Is Obama a socialist? What's your stance on health care reform?

Pre-College Issues High School Life
281

<p>^^Mind telling me how exactly I am a dumbass?</p>

<p>So what about this:

And this:

And of course the epic TCBH post [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064604624-post222.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064604624-post222.html]here[/url</a>]</p>

282

<p>I can’t believe this thread is still going on. Even ** I ** managed to take myself out of it lol.</p>

283

<p>

</p>

<p>Nevertheless</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank God</p>

284

<p>^ God had nothing to do with it. Promise.</p>

285

<p>

</p>

<p>Is that a, “No, I’m not going to refute your previous post.” ?</p>

286

<p>

</p>

<p>The intentions of the founding fathers cannot be proved so there’s no point in arguing over it…even though the author of that book gets his ideas from writings that come directly from the founding fathers.</p>

<p>Either way, you yourself said the creators intended to have limited government. Therefore principles (ie limited government) and entitlements is not a false dichotomy.</p>

287

<p>

</p>

<p>So you’re saying that entitlements cannot exist without limited government? That seems dubious at best.</p>

288

<p>@TCBH: Well, I’m trying to sift through the numbers and make some sense of them (I’m counting it as math homework :P).</p>

<p>Anyway, suppose you are right and the people without insurance contribute heavily to the nation’s ER clogging. If they pay for the ER visits, than why should it matter? In other words, why not just require people to pay for their ER instead of requiring them to get the full-deal-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink coverage?</p>

<p>Also, how is orthodontics, artificial limb replacements, etc. relevant to ER visits?</p>

<p>Also, why should people who never have and never will use drugs be forced to carry coverage for substance abuse therapy?</p>

289

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s amazing how easy it is to win an argument when you ascribe fictitious thoughts to your opponent.</p>

290

<p>

</p>

<p>Because they feel that treatment of sickness is a fundamental right?</p>

291

<p>???</p>

<p>I asked why we force them to buy coverage for all those other things… To me it sounded like you were answering the question of why don’t we just let the hospitals turn away people.</p>

292

<p>That was the question I answered.</p>

293

<p>

Perhaps because you asked that question?

</p>

294

<p>^</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Either directly or through insurance.</p>

<p>That make it more clear?</p>

295

<p>Is it not unconstitutional to force somebody to buy something just for being alive (i.e. healthcare)? </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.redstate.com/mason_conservative/2010/03/23/just-being-alive-is-not-interstate-commerce/[/url]”>http://www.redstate.com/mason_conservative/2010/03/23/just-being-alive-is-not-interstate-commerce/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

296

<p>

</p>

<p>my answer:</p>

<p>

</p>

297

<p>^ I still don’t understand how that answers the question. If people feel that treatment of sickness is a fundamental right, then you would expect them to take steps to ensure everyone could have it, not force everyone to buy it.</p>

298

<p>… like not denying service in ER’s to people that can’t pay for it …</p>

299

<p>^ I wasn’t suggesting we do that.</p>

<p>I will try again:</p>

<p>1: We expect ERs to accept all patients.</p>

<p>2: Therefore, it may be reasonable to expect all people to have insurance to cover their visits.</p>

<p>However, it does not follow, at least in my mind, that we should expect all people to have FULL coverage for non-ER things. Since dentists, knee-replacment surgeons, etc. are not expected to provide service to everyone, there is no danger of people being irresponsible and then getting free care at society’s cost.</p>

<p>Hence: Why not just require people to (pay) have coverage for their ER?</p>

300

<p>Because ending liability for ER costs isn’t the only purpose of health care reform.</p>