When the national anthem was chosen, that would not have been an issue.

 

Are you that sure? The Star-Spangled Banner rather conspicuously does not couch it's message in religious terms.

 

"The Star-Spangled Banner" was recognized for official use by the Navy in 1889 and the President in 1916, and was made the national anthem by a congressional resolution on March 3, 1931.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner

In 1931 there was little concern for the separation of church and state.

 

Maybe not, but the intent of the founding fathers was as clear then as it is now. Most of the attempts to break down such barriers date from the 1950s, in response to the perceived red menace.

 

From the beginning of the American republic to the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962 public schools routinely began with prayer and Bible reading. During most of the nineteenth century, and well into the twentieth public schools taught reading using McGuffey Readers. These were explicitly Christian.

"The Battle Hymn of the Republic" was almost certainly considered as America's national anthem, although I cannot find mention of that on the Internet. It was probably rejected because the Civil War was still a living memory for many in the South. I doubt the Christianity of the song was an issue in 1931.

 

I'll apologize in advance for not reading the entire topic or even replying to anybody specific.
I'm surprised that there is so much support for health care bill that just got passed in the house. I'm a supporter of single payer health care. This bill is simply a payoff to the insurance companies since it requires a person to get health care or face a fine. The government plan will probably have restrictions on eligibility, which means most people still probably won't be covered. If there ends up being no eligibility requirements, then no doubt an insurance company will come up with a 'basic' plan that covers nothing so that people will be able to avoid the fine. Whoever marketed this bill is brilliant. Part of the country thinks it's some sort of victory against the insurance companies, and the other half thinks that it's going to hurt them.

That being said, I highly doubt this bill is going to pass anyway. I think it's more of a stepping stone to single payer, but that's still a long way off.

 

Ted Kennedy will rise from his grave if this bill passes.

 

I don't think the reference to God would have been an issue at the time either. Except, I think the tune may have been only used and new words added as was done with our current anthem that uses the melody of a beer drinking somg with Francis' Scott's lyrics. The melody and cadence of the Battle Hymn of the Republic is easily better by an order of magnitude.

Yes, I think the song probably wasn't used because it was a Civil War song.
At least we still have this historic song and it was not forgotten about.

It could be a national healthcare song too.

Somthing like "We will trample out the profits of insurance companies... in tribute to Ted Kennedy..."

 

WOW!

I'm stunned at how easy it is for folks on this thread to get dragged off topic by straw men and false arguments.

Has anyone read the bill?

 

No...but does that mean we should NEVER discuss a bill being considered by Congress that we haven't personally read? It's almost never possible to do that. Sometimes THEY haven't read it either, and neither have the critics of the bill. That hasn't stopped them from opposing a figment of their imagination.

 

I noticed something a bit interesting.

Someone - a couple of people - have mentioned that the Bill proposes to fine people if they don't get health insurance.

Is this true? If so, why is this not creating outrage? Not only that, but I was under the impression that the goal of the healthcare reform was to abolish the insurance companies and have a government-funded healthcare system like the NHS?

Am I off the map?

 

The bill contains a mandate that people obtain health insurance, and there are fines for not doing so. The reason for that, in theory, is that if you allow younger, healthy people to opt out, the people who are left impose a heavy cost burden on the health care system. The only way your health care system works in the UK is that ALL taxpayers support it, including those who aren't sick.

The trouble is, the bill that's likely to emerge in the U.S. does NOT provide universal coverage, and as long as that's true, the individual mandate is suspect. The Congress has backed way off of what people like me would like to see.

 

Uh... okay. So the fines for not obtaining health insurance are designed to even out the burden between everybody.

So... now you have everyone paying for health insurance. How does this work for people in low paying jobs who cannot afford it? Is the amount they pay based on a sliding scale proportional to their income, or do they simple get landed a flat fee?

Also, if everyone is now paying for the insurance, why can that not simple be taken from the paycheck as tax, and used to fund a national healthcare system?

Apologies for idiocy; I feel like I'm floundering in deep water here, and that there must be something that I'm failing to grasp.

 

I favor a single payer plan too. The problem is that Barack Obama did not win by a landslide, the Democrats do not have large majorities in both houses of Congress, and the government has nor regained the prestige it had when Social Security and Medicare were instituted.

My hope is that what is is passed will be effective, and that it will be flexible enough to change to a single payer plan in the future. The Republicans, hope for the opposite. They want things to get worse now, so that later on they will be able to make things better for the rich.

 

No, the problem is that the Republicans yell louder and the Democrats are a bunch of wusses. The Dems have essentially a 60% majority. The Reps didn't even have that much of a lead, yet they passed everything they wanted, which is due the lack of Dem solidarity. Obama won 53%/46%, roughly 9 million votes, and over double Mccain's electoral votes. He won by a lot, unless you try to be specious and use the percentages. The simple problem is that the media pays attention to those that yell louder and make the most show. It has been said that only 20% of the population now identifies as Republican. It should make you wonder why this 20% is ruling the other 80% of Dems, Indys, and 3rdies.

I figured this would happen from the start. Some sort of terrible bill will end up passing, it will fail miserably, and the Reps will stand back and say "we told you so". They're going to dillute the bill so much that it's going to be an inevitable failure, much like this current bill will be.

From memory, it's a flat tax. I could be wrong, though. Either way, it becomes which is less expensive: the fine, or health insurance.

As for why that can't be done, it's socialism, dontcha know?!?!?! In all seriousness, however, it's not going to be 'everyone' paying into the "public" option. That is what should happen, but the insurance companies have a lot of money.

This is why it is simply a payoff to the insurance companies.

 

No, no, you're absolutely right. The problem is that government in the United States is like making sausage -- it ain't pretty. So logic doesn't apply, and what's important is getting the necessary votes to pass a bill. That has proven to be very difficult, even with the Democrats' large majority in both houses of Congress. Our founding fathers, for all their wisdom, did not design the system to make it easy to get things done. When you add in the undue influence of big money, you get results that are sometimes difficult to understand.

 

Im one to listen to both sides, however, this video is set up questions and answers. The guy asking the questions rarely looks down to read a question and the responder takes less than a sec to start answering. I call bs.

All i know are numbers and fact.

85% of america has health insurance.
15% does not.

Why force 85% of america to pay for something they dont need. Its a completely socialist idea, and frankly scares the hell out of me. What you will see is, if this passes, a decline in overall healthcare in america. You will see the private sector fall flat, which will cause job cuts. You will see a government take over of all health insurance. Then you will see hospitals and doctors raising their prices sky high because everyone will then be insured and the government will be left with the bill... sorry, americans will be left with the bill owed to china.

The premble to the constitution states,

Notice it says "Promote the general Welfare" no where will it say provide. The US Governement was established to be small. Anyone who has taken entry level American History classes in college would greatly understand how hard the writers of the constittion fought to keep government small.

 

First i would like to state, though America does practice seperation from church and state, the countries foundation is that built on the practices of Christianity. This is what makes america great for all religions for christianity preaches religious tolorance and unity amoung differance. Though it is up to the individual to practice what is preached.

 

universal health care is great! im sure everyone here in Canada would agree with me

 

This, from where I'm sitting in the UK, is nonsense.

One: the 85% will, at some point, absolutely need the healthcare. Why not advocate a system whereby you can be treated - for free - for all conditions, not just the ones that the insurance companies are willing to insure you on because they don't think you'll get them?

The standard of care need not go down. Having had serious emergency services in the most northerly hospital in the Highlands of Scotland, I think I'm qualified to say that nationalised healthcare does not mean poor service. Not only that, but I still have the option to be treated privately if I have the inclination - and the money.

Hospitals and doctors would not be able to 'raise the bill' if the Government took a firm stance and nationalised the entire system, making it entirely government funded, using money taken in taxes from the workers. Again, this works in Britain.

The private sector will not 'fall flat'. It sure didn't in Britain. Harley Street in London is perhaps the most profitable place to work in private business in the UK, and the people that work there and visit there are not poor. At all.

And a momentary address to what you said here:

...unless you're a Muslim, of course.