you know what you said was silly.

9/23/2009 1:20:51 PM

^^ i'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but the free-market to work properly does in fact need some gov. intervention. Even Libertarians recognize this.

[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2009 1:21:53 PM

See: Monsanto.

9/23/2009 1:25:14 PM

I think of govt as a referee making sure rules are followed and that one doesnt cheat the rules to gain an advantage. But that is a different discussion.

Do you people really feel the govt can handle more of health care and do so with lower costs and increased quality? If so, why.

9/23/2009 1:32:39 PM

Increased cost isn't really an issue to me. Being a human being who cares about the welfare of others, I would rather pay more taxes if it meant that everyone in America, even those who were poor and destitute, was able to have regular access to a physician.

9/23/2009 1:47:15 PM

this isnt a "lower cost/increased quality" thing going on here.

9/23/2009 1:51:11 PM

Quote :

"Do you people really feel the govt can handle more of health care and do so with lower costs and increased quality? If so, why."

there is precedent for this all over the world.

9/23/2009 1:56:31 PM

Democrats nix putting pre-vote health bill online
Posted: Today at 11:48 a.m.

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes. Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting."

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/6060149/

[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM. Reason : LOL! So much for "transparency." ]

9/23/2009 2:51:33 PM

Quote :

"Democrats accepted an alternate amendment to make conceptual language available online before a vote"

and note this isn't even the final bill. this is the bill coming out of the finance committee.

9/23/2009 2:55:40 PM

From the same article

Quote :

"Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks. The Democrats noted that unlike other committees, the Finance Committee works off conceptual language that describes policies - instead of legislative language that ultimately becomes law, and which the GOP amendment would have required. Democrats accepted an alternate amendment to make conceptual language available online before a vote."

[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Reason : LOL, is this where I put my rolly eyes???]

9/23/2009 2:56:28 PM

Quote :

"there is precedent for this all over the world."

Care to show me a place where medical care is better and costs less by being govt run? Doesnt europe have both public and private hospitals? why would that be?

I can tell you that the precedent of that happening HERE, NOW is uncovered services. Amazing with a little competition will do.


Oh, and you can always pay more in taxes if you want. You can also give to charities you support and no one will protest either.

[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2009 5:10:07 PM

Quote :

"Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks. "

72 hours = weeks?

9/23/2009 5:16:52 PM

did you actually read the article you hooksaw posted? they would have to re-write the bill in different language if they were to follow the republican amendment. as it is, they will post the language as it stands before the vote.

[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2009 5:38:13 PM

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/reported-swine-flu-victim-remembered-for-her-passion-315472.html

Quote :

"Friends say the Miami University graduate who died this week after reportedly suffering from swine flu delayed getting medical treatment because she did not have health insurance. "

9/25/2009 12:18:05 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/kyl-i-dont-need-maternity-care-stabenow-your-mom-probably-did.php?ref=fpblg

Quote :

"Just before the Senate Finance Committee wrapped up for the long weekend, members debated one of Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) amendments, which would strike language defining which benefits employers are required to cover. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) argued that insurers must be required to cover basic maternity care. (In several states there are no such requirements.) "I don't need maternity care," Kyl said. "So requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don't need and will make the policy more expensive." Stabenow interrupted: "I think your mom probably did." The amendment was defeated, nine to 14. "

9/25/2009 1:04:49 PM

^^ Alternately, she delayed getting medical treatment because her doctor charges her way too much just to take her temperature and write a prescription for Tamiflu.

^ Regardless of whether his mother needed maternity coverage, he and ~50% of america does not. Requiring every policy to cover maternity care is like requiring all residents of texas to have Polar Bear Attack insurance, a waste of money.

9/25/2009 1:17:50 PM

I think this is a simplistic argument, but I might as well throw it out.

1. Why do people in other countries keep electing people who support uhc?
2. Why has it become political suicide in Britain to bash the NHS (Thatcher even realized this and refused to do it)?
3. How do nations with uhc continue to have pretty high rates of satisfaction w/ their country and health care system?

People keep pulling out examples of a small number of wealthy people coming here for care to shoot down the success of other systems, but the overwhelming majority of people in the industrialized world the world over support their health care systems. Actually, more people in the US are dissatisfied with ours than there are Canadians dissatisfied with theirs.

Are we bound by fate to follow this "uniquely American system"?

And I'm sure some of you will make the constitutional argument, which is valid, but don't forget, there are amendments. Madison said we should have amended the constitution for the "bonus bill" and its transportation essentials. What about a basic level of health care, possibly provided by, say, universal vouchers?

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM. Reason : /]

9/25/2009 1:52:36 PM

Quote :

"People keep pulling out examples of a small number of wealthy people coming here for care to shoot down the success of other systems, but the overwhelming majority of people in the industrialized world the world over support their health care systems. Actually, more people in the US are dissatisfied with ours than there are Canadians dissatisfied with theirs."

Yup, I laugh anytime someone tries to present the argument that the systems of other nations are somehow worse than ours. As if the people in those countries are mindless robots who have no choice but to go along with it. Those systems exist because the people of those countries have continuously voted for leaders who pledge to maintain them.

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 3:42 PM. Reason : :]

9/25/2009 3:42:28 PM

Quote :

"Yup, I laugh anytime someone tries to present the argument that the systems of other nations are somehow worse than ours. As if the people in those countries are mindless robots who have no choice but to go along with it. Those systems exist because the people of those countries have continuously voted for leaders who pledge to maintain them."

As have Americans. Are we as Americans mindless zombies, or does this argument only work one way?

9/25/2009 4:13:03 PM

i think if we had been decimated by WW2 and lots of people had to deal with not having any health care services, we'd have a far more robust public health care system in this country. unfortunately for UHC proponents, enough people have been reasonably satisfied with their health care coverage to not demand action. we are just at a point of equilibrium, not that we are necessarily at an optimal point. but it seems like we're about to slip out of this equilibrium as private insurance costs continue to increase relative to wages and the quality of care/rationing of care deteriorates.

9/25/2009 6:03:54 PM

Senate Finance Committee struck down the Rockefeller public option amendment

9/29/2009 3:28:01 PM

did anyone expect the finance committee to pass it?

9/29/2009 3:29:08 PM

Nah, it was expected. This wasn't an event, it's just part of the process. A lot of the democrats voting against a public option amendment here have already said they'd vote for it if it makes the final bill.

9/29/2009 3:37:10 PM

Hasn't made much news yet but the Arizona legislature passed a bill to put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

http://tinyurl.com/p5wu2o


FWIW.

9/29/2009 3:55:39 PM

Nullification. Jeez.

9/29/2009 4:16:28 PM

^ Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment, "history teacher"? I guess the US Constitution only matters when you're a left-wing moonbat howling about Bush's alleged torture regime and wiretaps.

9/29/2009 4:25:40 PM

^^ It will definitely set up a court battle. The case for mandating health care coverage has never been Constitutionally made. The interstate commerce clause is going to be a stretch here.

9/29/2009 4:28:50 PM

Quote :

"This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system. HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services. Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona."

None of these measures affect the health care bills that have been reported on, going through congress.

It's useless legislation that seems designed for the state-level republican politicians to make it seem like they're doing something. If the fed ever decided to try a single-payer system, it would block that, but no one has put forth any serious legislation for a single-payer system.

9/29/2009 4:33:45 PM

really? The block on a fine wouldn't affect the fine for not having healthcare? What?

9/29/2009 6:55:30 PM

Mandatory coverage hasn’t been in all of the bills, only some.

And when the other states find out how awesome it is to have coverage for everyone, they’ll probably jump on board anyway.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 6:57:36 PM

You mean like in Maine? Where the average premium is almost 4 times higher than in neighboring New Hampshire? Or maybe in Massachusetts? Where the system is so insolvent that they have stopped accepting new people in to the system?

9/29/2009 9:25:40 PM

Quote :

"Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment, "history teacher"?"

I have.

If you were up to snuff with your history, you'd know that nullification isn't something that a rational person should even have on the table in this debate. Last time it was ever seriously considered, Jackson threatened to invade South Carolina.

And you put your punctuation outside your quotations.

Quote :

"It will definitely set up a court battle. The case for mandating health care coverage has never been Constitutionally made. The interstate commerce clause is going to be a stretch here."

It's already proven to be infinitely elastic.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 9:45 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 9:43:57 PM

I think this is more along Montana and Tennessee's recent firearms laws. The legislation is set up to protect the state's citizens while setting up for a constitutional court challenge.

9/29/2009 9:45:34 PM

haha, I love it. "Fuck the Constitution, no rational person would make that argument, lol!"

9/29/2009 9:47:21 PM

You're out of your element, aaronburro

Nullification is a direct threat to the supremacy of the US Constitution.

If you have a problem with a law re:10th amendment, you take it up with the SCOTUS. You don't nullify the law; that's how civil wars happen.

Quote :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 9:48:42 PM

Quote :

"And you put your punctuation outside your quotations."

Boone-Tard

Dude, you're a teacher? Please don't ever challenge me on anything related to grammar.

For your edification, this post by me. . .

Quote :

"Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment, 'history teacher'?"

. . .was correct. Question marks are placed outside closing quotation marks if they relate to the sentence as a whole--the whole sentence at issue was a question. Question marks are placed inside closing quotation marks if they relate to the quoted material. The same goes for exclamation points and dashes.

Periods and commas are placed inside closing quotation marks. Colons and semicolons are placed outside closing quotation marks.

Now, can you stick to the topic and stop being a dick? If you'll check your history, you'll see that my mention of states' rights was perfectly applicable in the context of the nullification discussion.

9/29/2009 10:02:38 PM

Quote :

"Nullification is a direct threat to the supremacy of the US Constitution. If you have a problem with a law re:10th amendment, you take it up with the SCOTUS. You don't nullify the law; that's how civil wars happen."

'

Seriously-- you all don't know shit in this regard. Nullification breaks the Constitution.

You're too giddy over the prospect of sticking it to Obama to realize this.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 10:04:15 PM

Quote :

"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."

9/29/2009 10:08:16 PM

Yes, and you take that up with the SCOTUS.

Quote :

"Seriously-- you all don't know shit in this regard. Nullification breaks the Constitution. You're too giddy over the prospect of sticking it to Obama to realize this. "

nullification = secession, for all practical purposes.


[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 10:09:59 PM

^ Can you explain how the authority concerning health-care insurance or its reform is "delegated to the United States by the Constitution"? Health insurance is currently regulated at the state level and is not allowed as interstate commerce--only intrastate commerce.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 10:20 PM. Reason : Can you?]

9/29/2009 10:20:10 PM

If it's a violation of the 10th Amendment, then you take it up with the Supreme Court.

If they disagree with you, then tough nuggies.

They are the supreme interpreters of the supreme law of the land.

If you nullify a law, you are directly challenging the supremacy of the US Constitution.



Can I be any clearer?

9/29/2009 10:25:14 PM

what you peoples dont realize is our government!= other governments, if our government cant run a profitable post office (with private companies such as UPS and Fedex making profits with a cheaper cost to the consumer), how in the hell do you expect our government to run healthcare?

9/29/2009 11:14:59 PM

it costs 44 cents to mail a letter.

9/29/2009 11:23:35 PM

if our government can't run a profitable post office, how in the hell do you expect our government to run a military?

9/29/2009 11:24:54 PM

Quote :

"with a cheaper cost to the consumer"

what fed ex store are you going to?

9/29/2009 11:58:58 PM

Quote :

"what you peoples dont realize is our government!= other governments, if our government cant run a profitable post office (with private companies such as UPS and Fedex making profits with a cheaper cost to the consumer), how in the hell do you expect our government to run healthcare?"

^^ Has a hell of a point. A health care system that's run ethically likely WON'T turn a profit. Health care is not the sort of thing that should be driven by the bottom line. Same with education, although you could make a case that an educated, healthy populace would be more productive than a sick, uneducated populace.

Is there really any excuse that some school children have shitty facilities and resources when we have tons of aircraft carriers sitting around and troops deployed all over the world? Imagine if we invested the same amount of money into our own populace that we invest into propping up corporate imperialism.

9/30/2009 9:59:14 AM

^Lol, I'm not saying it should turn a profit. What I'm saying is other carriers can turn a profit while the post office cant even break even. This obviously points out that the government is not an efficient mail carrier. It also proves that private sectors can be more efficient and turn a profit where the government's entity can't even support itself. There are so many other examples where there government is far from efficient. What suggests that THIS government, the United States Government, can run health care efficiently?

9/30/2009 10:47:05 AM

Quote :

"what you peoples dont realize is our government!= other governments, if our government cant run a profitable post office (with private companies such as UPS and Fedex making profits with a cheaper cost to the consumer), how in the hell do you expect our government to run healthcare?"

It costs 44 cents to mail a letter. It costs $5 to send that same letter via FedEx Ground. FedEx offers shipment tracking, delivery confirmation, and all sorts of other stuff, but if you'd rather spend 11 times less, you go to with the post office.

9/30/2009 11:01:09 AM

way to avoid the point of the post

9/30/2009 11:08:39 AM

The point of your post was based on the factually incorrect stance that the United States Postal Service cannot make a profit even though private companies do so with a "cheaper cost to the consumer". The reality is that the USPS has been financially independent since the 1980's. It offers similar services, albeit with fewer bells and whistles, to UPS and FedEx for drastically lower prices. It's had financial problems in the past year or so, and it will certainly have to adjust to the decline in paper correspondence and the current economic climate. Nevertheless, if the US government could run health care as efficiently and at such a low cost to the public as it does the Postal Service, I'd be pleased as punch.

9/30/2009 11:21:14 AM