TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
Synaestheasiaen Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
Synaestheasiaen's Avatar
 

Posts: 192
Join Date: June 26th 2009

Question State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 02:56 AM

Thoughts? Anything anyone wants to share? Personally, I liked his speech, but i'm just hoping that things will change and that he got the wake up call, because there's really nothing else I can do at this point. I also thought McDonnell from VA is a top class dunce. "Americans have the best health care in the world...." joke.
   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Casey. Offline
Dance with me
I can't get enough
*********
 
Casey.'s Avatar
 
Name: Casey
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Somewhere in my mind

Posts: 2,343
Blog Entries: 337
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 03:28 AM

As I don't have a TV, I've been watching pieces on CNN. I love the fact that he said he would fight to get rid of "Don't ask, Don't tell" made me so happy. Now if only he comes through with all these promises.


She whispered to her own reflection "I will be strong."

"I am not what has happened to me.I am what I have chosen to become."- Carl Jung

"If ye harm none, do as ye wish."

Sometimes things just happen.


Smile through the tears.


PM me

  Send a message via Yahoo to Casey.  
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Synaestheasiaen Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
Synaestheasiaen's Avatar
 

Posts: 192
Join Date: June 26th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 03:31 AM

I know, this is what I and i'm sure most who stand behind him and our country fear the most. I truly do believe that he needed all this bullshit to wake him up and kick his ass so he can make the changes he should've started passing the minute he got in office. To me he is a good man who just needed a little ass kicking. I'm praying he'll get back on track. But he can't do it alone of course.
   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
TakeTheLeap Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
TakeTheLeap's Avatar
 
Name: Emily
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Virginia

Posts: 1,309
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 05:43 AM

There were parts that irked me, such as talking about how one of the two parties keeps saying "No" when it comes to passing a bill. "Saying no is a good short term political strategy, but it doesn't show leadership." What? Of course they say no! If a bill goes against their views or their party's views, why would they say yes?
It seemed that he had more of an agena rather than updating us on what his plans are.

Also, I heard him mention something about having the troops out of the middle east by August. I don't see it happening, and I certainly don't see it working well if he does succeed.

I didn't get to watch the whole thing - didn't realize it was on tonight, so I only caught the last 15 minutes or so.


ďDon't get too comfortable with who you are at any given time. You may miss the opportunity to become who you want to be." ~Jon Bon Jovi

   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 07:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Emily~ View Post
There were parts that irked me, such as talking about how one of the two parties keeps saying "No" when it comes to passing a bill. "Saying no is a good short term political strategy, but it doesn't show leadership." What? Of course they say no! If a bill goes against their views or their party's views, why would they say yes?
It seemed that he had more of an agena rather than updating us on what his plans are.
Personally, I agree with him on this. The cost of "saying no" to anything that goes against your views, particularly as regards the US senate, is that little to nothing gets done. When times are good, that might be acceptable. In times of strife - which we are certainly still in now - it is not. Obama is reminding everyone that while the two parties haggle over the best way to do things, many people are still suffering. And he wasn't speaking only to republicans on that.

Having just read the whole thing, I'm suitably impressed. He's certainly every bit as charismatic as he's ever been. And though I'm hardly an expert on many of the things he discussed, his plans look good. I'm staying hopeful.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
TakeTheLeap Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
TakeTheLeap's Avatar
 
Name: Emily
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Virginia

Posts: 1,309
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 07:30 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
Personally, I agree with him on this. The cost of "saying no" to anything that goes against your views, particularly as regards the US senate, is that little to nothing gets done. When times are good, that might be acceptable. In times of strife - which we are certainly still in now - it is not. Obama is reminding everyone that while the two parties haggle over the best way to do things, many people are still suffering. And he wasn't speaking only to republicans on that.
Then again, why would they say no to something they're unhappy with? I'd rather them continue to say no with something they don't think will work than say yes to something that definitely won't work.
I don't want my government to jump the gun on anything, especially if it's going to affect the country's future. I want them to be more sure about what they're passing as law than just, "Yeah, let's try it and go with it!" It's just as difficult to amend a law as it is to pass a bill.


ďDon't get too comfortable with who you are at any given time. You may miss the opportunity to become who you want to be." ~Jon Bon Jovi

   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 07:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Emily~ View Post
Then again, why would they say no to something they're unhappy with? I'd rather them continue to say no with something they don't think will work than say yes to something that definitely won't work.
I don't want my government to jump the gun on anything, especially if it's going to affect the country's future. I want them to be more sure about what they're passing as law than just, "Yeah, let's try it and go with it!" It's just as difficult to amend a law as it is to pass a bill.
But if it "definitely wouldn't work" it wouldn't have gotten that far in the first place. Give your own government at least a little credit; they're a relatively bright bunch. Much of the haggling is over the details, and that's what bogs the system down. Obama himself concedes that there are base ideological differences between the parties that won't go away, and that's fine.

Put it this way: when concerning the short term repercussions, anything proposed by one side or the other is likely to be at least passable, if not the best way of going about something. What is guaranteed to make things worse is doing nothing at all. That was the single biggest message in Obama's address, and his election campaign too. The status quo is not working. Something, many things, need to change. What they are is open to debate, but simply letting the system idle is guaranteed to be the wrong solution. I'd rather the government gamble than not try at all.

And remember that most changes are not irreversible. If we try something new and it doesn't work, then stop doing it. Find a different solution. Trial and error isn't the cleanest way of doing things, but when the choices are try or do nothing, trying is almost always better. The idea in a bipartisan government is that each side compromises and works together, not that each side blocks all attempts at progress made by the other.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
BigBL87 Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
BigBL87's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: Illinois

Posts: 452
Join Date: April 10th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 04:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synaestheasiaen View Post
I know, this is what I and i'm sure most who stand behind him and our country fear the most. I truly do believe that he needed all this bullshit to wake him up and kick his ass so he can make the changes he should've started passing the minute he got in office. To me he is a good man who just needed a little ass kicking. I'm praying he'll get back on track. But he can't do it alone of course.
Honestly, it's not so much the fact that he hasn't been trying to get things done as it is what he wants to get done is often too liberal for the majority of Americans, and therefore Congress. All of these changes that he promises to make are contingent on things getting through Congress, so he really doesn't have the power to make many of the changes that he is promising.

Take for example the health care bill. Polls show that a majority of Americans do NOT want that bill passed as-is. The Democrats have now lost the filibuster-proof majority, and you bet that those that are coming up for reelection this year are looking over their shoulders and reconsidering their vote to make sure they get elected. It's a promise that he made that he really didn't have the power to deliver on, even moreso now.
   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
Pandamonium Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Pandamonium's Avatar
 
Name: Steph
Gender: Female
Location: US

Posts: 1,613
Blog Entries: 4
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 05:45 PM

Parts of what he said, I agreed with. It's just a matter of whether he actually goes through with what he said or not. I also thought it was huge that he wants to be done with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Other parts, blew my mind. I don't understand how he can belittle the Supreme Court and promise a troop withdrawal by 2011. He can't forsee how things go oversees, just like he never planned on having to send more troops over. I feel like he's putting false hope in people.

It definitely seemed like an agenda speech. I don't think he's hearing the people as much as he should be and he probably never will. I was not impressed by his speech, overall.
  Send a message via MSN to Pandamonium  
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
Synaestheasiaen Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
Synaestheasiaen's Avatar
 

Posts: 192
Join Date: June 26th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 09:52 PM

If you've earned the term "just say no", I believe theres something a little wrong going on there. McDonnell was defending the people who are constantly saying no and i'm just talking about the repubs but when he was saying how much he wants to help the American people I just wasn't buying that. There are many bills that can be made and passed that could help the American people in the long run and it's easy to see how many people could get the idea that they're just saying no to spite their opponents. If they don't agree with these ideas then cool, but honestly, it's not helping when nothing's getting done which is also another reason why the word "try" kept coming up in the speech.

I know Obama has been trying to get things done and i'm not trying to saying anything to judge against that, but it's been over a year that he's been in office and he had the democratic majority and could've...should've been pushing these bills through. Bush may have been an abomination of a president, but when he was in office alot of things were getting passed in a timely fashion. I think what it boils down to is that for a year Obama has just been too nice.
   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
MadPoet Offline
You're the Original <3
Outside, huh?
**********
 
MadPoet's Avatar
 
Name: Amanda.
Age: 24
Gender: Female.
Location: Michigan.

Posts: 4,685
Blog Entries: 121
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 10:37 PM

I didn't watch it, because seeing that idiot for more than 10 seconds make me want to scream. I hate what he's doing to our country (which, when you think about it, is nothing). I hate that he is spending trillions on health care before he even pulls us out of recession. I hate how he talks and acts like a communist.
I HATE him. No way am I watching that jerk speak.





A lonely soul in a land of broken hearts


   
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
Blackwing Offline
I can't get enough
*********
 
Blackwing's Avatar
 
Name: Zack
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona(Usa)

Posts: 2,830
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 11:18 PM

It will take many years to fix the economy and he is telling americans dont sweat it...???


  Send a message via AIM to Blackwing  
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
Kryptonite Offline
Hmph
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Kryptonite's Avatar
 
Name: Alex
Gender: Male

Posts: 541
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 28th 2010, 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightOfNyx View Post
I didn't watch it, because seeing that idiot for more than 10 seconds make me want to scream. I hate what he's doing to our country (which, when you think about it, is nothing). I hate that he is spending trillions on health care before he even pulls us out of recession. I hate how he talks and acts like a communist.
I HATE him. No way am I watching that jerk speak.
I'm sorry- but would you mind explaining how he talks and acts like a communist? Seriously?

And how do you hate what he is doing for our country? Are you aware that at this time, Health insurance companies can, and do deny coverage if they know you have cancer. Even without the public option, this bill will stop that.

How can you be opposed?


Alex
[Click to PM me.]


"If I go crazy then will you still
call me Superman
If Iím alive and well, will you be
There holding my hand
Iíll keep you by my side
With my superhuman might...
Kryptonite"

<3




   
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
TheNumber42 Offline
Dolan
I can't get enough
*********
 
TheNumber42's Avatar
 
Name: Cody
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 2,145
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 29th 2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by If You Only Knew View Post
I'm sorry- but would you mind explaining how he talks and acts like a communist? Seriously?

And how do you hate what he is doing for our country? Are you aware that at this time, Health insurance companies can, and do deny coverage if they know you have cancer. Even without the public option, this bill will stop that.

How can you be opposed?
You're looking at one tiny aspect of a HUGE, hundreds-of-pages-long bill and basing your whole opinion of it on that?

The problem isn't the positive aspects, which I admit the bill has, it is the fluff and the bad parts. There is not near enough good to make all the bad worth it.


~Cody

Normal User
   
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
BigBL87 Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
BigBL87's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: Illinois

Posts: 452
Join Date: April 10th 2009

January 29th 2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNumber42 View Post
You're looking at one tiny aspect of a HUGE, hundreds-of-pages-long bill and basing your whole opinion of it on that?

The problem isn't the positive aspects, which I admit the bill has, it is the fluff and the bad parts. There is not near enough good to make all the bad worth it.
QFT.

The bill has alot of good things, but having read through it myself (it's kind of sad that I have that kind of time) there are ALOT of things I really don't support at all. I'm not going to support a bill just because it has good aspects.

Now, as insensitive as this may sound, should the government really be able to force an insurance company to insure a person? By "insuring" someone with cancer, and being forced to do so, insurance companies are forced to take a person that will substantially cost them more money than they will be able to recoup (unless premiums are substantial, which I imagine they wouldn't be allowed to be). As such, I think insurance companies are within their rights to deny coverage. I don't think that medical care should be refused, but insurance is a business and the government sticking their noses in it kind of scares me.

This administration is really making me nervous, as they seem to think that every business has to stay afloat. One of the things that brings us out of recessions is when weak companies die off. The gradual government takeover of several industries, although not communist by definition, certainly shares some similarities with traditional communist ideals. Moreso socialist, but I digress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synaestheasiaen View Post
If you've earned the term "just say no", I believe theres something a little wrong going on there. McDonnell was defending the people who are constantly saying no and i'm just talking about the repubs but when he was saying how much he wants to help the American people I just wasn't buying that. There are many bills that can be made and passed that could help the American people in the long run and it's easy to see how many people could get the idea that they're just saying no to spite their opponents.
But is doing the wrong thing better than doing nothing? That is the question that has to be asked. Also, the Republican minority has been completely ignored in working on the health care bill. Bipartisanship has been preached over and over, but I have yet to see Democrats in either the Senate or House make a serious attempt at a Bipartisan bill.

Last edited by Lizzie; January 29th 2010 at 06:00 PM. Reason: Merge Double Post
   
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 29th 2010, 03:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBL87 View Post
Now, as insensitive as this may sound, should the government really be able to force an insurance company to insure a person? By "insuring" someone with cancer, and being forced to do so, insurance companies are forced to take a person that will substantially cost them more money than they will be able to recoup (unless premiums are substantial, which I imagine they wouldn't be allowed to be). As such, I think insurance companies are within their rights to deny coverage. I don't think that medical care should be refused, but insurance is a business and the government sticking their noses in it kind of scares me.
Big business revenue versus human lives? Yeah, that's a toughie alright. If the government doesn't stick their noses in, people won't get coverage. It's that simple, and it's that way right now. You have a better solution?


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
BigBL87 Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
BigBL87's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: Illinois

Posts: 452
Join Date: April 10th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 29th 2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
Big business revenue versus human lives? Yeah, that's a toughie alright. If the government doesn't stick their noses in, people won't get coverage. It's that simple, and it's that way right now. You have a better solution?
Here's what it comes down to. It is a slippery slope kind of thing, and I realize that, but it's a valid one to look at. If the government can force a business to insure someone, then they can force us (citizens) to buy things from a certain company, and only that company. Think of it this way... the government comes to you door and tells you that you have to pay Mr. X's exorbitant medical bills, even though you don't have the money to. Not all insurance companies are huge. That's taking us down the road to pseudo-communism. Now, there are ways to go about helping those in that situation without forcing companies to insure them.

Heck, I'd like the idea of a government option that by law was required to be at the median of costs in policies. As it was in the bill, the government option would eventually be the only option as the wording seemed to phase out private insurance. That was one of the things that irked me the most, that they seemed to try to "sneak" nationalized health care into the bill. Anyway, a government option that was at the median cost would provide for those people without forcing companies into situations where they would lose money. It would also allow for privatized health care.
   
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 29th 2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:
If you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
Anyone find this particular comment a little strange? I mean, one of the main things about America, is that are common values are so different. We don’t necessarily have set values like a lot of other countries because our cultures are so diverse. And which values is he speaking about? His personal values? Christian values? Only those who agree with public health care? Very strange. And then what if you don’t agree with them? Then what?




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 29th 2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBL87 View Post
Here's what it comes down to. It is a slippery slope kind of thing, and I realize that, but it's a valid one to look at. If the government can force a business to insure someone, then they can force us (citizens) to buy things from a certain company, and only that company. Think of it this way... the government comes to you door and tells you that you have to pay Mr. X's exorbitant medical bills, even though you don't have the money to. Not all insurance companies are huge. That's taking us down the road to pseudo-communism. Now, there are ways to go about helping those in that situation without forcing companies to insure them.

Heck, I'd like the idea of a government option that by law was required to be at the median of costs in policies. As it was in the bill, the government option would eventually be the only option as the wording seemed to phase out private insurance. That was one of the things that irked me the most, that they seemed to try to "sneak" nationalized health care into the bill. Anyway, a government option that was at the median cost would provide for those people without forcing companies into situations where they would lose money. It would also allow for privatized health care.
Will you please stop saying "communist" and "socialist" as if the words are inherently evil? That's a uniquely American view, and exceptionally silly. The free market, small government model works very nicely for everyone who's either affluent or lucky. For everyone else - and that's no small few - without a social safety net to catch them, they have no way to climb back up. Socialist ideas like this are in place in pretty much every other first-world country, and we're handling the "slippery slope" just fine.

As a point of interest, I think one can just as easily argue that small government is on the slippery slope to anarchy, so it should be avoided at all costs. Same logic, right? Thinking that the government is going to start forcing everyone to do X (where X is just about anything reasonable) smacks of rightist paranoia. Ideally you would have nationalized health care, and then the government wouldn't need to lean on health insurance companies; there simply would be any. But as long as America wants to hang on to its archaic private system, the government needs to intervene to ensure that everyone actually gets health care. It's plenty evident that it won't happen without the government's aid.

Lizzie: I just parsed that statement as "obey the law, and the law will protect you." Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#20 (permalink)) Old
BigBL87 Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
BigBL87's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: Illinois

Posts: 452
Join Date: April 10th 2009

Re: State of the Union Address. - January 29th 2010, 08:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
Will you please stop saying "communist" and "socialist" as if the words are inherently evil? That's a uniquely American view, and exceptionally silly. The free market, small government model works very nicely for everyone who's either affluent or lucky. For everyone else - and that's no small few - without a social safety net to catch them, they have no way to climb back up. Socialist ideas like this are in place in pretty much every other first-world country, and we're handling the "slippery slope" just fine.

As a point of interest, I think one can just as easily argue that small government is on the slippery slope to anarchy, so it should be avoided at all costs. Same logic, right? Thinking that the government is going to start forcing everyone to do X (where X is just about anything reasonable) smacks of rightist paranoia. Ideally you would have nationalized health care, and then the government wouldn't need to lean on health insurance companies; there simply would be any. But as long as America wants to hang on to its archaic private system, the government needs to intervene to ensure that everyone actually gets health care. It's plenty evident that it won't happen without the government's aid.

Lizzie: I just parsed that statement as "obey the law, and the law will protect you." Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I do not think either is inherently evil, and nowhere did I ever say they were. The fact is that a majority of Americans do not want "communist" or "socialist" oriented policy. In a perfect world, I think that having a socialist style of government would be a great thing. However, I do not think that nationalized health care is realistic in the long run with America's population and unwillingness to take a substantial increase in taxes. The problem is that humans (or honestly Americans more specifically) are too greedy for it to work in the long run. Most countries with nationalize health care have very high tax rates, and I simply don't think a majority of Americans would agree to that.

You do make a valid point about the slippery slope on the other side. That is exactly why I'm a moderate who declares Republican but doesn't exactly tote the party line on everything. It drove me nuts when my state government started cutting funding for human services like crazy, and it was "my party" trying to do it. As someone who is studying to work in the mental health field, I really do dislike the Republican (i.e. "Rightist") take on public aid. I think there is a time and a place for it, moreso than many Republicans.

One of the problems with America's welfare system as it is is that it gives those on it no incentive to try to move beyond a need for it. Having worked in a homeless shelter and worked with a substantial homeless population, I can say that for all that welfare helps it also creates people who will perpetually be on welfare who really have the means not to be. This is coming from someone whose family benefited from the American welfare system while I was growing up, so don't think I'm some rich, elitist, rightist Republican.
   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
address, state, union

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright ©1998-2019, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.