<p>Who told you this was a democracy? It’s a Republic. And it’s a good thing too. If you look at more democratic places, like CA, the system has completely ****ed stuff up. There needs to be a limit to democracy (and if anyone thinks any of this refers to political parties, please put your hands over your face, your forehead on your desk, and start sobbing).</p>
<p>Look, I had major objections when the previous President came to power the major ity opinion of Americans and when a non-elected body with life terms that had been politically appointed decided that it was unreasonable to actually make sure he had even won in accordance with the Constitution.</p>
<p>I was upset when that President decided to invade a country because it provided minimal threat to the United States at the cost of taxpayers nationwide. It was a service I really didn’t feel the need for. Unfortunately it’s hard to just repeal a war.</p>
<p>@TCBH: That’s right, we are a republic. Anyway, my point is just as valid: I’m more than happy for Americans who want the government to run their healthcare to do that, as long as they do it fair and square. I do wish the only those of us who desired the service of the military were required to pay for it, but that doesn’t work for obvious reasons. However, healthcare is different. If want to handle my own healthcare, or want an insurance company to do it for me, or want the government to do it for me, I should be allowed to make that choice, and there’s no reason why I can’t, except for that fact that certain powers-that-be think I’m not smart enough to do it.</p>
<p>By elitist facism I mean:</p>
<p>he thinks he knows better than me what is good for me (elitism)</p>
<p>and he thinks he thereofre has the right to make me do what he thinks is best for me, whether I want to or not (facism)</p>
<p>Except that a person’s choice to handle their own healthcare often makes them a liability to the rest of society. People without insurance clog emergency rooms. People that forgo treatment can be a danger to others. Maybe this doesn’t apply to you, but it does apply to a lot of people. If you’re in exception, that’s just too bad. If you get drunk, drive home, and arrive safely - congrats, you didn’t hurt anyone. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be illegal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Passing a law is fair and square. They followed congressional rules, and the people that enacted the law were fairly elected. Nothing more to say here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Making decisions for you is his job.</li>
<li>He does have the right to make you do what he thinks is best.</li>
<li>By your definition, every person in politics is an elitist fascist.</li>
</ol>
<p>Drunk driving is illegal, so if you want to drink you’ll need a way to get home. We don’t require people who don’t drink to keep a taxi on hand at all times. But let’s assume your logic is valid. Then what reason is there to stop at health care? Some people who eat red dye become antisocial. So red die should be banned. Some people who eat fast food get heart attacks, which put strain on the (now universal*) system. So all people must hire a dietary advisor.</p>
<p>If there’s some reason the logic stops somewhere, besides the whim of the government, then please tell me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except, of course, all the back-room deals, Congressmembers ignoring their own constituents, promises broken, and hidden debate. Not to mention the fact that most of the people involved never read the bill.</p>
<p>If this had been done in the open as President Obama himself personally promised then it wouldn’t be a problem. If Americans were listened to, instead of big names, that wouldn’t have been a problem. If the people who voted for this actually had to face the consequences, instead of bailing out into high-paying jobs and thumbing their noses at us (ok, they aren’t quite that bad), that would have been fabulous.</p>
<p>But none of that happened. Not even the promises after Scot Brown’s election, that they wouldn’t try to cram it through without it going back to the senate, didn’t happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1: No, his job is to make decisions for our country. He can get out of my own life.
2: No, he doesn’t. Congress can make laws regulating trade, which I shall be expected to follow. NOBODY has the right to make me wear blue, or eat healthy, OR buy insurance.</p>
<p>I don’t know if this occured to you, but you are majorly inconsistent here. Don’t feel bad, you are in the good company of many of the most powerful democrats in Washington. Tell me, what is the difference between the way Bush abused people’s rights and the way Obama is abusing people’s rights?</p>
<p>3: Yes, most of them are. But a few of them at least still ACT like they listen to us, and USUALLY respect MOST of our righs.</p>
<p>Oh do shut up and get over it. Welcome to American politics. This is how 99% of ALL bills get passed. Not just by Democrats or Republicans. </p>
<p>I’m not even going to bother to respond to most of your other stuff because that statement above ^ would pretty much sum up all of my arguments.</p>
<p>^ So in other words, you’re telling me that the government is beyond fixing and we should just shut up and let them do whatever? I bet you wouldn’t say that if Bush were still in power and we were debating his policies. And I wouldn’t either. I agree that Washington is a mess. That doesn’t mean we should just give up trying to fix it.</p>
<p>No, I didn’t say that or imply that at all. I said that THAT is how it’s done. Didn’t like it when Bush did it, don’t like it when Obama does it, but it IS done that way.</p>
<p>It’s a matter of causality and practicality. That’s just obvious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t make any sense. Whatsoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually they can make you wear blue - if that happens to be the color of the uniform you’re given after you’re drafted. Sorry if he doesn’t respect your fundamental right to be uninsured, everyone else be damned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The constitutionality issue is a big dividing line. Bush regularly flouted the law. This is just politics as usual, made necessary by politics as usual on the other side.</p>
<p>This is ironic in quite a number of ways, as you want to control other people’s lives. But I digress as this is not the point of this argument. </p>
<p>Secondly, you are a citizen of this country. By default, the leader can make decisions for you (as they do all the time). You can make the decision to go somewhere with a government you like.</p>
<p>^How do I want to control other’s lives. If you’re talking about the abortion issue, you know I belive an embryo to be a human with all the rights other humans have, so I hope you can understand why I see that issue differently.</p>
<p>So if it were practical to bad red dye and require everyone to have a dietary advisor, you’d support it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The government’s powers are supposed to be in a particular scope, which does not include my personal life or the risks I choose to take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you get drafted into the military you lose some of your basic rights… But that’s a whole other argument. It’s not about a right to be uninsured, it’s about a right to buy whatever health care gives me the best value, and not what the government thinks gives me the best value.</p>
<p>^ Just because I understand where you’re coming from, doesn’t make it OK to control other people’s lives (I’m referring to the mum because those are certified, living people). As I said, you can’t let it be ok to control other people when you agree with the issue and not ok when you don’t agree with the issue. That is a double standard.</p>
<p>As I said, not the point of this thread. So I’m done now.</p>
<p>^^ That is exactly what you are doing. It’s ok to control the life of an embryo, since you agree with the people who say an embryo isn’t a person. But it’s not ok to control the life of the mother, since you don’t agree with that side. This issue isn’t ever going to be decided by the control argument, since neither side has anything that invalidates the other.</p>