zouden said:

I don't see Obama's influence in this bill. It was written by congressmen, was it not?

Edit: and where does this bill disproportionately tax white people? I didn't realise there was a racism clause.

---

Quote:

The massively-costly health-care reform bills backed by Obama are riddled with provisions mandating “preference” for organizations that exhibit “cultural competency,” a politically-correct code word for a focus on minorities. So racial preferences, not cutting costs or expanding coverage, may end up being the top priority in some cases.

---

zouden said:

You're implying that if it were a different Democrat president pushing for healthcare reform that the bill would have been better? On what basis do you make that claim? This bill is clearly different to what he wanted. Remember he was advocating universal healthcare (which this isn't). This bill was not written by him.

And is there any reason for you to say that he hates white people, or is that just a red herring you threw in there?

---

lonestar2004 said:

zouden said:

This is another case of the Right making up stories so they can scare themselves.

---

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can�t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we�re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/


this scares me...

---

zouden said:

Seuss said:

And I get all of that tax money that would have gone to my government insurance to help pay for my private insurance, correct? 

---

In Australia you get a tax rebate if you choose private insurance. Not sure if the US plan has a similar provision. In any case, how much is the US plan going to increase your tax by?

---

From what I've read, there is a lot of talk about taxing business making more than $200k or so, and it would be a graduated rate up to 8% if a business makes more than $500 or $800k.  I also read it may depend on how much you spend on payroll.  My numbers may be off, this is off the top of my head, and I'm sure its changed.

This is just stupid, small business creates at least 70% of new jobs, and if they can't afford to pay for health benefits now, how do they expect them to afford it if you force them to pay for it?  And these aren't rich cigar smoking private plane buying aristocrats, these are often small businesses that employ a few dozen people or less that will see these tax increases. 

Oh wait it will save money, just like the post office and amtrack turn such great profits.

But we must do something about this "health care crisis", I'm tired of tripping over the sick and dying in the streets.  I tired of having the worst health care system in the world.  I'm tired of seeing people from the US fleeing to Candida and Europe for treatments when they can't get them here. 

The polls all show that the people don't like the current system and support the Democratic health reform by overwhelming margins! WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!  The government does far to little for me and needs to make some more choices for me.  I'm completely helpless!

Oh, and I'm also tired of the best qualified doctors getting into medical schools. I want the the most "diverse" group of doctors possible, I don't care about their skills, talents, or work ethic.  As long as the staff at the hospital looks like a rainbow, I don't care if they know my cocyx from my parietal pericardium.   

zouden said:

And I actually do know what I'm talking about, most of the time. And when I don't, I make an effort to find out.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

zouden said:

And I actually do know what I'm talking about, most of the time. And when I don't, I make an effort to find out.

---

---

Quote:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

---

zouden said:

I don't know why luvdemshrooms kept belabouring the point when it was clear he was wrong.

---

zappaisgod said:

Don't you just love it when some 19 year old foreigner lectures you on your own country?  I find it quite cute.

---

Quote:

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

    . . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

    There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

---

Quote:

Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

---

Quote:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

---

zouden said:

You know, when someone tells you that you're wrong, you need to say something to defend your point. Insults don't win debates. You could learn something here.

No one has shown how the US isn't a democracy. Also, no one has shown that I'm 19. Wrong on both counts.

---