a tax and unconstitutional regardless" mentality can affect people negatively, and almost did if this Supreme Court 5-4 had gone the other way. It's an extreme because it will most likely impede change for the better. I am by no means a major advocate for more government interference, but I find that people need to be open to more government in circumstances that are more beneficial than not, such as Obamacare.

 

In our medicare/medicaid system (which already exists) people who don't have coverage are covered so in a sense we already have a gov't run health system. What Obamacare will do is force everyone into the system eventually. I prefer to make my own decisions regarding my healthcare. I want to choose my own doctor, my own hospital & my own course of treatment. You seem to keep going back to the same tired arguments the liberals keep making while ignoring the facts of my opposition.

 

Yes, I also want to choose my own doctor, hospital, and course of treatment when I am old enough. You are making "tired arguments" against universal healthcare when we are talking about something so far from. Obamacare urges people to get healthcare (something that benefits them greatly), not forces them. And even if people were forced to get healthcare (something I wouldn't approve, yes), that is very different from not being able to choose. You want to make your own decisions about healthcare, and Obamacare doesn't stop you from doing that. It limits insurances companies and further tries to make people get healthcare, not a certain kind. There's a difference between that and Canada/France/Australia.

 

You are dreaming. Many (most?) will lose their current healthcare despite BO promises. It is a tax increase despite BO promises. It increases heath costs despite BO promises. Its costs are indeterminately above $900B despite BO promises. I can go on and on, but maybe the most importantly, it has not even been written yet. The majority of the bill does nothing more than call for such and such a department to write regulations requiring this or that. So, you have no idea what it will or will not do in the future.

 

This is complete BS! In order to qualify for Medicaid you have to make like 12,000 dollars a year. Medicare is only for people 65 and older. So what are the 45 million people supposed to do for health care when they qualify for neither Medicaid or Medicare? The Republican answer: and I am quoting here, "Let them die!"?

Don't believe a word that Republicans say about health care. They are either completely mislead by extreme Right-wing talking points or are just too low-information to know any better. And believe me, just saying this is like kicking a hornets nest to these guys.

The fact that they think that they will no longer be able to choose their own doctor, hospital, and treatment is just crazy talk. Under the current health care system, your insurance company chooses the doctors you can see, the medical facilities you can participate in, and they determine what kind of treatments they will and will not pay for. And everything is based on how much profit they can make denying you services. This is the system they are trying to save. Geeesh!

 

Again, Right-wing talking points.

 

Rlm kinda stole my line...you are dreaming.
Obamacare doesn't "urge people to get healthcare" it will at some point require you to leave the healthcare plan you have chosen & become part of the Obama/IRS bureaucracy where you see the doctors you are told to see & healthcare is dictated by a gov't official. Furthermore, people are forced into getting healthcare or face a stiff penalty. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would want to turn their healthcare over to the same gov't that can't pay it's bills, can't manage the postal service.
The exact items you claim not to agree with are the exact components that comprise Obamacare. Are you sure there isn't some hidden agenda at work here?

 

Just maybe there is a reason they are "Right-wing talking point". BTW, one point is a Sebelius statement, one is a supreme court ruling (and executive branch lawyers statement), and the other is a CBO publication. If you bothered to read the bill (joke?) you would find 1000+ (from memory) mandates to write new regulations. So I am curious. Just which of my "Right-wing talking points" that came straight from the Obama administration are you objecting to?

 

More nonsense and they just keep it coming.

 

What is wrong? My "Right-wing talking points" got too many facts to support them?

 

Yep, this is about the point where he tucks tail...oh, those pesky facts!

 

You don't run from complete idiots...You back away slowly.

I don't care what rlm believes, he is simply wrong because he relies on false sources. He says his sources are from the Obama Administration but I see no proof. I'm sure his sources say they are from the OA but that isn't proof. I say Post 'em.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1585131.html

http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court

http://linksterdiversions.wordpress.com/tag/obamacare-mandate/

Obama

That ought to be enough to keep Teddy busy for a while.

BTW, you start calling me names, I got open season on you!

 

If someone thinks too much freedom is a bad thing then they either do not know what freedom is or do not deserve it.

Ben Franklin said something like that.

 

-Let's not forget too that none other than Paul Krugman (BO's own pet economist) was the first to come out & admit massive tax increases would be necessary to sustain Obamacare.
-BO swore you were free to keep your own doctor then when confronted with the truth that wasn't guaranteed he said "they musta slipped that one in there"
-BO swore you could keep your current coverage which technically is true unless your coverage is adjusted or your rates increase
-Not a single dem who voted for Obamacare could honestly admit they read the bill
-Union support of Obamacare was courted with the promise their membership would be exempted
-The most waivers exempting people from being forced into the program came from Pelosi's district
-Anthony's Weiner tried to exempt his constituents claiming they were uniquely qualified to make their own healthcare decisions
-Mary Landrieu (LA) & Ben Nelson (NE) were offered exemption from the program for their states in return for voting for Obamacare

...starting to see a trend here?

 

I posted my sources - SCOTUS, CBO and the Obamacare bill itself. Yep! Those are really "Right-wing talking points"with "false sources". Now lets see your sources to say my comments were wrong. OOPS! Got a problem there, don't you.