Independent,Republican,or Democrat!?

Since a perfect world does not exist, communism does not work, and never will. It only works on paper. They are fair in theory, but not in actuality. I lived in the UK for a fair amount of my life, and now reside in the US. I have experienced multiple different governments (because I have also done some traveling). Among the worst put-together nations are those who are Communist, because it cannot work when humans are in any way involved. Base your opinions off of experience; do not simply spout what others think. Switzerland works as a socialist state because it is small, and does not have much diversity. It is easy to unite everyone there into one mindset and one way. I have no problem with either governmental form in concept, I just do not think that either can be presented as viable options, and have done much research on both. Know what you're talking about before you talk about it. No offense, I know I can come off as harsh.

Communism, ChosenOne, does not work so long as HUMANS are involved, no matter in what quantity. The only situation where it might be a possibility would be within a small sect of those who opted to take part in such a society. However, over time (or over generations) mindsets will change, and the government will fail. Look at China.

Since a perfect world doesn't exist, then i will create a perfect world. I'm not crazy

Nationalized health care is a ticket to bankruptcy for our economy, especially the way they want to pay for it... Not only that, but the current bills force citizens to purchase health insurance.

Tell me where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the jurisdiction to force someone to purchase a good or service for being a citizen? Also show me in the Constitution where it gives the Federal government jurisdiction to provide this health care on its own.

And no, I don't support Medicare. They should stop Medicare, cut it off for people younger than 30 right now. Medicare and Social Security are the biggest ponzi schemes ever. They are broke and will fail since the birth rate has slowed after the baby boom period...

Said By Messiah

I guess if I had to choose I would say I cannot fall into any of these political parties because I do not support a Republic-Democracy. If anything I support a Communist or Socialist government

I with you on this.

Sakamae ... read the rest of the thread.

Aron, I truly don't wish to debate you on this, but only because you're one of the few people I respect on this forum. However, I will say that national healthcare, when gone about in the right way, is a great system. It's beyond me, as someone originally from the United Kingdom (which, in case I need to draw it out for you, HAS national healthcare), that the "richest" and most powerful nation in the world does not have it.

In any case, I don't understand why someone would ... not want the government to supply the healthcare. The way this country goes about taking care of citizens' health is horrible, and needs much revision. I think, at the very least, each citizen 18 years and below should be supplied it.

As for my opinions on Social Security, let me give you a bit of my own background:
My family (my Mother, Father, and Brother) all resided in the United Kingdom, as previously stated. My father had lived there on an extended stay, and was a legal citizen of the United States. I won't go into specifics, but my Father, Mother, and Brother ended up living in the United States and I in the UK. My father later passed away (I was two, my brother six), and my Mother elected to stay in the United States with the rest of our family. The Social Security checks she received each month helped her to feed, clothe, and house not only herself, but her son (and I when I visited). No, I do not think that the system is perfect, but it does have its uses. You cannot deny that.

Ok i will then.

politics is pretty stupid right now.
dem's control the government and we still cant get anything done!!!

Agreed.

The nation is simply in the middle of a pretty controversial crisis, and compromise is still in order. Each opinion has about the same (small) amount of hard evidence; the most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.

That is so true.

The two-party system is absolutely useless. At the moment you appear (I don't follow US politics closely) to have the problem that the members of the so-called "Democratic" party think for themselves (good, in any parliament), but the members of the so-called "Republican" party agree to disagree with Obama (typical party politics) I think the five-party system in Germany is a lot better, but still, not perfect, since the government can almost always count on getting all the votes from their parties' MPs.

As for myself, I'm not a member of any party. I sympathise most with the Greens and the Left Party.

Healthcare: Yes, I am from and live in Europe, and I just mentioned a couple of relatively socialist parties, so naturally, in a cliché of an American mindset I can't be trusted, but seriously, guys, any law-abiding, legal resident of a rich post-industrial country such as the US not having access to healthcare is a disgrace. Even if they're poor.

The argument about the US not giving healthcare to the poor is such a false thing.

ANYONE can walk into an emergency room and they MUST be treated REGARDLESS of if they can pay or not. Don't bring up stories that we don't treat people that can't pay since it isn't true.

What about ... cancer patients? Yes, they must initially be treated in the emergency room, but will they continue to be treated?

[Well, yeah, I'm not an expert.]

Okay, say they get treated. Fair enough. Still, then, they still have to pay, which is enormously expensive. So people end up paying gigantic sums for something they have absolutely no control over, which can ruin their lives. Talk about justice. Either way, IMHO, a disgrace.

Probably not if they cannot afford the treatment.

Explain how the UK system treats cancer patients...

You're not understanding my argument. I'm in favor of having universal health care for all individuals... I DO NOT support having government run health care. We are a federation of states... States should have the power of the federal government (says in the Constitution for most things). It seems that the Feds like the current "grab all power from States and people" that is the trend today. My point is merely Constitutional and freedom based. If you give more power to the government, you have less freedom.

People live and die and life moves on. It is a fact of life that everyone will eventually die. Some may be able to postpone it for a longer amount of time, but in the end... All of it ends the same way.

By the way, what incentive is there for drug companies to make new drugs if people aren't paying premiums to survive? Also, you can just "tax the rich" and everything will be alright. There comes a point where you bring in less money due to overtaxing than if you lower the tax rate so people can make more wealth for themselves. This is especially true to business.

They don't have to pay. There are many ways that people don't pay for healthcare treatment they get (which is one reason it is more and more expensive).

If you're poor and get treatment, you aren't going to pay. Bankruptcy protection still shields individuals from medical payments plus there are many non profits that will provide payments for treatments.

I've donated a bunch of money this year to charities. The government doesn't need to force me to do that. Let people do what they can do and stay out of our lives. Hopefully the money or things I've donated help people, but the decision was mine and mine alone.

[Edit: Grammar]

What do you mean explain? They get treated. That's that. There are few complications to the patient other than the cancer itself. I've never been or known a cancer patient, so I can provide you with no specifics.

I fully understand your fear of the government having more power, but I feel that the government will hardly be able to trample upon our "liberties" by guaranteeing care for our sick and dying. At the very least, the government needs to impose laws upon the current health insurance companies restricting them from denying certain people care for dumb reasons. My half brother had a brain injury before he got on his current healthcare, and so this current one will not cover anything they "suspect is related to his brain." What is the point of health care if they will only treat CERTAIN health problems?

The Constitution is frequently being amended; there are many imperfections. I would not stand so devotedly by something like that. Sometimes one must sacrifice certain freedoms to ensure the protection of others.

You do realize, though, that drug companies will continue to sell their drugs. Government-run healthcare will not likely impose upon the barter system.

And, "tax the rich"? You sound like one of those "teabaggers."

I'm done arguing this point as those "teabaggers" (as you put it) and the Constitution are meaningful to me. Whatever you say has no weight or bearing with my philosophy especially when you say that "Sometimes one must sacrifice certain freedoms to ensure the protection of others." No, I don't need to sacrifice any of my freedoms for anyone else. Freedom doesn't work that way.

I hate to sound like Sakamae (posting the bare minimum for it to be hardly considered a post) but someone mentioned "compromise" well the only thing I have to say is:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3613/3355692361_06f17e3dd7_m.jpg

You misunderstand my meaning, then. The "teabaggers" thing wasn't meant as an insult -- voice inflection would have told you that. Alas, that does not exist in the e-world. Do you understand to what I was referring? I wasn't sure if that was a made up term or not.

And, again, you misunderstand my statement. One must sacrifice some freedoms to ensure the protection of other FREEDOMS. That's a rule of the world. If you would like to deny that ... go for it. That's how freedom works.