Originally Posted by konetch

Interesting response. However, the biggest problem with health care is that it isn't a right for people to have health care. I am afraid. Government can run very few programs effectively, in fact, the only programs government has been able to run effectively and consistently is those listed within the Constitution.

Originally Posted by James Madison

"It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment."

Originally Posted by konetch

How has the republican policy hurt our country when, its entire basis is set upon trying to restore and protect the Constitution.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

QUESTION: I'm a bit confused on how republicans support and protect "a godd amned piece of paper" (see http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml). Can you clarify?

Originally Posted by konetch

Why wouldn't you be afraid of terrorist groups and powerful tyrannical government. Haven't people learned with Russia and other communist and socialist governments that they do not work. Human ingenuity and will to be free will not allow them to work.

Originally Posted by Franklin D. Roosevelt

...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

COMMENT: Last quote regarding fearing a "powerful, tyrannical government", by which, I assume, you are referring to a government which helps to provide people with health care as I'm sure you didn't mean one that spies on people, falsifies evidence ( http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/i...tory/8592.html ), violates international treaties, ... I'm not pro-communism, so no response needed there as that was a manufactured assertion.

Originally Posted by konetch

Americans are not cowards, this is why they are voicing there[sic] opinions at town hall meetings. This isn't organized assemblies, but proud Americans that dislike Obama's health care.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/he...2townhall.html

Originally Posted by konetch

Obama's approval ratings are lower than Bush's were in his first 6 months. The deficit is growing tremendously, something the founders warned us about.

See http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/pr...orge-bush.aspx versus http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Ga...-Approval.aspx . Not a whole lot different, actually.

EDIT: It is worth noting that our future held surpluses before the 43rd and Obama is working to reduce the overall deficit with Pay-Go (not supported by Republicans when they were in office).

Originally Posted by konetch

Above all, citizens should not trust their governments. A government should be set up to protect the peoples basic rights as humans, not provide them rights that in the end just increase their power.

Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence

...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

COMMENT: Does not health care, generally speaking, help ensure "Life"?

Originally Posted by konetch

I'm glad you have a well thought out opinion, but it is people like you that think government should take care of their lives that is hurting the principal of the[sic] individuality. The principal that has been a cornerstone to American ingenuity and greatness.

QUESTIONS: How, exactly, does helping people to live longer, healthier lives an attack on the "principle of individuality"? How, also, does supporting a single proposal for a healthier America translate to the "government taking care of their lives?" -- there, I'm with Patrick Henry. Liberty, however, is not mutually exclusive with health care.

Originally Posted by konetch

In response to your bashings on Bush as a president. I agree, he has set forth bad economic policies, however, he was a great war time president, who was strong and fought for what he believed even though the media strangled him everywhere he went. In comparison with Obama, Obama fails to have a strong war time policy and apologizes to our enemies, showing how weak we are.

Originally Posted by Isaac Asimov

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton

What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary?

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

REQUEST: Cite a single, fairly-reputable source where Obama has "apologized" for the actions of the 43rd. If memory serves, he has simply indicated that we are now on a new, more-peaceful way forward.

QUESTION: Iraq did not go to war with us, Murderer-Bin-Laden did. Why does Bin Laden still have his head while Hussein was hung by his?

Originally Posted by konetch

Interesting response. However, the biggest problem with health care is that it isn't a right for people to have health care.

I agree.

Originally Posted by konetch

How has the republican policy hurt our country when, its entire basis is set upon trying to restore and protect the Constitution.

The Patriot Act? Over spending? The Military Industrial Complex?

Originally Posted by konetch

Why wouldn't you be afraid of terrorist groups and powerful tyrannical government. Haven't people learned with Russia and other communist and socialist governments that they do not work. Human ingenuity and will to be free will not allow them to work.

I don't know about the sky is falling and I want my mommy, but I do consider the "terrorist" threat to be something of our own doing... I am a free market person, but when you allow corporations to run foreign affairs (the main reason for having a Federal government to start with) is you get people who think we "own" or have "rights" to stuff that isn't ours....like foreign oil...or military bases on foreign soil. Stuff that would piss you or me off if China brokered a deal for a base on our soil...in fact some might even commit "terrorist" actions.
Stuff like that is equivalent to throwing rocks at a hornets nest. But rather than look at the ROOT cause of this stuff, people want simple blind answers that don't involve them or their infallible leadership. So it turns into, "they hate us for our freedom," rather than, "they hate the World Trace Center because it REPRESENTS the meddling that had/has been going on in their countries since the 1950's."

Bush was terrible, and Obama will be the same.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

"Deceleration of Independence" was a true name under the 43rd, not President Obama. The Obama administration is asking for information for their own use which is publicly available. Under his treasonous predecessor, phones were tapped, people were kidnapped (a.k.a. "rendition"), evidence was falsified, and people were tortured. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to strengthen the foundation of our country by ensuring greater health benefits to the populace. Which ought an intelligent being fear more?

You proceed with the Republican fear-mongering -- they can't rest on facts, so they want you to be afraid of what they cannot define -- by fearing the all-powerful cookie. Intriguingly enough, your fear mongering is addressed by the very press release by the White House:


(underlining added for emphasis)

You really have only provided vague generalizations, unfounded accusations, self-defeating assertions, and arbitrary fear. To what end?

Do Republicans really think that the American populace is so enamored with blindly following principles, philosophies, and legislation which have time and again proven to be substantial failures that they, the American populace, will shout (as do the paid individuals who are disrupting free speech by intefering with the rights of people to speak directly to their own Congressional representative), "Yes, we are scared! We do not want health care for everyone. Those who can't afford health care should die so that the rich can keep their money. Oh, dearie me! Please Republican disaster, save us from this socialism! We must be saved from health care -- it's dangerous. We love having profit mongerers (i.e. insurance companies) decide whether we live or die than an less-partial system with a board of doctors recommending treatment!"

Seriously? That is the best that the Republican establishment can offer as an alternative to more people being able to receive health care? Fear?

The Republican policy has harmed our country immeasurably under the administration of the 43rd and all along told us to be afraid: afraid of terrorists, afraid of Democrats, afraid of health care, afraid of ... everything non-Republican.

I, for one, as a patriot of this country do not fear. I do not fear Democrats, Republicans, terrorists, health care... "The only thing to fear is fear itself!"

Republicans should be learning a very hard lesson: Americans are not cowards! We do not run around fearing the rest of the world, our own leaders (we replace tyrants like the 43rd), terrorists (remember those who stood up against the terrorists on 9/11!!!), or bettering our country.

It is intriguing to notice how so many people have lived longer, healthier lives from Medicare, but it was fought against by Republicans as "communist" in nature. Today, we see the same argument as "socialist" in nature. And, other arguments provided today are largely what they were back then (see http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhib...th/620601.html , for examle). What Republicans miss in their unfettered war against America to promote monopolistic businesses and the proliferation of Christianity as law is that some tasks are larger than a business or an individual (or group thereof); some tasks are so large that the most effective (though not perfect) means of achieving a goal is through "society" via it's elected representative: the government. We would all love to be able to achieve such great tasks without the assistance of government (as it is not perfect), but stuck in the world of reality, we must settle for the best we can foresee at a given time. Health care is one such activity as has been demonstrated by the relative success of Medicare (I did not claim it was perfect!).

Currently, I know all too many people who have to go to the ER b/c they cannot get medical care from a doctor due to not being able to afford insurance, but ER's must take them. This results in quite a big mess that could otherwise be largely avoided.

I'd suggest that most of us know people who have been unable to get health care due to insufficient funds and have, as a direct consequence, developed far more serious diseases which require more extensive and expensive care or result in death.

By building a foundation which allows those who need care to obtain care, we provide a foundation for a stronger, healthier America.

This should not be feared, but welcomed. Cautiously given the power of the government, but welcomed nonetheless.

I agree with President Obama, "you'll hear the same old tired arguments."

I am insulted, however, that fear and disruption are the Republican tactics deployed here. They disrespect America in an effort to gain American voters -- perhaps that is why they are losing power and have lost sight of the "permanent Republican majority."

My only problem with health care is its not in the Constitution. Now if a State wants to institute it, then that is fully within their power to do so.

*Cheers to the "******ned peice of paper" quote. That and, I think it was Alberto Gonzales that described the Constitution as "quaint".

Two both of you, politicians are in it for power. That is it. They do not are about us, no matter how much they try to give us, no matter how much they try to convince us they support "gun ownership".
There was a French author who came here to visit back in the first half of the 1800's. he wrote a book I think was called "Democracy In America". In it he made note how brilliant our system of government was, and that it would last until the Congress realizes that it can bribe the People with their own money.

Alex and Outlaws you are absolutely right, it's not in the constitution the right to health care. How could they possibly put that right in when there was no health care to speak of, home remedies and the occasional doctor if one was even available with little knowledge of medical, like putting leeches on you, although in some cases this did work. Even into the 1900's -1935 period, people still died of a case of Strep throat, etc. This is the 21st century and a complete different ballgame and this is the dilemma we are into.

Our son is a retired Air Force Officer, he now works for a big company who offered a health care plan with a very well known health care company name, the monthly premium just for one person was between $350-$400 which they pay 60% of the bill but they had a very long list of things they didn't cover at all, a lot longer list then Medicare. So this means one would have to secure another health care insurance policy to cover the other 40%. He went with the military health plan.

I am on Medicare, I am one of the millions of people who didn't have health coverage for many years, until now and am glad I have it. The last health care coverage I had was through the union, there was no health care premiums, all this was covered by your monthly union dues, no deductibles, no %'s, they paid the bill. With Medicare, the monthly premium is $96.40 across the board for everyone, no matter what your social security check is. They pay 80% of the bill with a $100 deductible every January 1st.

Here are the problems being on Medicare, a big majority of the Medical people won't accept Medicare. Most doctors out here will not except Medicare, if you are lucky enough to find a physician who does accept Medicare, chances are you won't get in because they have quota of how many Medicare patients they will see and this is to include clinics as well. I have talked to Medicare due out of frustration, the lady told me she has heard of many cases where the patient has been seeing the same doctor for 20-30 years and now the doctor won't take them anymore because they are on Medicare.

There could be other reasons why the Medical Facilities won't take Medicare patients, but here is one of the reasons as it was explained to me. My husband needed a MRI, this particular facility did all the xrays, MRI, Cat scans, etc. The lady broke it down for me, the charge for the MRI was $1250, if you were to pay cash or run this through your health care insurance. For Medicare, the facility could only bill Medicare $825, Medicare pays 80% of the $825 which will leave me with the remaining 20% of the $825. This billing system is to include doctor office visits, specialists, or any other medical, they can't bill Medicare the same charges as say you are going to pay cash or run it through a health care insurance.

With modern medical technology and the cost, don't you think we need some adjustments here?

Originally Posted by Giselle

Alex and Outlaws you are absolutely right, it's not in the constitution the right to health care. How could they possibly put that right in when there was no health care to speak of, home remedies and the occasional doctor if one was even available with little knowledge of medical, like putting leeches on you, although in some cases this did work. Even into the 1900's -1935 period, people still died of a case of Strep throat, etc. This is the 21st century and a complete different ballgame and this is the dilemma we are into.

You are correct, how could they have foreseen things that happen in the future. But they did. Article 5 of the United States Constitution covers this issue.

All I am asking is Congress not violate and overstep their bounds. We have given them certain powers, and they should abide by the rules that "we the People" have put forth. The purpose of the Constitution is so that government doesn't get out of control, or so that the majority doesn't devour the minority. But rather than abide, many people just think in terms of if they agree or not with an issue, rather than if Congress (or the President, etc) have the authority to do so.

But on a side note, you do have a "right" to seek health care, you just do not have a "right" to force another person to provide that health care, as other people have a right to deny it. Our rights extend until they infringe on another persons rights.
Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not grant us any rights, as we are all born with our rights (it does single out certain rights the founders thought necessary to highlight as they were the issues of the day [Bill of Rights]), but rather the Constitution is "rights" we have given to the Federal Government.

If our country wants to authorize Congress to institute a healthcare system, then by all means. But first, Congress needs to be given the powers to do so.

If Congress does not have the authority to do something, checks and balances are in place that allow the Supreme Court to overrule the legislation unless an amendment to the constitution is passed.

It is amazing to me that there is so large a group of people opposed to helping others. We have so far to grow as intelligent beings.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

If Congress does not have the authority to do something, checks and balances are in place that allow the Supreme Court to overrule the legislation unless an amendment to the constitution is passed.

So then you agree with the Patriot Act and their warrantless wiretaps?

You agree with Congress funding every "war" starting with Korea without ever declaring war?

You agree with Guantanamo Bay and not giving people so much as a trial? Nothing in the Constitution says just because it is not our soil, that somehow the Government gets free reign.

I didn't see the checks and balances working on these? Remember, Presidents appoint to the Court, and they tend to appoint those who agree with them (aka the evil word no wants to use anymore; the litmus test).

Faith in government is probably the most dangerous weapon they possess. And it comes from people thinking in terms of Left/Right, rather than legal or not legal. The checks and balances have been throw away because the people these politicians actually represent have real checkbooks.

Both parties are guilty of telling us what we want to hear. Their game is making us feel like we need the government to sustain our life. And when you need them, you are subservient to them. They have the power. Whether it be health care, where people think they need the government to make it "fair" (when in reality its the checkbooks working the system causing the problems), or the Republicans telling everyone the sky is falling and that we need them to protect us from the terrorists that they themselves created.

The name of the game is control, and we are the victims.

Holy Crap Outlaw. Let's not accuse me of walking in step with the 43rd! Now, that's scary!

I agree more with Madison, as quoted above, "that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused."

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Holy Crap Outlaw. Let's not accuse me of walking in step with the 43rd! Now, that's scary!

I agree more with Madison, as quoted above, "that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused."

All of this was from the Federalist Papers, written prior to ratification of the Constitution, and what would be included. He was trying to make sure that the powers given to the Federal Government, would not be misconstrued later for ulterior motives. He was in no way suggesting that we violate the Constitution for the public good.

He goes on directly with, "a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment."
But Madison was a Federalist. I can't say I am a fan.
The centralization of power to the Federal Government is not my cup of tea.

I personally am a fan of Jefferson, who said after the first 8 or 9 years of our new republic, our government had already become more intrusive and violated more of our rights than England had in the colonies. ...but then he also said, God forbid we should go 20 years without such a revolution. That is my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by konetch

Back to the health care debate. I'm glad Outlaws and Giselle understand that Health Care is a guaranteed right for the people by the federal government.

Please quote where I said health care was a right? I believe I said, you have the right to seek, and the provider has a right to deny. I never said anyone owes anyone anything.

Originally Posted by konetch

States can be as powerful of a government as they want as long as they don't overstep the limits in the Constitution

10th 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.

I don't believe in the states abusing or taking control, but they do have the authority under the Constitution to implement a "universal" health care system.

Again, I don't think I ever said I want it, just said I am all for it if that is what the People of a state want. ...speaking from someone who lives in a state that would be one of the last to receive it as I wouldn't personally vote for it.

Originally Posted by konetch

Also on the same note, if the government passed an Amendment that said people had a right to health care. I'd have no problem with it either. As long as it was what the people wanted.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by konetch

The bottom line is that the people don't want health care. This vote will determine if we still live in the same American we did when the founders founded it.

Well, People in California, New York, Mass., etc want it. Again reiterating why I support states instituting it if that is what their people want.

But I think any sign of the America the founders had was long gone by the mid-late 1800's.

I feel there is only one way this could be solved and done fairly over the Health Care Reform issue, hold a special election and let the registered voters vote for what they want. Everyone would be able to live with this outcome because it was done fairly, unfortunately this is not going to happen because that's right Outlaw we still abide by Article 5, that's how it's will be done.

However before any kind of voting takes place, there are parts to this Health Care Reform that are still fuzzy and needs to be completely clarified.

You are absolutely right again Outlaw, they have the right to decline health care service, that's their right and I have known that for many years which started with my husband on Medicare. As mad as I was and still upset we have learned to leave with this along with the other community of Medicare people.

The numbers are going to continually grow with people who have no health care coverage, especially now with the economy the way it is. Whether this Health Care Reform passes or not, something has to be done, it can't continue the way things are now, because it will come back at us later on down the road. Perhaps people spreading contagious diseases due to the fact they had no health care coverage, or it could go in many other directions.

Originally Posted by Giselle

I feel there is only one way this could be solved and done fairly over the Health Care Reform issue, hold a special election and let the registered voters vote for what they want. Everyone would be able to live with this outcome because it was done fairly, unfortunately this is not going to happen because that's right Outlaw we still abide by Article 5, that's how it's will be done.

Well we don't follow it because otherwise Congress wouldn't be voting on this to start with. But anyways, even a nationwide vote would be wrong because 51% of the population should not be able to force anything on 49%. That is the point of rights. So people cannot just take what they want because they are the majority. Democrats should appreciate that as Bush was a prime example of take take take take take. But now that they are in power, they think its their right to do whatever they want.

Its sick.

Oh, I'm sorry Outlaws and Giselle. I meant

"understand it is not"

Sorry about that.

I completely understand what you are saying Outlaw, the Democrats are in power now, the Republicans were in power before. I value your opinion, how would you propose to change Article 5 or would you even want to change it? Or another question can Article 5 be even amended?

That's true the people voted to put in Democratic Politicians in, so there is no balance, there wasn't any balance with Bush either.

This is not going to happen with the citizens voting on this new Health Care Reform, but do we really know what the voting citizens really want even though they put the Democratic Politicians in power. We don't know if the citizens would be 51% for this. In the past I have voted on different issues, felt I was in the majority and found out I was in the minority.

There's no reason to apologize on my account Alex, sometimes with me even putting glasses on, I still misread something.

Originally Posted by Giselle

I completely understand what you are saying Outlaw, the Democrats are in power now, the Republicans were in power before. I value your opinion, how would you propose to change Article 5 or would you even want to change it? Or another question can Article 5 be even amended?

That's true the people voted to put in Democratic Politicians in, so there is no balance, there wasn't any balance with Bush either.

This is not going to happen with the citizens voting on this new Health Care Reform, but do we really know what the voting citizens really want even though they put the Democratic Politicians in power. We don't know if the citizens would be 51% for this. In the past I have voted on different issues, felt I was in the majority and found out I was in the minority.

I wouldn't change Aricle 5, I don't see why we would. Article 5 merely lays out the process for amending the constitution. If the people really want to give the Ferdal Government the power to do something, then we should push to have the Constitution amended to do so.

Is it difficult to amend, yes. Should it be? Yes. We don't want a small percentage majority (or worse yet, a majority elected largely as a mere backlash to the previous administration) to be allowed to just rewrite governments authority anytime they come to power.

But again, as I said before, I think the greatest shame is most people today look at everything only in the view of what they want, rather than considering what is or is not allowed.

The Constitution of the United States was ratified June 21, 1788, that's over 200 years ago. They did their best for their times, but we don't live in their times, even with Article 5 being placed in for future.

At one time one didn't have to secure a pilot's license or a drivers license, that was all right for that period of time but not for this period of time. We have to move along with the times, we already discussed there is nothing about the right to health care, but due to advances in medical and the population explosion compared to 1788, we need some kind of help in Health Care.

Had to split this one, the original topic of the other thread was about government tracking of its citizens on the Web.

tim

Originally Posted by Outlaws

Is it difficult to amend, yes. Should it be? Yes. We don't want a small percentage majority (or worse yet, a majority elected largely as a mere backlash to the previous administration) to be allowed to just rewrite governments authority anytime they come to power.

Agreed. Government is trying to rush us through everything right now. They spent more than all the previous presidents combined and almost no ones complaining

Originally Posted by Giselle

The Constitution of the United States was ratified June 21, 1788, that's over 200 years ago. They did their best for their times, but we don't live in their times, even with Article 5 being placed in for future.

Wow. So because there isn't enough support for amending the constitution, we should just throw it away? Remember that next time you choose to open your mouth - there will be a government agent just waiting to shut it for you.

Originally Posted by Giselle

At one time one didn't have to secure a pilot's license or a drivers license, that was all right for that period of time but not for this period of time.

What does this have to do with anything? Your drivers license is State issued. Mass has state health care. Why not push for state health care in your State?

Originally Posted by Giselle

We have to move along with the times, we already discussed there is nothing about the right to health care but due to advances in medical and the population explosion compared to 1788, we need some kind of help in Health Care.

Then deal with it in your State. Don't try to force it upon everyone else. Why should I have to pay for someone who is 2000 miles away?

No one owes anyone else a living. You have a right to life, not government funded life support.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Had to split this one, the original topic of the other thread was about government tracking of its citizens on the Web.

tim

lol....I would consider them all under the same topic..... Control.