Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Explained!

Derryck · Post by **Derryck** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:01 am

THE THINGS THAT MATTER:

August 08-2009:

Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Explained!

As far as I understand, anyone who does not have Health Care, can have it under the Obama proposal.

* If you already have Health Care, and are satisfied with it. Then you can KEEP your health Care Plan. You don't have to change it period.

* The other OPTION is The Public One, which will allow anyone without Health Care already, to choose that Public Plan.

* It will give you the same benefits as the Private Plan does, under Obama's proposals.

The general concept of the plan is to ensure that ALL Americans have a Viable and Reliable Health Care Plan, regardless of their employment or Un-employment status!

Derryck.

NYC.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:21 am

Derryck;1227142 wrote: THE THINGS THAT MATTER:

August 08-2009:

Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Explained!

As far as I understand, anyone who does not have Health Care, can have it under the Obama proposal.

* If you already have Health Care, and are satisfied with it. Then you can KEEP your health Care Plan. You don't have to change it period.

* The other OPTION is The Public One, which will allow anyone without Health Care already, to choose that Public Plan.

* It will give you the same benefits as the Private Plan does, under Obama's proposals.

The general concept of the plan is to ensure that ALL Americans have a Viable and Reliable Health Care Plan, regardless of their employment or Un-employment status!

Derryck.

NYC.

If only that were true. Obviously you trust this president.

Gunslinger's Gal · Post by **Gunslinger's Gal** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:31 am

Honey - if that were all there was to it - the bill would be 10 pages long.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:04 am

Derryck;1227142 wrote: As far as I understand, anyone who does not have Health Care, can have it under the Obama proposal.

* If you already have Health Care, and are satisfied with it. Then you can KEEP your health Care Plan. You don't have to change it period.

* The other OPTION is The Public One, which will allow anyone without Health Care already, to choose that Public Plan. Welcome back Derryck, it's been quite a while!

What you describe sounds pretty much like the European health care models though I'm sure there are differences in the detail.

I'm interested to know what's meant by "anyone" though. Is this anyone within the physical boundaries of the USA? Is it anyone who's a US citizen and if so does it apply to them when they're abroad as well as when they're in the Homeland? Is it anyone who's resident in the US?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:54 am

Derryck;1227142 wrote: THE THINGS THAT MATTER:

August 08-2009:

Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Explained!

As far as I understand, anyone who does not have Health Care, can have it under the Obama proposal.

* If you already have Health Care, and are satisfied with it. Then you can KEEP your health Care Plan. You don't have to change it period.

* The other OPTION is The Public One, which will allow anyone without Health Care already, to choose that Public Plan.

* It will give you the same benefits as the Private Plan does, under Obama's proposals.

The general concept of the plan is to ensure that ALL Americans have a Viable and Reliable Health Care Plan, regardless of their employment or Un-employment status!

Derryck.

NYC.

Thats what Ive been trying to tell them but theyre not listening.

They think old people will be injected with strychnine and dumped into a mass grave and everyone else will have to go to Mexico for x rays.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:56 am

Could you supply some links to this information, other than a blog?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:31 am

Derryck;1227142 wrote: THE THINGS THAT MATTER:

August 08-2009:

Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Explained!

As far as I understand, anyone who does not have Health Care, can have it under the Obama proposal. But everyone already has health care. There is no one in the USA, legally or illegally, who does not have health care available.

* If you already have Health Care, and are satisfied with it. Then you can KEEP your health Care Plan. You don't have to change it period. Do you mean insurance? So if a person likes the healthcare provided by his employer, he can force the employer to keep it even if the employer finds a more cost-effective option? How about cost? Every time I see that phrase "if you like it you can keep it" I see a big gaping unanswered question: will the unchanged healthcare come with unchanged cost?

* The other OPTION is The Public One, which will allow anyone without Health Care already, to choose that Public Plan. What will this "option" do to the competitive market structure? How will Washington avoid destroying the thousands of jobs in the insurance industry?

* It will give you the same benefits as the Private Plan does, under Obama's proposals. If it's the same, why have it?

The general concept of the plan is to ensure that ALL Americans have a Viable and Reliable Health Care Plan, regardless of their employment or Un-employment status!

Derryck.

NYC.The explanation's a little lacking.

Oh, one more question: Where in the Constitution can I find the provision for Congress to provide national healthcare? I can't find any, and I haven't heard of any movement toward an amendment.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:36 am

Accountable;1227221 wrote: The explanation's a little lacking.

Oh, one more question: Where in the Constitution can I find the provision for Congress to provide national healthcare? I can't find any, and I haven't heard of any movement toward an amendment.

Where in the constitution does it say we can attack soverign nations and depose their leader and install a regime more suitable to our tastes but its not working so we'll just stay until it does?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:41 am

From a teacher in the Nashville area

"We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream"

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.

The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.

I decided we would have an election for a class president.

We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.

We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.

We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.

I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.

I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.

Jamie went first.

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better

place. He ended by promising to do his very best.

Everyone applauded and he sat down.

Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.

Her speech was concise.

She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream."

She sat down.

The class went wild. "Yes! Yes!

We want ice cream."

She surely would say more. She did not have to.

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream?

She wasn't sure.

Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it.

She didn't know.

The class really didn't care.

All they were thinking about was ice cream.

Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and

52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds.

They want ice cream.

The other 48 percent know

they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."

Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone ---

that they have not first taken away from someone else.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:46 am

Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone ---

that they have not first taken away from someone else.

What about the cost of foreign wars?

Pretty substantial numbers there.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:13 am

Nomad;1227226 wrote: Where in the constitution does it say we can attack soverign nations and depose their leader and install a regime more suitable to our tastes but its not working so we'll just stay until it does?

Where in Obama's health care plan does it mention attacking soverign nations?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:19 am

hoppy;1227241 wrote: Where in Obama's health care plan does it mention attacking soverign nations?

Well it seems if were going to get excited about strictly adhering to the constitution we cant cherry pick our causes. It should be across the board. http://costofwar.com/

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:06 am

Nomad;1227226 wrote: Where in the constitution does it say we can attack soverign nations and depose their leader and install a regime more suitable to our tastes but its not working so we'll just stay until it does?
Really? That's your arguement for this massive power grab? It'd hardly stand up in court.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:08 am

Nomad;1227242 wrote: Well it seems if were going to get excited about strictly adhering to the constitution we cant cherry pick our causes. It should be across the board. COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War
I agree. We should have to declare war before spending American lives. You wanna discuss health care in a health care thread?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:27 am

Accountable;1227261 wrote: Really? That's your arguement for this massive power grab? It'd hardly stand up in court.

Its a comparison acc, a parallell worthy of consideration because it brings to light the inconsistency of your argument. Liberties are being stripped overseas but theyre not ours so its not pertinent?

If the constitution is our Bible so to speak then all violations should be be brought to the table and be given thoughtful attention to.

The war is current and the bill is current making them equally significant.

I cant separate one from the other. How can you be impartial on one injustice but not the other?

Constitutionally speaking explain why one cause trumps the other?

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:28 am

Accountable;1227263 wrote: I agree. We should have to declare war before spending American lives.The total lack of we should have to declare war before spending foreign lives is what marks the lack of humanity in your point of view - there's a hundred dead foreigners for every dead American, after all. That's the current estimate of a recent UK army commander. Every one of those foreign lives is as valuable as each American loss, and unlike the American losses the great majority of the foreign ones are non-combatants.

Can you explain whether "There is no one in the USA, legally or illegally, who does not have health care available" involves an open-ended commitment to personally pay for the health care from those not covered by insurance or by Medicaid/Medicare, short of acute life-or-death emergency cover? Because that's the gap the current proposals are trying to fill for those who can't afford the sums involved to treat chronic life-threatening conditions but have no such cover.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:45 am

Accountable;1227263 wrote: You wanna discuss health care in a health care thread?

Your argument to my understanding isnt about health care per say but more focused on the legalities of the constitution. You havent been discussing the details of health, youve been discussing the constitution.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:17 pm

I believe the proposed health care plan violates portions of the Constitution-for my personal experience, my First Ammendment Right of freedom of religion.

Since the executive branch of our government proposed reform, the legislative branch is acting on whether to legalize it or not (in what version they decide on), that is why the Constitution is being discussed.

I would like to see Obama's Health Care Plan explained, including the Constitutionality of it. Totally on topic.

I think as Congress starts to solidify what their propsed legislation will contain, then specifics of the Health Care Plan can possibly be discussed in depth. Right now, the wheels are still turning.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:24 pm

chonsigirl;1227364 wrote: I believe the proposed health care plan violates portions of the Constitution-for my personal experience, my First Ammendment Right of freedom of religion.

Since the executive branch of our government proposed reform, the legislative branch is acting on whether to legalize it or not (in what version they decide on), that is why the Constitution is being discussed.

I would like to see Obama's Health Care Plan explained, including the Constitutionality of it. Totally on topic.

I think as Congress starts to solidify what their propsed legislation will contain, then specifics of the Health Care Plan can possibly be discussed in depth. Right now, the wheels are still turning.

Yes it is on topic but I believe selective reasoning concerning constitutional objectives is also on topic.

I understand your views on abortion and Im in agreement with you but I have to revert to the countless lives lost in an illegal occupation at the cost of taxpayers. Why doesnt this bother anyone?

Randy Spate · Post by **Randy Spate** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:26 pm

Obama is a socialist and has said on several occassions this gov't run health care will lead to a single payer system.. I don't want socialized anything!

Attached files

Gunslinger's Gal · Post by **Gunslinger's Gal** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:28 pm

spot;1227271 wrote: The total lack of we should have to declare war before spending foreign lives is what marks the lack of humanity in your point of view - there's a hundred dead foreigners for every dead American, after all. That's the current estimate of a recent UK army commander. Every one of those foreign lives is as valuable as each American loss, and unlike the American losses the great majority of the foreign ones are non-combatants.

Can you explain whether "There is no one in the USA, legally or illegally, who does not have health care available" involves an open-ended commitment to personally pay for the health care from those not covered by insurance or by Medicaid/Medicare, short of acute life-or-death emergency cover? Because that's the gap the current proposals are trying to fill for those who can't afford the sums involved to treat chronic life-threatening conditions but have no such cover.

Puleeze! A majority of the loss of non-combatant lives in both Iraq and Afganistan are caused by insurgents and the Taliban, NOT U.S. soldiers. Get a grip.

I don't have health insurance and I do not, under any circumstances, support a government mandated health insurance plan. Do I think that insurance companies should be regulated? You bet! Do I think that illegal aliens should be getting free health care? Hell no!

But then, this is not the only plan the Obama government has proposed and voted on that I am against. And I will most certainly be keeping an eye on how my representatives vote so that I can take that into account the next time I vote.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:31 pm

Gunslinger's Gal;1227371 wrote: Do I think that insurance companies should be regulated? You bet!

Regulated by whom?

Gunslinger's Gal · Post by **Gunslinger's Gal** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:33 pm

Nomad;1227373 wrote: Regulated by whom?

If I had all the answers - I would run for public office.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:53 pm

[quote=Gunslinger's Gal;1227371]Puleeze! A majority of the loss of non-combatant lives in both Iraq and Afganistan are caused by insurgents and the Taliban, NOT U.S. soldiers. Get a grip.

Im not sure how you came to that conclusion or if its merely an act of burying your head in the sand.

According to the Pentagon civilian casualties are an annoyance and a headache.

Not exactly stars, stripes and apple pie of us.

How many civilian deaths are acceptable? - The Boston Globe

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:26 pm

Nomad;1227367 wrote: Yes it is on topic but I believe selective reasoning concerning constitutional objectives is also on topic.

I understand your views on abortion and Im in agreement with you but I have to revert to the countless lives lost in an illegal occupation at the cost of taxpayers. Why doesnt this bother anyone?

This bothers many of us, Nomad.

The war in Iraq is also unconstitutional, since it is an "undeclared" war.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:38 pm

chonsigirl;1227401 wrote: This bothers many of us, Nomad.

The war in Iraq is also unconstitutional, since it is an "undeclared" war.

Ok then. Thats all Im after but I dont hear people talking about it. I can only assume its because its not interrupting our daily lives. At least not the ones that dont have to bury their sons and daughters.

Wed be flush if we werent paying for that war. There are so many infrastuctural needs here in our own communities that should be taking precedence over running around in circles out in someone elses desert.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:51 pm

So it looks like America is catching up with the rest of the world?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:37 pm

I don't think so, fuzzy. The US is figuring it out for herself. As you can see, it is a problem that many are divided over.

I am against socialized medicine.

It is not something mandated within the framework of our Constitution.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:46 pm

Nomad;1227367 wrote: Yes it is on topic but I believe selective reasoning concerning constitutional objectives is also on topic.

I understand your views on abortion and Im in agreement with you but I have to revert to the countless lives lost in an illegal occupation at the cost of taxpayers. Why doesnt this bother anyone?
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1227263-post14.html

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:58 pm

chonsigirl;1227525 wrote: I don't think so, fuzzy. The US is figuring it out for herself. As you can see, it is a problem that many are divided over.

I am against socialized medicine.

It is not something mandated within the framework of our Constitution.
You surprise me chonsi and I'd quite like to know why you feel it's excluded. I'd have thought it fell squarely within the order to establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquillity and promote the general Welfare. It's arguably just, it could engender greater tranquillity and it might even promote the general welfare. Those are political questions but they're within the framework of the US Constitution.

The intent of Capitalism is to extract the greatest profit from the wage slaves. Improving their education and health is cost-effective to the extent that they generate extra profit as a result. That, at least, is the reason universal health care was introduced within Europe, for all the namby-pamby do-gooder rhetoric which piously attempted to explain the humanitarian aspect of the reforms. It strikes me that the same arguments apply even more in the USA, I'm amazed there's any resistance to the measures at all.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:01 pm

I don't get it? What's wrong with that.? Is health insurance a status symbol that people don't wan tto lose? If so that's a bit sad. You can't have half the populace dying in hte gutters and the other half living it up because they work for a certain company or organisation. Or is it just fear of change?

The Current Situation

Making sure every American has access to high quality health care is one of the most important challenges of our time. The number of uninsured Americans is growing, premiums are skyrocketing, and more people are being denied coverage every day. A moral imperative by any measure, a better system is also essential to rebuilding our economy -- we want to make health insurance work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies.

The Solution

*

Reform the health care system:

We will take steps to reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.

*

Promote scientific and technological advancements:

We are committed to putting responsible science and technological innovation ahead of ideology when it comes to medical research. We believe in the enormous capacity of American ingenuity to find cures for diseases that continue to extinguish too many lives and cause too much suffering every year.

*

Improve preventative care:

In order to keep our people healthy and provide more efficient treatment we need to promote smart preventative care, like cancer screenings and better nutrition, and make critical investments in electronic health records, technology that can reduce errors while ensuring privacy and saving lives.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:03 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1227550 wrote: You can't have half the populace dying in hte gutters and the other half living it up because they work for a certain company or organisation.
We don't.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:07 pm

Accountable;1227552 wrote: We don't.

Indeed you don't. The proportion living it up is more like ten percent. The rest lead a rocky existence at best. Fortunately the majority seem to be learning how to vote in their own interest at last.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:08 pm

I think there is more resistance to the idea than the administration originally thought there would be.

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Domestic Tranquility

One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.

This term was used for internal rebellion, and the enlargement of federal powers over states in time of specific need.

The term General Welfare-that is what is being debated. It involves the aspect of taxation and how these funds will be distributed.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:11 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1227550 wrote: I don't get it? What's wrong with that.? Is health insurance a status symbol that people don't wan tto lose? If so that's a bit sad. You can't have half the populace dying in hte gutters and the other half living it up because they work for a certain company or organisation. Or is it just fear of change?

It is the aspect of socialism itself.

This Health Care Plan is not totally comprehensive, no matter what it states. It says it will be mandatory-how can the homeless and poor pay for it? It is not addressed in the plan. Also, what changes will this mean for the Native American population-a separate entity under the BIA? Then it would not be equal access.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:12 pm

chonsigirl;1227557 wrote: The term General Welfare-that is what is being debated. It involves the aspect of taxation and how these funds will be distributed.

So health care reform is within the framework of the Constitution then and the political debate is whether this particular measure is desirable or not?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:13 pm

No, it is not within the framework of the Constitution. The taxation portion only would be, the program itself is not.

There is a difference spot.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:19 pm

chonsigirl;1227563 wrote: No, it is not within the framework of the Constitution. The taxation portion only would be, the program itself is not.

There is a difference spot.

It seems a perversion of plain English to say that the health of the nation isn't covered within "promote the general Welfare", but angels have been made to dance on the head of a pin before now.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:26 pm

And that is how the law would be interpreted too, dear spot.

It is part semnatics, part original intent, historical/legal changes in how that term will be applied.

*quare alius nos etiam diligo nostrum vetus lingua!*

Will Health Care, if passed, come to a judicial decision? I probably do not think so.

Will individual aspects of it? Yes.

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:50 pm

Derryck;1227142 wrote: THE THINGS THAT MATTER:

August 08-2009:

Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Explained!

As far as I understand, anyone who does not have Health Care, can have it under the Obama proposal.

* If you already have Health Care, and are satisfied with it. Then you can KEEP your health Care Plan. You don't have to change it period.

* The other OPTION is The Public One, which will allow anyone without Health Care already, to choose that Public Plan.

* It will give you the same benefits as the Private Plan does, under Obama's proposals.

The general concept of the plan is to ensure that ALL Americans have a Viable and Reliable Health Care Plan, regardless of their employment or Un-employment status!

Derryck.

NYC.

A lot of people forget we must make some sort of change because the cost of health care will bankrupt us all soon if we dont get the cost down.

Actually we already pay for those who do not have insurance, indirectly. The hospitals must treat them if they come into the emergncy room. If they do not have money or insurance then the cost is passed on to us who do have insurance. If everyone is insured everyone wins. It is cheaper to just visit a doctor for the sniffles than to go into the emergency room after you get pneumonia.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:53 am

Okie;1227639 wrote: A lot of people forget we must make some sort of change because the cost of health care will bankrupt us all soon if we dont get the cost down.

Actually we already pay for those who do not have insurance, indirectly. The hospitals must treat them if they come into the emergncy room. If they do not have money or insurance then the cost is passed on to us who do have insurance. If everyone is insured everyone wins. It is cheaper to just visit a doctor for the sniffles than to go into the emergency room after you get pneumonia.

Yeah, every time I go to the doc's office, I seem to come home with someone's cold or something. Doc asked me once why I cancel appointments for routine checkups. I told him because I feel great and don't want someone else's cold or flu.

allglovesoff09 · Post by **allglovesoff09** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:36 pm

ok several things....first off to the constutional convo...in the constitution it says that the president has the power to protect the constitution. therefore he does have the power to, in the case of Iraq, depower the tyrant, who tortured, imprisoned, and killed his people for no reason...what a shame we depowered that man.

Next, it was a declared war. congress declared war on Iraq in 2004 i believe it was march 2004.

next, healthcare is actually a private industry such as a normal business would be...the Government has no power in the private industry. No matter if the constitution says promote general welfare...

next, my dad had emergency open heart surgery last may. my family did not become any where bankrupt...in fact my dad's bill was about 200,000 dollars...the insurance company picked up 199,700 dollars...hmmm didn't bankrupt us so that argument has no stance....

I think that healthcare should not and cannot be mandated specifially for the one who said homeless people obviously can't pay for it.

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:43 pm

allglovesoff09;1234585 wrote: ok several things....first off to the constutional convo...in the constitution it says that the president has the power to protect the constitution. therefore he does have the power to, in the case of Iraq, depower the tyrant, who tortured, imprisoned, and killed his people for no reason...what a shame we depowered that man.

Go on, I'll bite - the president has the power to protect the Constitution. The Constitution applies to the USA. What does that have to do with interfering in the internal affairs of any foreign country where no threat is posed to the USA itself?

In "depowering the tyrant" the USA also employed tortured, imprisoned, and killed Iraqi people for no reason (unlike Saddam Hussein's government which had perfectly legitimate reasons of state for killing those they killed). The difference is that Saddam Hussein's government had authority to act as they did, unlike the USA. His government acted under the rule of International law, yours didn't. Yours acted unilaterally in its own selfish interests.

The shame is entirely your collective own. This notion that you have a world remit for governance doesn't hold any water, no more than it would if Argentina claimed such rights. The Constitution isn't a World Constitution, it's the US Constitution. The only people it serves are those who can vote to amend it. Nobody's ever asked you to apply it as a universal statement. If we did we'd want voting rights to go alongside the imposition.

As for your healthcare comment perhaps you'd like to discuss these posts in terms of the suffering involved - the homeless are only a small proportion of those who's health's affected by the proposals.

Health care

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... post662400

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... post695527

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/healt ... post715709

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1127528

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:30 pm

spot;1234703 wrote: Go on, I'll bite - the president has the power to protect the Constitution. The Constitution applies to the USA. What does that have to do with interfering in the internal affairs of any foreign country where no threat is posed to the USA itself?

Right on brother man !

In "depowering the tyrant" the USA also employed tortured, imprisoned, and killed Iraqi people for no reason (unlike Saddam Hussein's government which had perfectly legitimate reasons of state for killing those they killed).

Umm......does that include Uday and Subay or whatever their names were torturing and killing Iraqi athletes for losing a game?

Please say no you didnt mean that. Im begging you.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:54 am

Nomad;1235293 wrote: Umm......does that include Uday and Subay or whatever their names were torturing and killing Iraqi athletes for losing a game?

Please say no you didnt mean that. Im begging you.

I don't know that it happened - the murdering athletes bit. I'd be grateful for some indication from you that it did. All I've seen is Uday: career of rape, torture and murder | World news | The Guardian

The article makes it clear that Uday was exiled as a result of his torturing athletes and generally behaving above the law. It also says he was dropped from any potential political succession. None of those excesses were acts of the Iraqi government. What I wrote was that Saddam Hussein's government had perfectly legitimate reasons of state for killing those they killed. It's a generalized comment on my part but I think it holds water.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:19 pm

spot;1235310 wrote: What I wrote was that Saddam Hussein's government had perfectly legitimate reasons of state for killing those they killed. It's a generalized comment on my part but I think it holds water.

Very spock like thing to say.

Since he launched his career by assassinating a supporter of Iraqi ruler Abdul-Karim Qassim and rose in the ranks after a Baath coup, becoming Iraq's president and de facto dictator doesnt that negate any right he has to quash opposition or is it whomever has the ball gets to make the rules?

allglovesoff09 · Post by **allglovesoff09** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:12 pm

ok first off i think your argument is bs. but ok let's talk facts. Sadam Hussein imprisoned and tortured and killed his people if they looked at him wrong...yep that must be a legite reason.

as far as the world policing goes...USA is the biggest super power in the world today. certain things are expected out of us... people get pissed either way we go. such as the wars in Africa. People over there wonder where we are at when there is constant civil war over there.

now there was a threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... now supposedly that threat turned out to be a hoax. But obviously the Government had intel us citizens did not.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:43 pm

allglovesoff09;1235871 wrote: as far as the world policing goes...USA is the biggest super power in the world today. certain things are expected out of us...

Ok Ill bite.

Whats expected of us?

allglovesoff09 · Post by **allglovesoff09** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:51 pm

To see to it that the world is in peace and there are no threats period against any country...see there are certain things called treaties that we have to uphold...go look up what treaties are.

now your probably gonna say then why are we at war with Iraq and Afgahnistan...well the second one is simple...because osama bin laden attacked us so we went and shoved a boot up his butt. Now stick with me on the Iraq thingy...see there was a leader called Sadam Hussein who ruled with tyranny. He had already tried to invade kuwait and failed...he had various plans to invade other countries as well...some people called him the next hitler. Lastly comes the threat of weapons of mass destruction...there was a threat that they had them so we invaded not only for the weapons but for the benefit of the countries around the tyrant.

then i'm sure your gonna ask why don't we invade north korea if that's the case...well that's simple because both China and Russia both are allies of North Korea. Fact is we aren't simply strong enough to take on both Russia and China teamed with North Korea...

any more arguments?

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:10 am

allglovesoff09;1235899 wrote: [QUOTE=Nomad;1235876]Ok Ill bite.

Whats expected of us?To see to it that the world is in peace and there are no threats period against any country...see there are certain things called treaties that we have to uphold...go look up what treaties are. [/QUOTE]That's priceless. Go on, which treaty requires the USA "to see to it that the world is in peace and there are no threats period against any country"?

On the contrary, there are treaties signed by the USA which require it to keep its armed forces at home and do nothing in the absence of very explicit circumstances. Signing up to membership of the United Nations was one of them. For some inexplicable reason the US didn't withdraw from the UN first before invading the Middle East.