Obama Care summerised

[Cabin4]

Cabin:

You are wrong. Read the house bill. The bill is strategically designed to kill the private insurance option. Proof, that this president and his cronies want a government run single payer system despite all thier lies to the American people.

This bill is nothng about health care, its about control and socialisam.
 
« Last Edit: Today at 10:01:56 AM by Cabin4 »   
 

Sure, I'll be happy to read the part that concerns you and how they want to kill the goose that layed the golden egg....just give us the page numbers.

"This bill is nothng about health care, its about control and socialisam."

Sounds a little like paranoia...as I said why do they want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? The life blood of these politicians is 'contributions' and playing the game perpetually...not game over because this  s not how you make money (unless of course, the elite are so concentrated nowadays that the next step is gov sponsored monopoly, another term for socialism. . You need to study the bipartisan 'gang of six' and Obama's HC advisors's words...who happens to be Dr.Eziekel Emmanual, MD; and who happens to be Rom Emmanual's brother.  Then see who's blood sucking beak is in this mess..(goldman -sachs?)  Would have been so easy to do this right, too. Its ashame.

...TM7
 

http://www.jasonhayes.org/?p=3478

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/18/video-dem-wants-to-eliminate-private-health-insurance-altogether/


Yes TM7, I'm paranoid that the governemnt will do exactly what it has done with every other major entitement. They will lower the quaility, increase the costs and our taxes while dishing out services to those who contribute nothing to society or our taxes.

Why don't you just admit it like I'm willing to admit the under pinnings of my opposition to this POS bill. You are in favor of ANY government take over of everything. I'm in favor of the opposite. You never declare your ideology. You pretend to be open minded here as a "cover" for your real ideology. Admit it, you would be in favor of government take over of all housing and land ownership. You would would come up with some perverted analysis that Americans would be better off if no one was allowed to own a house or land.

[powderman]

Sounds a little like paranoia

That's freakin hilarious, coming from the guy that thinks George Bush blew up the WTC.  Thanks tm, I needed a good laugh today.   

CASULL. You didn't know that about president Bush?? He and a hand picked group of experimental invisible Israeli commandos pulled it off, remote  control planes. POWDERMAN. 

[Cabin4]

Cabin:

You are wrong. Read the house bill. The bill is strategically designed to kill the private insurance option. Proof, that this president and his cronies want a government run single payer system despite all thier lies to the American people.

This bill is nothng about health care, its about control and socialisam.
 
« Last Edit: Today at 10:01:56 AM by Cabin4 »   
 

Sure, I'll be happy to read the part that concerns you and how they want to kill the goose that layed the golden egg....just give us the page numbers.

"This bill is nothng about health care, its about control and socialisam."

Sounds a little like paranoia...as I said why do they want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? The life blood of these politicians is 'contributions' and playing the game perpetually...not game over because this  s not how you make money (unless of course, the elite are so concentrated nowadays that the next step is gov sponsored monopoly, another term for socialism. . You need to study the bipartisan 'gang of six' and Obama's HC advisors's words...who happens to be Dr.Eziekel Emmanual, MD; and who happens to be Rom Emmanual's brother.  Then see who's blood sucking beak is in this mess..(goldman -sachs?)  Would have been so easy to do this right, too. Its ashame.

...TM7
 

http://www.jasonhayes.org/?p=3478

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/18/video-dem-wants-to-eliminate-private-health-insurance-altogether/


Yes TM7, I'm paranoid that the governemnt will do exactly what it has done with every other major entitement. They will lower the quaility, increase the costs and our taxes while dishing out services to those who contribute nothing to  ;)society or our taxes.

Why don't you just admit it like I'm willing to admit the under pinnings of my opposition to this POS bill. You are in favor of ANY government take over of everything. I'm in favor of the opposite. You never declare your ideology. You pretend to be open minded here as a "cover" for your real ideology. Admit it, you would be in favor of government take over of all housing and land ownership. You would would come up with some perverted analysis that Americans would be better off if no one was allowed to own a house or land.

.Back to Weiner....if a rep from the government came to your town and said we are going to lower your HC insurance bill by 30%, by offering a government universal plan that would eliminate all the overhead/profit of intermediaries like insurance companies, and we don't care what you call it...socialisitc, communistic, anti-capitalistic,,,but we are going to lower your personal HC costs by 1/3 and at the same time allow you to go coast to coast anywhere and get quality HC, without any hazzles or paperwork...do you think most Americans wwould go for it...? Eg. if your bill dropped from $15K to $10K.

...TM7

I would call that representative a bold face liar. There is no way, that any plan (private or government run) can add 47 million people to the system and not do one or both of the following:

1.Raise taxes
2.Lower the quality/rationing

It’s not possible and even the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) states the plan will cost tax payers billions more and it will add to the deficit. Look at Canada. They just announced last week, they cannot afford the system and there are procedures, tests and surgeries that are going to be dis-allowed in order to cut costs.

This bill is nothing about providing health coverage. It’s all about socialization and government control for political power grabbing by the democrat party. Entitlement systems are a Democrat party stronghold. They know they are always willing to outspend the republicans. When the weak American population become dependent on the government system, they will demand improvements. Those improvements will costs money and since democrats have proven they could care less about fiscal controls, they will always be willing to promise to spend more money to fix the problem. It’s a long term win-win for the liberals. It goes direct to their strategy of redistribution of wealth. And since we have a growing under class in this country dependant on others and the government, its perfect.

[Casull]

Casull...point is if we have the best pay around and the best geewhiz technologies, so why don't we have a better docotr-patient ratio like the Euros, and less malpractice suits..so tort business would be minimal.?

Tm, first of all, you should use the proper terminology.  It is a "lower" doctor-patient ratio, not necessarily a "better" ratio (that is a subjective opinion).  Secondly, I'd put my money on the Euros having less malpractice suits on their loser pays system (at least I know that's what England has).  In this country, there is no incentive to not bring worthless suits since the PI attorneys know that settlements are often cheaper than defending BS lawsuits.  In England (and I'm guessing much of Europe) if you sue and lose, you pay the other guy's attorney fees (which seems fair).  You might want to check that out.

[Cabin4]

Casull...point is if we have the best pay around and the best geewhiz technologies, so why don't we have a better docotr-patient ratio like the Euros, and less malpractice suits..so tort business would be minimal.?

Tm, first of all, you should use the proper terminology.  It is a "lower" doctor-patient ratio, not necessarily a "better" ratio (that is a subjective opinion).  Secondly, I'd put my money on the Euros having less malpractice suits on their loser pays system (at least I know that's what England has).  In this country, there is no incentive to not bring worthless suits since the PI attorneys know that settlements are often cheaper than defending BS lawsuits.  In England (and I'm guessing much of Europe) if you sue and lose, you pay the other guy's attorney fees (which seems fair).  You might want to check that out.

.
No. I'd say better ratio when you have more doctors per 1000 patients and if they come from European medical schools all the better, especially when stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes, and more people have HC coverage and more are happy with their coverage; and coupled with the fact that their cost are about 9-10% of their GDP compared to our 16% GDP. Yeah,,,I'd say better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cabin,,,if your costs for HC is 15K per year currently and a single payer program would cost you 5k but your taxes go up 5k, what is the net savings to your pocketbook..? I'd say you could call this the commie Lenin system of HC or whatever, but most middle and poor Americans would go for it everytime....is this the real fear of the private corps...that would now have to compete, get lean, party over, arrivaderchi.? YES. The intermediaries that are robbing Americans blind and causing a paper chase fiasco for doctors would be brought under control. Quality control which is epidemicaly poor in the USA, would function under a malfeseance legal system of recourse, as it should....and amend it if you like for all I care; and keep a special private class HC insurance for the elite for all I care. I always considered HC costs a form of a tax anyway.


BTW.... on tangent, do you think there should be a revolution in this country..?

...TM7

I will agree that you will pay less, but I will pay more to subsidize you so your rate can go down. I will also pay more to cover those who pay nothing.

I'm in a great plan now and have been for over 30 years at variuos employers.You should pay your share and not feel that I have have to pay more so you can pay less. If this is your logic, then the government should run everything so we can be assured of demanded equality in everything even if we deserve nothing.

I would like there to be a revolution in this country.Those of us who want our constitution and founding principals preserved should start it. Real conservatives are right and the Liberals are wrong and thats all there is too it. The constitution is proof, that this is 100% correct.

[Casull]

if they come from European medical schools all the better

BS!!!!! 

stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes

You think just maybe, that has something to do with diet, lifestyle, or something else other than the number of doctors?  And BTW, if they have better outcomes, then why do people come here for the latest and best treatment?

Yeah,,,I'd say better.

Big surprise there.   

[DDZ]

I would think for certain that if the european countries had better medical care, and better doctors that Ted Kennedy would have been over there getting treatment for his cancer, not here.

[nomosendero]

I would think for certain that if the european countries had better medical care, and better doctors that Ted Kennedy would have been over there getting treatment for his cancer, not here.

Correct!!

[billy_56081]

What an utter pile of BS. Europeans have better healthcare. If so why do the wealthiest people in the world come to Rochester MN to the Mayo clinic?


Why in the heck do you have to lie? Is your position that weak or are you just that morally corupt?

[nomosendero]

if they come from European medical schools all the better

BS!!!!! 

stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes

You think just maybe, that has something to do with diet, lifestyle, or something else other than the number of doctors?  And BTW, if they have better outcomes, then why do people come here for the latest and best treatment?

Yeah,,,I'd say better.

Big surprise there.   

If you take the part of our population that is from the same part of Europe & then compare numbers, our stats. get a whole lot better, esp. in items like child/infant mortality. We have diff. groups of folks with different lifestyles & with choices, many make the wrong lifestyle choices which have nothing do do with comparing European & American Healthcare. Changes the whole picture. You can do this with other ethnic groups & compare with their Motherland, changes things doesn't it?

[Casull]

If you take the part of our population that is from the same part of Europe & then compare numbers, our stats. get a whole lot better, esp. in items like child/infant mortality. We have diff. groups of folks with different lifestyles & with choices, many make the wrong lifestyle choices which have nothing do do with comparing European & American Healthcare. Changes the whole picture. You can do this with other ethnic groups & compare with their Motherland, changes things doesn't it?

Excellent point.

[Cabin4]

What an utter pile of BS. Europeans have better healthcare. If so why do the wealthiest people in the world come to Rochester MN to the Mayo clinic?


Why in the heck do you have to lie? Is your position that weak or are you just that morally corupt?

People who have money don't count in the Liberal mathematical process. So, that means that most Americans don't count when they come up with all these plans to overhaul the health care system. The overhaul of the system is all designed to turn health care into a human right. Which means, the only objective is to give it to those who don't have it, even it means we go bankrupt.

There are 300 million Americans in this country. Only about 23 million don’t have coverage. The plan is all designed to cover these 23 million plus the 20 or so million illegal’s. Again, how this negatively impacts the 254 million is irrelevant to the Liberals.

[scootrd]

Casull...point is if we have the best pay around and the best geewhiz technologies, so why don't we have a better docotr-patient ratio like the Euros, and less malpractice suits..so tort business would be minimal.?

Tm, first of all, you should use the proper terminology.  It is a "lower" doctor-patient ratio, not necessarily a "better" ratio (that is a subjective opinion).  Secondly, I'd put my money on the Euros having less malpractice suits on their loser pays system (at least I know that's what England has).  In this country, there is no incentive to not bring worthless suits since the PI attorneys know that settlements are often cheaper than defending BS lawsuits.  In England (and I'm guessing much of Europe) if you sue and lose, you pay the other guy's attorney fees (which seems fair).  You might want to check that out.

.
No. I'd say better ratio when you have more doctors per 1000 patients and if they come from European medical schools all the better, especially when stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes, and more people have HC coverage and more are happy with their coverage; and coupled with the fact that their cost are about 9-10% of their GDP compared to our 16% GDP. Yeah,,,I'd say better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cabin,,,if your costs for HC is 15K per year currently and a single payer program would cost you 5k but your taxes go up 5k, what is the net savings to your pocketbook..? I'd say you could call this the commie Lenin system of HC or whatever, but most middle and poor Americans would go for it everytime....is this the real fear of the private corps...that would now have to compete, get lean, party over, arrivaderchi.? YES. The intermediaries that are robbing Americans blind and causing a paper chase fiasco for doctors would be brought under control. Quality control which is epidemicaly poor in the USA, would function under a malfeseance legal system of recourse, as it should....and amend it if you like for all I care; and keep a special private class HC insurance for the elite for all I care. I always considered HC costs a form of a tax anyway.


BTW.... on tangent, do you think there should be a revolution in this country..?

...TM7

I will agree that you will pay less, but I will pay more to subsidize you so your rate can go down. I will also pay more to cover those who pay nothing.

I'm in a great plan now and have been for over 30 years at variuos employers.You should pay your share and not feel that I have have to pay more so you can pay less. If this is your logic, then the government should run everything so we can be assured of demanded equality in everything even if we deserve nothing.

I would like there to be a revolution in this country.Those of us who want our constitution and founding principals preserved should start it. Real conservatives are right and the Liberals are wrong and thats all there is too it. The constitution is proof, that this is 100% correct.

Cabin4
Before you go off half cocked saying you would like to see a revolution and refer to the constitution and founding principals ; I assume you are up on your history --- You do realize

The United States was born communitarian. The War of Independence was an act of secession by colonial elites, which the Declaration of Independence dressed in noble language. The original Constitution was in fact a pact among the States to grant government just enough power to protect the States from foreign enemies.  State laws, city ordinances, and local customs were then -- and always have been -- strongly communitarian.

communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities. Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.

Communitarianism cannot be classified as being wholly left or right, and many theorists claim to represent a sort of radical center. Liberals in the American sense or social democrats in the European sense generally share the communitarian position on issues relating to the economy, such as the need for environmental protection and public education, but not on cultural issues. Communitarians and conservatives generally agree on cultural issues, such as support for character education and faith-based programs, but communitarians do not support the laissez-faire capitalism generally embraced by American conservatives.

So yes while the constitution limited the role of Federal Govt - it emphasizes the obligation of states to provide Positive rights to those living in their states community. Our founding fathers were in the most sense communitarians,

[Cabin4]

Casull...point is if we have the best pay around and the best geewhiz technologies, so why don't we have a better docotr-patient ratio like the Euros, and less malpractice suits..so tort business would be minimal.?

Tm, first of all, you should use the proper terminology.  It is a "lower" doctor-patient ratio, not necessarily a "better" ratio (that is a subjective opinion).  Secondly, I'd put my money on the Euros having less malpractice suits on their loser pays system (at least I know that's what England has).  In this country, there is no incentive to not bring worthless suits since the PI attorneys know that settlements are often cheaper than defending BS lawsuits.  In England (and I'm guessing much of Europe) if you sue and lose, you pay the other guy's attorney fees (which seems fair).  You might want to check that out.

.
No. I'd say better ratio when you have more doctors per 1000 patients and if they come from European medical schools all the better, especially when stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes, and more people have HC coverage and more are happy with their coverage; and coupled with the fact that their cost are about 9-10% of their GDP compared to our 16% GDP. Yeah,,,I'd say better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cabin,,,if your costs for HC is 15K per year currently and a single payer program would cost you 5k but your taxes go up 5k, what is the net savings to your pocketbook..? I'd say you could call this the commie Lenin system of HC or whatever, but most middle and poor Americans would go for it everytime....is this the real fear of the private corps...that would now have to compete, get lean, party over, arrivaderchi.? YES. The intermediaries that are robbing Americans blind and causing a paper chase fiasco for doctors would be brought under control. Quality control which is epidemicaly poor in the USA, would function under a malfeseance legal system of recourse, as it should....and amend it if you like for all I care; and keep a special private class HC insurance for the elite for all I care. I always considered HC costs a form of a tax anyway.


BTW.... on tangent, do you think there should be a revolution in this country..?

...TM7

I will agree that you will pay less, but I will pay more to subsidize you so your rate can go down. I will also pay more to cover those who pay nothing.

I'm in a great plan now and have been for over 30 years at variuos employers.You should pay your share and not feel that I have have to pay more so you can pay less. If this is your logic, then the government should run everything so we can be assured of demanded equality in everything even if we deserve nothing.

I would like there to be a revolution in this country.Those of us who want our constitution and founding principals preserved should start it. Real conservatives are right and the Liberals are wrong and thats all there is too it. The constitution is proof, that this is 100% correct.

Cabin4
Before you go off half cocked saying you would like to see a revolution and refer to the constitution and founding principals ; I assume you are up on your history --- You do realize

The United States was born communitarian. The War of Independence was an act of secession by colonial elites, which the Declaration of Independence dressed in noble language. The original Constitution was in fact a pact among the States to grant government just enough power to protect the States from foreign enemies.  State laws, city ordinances, and local customs were then -- and always have been -- strongly communitarian.

communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities. Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.

Before I go off half coked? You have got to be kidding me with that smearing paragraph of pure trash on communitarians! Individualism, freedom, liberty, no tyranny and a small government are the primary key driving principals of our constitution. To suggest, that people who came together under the umbrella of community, somehow trumps our documented legally binding principals is ridiculous.

You liberals will go to no end to somehow link the constant growing list of entitlements and tyranny to our founding principles and the constitution. We have had others say it’s the correct thing to do because Jesus would be a proponant of government run health care.

What next? The aliens?

[scootrd]

Casull...point is if we have the best pay around and the best geewhiz technologies, so why don't we have a better docotr-patient ratio like the Euros, and less malpractice suits..so tort business would be minimal.?

Tm, first of all, you should use the proper terminology.  It is a "lower" doctor-patient ratio, not necessarily a "better" ratio (that is a subjective opinion).  Secondly, I'd put my money on the Euros having less malpractice suits on their loser pays system (at least I know that's what England has).  In this country, there is no incentive to not bring worthless suits since the PI attorneys know that settlements are often cheaper than defending BS lawsuits.  In England (and I'm guessing much of Europe) if you sue and lose, you pay the other guy's attorney fees (which seems fair).  You might want to check that out.

.
No. I'd say better ratio when you have more doctors per 1000 patients and if they come from European medical schools all the better, especially when stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes, and more people have HC coverage and more are happy with their coverage; and coupled with the fact that their cost are about 9-10% of their GDP compared to our 16% GDP. Yeah,,,I'd say better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cabin,,,if your costs for HC is 15K per year currently and a single payer program would cost you 5k but your taxes go up 5k, what is the net savings to your pocketbook..? I'd say you could call this the commie Lenin system of HC or whatever, but most middle and poor Americans would go for it everytime....is this the real fear of the private corps...that would now have to compete, get lean, party over, arrivaderchi.? YES. The intermediaries that are robbing Americans blind and causing a paper chase fiasco for doctors would be brought under control. Quality control which is epidemicaly poor in the USA, would function under a malfeseance legal system of recourse, as it should....and amend it if you like for all I care; and keep a special private class HC insurance for the elite for all I care. I always considered HC costs a form of a tax anyway.


BTW.... on tangent, do you think there should be a revolution in this country..?

...TM7

I will agree that you will pay less, but I will pay more to subsidize you so your rate can go down. I will also pay more to cover those who pay nothing.

I'm in a great plan now and have been for over 30 years at variuos employers.You should pay your share and not feel that I have have to pay more so you can pay less. If this is your logic, then the government should run everything so we can be assured of demanded equality in everything even if we deserve nothing.

I would like there to be a revolution in this country.Those of us who want our constitution and founding principals preserved should start it. Real conservatives are right and the Liberals are wrong and thats all there is too it. The constitution is proof, that this is 100% correct.

Cabin4
Before you go off half cocked saying you would like to see a revolution and refer to the constitution and founding principals ; I assume you are up on your history --- You do realize

The United States was born communitarian. The War of Independence was an act of secession by colonial elites, which the Declaration of Independence dressed in noble language. The original Constitution was in fact a pact among the States to grant government just enough power to protect the States from foreign enemies.  State laws, city ordinances, and local customs were then -- and always have been -- strongly communitarian.

communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities. Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.

Before I go off half coked? You have got to be kidding me with that smearing paragraph of pure trash on communitarians! Individualism, freedom, liberty, no tyranny and a small government are the primary key driving principals of our constitution. To suggest, that people who came together under the umbrella of community, somehow trumps our documented legally binding principals is ridiculous.

You liberals will go to no end to somehow link the constant growing list of entitlements and tyranny to our founding principles and the constitution. We have had others say it’s the correct thing to do because Jesus would be a proponant of government run health care.

What next? The aliens?

I think you need to go back to history class 101, and actually read the Constitution. If your going to continue to cite it - read it.

[Cabin4]

Casull...point is if we have the best pay around and the best geewhiz technologies, so why don't we have a better docotr-patient ratio like the Euros, and less malpractice suits..so tort business would be minimal.?

Tm, first of all, you should use the proper terminology.  It is a "lower" doctor-patient ratio, not necessarily a "better" ratio (that is a subjective opinion).  Secondly, I'd put my money on the Euros having less malpractice suits on their loser pays system (at least I know that's what England has).  In this country, there is no incentive to not bring worthless suits since the PI attorneys know that settlements are often cheaper than defending BS lawsuits.  In England (and I'm guessing much of Europe) if you sue and lose, you pay the other guy's attorney fees (which seems fair).  You might want to check that out.

.
No. I'd say better ratio when you have more doctors per 1000 patients and if they come from European medical schools all the better, especially when stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes, and more people have HC coverage and more are happy with their coverage; and coupled with the fact that their cost are about 9-10% of their GDP compared to our 16% GDP. Yeah,,,I'd say better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cabin,,,if your costs for HC is 15K per year currently and a single payer program would cost you 5k but your taxes go up 5k, what is the net savings to your pocketbook..? I'd say you could call this the commie Lenin system of HC or whatever, but most middle and poor Americans would go for it everytime....is this the real fear of the private corps...that would now have to compete, get lean, party over, arrivaderchi.? YES. The intermediaries that are robbing Americans blind and causing a paper chase fiasco for doctors would be brought under control. Quality control which is epidemicaly poor in the USA, would function under a malfeseance legal system of recourse, as it should....and amend it if you like for all I care; and keep a special private class HC insurance for the elite for all I care. I always considered HC costs a form of a tax anyway.


BTW.... on tangent, do you think there should be a revolution in this country..?

...TM7

I will agree that you will pay less, but I will pay more to subsidize you so your rate can go down. I will also pay more to cover those who pay nothing.

I'm in a great plan now and have been for over 30 years at variuos employers.You should pay your share and not feel that I have have to pay more so you can pay less. If this is your logic, then the government should run everything so we can be assured of demanded equality in everything even if we deserve nothing.

I would like there to be a revolution in this country.Those of us who want our constitution and founding principals preserved should start it. Real conservatives are right and the Liberals are wrong and thats all there is too it. The constitution is proof, that this is 100% correct.

Cabin4
Before you go off half cocked saying you would like to see a revolution and refer to the constitution and founding principals ; I assume you are up on your history --- You do realize

The United States was born communitarian. The War of Independence was an act of secession by colonial elites, which the Declaration of Independence dressed in noble language. The original Constitution was in fact a pact among the States to grant government just enough power to protect the States from foreign enemies.  State laws, city ordinances, and local customs were then -- and always have been -- strongly communitarian.

communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities. Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.

Before I go off half coked? You have got to be kidding me with that smearing paragraph of pure trash on communitarians! Individualism, freedom, liberty, no tyranny and a small government are the primary key driving principals of our constitution. To suggest, that people who came together under the umbrella of community, somehow trumps our documented legally binding principals is ridiculous.

You liberals will go to no end to somehow link the constant growing list of entitlements and tyranny to our founding principles and the constitution. We have had others say it’s the correct thing to do because Jesus would be a proponant of government run health care.

What next? The aliens?

I think you need to go back to history class 101, and actually read the Constitution. If your going to continue to cite it - read it.

Well I'll tell you what. Since I'm so ignorant on the constitution, why don't you just tell me what provision of the constitution has national health care or any entitlement program listed? And while you’re doing that, why don't you just list the provision(s) that would indicate to you that the principals that I listed are contradicted. Fair enough? Should be easy for someone like you that has such a high level of constitutional proficiency and likely even a legal degree in constitutional law.

Please. Enlighten and educate me and maybe more of us in the process.

[nomosendero]

Casull...point is if we have the best pay around and the best geewhiz technologies, so why don't we have a better docotr-patient ratio like the Euros, and less malpractice suits..so tort business would be minimal.?

Tm, first of all, you should use the proper terminology.  It is a "lower" doctor-patient ratio, not necessarily a "better" ratio (that is a subjective opinion).  Secondly, I'd put my money on the Euros having less malpractice suits on their loser pays system (at least I know that's what England has).  In this country, there is no incentive to not bring worthless suits since the PI attorneys know that settlements are often cheaper than defending BS lawsuits.  In England (and I'm guessing much of Europe) if you sue and lose, you pay the other guy's attorney fees (which seems fair).  You might want to check that out.

.
No. I'd say better ratio when you have more doctors per 1000 patients and if they come from European medical schools all the better, especially when stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes, and more people have HC coverage and more are happy with their coverage; and coupled with the fact that their cost are about 9-10% of their GDP compared to our 16% GDP. Yeah,,,I'd say better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cabin,,,if your costs for HC is 15K per year currently and a single payer program would cost you 5k but your taxes go up 5k, what is the net savings to your pocketbook..? I'd say you could call this the commie Lenin system of HC or whatever, but most middle and poor Americans would go for it everytime....is this the real fear of the private corps...that would now have to compete, get lean, party over, arrivaderchi.? YES. The intermediaries that are robbing Americans blind and causing a paper chase fiasco for doctors would be brought under control. Quality control which is epidemicaly poor in the USA, would function under a malfeseance legal system of recourse, as it should....and amend it if you like for all I care; and keep a special private class HC insurance for the elite for all I care. I always considered HC costs a form of a tax anyway.


BTW.... on tangent, do you think there should be a revolution in this country..?

...TM7

I will agree that you will pay less, but I will pay more to subsidize you so your rate can go down. I will also pay more to cover those who pay nothing.

I'm in a great plan now and have been for over 30 years at variuos employers.You should pay your share and not feel that I have have to pay more so you can pay less. If this is your logic, then the government should run everything so we can be assured of demanded equality in everything even if we deserve nothing.

I would like there to be a revolution in this country.Those of us who want our constitution and founding principals preserved should start it. Real conservatives are right and the Liberals are wrong and thats all there is too it. The constitution is proof, that this is 100% correct.

Cabin4
Before you go off half cocked saying you would like to see a revolution and refer to the constitution and founding principals ; I assume you are up on your history --- You do realize

The United States was born communitarian. The War of Independence was an act of secession by colonial elites, which the Declaration of Independence dressed in noble language. The original Constitution was in fact a pact among the States to grant government just enough power to protect the States from foreign enemies.  State laws, city ordinances, and local customs were then -- and always have been -- strongly communitarian.

communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities. Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.

Before I go off half coked? You have got to be kidding me with that smearing paragraph of pure trash on communitarians! Individualism, freedom, liberty, no tyranny and a small government are the primary key driving principals of our constitution. To suggest, that people who came together under the umbrella of community, somehow trumps our documented legally binding principals is ridiculous.

You liberals will go to no end to somehow link the constant growing list of entitlements and tyranny to our founding principles and the constitution. We have had others say it’s the correct thing to do because Jesus would be a proponant of government run health care.

What next? The aliens?

I think you need to go back to history class 101, and actually read the Constitution. If your going to continue to cite it - read it.

I did some of that reading tonite at a Constitution booth we had set up at the county fair. What you are saying is insane. We are giving away copies of the Constitution so that these kind of fairy tales don't stick with high school students. Pure crap!

[nomosendero]

Casull...point is if we have the best pay around and the best geewhiz technologies, so why don't we have a better docotr-patient ratio like the Euros, and less malpractice suits..so tort business would be minimal.?

Tm, first of all, you should use the proper terminology.  It is a "lower" doctor-patient ratio, not necessarily a "better" ratio (that is a subjective opinion).  Secondly, I'd put my money on the Euros having less malpractice suits on their loser pays system (at least I know that's what England has).  In this country, there is no incentive to not bring worthless suits since the PI attorneys know that settlements are often cheaper than defending BS lawsuits.  In England (and I'm guessing much of Europe) if you sue and lose, you pay the other guy's attorney fees (which seems fair).  You might want to check that out.

.
No. I'd say better ratio when you have more doctors per 1000 patients and if they come from European medical schools all the better, especially when stats  say they have higher child mortality, greater longevity, better outcomes, and more people have HC coverage and more are happy with their coverage; and coupled with the fact that their cost are about 9-10% of their GDP compared to our 16% GDP. Yeah,,,I'd say better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cabin,,,if your costs for HC is 15K per year currently and a single payer program would cost you 5k but your taxes go up 5k, what is the net savings to your pocketbook..? I'd say you could call this the commie Lenin system of HC or whatever, but most middle and poor Americans would go for it everytime....is this the real fear of the private corps...that would now have to compete, get lean, party over, arrivaderchi.? YES. The intermediaries that are robbing Americans blind and causing a paper chase fiasco for doctors would be brought under control. Quality control which is epidemicaly poor in the USA, would function under a malfeseance legal system of recourse, as it should....and amend it if you like for all I care; and keep a special private class HC insurance for the elite for all I care. I always considered HC costs a form of a tax anyway.


BTW.... on tangent, do you think there should be a revolution in this country..?

...TM7

I will agree that you will pay less, but I will pay more to subsidize you so your rate can go down. I will also pay more to cover those who pay nothing.

I'm in a great plan now and have been for over 30 years at variuos employers.You should pay your share and not feel that I have have to pay more so you can pay less. If this is your logic, then the government should run everything so we can be assured of demanded equality in everything even if we deserve nothing.

I would like there to be a revolution in this country.Those of us who want our constitution and founding principals preserved should start it. Real conservatives are right and the Liberals are wrong and thats all there is too it. The constitution is proof, that this is 100% correct.

Cabin4
Before you go off half cocked saying you would like to see a revolution and refer to the constitution and founding principals ; I assume you are up on your history --- You do realize

The United States was born communitarian. The War of Independence was an act of secession by colonial elites, which the Declaration of Independence dressed in noble language. The original Constitution was in fact a pact among the States to grant government just enough power to protect the States from foreign enemies.  State laws, city ordinances, and local customs were then -- and always have been -- strongly communitarian.

communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities. Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.

Before I go off half coked? You have got to be kidding me with that smearing paragraph of pure trash on communitarians! Individualism, freedom, liberty, no tyranny and a small government are the primary key driving principals of our constitution. To suggest, that people who came together under the umbrella of community, somehow trumps our documented legally binding principals is ridiculous.

You liberals will go to no end to somehow link the constant growing list of entitlements and tyranny to our founding principles and the constitution. We have had others say it’s the correct thing to do because Jesus would be a proponant of government run health care.

What next? The aliens?

I think you need to go back to history class 101, and actually read the Constitution. If your going to continue to cite it - read it.

I did some of that reading tonite at a Constitution booth we had set up at the county fair. What you are saying is insane. We are giving away copies of the Constitution so that these kind of fairy tales don't stick with high school students. Pure crap!

[Casull]

I think you need to go back to history class 101, and actually read the Constitution. If your going to continue to cite it - read it.

I think you are the one in need of a history lesson.  Where the hell did you get the idea that the early states prescribed to the idea that individuals were guaranteed "state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one".  You won't find that in the early history of this country.  Hell, the establishment of inclusive free public schools didn't really begin in earnest until well into the 19th century.  And, your "examples" go down hill from that as far as accuracy and reality are concerned.  Just more revisonist BS from a lib.  

[Cabin4]

I think you need to go back to history class 101, and actually read the Constitution. If your going to continue to cite it - read it.

I think you are the one in need of a history lesson.  Where the hell did you get the idea that the early states prescribed to the idea that individuals were guaranteed "state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one".  You won't find that in the early history of this country.  Hell, the establishment of inclusive free public schools didn't really begin in earnest until well into the 19th century.  And, your "examples" go down hill from that as far as accuracy and reality are concerned.  Just more revisonist BS from a lib.  

The guy is a complete charlatan. He will likely go away now. I think he first needs a 101 lesson in BS writing. Even the BS is so bad on its face, you have to feel sorry for him

[scootrd]

Tenth amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

This is also the amendment that Montana and Tennessee have cited  to pass legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state.

On other words the states are communal. They alone should have sovereign control over HC for their communities.   

[Casull]

This is also the amendment that Montana and Tennessee have cited  to pass legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state.

On other words the states are communal. They alone should have sovereign control over HC for their communities.   

You can't really be this damned ignorant, can you?  Where does the exercise of state soverignty and the limitations imposed on the Federal government by the Constittution allow you to make the completely illogical leap that the states are communal?  You are not deserving of further argument, but simply pity.

[nomosendero]

Power to the states, OK  
That is supposed to be proof that the founders wanted Nat. Health care or any type of welfare system to be paid for by the working populace?   How retarded is that!! I guess I now feel sorry for you also

Nite Nite  

[scootrd]

I never said they would want Fed Govt heathcare , I said they put in communal provisions so the states could take care of their own communities. (hence Communalism. I said they would probably be in favor of universal HC (IMO). I never said "national" or "federal Gov't  implemented") and probably implemented through states gov't.   If individual states wanted to pool their states resources and co-op their resources to pay for HC for their state communities I believe out fore-fathers would be in favor of this. This would be similar to state teacher contracts. Or pooling combined states monies to purchase no. 2 pencils, or text books.


 The way the fed govt extends it's authorities beyond those granted  (The original Constitution was in fact a pact among the States to grant government just enough power to protect the States from foreign enemies.) is through federal funding. 

The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress has the power to implement programs, or to regulate, they encourage States to become the instruments of national policy through federal funding  rather than to implement the program directly. One advantage is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another advantage is that implementation of federal programs at the state level tends to limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.

[Cabin4]

The separation of powers was essential to prevent the consolidation of government and the formation of centralized, authoritarian tyranny to which all governments are prone. Jefferson has often been referred to as a proponent of "States Rights," but his main interest was not so much in the rights of States in and of themselves, but rather in a division of powers in order to prevent the destruction of liberty that would inevitably result from a national government that gathered all powers unto itself. So much for government run health care!!! From one of the authors and signitors of our constitution. I suppose you will have to argue with him as well.

Consolidation Destroys Liberty::

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free (and it is blasphemy to believe it), that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. 

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821.

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825.


Further on Consolidation Leads to Corruption:

"I wish... to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.

Consolidation Usurps the Rights of States:

"Monarchy, to be sure, is now defeated,... yet the spirit is not done away. The same party takes now what they deem the next best ground, the consolidation of the government; the giving to the federal member of the government, by unlimited constructions of the Constitution, a control over all the functions of the States, and the concentration of all power ultimately at Washington." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825.

"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. 

"[We] believe that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in [the Federal] compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

[scootrd]

Thanks for the reply back , it will take a while for me to read it all. But I will.

[scootrd]

Thanks for the read -- here are a few more regarding states rights to self govern and make decisions regarding the welfare of their people and communities including in my opinion HC. I stand by my original statement our fore-fathers were neither Liberal nor conservative , they were communialists, and understood the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole. I also stand by my statement IMO they would support states rights to individually or collectively leverage their resources to pay for universal HC.

The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788

"[We] believe that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in [the Federal] compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

"Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791

[billy_56081]

It's funny how the socialists have such a weak argument that they have to lie. I mean one person tries to make up the lie that Europe has better health care. And then another person tries to pervert the constitution of the United States of America to say it supports socialism. Man are you socialists desperate.

[ironglow]

  Scooter;
      Puhleeze..your statement that This country started as "Commutarian" entity..
  Commutarian is a recent concoction..apparently by a bunch of history revisionists ! Read for yourself..  
  
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

         This isn't the ONLY explanation, just the most convenient. You can Google the word yourself. Nowhere does our Constitution guarantee all those fanciful ideas you have attributed to it !

    One thing the constitutional authors apparently understood very well;..... just leave the individual alone and stay out of his/her life as much as possible.
  The did admit there were certain tasks that only a federal govt. could handle well, national defense, tariffs, certain issues of commerce etc.; but they in no way visualized the overwhelming, smothering federal govt we now have (especially in the past few months)

  They were so concerned with personal freedom that they penned the Bill of Rights. You will note that the Bill of Rights enumerates NO rights granted to the federal gopvt, but rather enumerates rights that must be preserved to INDIVIDUALS...not communities, but INDIVIDUALS !
  Your concern about "community' is very elementary indeed..if individual rights are rigorously defended, the rights of the community will automatically be taken care of.  

[ironglow]

  Here is the Constitution for everybody to read.... You may want to put it in your "favorites" column.

  http://constitutionus.com/              (note: only a few pages are the Constitution, rest are directions how to use).

  I find it interesting to see that our great founding fathers wrote a document of only a few pages (the wonder of the world) that has preserved our most basic rights and freedoms for well over 200 years...

   And yet, today's Commucrats need over 1,000 pages to write a simple medical care plan....

  Could it be that there is so many lies and untruths that they need 1,000 pages to obfuscate the real nature of their Commie style intentions ?