The federal government the ability to provide improved health conditions within our country, should the CDC, FDA, and most research conducted by the Department of Agriculture be shut down?
2007-10-13 18:47:57 · 11 answers · asked by avail_skillz 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
While we are at it, why not just allow everyone to purify their wn drinking water, instead of the government provided program we have now? I mean heck, bet there isn't any place in the consitution mentioning a right to clean drinking water is there?
2007-10-13 18:51:24 · update #1
RajinCajin, subsidizing access to health care provided by private companies, while getting rid of medicare, is no more socialism, than requiring auto insurance, or paying for fire safety programs.
2007-10-13 18:53:30 · update #2
G-Man, could you provide details of the socialized system? A portable health insurance that is subsidized and provided by private health insurers, is no way socialized medicine.
2007-10-13 18:55:27 · update #3
since the American people decided we didn't like widespread tuburculosis, botulism, listeria, and a slew of other horrible diseases, Ethan M!
2007-10-13 18:57:12 · update #4
Jay, it would be easier if those places just used Rat meat, like they do in China. And they very well could if the government didn't regulate them. They did it before.
2007-10-13 18:58:48 · update #5
RajinCajin, obviously you do nothing but listen to right-wing blow-hards say subsidizing healthcare based on income, is socialized medicine.
Hillary is beside the point, maybe you should take a look at some of my other answers to see how I view her. Many of the programs being suggested are portable and allow people to shop around for the best deal, along with give tax incentives for employers to offer better group insurnace programs. I suggest you read some of them. try this one for example, which is similar to most proposals.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf
2007-10-13 19:08:01 · update #6
Thank you for being sane.
Why neocons view the plan as socialist, or communist even, we will never know, because when you ask them for links or proof, they can't provide them, they just start ranting.
2007-10-13 19:13:16 · answer #1 · answered by Petrushka's Ghost 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I always find it interesting when people insist the government should be reduced until something disasterous happens (ie, hurricane katrina). The fact is yes, the founders wanted the states to have more control than the federal government, but the current constitution was drafted because the articles of confederation gave the states so much power and the federal government no way to raise revenue, that it rendered the federal government useless.
Under our constitution, the federal government does have the ability to regulate things, and the congress has delegated some of its legislative authority to these existing agencies. I don't think said agencies should be shut down because some research isn't profitable for private companies, and we need the cdc, nih, etc to be prepared if there is an outbreak of the avian flu (for example).
People complain about the size of government, and Bush answered by drastically cutting the budgets for many agencies, including the USDA, CDC, EPA and FEMA. I know some people think this is a good thing, but it just results in the government being less prepared to help us when something serious happens because they just don't have the staffing.
Socialism isn't the worst idea in the world as long as it is implemented properly and the money is being used for what it needs to be used for. But I do think states have a better hold on the management of health care in their state than the federal government, as long as their budgets can handle it. But you need the feds for matters that impact the entire country.
2007-10-13 19:12:00 · answer #2 · answered by Lesley 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure. While were at it lets ditch the whole USDA. I've got a great immune system and I hunt for my own meat anyway. How 'bout you! I think it would be great if Taco Bell could put goat meat into tacos and Mc D's could go to making kangaroo burgers. Let's cut government futher and take the money we save off the tax bill!
They can use vulture meat and grasshoppers, lamprey infested fishsticks if they like I don't care. I'll put it to you in terms you can understand. I aint voting Dem in the next election and you can't make me! Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!
By the way since Canada won't take Americans who want to defect just because the Dems don't win an election perhaps they'll be prepared to go to the other place.
2007-10-13 18:54:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The constitution does provide ways to improve health care in our country but why does the left feel that resorting to socialism is the only way to improve the system?
Close minded?
Also this is not something that just neo-cons think.
Ive read about the rich history of the US and have they fought to remove government control from our lives and now you want to bring it back?
EDIT: So instead of working to reduce the cost your still willing to just spread it around? If your going to make others pay for this system then why not give them the best deal for their money? I also understand your reluctance to call Hillary care socialism but the sad fact is you are creating a government program that benefits the poor while increasing government control. So yes it is socialism but a watered down version!
And you and I both know Hillary Care is just a stepping stone to a full fledged socialist program!!
2007-10-13 18:50:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I don't believe that. The federal government has every right to improve the health care system that is part of providing for the "General Welfare" of its citizens. What is up for debate is whether socializing the system would be a improvement and in my opinion it wouldn't.
2007-10-13 18:51:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
i'm sorry that you've been noted for violating the TOS in this way. It would not look straightforward, because the be conscious scoffer is in no way offensive to me. call me a scoffer all you opt for, that is what i'm. As for a be conscious that in basic terms isn't found offensive by technique of everybody, i information 'atheist', see you later as you spell it wisely. We atheists are frequently very picky about spelling.
2016-10-21 03:21:15 · answer #6 · answered by jepsen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Especially with the recent recalls of food products.
2007-10-13 18:51:31 · answer #7 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In a word, yes. Since when is the federal government responsible for medical research and making rules for restaurants?
2007-10-13 18:52:28 · answer #8 · answered by Ethan M 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Improved health care or free health care?
Socialized Health care would lead to Doctors on a even salary, meaning the requirements to become one would go down, as would the want from the general population. Meaning we would have to lower the qualifications to become a doctor, ultimately lowering the standard we keep today of being a doctor.
2007-10-13 18:50:55 · answer #9 · answered by Sam 4 · 3⤊ 5⤋
That is a far fetch.... my goodness, we really just do not want any further expansion of government.
2007-10-13 18:50:47 · answer #10 · answered by Dina W 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋