Health insurance is meaningless if you cannot get healthcare, they are different things.
Is the US doctors are not just refusing new patients, they are retiring, leaving the practice, declining to enter the field.
When the state dictates the minimum level of care and the cost this does two things; This enslaves the provider by interfering with his ability to negotiate the terms of his product or service himself, and eventually this minimum level of care will be the only level of care available to anyone, save for the elites of course.
"Free government health insurance" sounds great doesn't it. But one cannot ignore reality, nothing is free and the government fails at nearly everything it does.
The Soviet Union had a constitution in 1936 provided it's citizens with an impressive sounding list of rights:
This included the right to work, to leisure time, to healthcare, to retirement etc. etc. etc.
Didn't work out too well did it?
But no, all these socialist systems that have come before Obama were just not tried *properly* now were they? They didn't have a leader as *smart* as Obama to implement them, *this* time they will get it right I'm sure.
This is correct, however I ask a follow up. Why are hospitals forced to provide healthcare services to people that cannot pay - this is one of the main drivers behind escalating costs of healthcare, but why is this the case?
"Still, the unemployment rate has been above 8 percent since his first month in office — the longest stretch on record."
Bears repeating: "the longest stretch on record.", now that's saying something. Obama, lots of talk and no delivery. Do. You. Get. It?
I am pointing to this particular statistic because it is related to tech workers and this is a tech oriented site. That is all.
Besides, in a vibrant, healthy economy job loss in one or a handful of businesses would be absorbed by all the other successful businesses, which, seemingly, we DO NOT HAVE.
I don't care for one second that this is "Not the US government's fault.", it is not the job of the state to create jobs.
Obama's policies however do result in an economy where businesses cannot succeed, focusing I might add on small businesses where most all people are employed. If you do not see this then you are a moron. Not my fault.
"American's without Health Insurance who are being held captive by a system"
How is this being 'held captive', actually this sounds like 'has the opportunity to purchase healthcare services'.
"which exists first and foremost to make a profit from illness"
Wow that's a jump. What motivates any man to labor to produce a product or service for people who want to pay for those services? This is not a trick question, it's called a profit.
Do you actually think the state will be motivated by some other factor? You seem to trust the state more to watch out for your interests - and spend your money, than yourself. I for one do not. The evidence shows the state has a pretty poor record when it comes to making prudent decisions with our money. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
It appears that you have some relationship with a business (blarneygardencentre.com), do you provide your product or service for some other reason than profit? Is this business motivated by something other than profit? We all understand that it is not. Why is healthcare different?
Do you expect doctors and other health care professionals to do their job for any reason other than profit? Are they not allowed to make a living (what you call a "profit") from their product or service? This is a real question.
I thank you for a thoughtful response, and no I am not accusing you of attacking - but it is the norm here when conservative viewpoints are made and yet the leftist is allowed to rant on and on with vitriol and name calling without restraint whatsoever. Double standard much?
Clearly we disagree which is fine, however I do not condone abuses of constitutional authority by any party - this is my point. The bar for whether or not a specific power should stand I believe should indeed by *very* high - to prevent abuse from any side, and I think the explanation provided by the WAPO editorial is inarguable.
"For the most part our system is still intact." Sadly I disagree, I believe we are - and have been for many years - in a post-constitutional state, the limits imposed on the state by this document are ignored whenever convenient by the elites. This is made quite clear by the way the ACA was passed end-running around constitutional protections, back room deals and arm twisting - the many interviews of CNS News regarding constitutional authority for this bill show this clearly, these people have no idea (a generalization of course) what the limits of the document actually are and the really don't care (Akaka of Hawaii says this in plain language!). If you do not know what I am referring to just google and have a look it will be eye opening. The fact that Roberts sided with the statist in this matter is particularly troubling, this was a lawless and totally unexpected decision, but here we are. We are left with repeal which I am highly skeptical they will actually do, but of course with politics anything is possible and I will work to that end. Regardless this is a larger discussion for another day.
Your last paragraph is of note, and again I need to point out that we cannot blame the corporation itself, nor the free market (dubious as it is nowadays) in this matter which is where a lot of misdirection lies. The leftist try and point the blame on private industry and the free market - which is completely false, yet the great unwashed just suck this explanation up as gospel and turn to the left for relief! It is the left that is behind much of this corruption, this is in no way shape or form a conservative policy, the conservative believes in the free market with limited constitutional regulation above almost all else, success is to be rewarded and corruption to be dealt with severely (this specifically excludes the Republican party of today you must understand). This collusion of the state and the elites in power in corporations is called crony capitalism and this is antithetical to the free market in whole.
So I ask of you what is the solution - who do you support? The conservative is the best hope we have of reigning in this power mad state machine and putting them back in the box that we call the constitution, and the best hope for the conservative is to support the Republican party (we have to reject the radicalism that is the Obama administration and the leftists in congress), and then force the Republicans back to constitutional principles. This will be a long and difficult process if it is even possible. Romney is hardly any magic bullet but he is the best we have and has to be supported. More important is to elect real conservatives to the house and senate and to other local offices.
In the end this is our country and the solution is up to us! And it can be fixed if we work diligently to that end!
You really are being obtuse. Listen to me, "Ancient societies had diff values. News at 11!". You are judging these men using the standards of today, this is ignorant.
I do not condone slavery nor do I excuse those founders who supported it, but you cannot escape the fact that given the conditions at the time they clearly were against it and worked to put it to an end, which is exactly what happened. You act as if none of this happened.
Why did we have slave and free states at all? Why did this eventually lead to a war among the states? You cannot ignore these facts, nor can you dismiss the fact that these things were different in these times. The same goes for womens rights.
You clearly aren't going to change your mind, I am done with you.
People do not generally understand the Bill of Rights, these amendments were critical to the eventual ratification of the Constitution in whole, without them there would have been no agreement. The states at the time were nations themselves and would not have given these rights away without the ten amendments.
The document must be read in it's entirety, not picked apart and selectively used.
Making an assertion does not constitute winning an argument sir. You must present supporting evidence and logic.
Many were slaveowners indeed, many who opposed the revolution were as well. Does this make these men racist? Hardly.
The founders were wise and well educated men and clearly valued all human life. You would do well to learn more about them, yet you sit there behind your keyboard and throw unsupported attacks on them from a wrong position.
But you must explain why the south wanted slaves to count as 1 vote but would not have allowed them to vote. The founders were against slavery but knew they needed the south to remain in the Union. The document was specifically designed such that slavery would not survive and they knew this was the best that they would be able to do.
You are wrong 'they thought of their slaves as people when it came to being represented, but not people when deciding on their representation', this ignores the realitty of the time. I suggest you do some reading.
Funny, I just made the same point in other thread. What do all you leftist free software hippies think? You should all call Obama now to complain, or admit you have no principles.
The checks on power afforded us by the Constitution need to be adhered to by all branches of government regardless of party. When the president exceeds his authority by
* Making unconstitutional recess appointments by declaring congress in recess when it was not * Implementing DREAM act by fiat ignoring congressional statute * violating First Amendment protections by forcing all insurers to provide birth control
Now while you may (and I am speaking in the general 'you' not the specific of course) may agree with these statist positions, you must reject the application of this authority. What will you do when the executive in power does not agree with your agenda? If the limits in presidential authority - in fact limits on power of the entirety of government are not defined by the Constitution, then where I ask are the limits? How far will they go? How much power is enough?
It will never be enough if left unchecked, that is when you have tyranny and all men in the civil society should reject this aggressively - whatever your political stance! Do you not agree?
That's far to general to even be meaningful. What if your neighbors beliefs include that of raping your children and stealing your property and they are acting on these beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
It is noted that you ignore all the facts in my post. Thanks for playing.
Health insurance is meaningless if you cannot get healthcare, they are different things.
Is the US doctors are not just refusing new patients, they are retiring, leaving the practice, declining to enter the field.
When the state dictates the minimum level of care and the cost this does two things; This enslaves the provider by interfering with his ability to negotiate the terms of his product or service himself, and eventually this minimum level of care will be the only level of care available to anyone, save for the elites of course.
"Free government health insurance" sounds great doesn't it. But one cannot ignore reality, nothing is free and the government fails at nearly everything it does.
The Soviet Union had a constitution in 1936 provided it's citizens with an impressive sounding list of rights:
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10
This included the right to work, to leisure time, to healthcare, to retirement etc. etc. etc.
Didn't work out too well did it?
But no, all these socialist systems that have come before Obama were just not tried *properly* now were they? They didn't have a leader as *smart* as Obama to implement them, *this* time they will get it right I'm sure.
Yes that was sarcasm.
This is correct, however I ask a follow up. Why are hospitals forced to provide healthcare services to people that cannot pay - this is one of the main drivers behind escalating costs of healthcare, but why is this the case?
Democracy is three serial rapists and a young cheerleader voting on evening activities.
Not relevant. Obama 2010: "One in 10 Americans still can't find work. That's why creating jobs has to be our number one priority in 2010."
Unemployment.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-unemployment-rate-rises-8-130044686.html
"Still, the unemployment rate has been above 8 percent since his first month in office — the longest stretch on record."
Bears repeating: "the longest stretch on record.", now that's saying something. Obama, lots of talk and no delivery. Do. You. Get. It?
I am pointing to this particular statistic because it is related to tech workers and this is a tech oriented site. That is all.
Besides, in a vibrant, healthy economy job loss in one or a handful of businesses would be absorbed by all the other successful businesses, which, seemingly, we DO NOT HAVE.
I don't care for one second that this is "Not the US government's fault.", it is not the job of the state to create jobs.
Obama's policies however do result in an economy where businesses cannot succeed, focusing I might add on small businesses where most all people are employed. If you do not see this then you are a moron. Not my fault.
Yea, clever. Answer the question Mr. "brainwashed".
Or does coward fit?
Is that the case? Really?
The same state everyone here seems to want to control their access to colonoscpies?
"Slashdot: Where tyrrany, repression and genocide are cool as long as the perpertrators suck up to Assange in public."
Indeed.
And no geek here seems to want to address actual real news, such as
Maximum Leader Obama's Economy: Tech layoffs hit 3-year high of 51,529 in first
No, the real news today is naked Republicans and "legitimate rape".
Priorities anyone?
A fair correction, yes words do mean things, don't they? :-)
"American's without Health Insurance who are being held captive by a system"
How is this being 'held captive', actually this sounds like 'has the opportunity to purchase healthcare services'.
"which exists first and foremost to make a profit from illness"
Wow that's a jump. What motivates any man to labor to produce a product or service for people who want to pay for those services? This is not a trick question, it's called a profit.
Do you actually think the state will be motivated by some other factor? You seem to trust the state more to watch out for your interests - and spend your money, than yourself. I for one do not. The evidence shows the state has a pretty poor record when it comes to making prudent decisions with our money. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
It appears that you have some relationship with a business (blarneygardencentre.com), do you provide your product or service for some other reason than profit? Is this business motivated by something other than profit? We all understand that it is not. Why is healthcare different?
Do you expect doctors and other health care professionals to do their job for any reason other than profit? Are they not allowed to make a living (what you call a "profit") from their product or service? This is a real question.
I thank you for a thoughtful response, and no I am not accusing you of attacking - but it is the norm here when conservative viewpoints are made and yet the leftist is allowed to rant on and on with vitriol and name calling without restraint whatsoever. Double standard much?
Clearly we disagree which is fine, however I do not condone abuses of constitutional authority by any party - this is my point. The bar for whether or not a specific power should stand I believe should indeed by *very* high - to prevent abuse from any side, and I think the explanation provided by the WAPO editorial is inarguable.
"For the most part our system is still intact." Sadly I disagree, I believe we are - and have been for many years - in a post-constitutional state, the limits imposed on the state by this document are ignored whenever convenient by the elites. This is made quite clear by the way the ACA was passed end-running around constitutional protections, back room deals and arm twisting - the many interviews of CNS News regarding constitutional authority for this bill show this clearly, these people have no idea (a generalization of course) what the limits of the document actually are and the really don't care (Akaka of Hawaii says this in plain language!). If you do not know what I am referring to just google and have a look it will be eye opening. The fact that Roberts sided with the statist in this matter is particularly troubling, this was a lawless and totally unexpected decision, but here we are. We are left with repeal which I am highly skeptical they will actually do, but of course with politics anything is possible and I will work to that end. Regardless this is a larger discussion for another day.
Your last paragraph is of note, and again I need to point out that we cannot blame the corporation itself, nor the free market (dubious as it is nowadays) in this matter which is where a lot of misdirection lies. The leftist try and point the blame on private industry and the free market - which is completely false, yet the great unwashed just suck this explanation up as gospel and turn to the left for relief! It is the left that is behind much of this corruption, this is in no way shape or form a conservative policy, the conservative believes in the free market with limited constitutional regulation above almost all else, success is to be rewarded and corruption to be dealt with severely (this specifically excludes the Republican party of today you must understand). This collusion of the state and the elites in power in corporations is called crony capitalism and this is antithetical to the free market in whole.
So I ask of you what is the solution - who do you support? The conservative is the best hope we have of reigning in this power mad state machine and putting them back in the box that we call the constitution, and the best hope for the conservative is to support the Republican party (we have to reject the radicalism that is the Obama administration and the leftists in congress), and then force the Republicans back to constitutional principles. This will be a long and difficult process if it is even possible. Romney is hardly any magic bullet but he is the best we have and has to be supported. More important is to elect real conservatives to the house and senate and to other local offices.
In the end this is our country and the solution is up to us! And it can be fixed if we work diligently to that end!
Do you see what I am saying?
You really are being obtuse. Listen to me, "Ancient societies had diff values. News at 11!". You are judging these men using the standards of today, this is ignorant.
I do not condone slavery nor do I excuse those founders who supported it, but you cannot escape the fact that given the conditions at the time they clearly were against it and worked to put it to an end, which is exactly what happened. You act as if none of this happened.
Why did we have slave and free states at all? Why did this eventually lead to a war among the states? You cannot ignore these facts, nor can you dismiss the fact that these things were different in these times. The same goes for womens rights.
You clearly aren't going to change your mind, I am done with you.
How conflating, these events are both part of our history, the one leading to the other.
Why, do you believe we should ignore part of our history? This makes no sense.
For the last time sir, I have presented a whole lot more than you who has nothing but attacks and vitriol.
And I will waste no more of my time on you, as clearly you are not here for any sort of discussion.
Well said, and I would add to that the tenth.
People do not generally understand the Bill of Rights, these amendments were critical to the eventual ratification of the Constitution in whole, without them there would have been no agreement. The states at the time were nations themselves and would not have given these rights away without the ten amendments.
The document must be read in it's entirety, not picked apart and selectively used.
Again, calling something bullshit does not make it so, no matter how loudly you say it.
Public school education huh? I'm sorry.
Making an assertion does not constitute winning an argument sir. You must present supporting evidence and logic.
Many were slaveowners indeed, many who opposed the revolution were as well. Does this make these men racist? Hardly.
The founders were wise and well educated men and clearly valued all human life. You would do well to learn more about them, yet you sit there behind your keyboard and throw unsupported attacks on them from a wrong position.
For shame.
But you must explain why the south wanted slaves to count as 1 vote but would not have allowed them to vote. The founders were against slavery but knew they needed the south to remain in the Union. The document was specifically designed such that slavery would not survive and they knew this was the best that they would be able to do.
You are wrong 'they thought of their slaves as people when it came to being represented, but not people when deciding on their representation', this ignores the realitty of the time. I suggest you do some reading.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-slavery-and-emancipation
Oh and by the way, which party has supported more slavery than the other?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6iWmmTI8kY
Bwahahahahaha
Quite so. Democracy is three serial rapists and a young cheerleader voting on evening activities.
Aren't hippies all for minority rights anyway? Oh no! Does not compute!
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -Ayn Rand
Tyranny? How so, the NRA does not control anything.
You clearly don't understand the document anyway based on your comments on slavery. Why do you believe the 3/5's clause was put there?
Funny, I just made the same point in other thread. What do all you leftist free software hippies think? You should all call Obama now to complain, or admit you have no principles.
The checks on power afforded us by the Constitution need to be adhered to by all branches of government regardless of party. When the president exceeds his authority by
* Making unconstitutional recess appointments by declaring congress in recess when it was not
* Implementing DREAM act by fiat ignoring congressional statute
* violating First Amendment protections by forcing all insurers to provide birth control
Now while you may (and I am speaking in the general 'you' not the specific of course) may agree with these statist positions, you must reject the application of this authority. What will you do when the executive in power does not agree with your agenda? If the limits in presidential authority - in fact limits on power of the entirety of government are not defined by the Constitution, then where I ask are the limits? How far will they go? How much power is enough?
It will never be enough if left unchecked, that is when you have tyranny and all men in the civil society should reject this aggressively - whatever your political stance! Do you not agree?
That's far to general to even be meaningful. What if your neighbors beliefs include that of raping your children and stealing your property and they are acting on these beliefs.
http://heygirlitspaulryan.tumblr.com/
Can you prove that?
Conservatives and leftists are different here.