Obamacare? what are your thoughts

I'm not a lady, but I don't think it's the place of the United States government to regulate insurance. That seems more of a states rights issue. To add, I think the whole thing is a botched, ridiculous, monstrosity of policy that needs to be banished and quickly forgotten about.

What would you replace it with?

I'm not a lady, but I don't think it's the place of the United States government to regulate insurance. That seems more of a states rights issue. To add, I think the whole thing is a botched, ridiculous, monstrosity of policy that needs to be banished and quickly forgotten about.

Well, the House of Representatives under Republican leadership has attempted to banish this law some 50 times. To date they have been unsuccessful and they don't have a viable replacement option to offer.

What are the basic goals of the Federal Government as outlined in the preamble to the constitution?

Well, the House of Representatives under Republican leadership has attempted to banish this law some 50 times. To date they have been unsuccessful and they don't have a viable replacement option to offer.

What are the basic goals of the Federal Government as outlined in the preamble to the constitution?

Why do we need a replacement? Health insurance is not a basic human right.

Preamble? Are you suggesting that would fall under "promote the general welfare?" I disagree entirely and place it under the tenth amendment.

What would you replace it with?

Nothing.

What are the basic goals of the Federal Government as outlined in the preamble to the constitution?

You mean this?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think the key word is GENERAL. If the founders thought we should provide health care to our citizens why didn't they establish programs for the government to pay the physicians of the day? I don't think healthcare is what they had in mind.

If the founders thought we should provide health care to our citizens why didn't they establish programs for the government to pay the physicians of the day?

If the founders thought we should have slaves then why did we get rid of slavery? If the founders thought women shouldn't vote then why did we expand voting laws? If the founders thought horse and buggies worked fine then why should we have any traffic laws or regulations?

Seriously. Society changes; the country needs to change with it. The world of today is not the world of 1776, and we MUST adapt to what is needed today. There's no going back, so deal with what the issues are today.

And it is truly disturbing to find people who work in healthcare that think providing better access to healthcare is NOT a part of "general welfare."

If the founders thought we should have slaves then why did we get rid of slavery? If the founders thought women shouldn't vote then why did we expand voting laws? If the founders thought horse and buggies worked fine then why should we have any traffic laws or regulations?

Seriously. Society changes; the country needs to change with it. The world of today is not the world of 1776, and we MUST adapt to what is needed today. There's no going back, so deal with what the issues are today.

And it is truly disturbing to find people who work in healthcare that think providing better access to healthcare is NOT a part of "general welfare."

Actually a lot of the founders did want to abolish slavery but creating a stable and united country was more important at the time. In any case, you are missing the point. The point is that the founders did not mean for that phrase to mean healthcare, or more precisely government funded/subsidized health insurance.

Actually a lot of the founders did want to abolish slavery but creating a stable and united country was more important at the time. In any case, you are missing the point. The point is that the founders did not mean for that phrase to mean healthcare, or more precisely government funded/subsidized health insurance.

I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with it.

Nothing.

So you have no alternative for the 8 million Americans who would lose their health coverage if Obamacare is overturned?

And it is truly disturbing to find people who work in healthcare that think providing better access to healthcare is NOT a part of "general welfare."

I completely disagree. Insurance is a privilege. It is not a right. The current policy will do nothing but cause further overspending, abuse of the system, and dilution of healthcare for the masses.

Frankly, I took issue with Medicaid and a host of other welfare programs before Obama was ever even heard of.

Small government, conservative spending, Republic. That's what made America great. Now, we, as a society, are letting our government crumble by increasing government programs, indiscriminate spending, and Democracy.

Oh, GASP! Did I cry out against democracy? Yes, because a democracy is subject to emotional whims. Think of Greece. That is a democracy. America, even as worded in our constitution, is a Republic. A republic is a nation governed by laws and only after the masses collectively decide to change laws of such magnitude as that in question of this thread does government take a turn and move in a new direction. A republic is reasonable and prudent. A democracy may merely be thought of as a mobocracy.

Merely giving away free stuff or making what most work hard for more accessible to those who don't does nothing positive for the State.