SiCKo by Micheal Moore

[Guard Dog]

The states run our school system too, and the federal has certain requirements that we have to meet for our education to keep getting the schools funded. I would be fine with it, it can work just fine. Why can't that be called universal health care? There obviously would be a general consensus on how it should be ran (if it came to be at all.)

 

Does it really take a war (like ww2) to recognize we are all in this together, so we should work together?

Except the Federal Government does not fund the schools. The individual states do. None of your Federal Income Tax goes to education. A good chunk of you State Income/Property/Sales Tax does. The US department of Education does set minimum standards for what must be taught in each grade level, what standardized testing to use, etc. This is so that if a high school student were to move from one state to another their education level would be commesurate with their new classmates. The Federal Government is allowed to do this (obliquely) in the Constitution under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Article IV Section I). As a side note, that same clause is what will eventually get Gay Marriage legalized throughout the Country I think.

 

@Calax that kind of Constitutional sabre rattling does go on now (as Taks pointed out) and it is a de jure violation of the framers intent.

 

Something else for you guys to consider. Suppose tomorrow Uncle Sam did roll out a national health policy that literally does what Hillary Care would have. That is seize (for State/Public owned) or buy (for privately owned) and nationalize hospitals and medical practices, make their employees into Federal employees. First off the full cost of everything must be borne by the taxpayer. That means to cost of the actual acquisition. Then new contracts with drug companies/medical supply companies/ etc will need to be negotiated. Then the is the actual cost of creating a new bueracracy to manage it all, the Unions of those Unionized medical employees will sue, the owners of practices who will not sell will sue, the insurance companies will sue, there will be hundreds of constitutional challanges all over the country that will end up in court. Until ALL of that crap is settles the Federal Government will be unable to provide even a band aid to anyone but whatever new taxes are needed to fund it all will still need to be paid. And on top of that you have the same health system you do now until it's settled. There will be at least one election cycle before all of that is settled and who ever is in power will be thrown out and if the new administration had a brain thay would pull the plug on the whole thing. That is a grim but realistic scenario. Sound like something you want?

[WITHTEETH]

uhhh.... Yeah some of the federal money does go to school. Look at stupid programs like No Child Left Behind, who funds that?

 

EDIT: btw i do how know schools work generally and I know these programs the feds made are not required by the schools, but the schools get so little money they have little choice.

Edited June 30, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[WITHTEETH]

Something else for you guys to consider. Suppose tomorrow Uncle Sam did roll out a national health policy that literally does what Hillary Care would have. That is seize (for State/Public owned) or buy (for privately owned) and nationalize hospitals and medical practices, make their employees into Federal employees. First off the full cost of everything must be borne by the taxpayer. That means to cost of the actual acquisition. Then new contracts with drug companies/medical supply companies/ etc will need to be negotiated. Then the is the actual cost of creating a new bueracracy to manage it all, the Unions of those Unionized medical employees will sue, the owners of practices who will not sell will sue, the insurance companies will sue, there will be hundreds of constitutional challanges all over the country that will end up in court. Until ALL of that crap is settles the Federal Government will be unable to provide even a band aid to anyone but whatever new taxes are needed to fund it all will still need to be paid. And on top of that you have the same health system you do now until it's settled. There will be at least one election cycle before all of that is settled and who ever is in power will be thrown out and if the new administration had a brain thay would pull the plug on the whole thing. That is a grim but realistic scenario. Sound like something you want?

maybe its more pessimistic? Its possible to do a smooth transition, no matter what their will be criticism, just look at our educational system. Partlly the reason why its doing so bad is the criticism alone, and people taking their kids out forgetting the reason why there is one in the first place.

btw: I can't believe brown Vs The board of Education was overturned...

Edited June 30, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[WITHTEETH]

I think it would have to be set up something similar to what UK has, where the countries (states in the US) had their own version, but they all treat UK (US) citizens equally.

[Sand]

How could you ever leave Iowa behind.

Easily.

[Walsingham]

How could you ever leave Iowa behind.

Easily.

 

What Sand doesn't know is that while he was answering this question I tied his shoelaces to Iowa, thus ensuring it is far from easy to leave behind.

[Sand]

But... But.. I am not wearing any shoes!

[Walsingham]

You seriously need to trim your foot hair.

[Guard Dog]

You seriously need to trim your foot hair.

EEEWWWWW

 

Anyway, I've said all I can say on this subject. Teeth, Taks, Tale, Sand, Wals, Gorgon, and all the rest, it was an enjoyable debate as always.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Guard Dog

[WITHTEETH]

You seriously need to trim your foot hair.

EEEWWWWW

 

Anyway, I've said all I can say on this subject. Teeth, Taks, Tale, Sand, Wals, Gorgon, and all the rest, it was an enjoyable debate as always.

Same you too Guard Dog, thanks for your inside viewpoint on the gov.

[Sand]

As I said before, its not who wins or loses the argument that matters, it is the argument itself.

[Walsingham]

As I said before, its not who wins or loses the argument that matters, it is the argument itself.

Says the man upside down in the debating goal mouth, with logic bruises all up his shins...

 

Shall I gracefully close this one, then?

[Calax]

meh... personally I don't think that the 10th amendment is very much in effect (as the feds have made more laws, and injunctions against things than the constitution would seem to provide) but sense the only people who put up competent opposition (not to me... I honestly SUCK at debating) have left and all we're left with is a sideshow, I'd say yes.

[Pop]

Lock it before Ron Paul comes up.

[Walsingham]

Very well, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to draw this to a close. Requests to re-open are welcome by pm.