The distinction concerning this bill isn't as big as you think. The bill was originally created as heathcare reform (not healthcare insurance reform). The change to focusing on insurance was for purely political/rhetorical reasons. The bill and the focus of the bill has not changed. It will effect the whole healthcare industry.
But, shag - we are talking about health care insurance - you need to understand that and not keep trying to reframe the discussion into health care. We already take care of immigrants in the health care system - like it or not. They end up in emergency rooms all the time, and unless you are willing to let them die outside the doors we will continue to take care of the health care needs of illegal immigrants.
As to the illegal immigrants, the whole issue is if they are eligible to be covered under the public plan or in any way receive medical care that is payed for by the american taxpayer. It is not simply about health insurance, as you are trying to reframe it.
Once again shag - this is not about healthcare - it is about health insurance. That is what Obama was talking about specifically when he was called a liar by Wilson - he was not talking about healthcare. Listen to the speech. That is precisely what this thread is about. You want to expand it. Obama wasn't about to say that healthcare would be denied to illegal immigrants across the board - once again, he can't say that. You can't have people dying outside health care facilities just because they can't come up with the correct 3 forms of ID that proves they are an american citizen.
most american's won't have a problem with illegals buying their own insurance privately, but they do have a problem with illegals getting emergency room care on the taxpayer's dime and have a problem with illegals being able to reap the benefits of taxes through the public option.
The first part of your quote here is exactly what I have been saying for the past umpteen posts... It is about illegals buying health insurance - and most people don't have a problem with that. And how are you going to stop them from using emergency rooms shag? They obviously do now. Are you going to put something in the bill that allows emergency rooms lock their doors to them? We will continue to pay for their care, bill or no bill.
To characterize this as simply about health insurance is deceptive. It is about much more then that.
In your mind Shag - but here we are just talking about Obama's statement about health insurance. You can expand it all you want - you can include end of life scenarios, you can include interstate options, you can include denying healthcare to dogs, you can include what ever you want, in a different thread... but this thread is about Wilson's outburst. That is all.
Apparently you are ignorant of the attitudes and views of the founders of this country. They have a borderline paranoia of government and centralized authority in general. That is why the first Constitution, the Articles Of Confederation was so weak. It is also the reason why they created the Bill or Rights and why they put an extensive system of checks and balances/separation of powers/Federalism into the Constitution. By your standard, they would have been "anarchistic".
Nope, they were proud of their fledging republic. They were proud to put faith in their fellow man. That those men, if elected, would represent their voters fairly and with honor. You don't set up a republic shag unless you believe this.
Our country is not, in any way, based on faith in government, especially at the national level.
Really shag - you have checks and balances, but you also have a republic. If you don't believe in that basic principle - that you have faith that others with do as they ought, you don't set it up as a republic - you set it up as a democracy instead.
It is why you constantly have scandals - because men breach that faith. They take bribes, they use government money unwisely, they steal, they look for personal gain. But, by setting up a republic, as the founding fathers did, you are assuming that most men will not act irresponsibly, that they will act in good faith, representing the people.
The checks and balances are across the branches of government shag-that the court will keep the congress in line, that the congress will keep the president in line... the checks and balances aren't about how an individual representative acts. What keeps them in line is the election system. If they aren't doing their job, they will be voted out (well, in an ideal world...).
I trust government and the people running it to act consistently with their nature; namely, to act in their own self-interest. Beyond that, I have very little faith in government in general.
If you have some faith in government, then do you extend that same faith towards the private sector? Toward Big Business? If not, why? It sure seems like another double standard.
I have some faith in big business - but, I also know it needs to have a system of checks and balances, just as our republic does. I also know I don't vote in corporation executives, they are not beholding to me, they are beholding to the dollar. In 2 years I won't have an opportunity to vote them out, like I can my reps. They have no public accountability, especially if they are privately held.
If I were allowed to vote in corporate executives, and I was also allowed the opportunity to vote them out-that would create an equal playing ground. Your example of comparing business to government doesn't work without that 'check'...
