Obama swept into office with a ringing endorsement from the U.S. population (and much of the world) and a Democrat Congress with a filibuster-proof majority.
And a week ago the Democrats lost some seats. If health care reform passes Democrats may lose more next year. Such as the Blue collar and Reagan Democrat voters. Though I voted for Obama myself I feel I've been used and can not support Obama again.
There's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this?
First let me say if this is an Obama ploy I disagree with it. With that out of the way, there is no way for Obama to stop a president that follows him from trying to issue a subpoena. Without a law or a court order, which didn't work to stop the second Bush, there's no way Obama can stop the president that follows him.
No one is changing the constitution, just creating laws that fall within the constitution. I don't know what is so hard to grasp about that.
You're right nobody's trying to change the Constitution, and that's the problem. Instead of changing it they are violating it. No where does it give the federal government the power to control health care and the only place where it gives any authority with insurance is the interstate commerce clause. Congress can make it legal for me to cross state lines to buy insurance in a state with cheaper insurance. But this bill does not do that.
You said, all that was necessary was to prove that code in a newer product was the same as code in the older product.
That's right I did, and I stand by it. If code in the newer product is in the older software then it's possible it was copied. I also said "I don't how much of the code has to be the same to show infringement but I imagine it has to be a significant percentage."
That is not the case, because that is exactly what SCO was trying to do. They were trying to prove that code in their product was the same as code in a newer Linux product, despite the fact that the code existed in even older Linux products.
SCO was not able to show one line of code in Linux that was in Unix. If you have evidence saying otherwise please provide a link to this. Doing a quick google I found this timeline of the SCO v IBM case. The most recent mention of "code", source code, has this to say:
"March 7"
"During a hearing on summary judgment, IBM lawyer David Marriott points out that of a million lines of code that SCO has claimed belong to them, the actual amount SCO may legitimately use in their allegations is 326 lines. Of these 326 lines, most of it is header files and therefore not copyrightable, argues Marriott." No where else does it say SCO has shown any lines of code in Linux that is in System V.
Thus my point is, merely proving that Microsoft has code that is in older GPL code doesn't mean Microsoft is guilty, because the older GPL code may have come from a source that wasn't encumbered by the GPL.
My point was that it's hypocritical of GPL advocates to say Microsoft is guilty without doing due dilligence on the source of that code when they were on the opposite side of the coin in the SCO case.
If I said MS is guilty because it has code in it's software that is in GPLed code that is older than MS's code I don't know where. Oh, also I don't advocate the GPL more than any other license. If there is a license I advocate more than others it's the BSD derived licenses, I'd like be able to close my own code which BSD licenses allow. MS has used code with the license itself.
Now, I agree Medicaid, Medicare, and SSI aren't run well, yet half the population wants to duplicate Medicare. I have been refused health insurance because of my disability and for years my sister has been trying to get me some, she handles most of my finance and bills. She applied for Medicare for me about 3 years ago. In February or March of this year I was finally told I had Medicare, it took 2 years. However now Medicare is claiming I have been getting it since 2000. They claim I owe the premiums since then so now my SSI is being withheld. If it wasn't for my sister I'd be hurting bad. What money I received this year my sister gave me from her own pockets. My rent hasn't been paid either, however she owns the apartment building I live in.
I am afraid that if my SSI is not corrected soon my sister won't be able to continue supporting me.
One of the reasons why governments thing having an ID is mandatory.
Yea, the Soviet Union loved them. I bet Hitler did too. Unlike those places though in the US the government does not have the power to require them. Nor should it.
Either you haven't thought this through or you don't care.
I described a situation in which an illegal alien on purpose accessed the US health system. You describe being hit on your bike, and complain I did not take you in consideration. Hmm.
You also asked if people were required to show ID. If you're required to show ID for treatment then you're basically requiring ID be carried at all tymes.
I'm interested to hear your reasoning behind this, because there's still a very vibrant private health-care market in the UK despite the existence of government mandated health-care contributions.
If you can't opt-out it is mandatory. How hard is that to understand? It doesn't matter if you can pay a private provider more, you still have to pay the government. I was wrong though, if it's mandatory it's worse than a monopoly. At least with a monopoly, unless it's a government monopoly, if you don't pay a goon squad won't break your door down and drag you away. Governments do that. You can't refuse to pay taxes in in the US unless you're self employed. Employers are required to withhold your taxes. It may be different in the UK but I doubt it.
With the amount of regulation on nuclear, how can it be profitable?
The bell rang. It's not just in the US that nuclear power not profitable. Obviously you didn't read the Freemarket CATO Institute's, reprint of a "Forbes" business article I provided a link to. Because you can't be bothered to read links provided I see no reason continue this.
The FTC really only got in the game at that point because those are markets that have essentially already boiled down to 2-3 players. Although the difference between search and ad-networks and insurance is that there's a lot more consumer choice -- not number of choices, but freedom to switch at any time. This is the big reason why insurance isn't and doesn't need to be competitive: there's really little consumer pressure.
Insurance needs to be competitive because it is so important, and as I said it isn't competitive now because of the government. If I wanted I could not switch my insurance policy issuer when I should be able to switch.
This is actually an example of why it's a *major* advantage to be huge if you're an insurance company. Until you get to a certain size, providers like that hospital you're mentioning actually have more power in negotiating terms than you do, and the only way to get more leverage is to increase your customer base, and the easiest way to do that in a market that doesn't have a lot of consumer choice is to merge.
Not if all health care providers, hospitals and doctors, refuse to accept certain insurance policies. Do you really think insurance companies are more powerful than hospitals and doctors? Doctors and hospitals can and do give medical care free, can insurance companies do that?
Also many insurance companies are corporations and the charter which grants them limited liability can be revoked. If businesses are allowed to get away with anything it's because people allow it to not because it can't be punished.
An intriguing idea.
The first two corporations granted their corporate charters was Dutch East India Company in 1602 and the British East India Company in 1604. They were granted their corporate charters because they were both shipping companies and that was an industry that improved peoples' lives, the more trade the better the economy gets. When corporations no longer improve the common or public good their charter can be revoked.
It was understood how powerful corporations could get. Who do you think said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country'? It wasn't Marx, Lenin, or any other communist. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those who wanted liberty and small government. As government got bigger and more powerful so did corporations. With some exceptions people whether voters or the elected held the feet of corporations to the fire.
Now what I say may seem a contradiction, advocating free markets but then wanting to hold corporations accountable. Actually that's part of a free market, holding businesses accountable whether proprietary (owned by a single owner) or corporations.
Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine?
Section 8, powers of the congress, first sentence: General welfare.
General Welfare doesn't mean what you think it does. I'll go ahead and copy and paste another post I made on it:
Limited vs. Universal Powers
"I say... to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
Quote by James Madison
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Quite simply the USA's Founding Fathers didn't mean for "general welfare" to be used to get around the limits of the Constitution.
You are, by your own admission, dependent on the Government for support, yet you turn right around and rail against extending that opportunity to anyone else.
I've also railed that others have to pay to support me. On the other hand I had no choice but to pay the taxes when I did work just for when I needed the help. Personally I would have preferred to have the choice as to whether I'd pay for insurance or not pay. I'd also prefer the person, and their employer, who was responsible for my disability to pay. I do believe in personal responsibility, while your post seemed to imply otherwise.
As it is now, and has been for years, I want to start working and supporting myself as soon as I can. I'm hoping I can start working part tyme as a photographer RSN though with the economy the way it is I doubt I'll make much money. Then when I can pay for it I want to get back into college and finish my degree.
Competition in the PC industry is much stronger than in insurance or health care.
That is because the market for PCs is freer than the market for health care and insurance. I can go many places in any state and buy a PC from any of a number of makers. I can not go across a state line and buy health insurance in another state. And when I do buy health insurance I do not get the same tax deductions an employer gets for offering the insurance to employees.
Quite simply the market for insurance is heavily government regulated, and subsidized for some but not all, driving up insurance premiums.
They all apparently have a tendency to find something wrong with your application years after the fact right after you're diagnosed with an expensive condition.
Ever hear of the courts? Or lawsuits? One purpose of government is to enforce contract law. Actually about the only thing I consider "good" in the bill is the preexisting condition clause. But that could have been done alone not as a massive 2000 page bill. A bill I doubt a single representative read all 2000 pages of.
You should really do more homework before you post as much.
I should? You're the one that said Republicans did not for 6 years, I gave 4 examples of where they in fact did do something. But you refuse to acknowledge you were wrong.
A better health care system, same as everyone else, despite their paranoid bleating?
No, a worse health care system despite the bleatings of supporters. A gun in the belly when someone who lives a healthy lifestyle refuses to pay the health care of the fat slob that eats at McDonalds a lot perhaps, but they won't get much more than that. Quite simply there is no free lunch but people like you refuse to accept that and instead want others to pay for others' health care.
Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare...
Limited vs. Universal Powers
"I say... to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
Quote by James Madison
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
I am sure I can find more but if this doesn't change your mind I doubt bringing the Founding Fathers back to life to explain it to you would help either.
That's precisely the point. People here use an asinine pseudo-legal argument to say "infringement is not stealing", and then proceed to prove the argument that infringement is not theft.
Why are you telling me then instead of those who use words improperly? I do that with others, the words I do this with mostly is "hacker", "liberal", and "polygamy". Hackers aren't criminal thieves, liberals believe in liberty and small government, and polygamy is where both male and females can have more than one spouse. And when I'm wrong I appreciate being corrected. Of course my problem when corrected is that I may not recall it, my memory is bad.
You do realize that the founding fathers understood that they could not predict the future, right? That clause is in there to account for things they could not foretell.
Yes, they knew they could not foresee the future. Therefore they included a way to change the Constitution, by amending it. Now are there any amendments to give the federal government the power to control, mandate, or regulate health care and insurance? No, therefore the federal government does not have that power. The power it does have it is not using, and the bill the House passed does not change that fact. The interstate commerce clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" is not used. Because the federal government does not use that clause here, I can not go across a state line and buy health insurance where it is cheaper. If that one simple clause was enforced and people got the same tax deductions employers get for buying insurance the competition between insurance policy issuers would lower the cost of both health care and insurance.
PleasE go to college. You'll learn all about the Constitution. You really need the knowledge.
I have gone to college, I actually learned about the Constitution in Jr High though. Did you learn about it and US history anywhere? After having fought a tyrannical regime for independence the USA's Founding Fathers wanted to make sure government would not become tyrannical again. They set down guidelines by which government was to stay within. If the authority is not in the Constitution then the federal government can't do it. Especially notice amendments 9 and 10. Nine says that just because a right is not enumerated that it can be disparaged or denied. The tenth specifically states that if the Constitution does not give the federal government the power it does not have that power. That power is left to the states or the people.
Why an I wasting my tyme, I seriously doubt you'll change even when given facts.
But all those laws did not. Just like then right now I can not go buy my own health insurance and get the same tax deductions employers get for offering their employees insurance. Government giving employers tax deductions but not giving individuals the same deductions is a distortion of the market.
If we accept basic health as a right (which I do, and see no reason not to)
So do I but that does not mean believe it'[s the government's responsibility to provide it. If you want it you pay for it, don't use the force of arms to make me pay for it. Which is what government does. With your way, government should provide a right to everyone, then government should be providing everyone with firearms. After the right to bear arms is specifically stated. And government should provide everyone with radio and tv stations, after all free speech is a right. Have you really thought what you believe in thoroughly?
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.
On this we agree. I think this whole health-care thing has been presented wrong. You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.
On this we agree. I think this whole health-care thing has been presented wrong. The debate is long on buzz words, and short on actual substantive argument. No one really is making any cases either way. This seems to be endemic of American politics these days, long on words short on founding principles (philosophy, if you will).
All these words and we agree?
Though, us as individuals seem to be doing our part at least, disagreement and spirited arguments are what make our Government good, sadly we've lost that beyond the (increasingly insignificant) individual level of discourse.
I think that's because to do otherwise takes people out of their comfort zone, which they don't want to leave. I have to admit I get that way myself though I try not to.
I meant the rest of the first world. In the rest of the first world, there are zero, I repeat, zero, bankruptcies due to sickness or health care costs.
No bankruptcies =!, does not equal, no complaints.
"Once upon a time, there were few complaints about lengthy waits for treatment."
"And service cuts -- such as the closure of a maternity ward near Cuccarolo's home -- are prompting complaints from patients, doctors and nurses that care is being rationed. That concern echos worries among some Americans that the U.S. changes could lead to rationing."
Here's another indication the French system, considered the best in the world by many, is broken: Troubles with the French healthcare system. And that's from someone who advocated the US use France's system as a model.
However I see a problem with your post I replied to. ANY reform on medical costs is worth it. several OB-GYN and and an anesthesiologist that I know (none with any previous issues) are paying over 100K/year for malpractice. That is outrageous.
According to more than one study medical malpractice adds little to the cost of health care,.5% is sited.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama swept into office with a ringing endorsement from the U.S. population (and much of the world) and a Democrat Congress with a filibuster-proof majority.
And a week ago the Democrats lost some seats. If health care reform passes Democrats may lose more next year. Such as the Blue collar and Reagan Democrat voters. Though I voted for Obama myself I feel I've been used and can not support Obama again.
Falcon
There's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this?
First let me say if this is an Obama ploy I disagree with it. With that out of the way, there is no way for Obama to stop a president that follows him from trying to issue a subpoena. Without a law or a court order, which didn't work to stop the second Bush, there's no way Obama can stop the president that follows him.
Falcon
Troll
Falcon
Justice costs money in these here United States.
Especially with attitudes like this. People get what they deserve when they let corporations get away with stuff.
Falcon
No one is changing the constitution, just creating laws that fall within the constitution. I don't know what is so hard to grasp about that.
You're right nobody's trying to change the Constitution, and that's the problem. Instead of changing it they are violating it. No where does it give the federal government the power to control health care and the only place where it gives any authority with insurance is the interstate commerce clause. Congress can make it legal for me to cross state lines to buy insurance in a state with cheaper insurance. But this bill does not do that.
Now what is so hard about that?
Falcon
Perhaps you need to re-read what you wrote.
You said, all that was necessary was to prove that code in a newer product was the same as code in the older product.
That's right I did, and I stand by it. If code in the newer product is in the older software then it's possible it was copied. I also said "I don't how much of the code has to be the same to show infringement but I imagine it has to be a significant percentage."
That is not the case, because that is exactly what SCO was trying to do. They were trying to prove that code in their product was the same as code in a newer Linux product, despite the fact that the code existed in even older Linux products.
SCO was not able to show one line of code in Linux that was in Unix. If you have evidence saying otherwise please provide a link to this. Doing a quick google I found this timeline of the SCO v IBM case. The most recent mention of "code", source code, has this to say:
"March 7"
"During a hearing on summary judgment, IBM lawyer David Marriott points out that of a million lines of code that SCO has claimed belong to them, the actual amount SCO may legitimately use in their allegations is 326 lines. Of these 326 lines, most of it is header files and therefore not copyrightable, argues Marriott." No where else does it say SCO has shown any lines of code in Linux that is in System V.
Thus my point is, merely proving that Microsoft has code that is in older GPL code doesn't mean Microsoft is guilty, because the older GPL code may have come from a source that wasn't encumbered by the GPL.
My point was that it's hypocritical of GPL advocates to say Microsoft is guilty without doing due dilligence on the source of that code when they were on the opposite side of the coin in the SCO case.
If I said MS is guilty because it has code in it's software that is in GPLed code that is older than MS's code I don't know where. Oh, also I don't advocate the GPL more than any other license. If there is a license I advocate more than others it's the BSD derived licenses, I'd like be able to close my own code which BSD licenses allow. MS has used code with the license itself.
Falcon
Thanks falcon. I wasn't aware of the differences although not sure if they really matter in this case since none of them are being run correctly. :)
First, SSI is short for Supplemental Security Income. It's income for those who are disabled.
Now, I agree Medicaid, Medicare, and SSI aren't run well, yet half the population wants to duplicate Medicare. I have been refused health insurance because of my disability and for years my sister has been trying to get me some, she handles most of my finance and bills. She applied for Medicare for me about 3 years ago. In February or March of this year I was finally told I had Medicare, it took 2 years. However now Medicare is claiming I have been getting it since 2000. They claim I owe the premiums since then so now my SSI is being withheld. If it wasn't for my sister I'd be hurting bad. What money I received this year my sister gave me from her own pockets. My rent hasn't been paid either, however she owns the apartment building I live in.
I am afraid that if my SSI is not corrected soon my sister won't be able to continue supporting me.
Falcon
If you don't believe them, then challenge them with evidence.
I did challenge it but you ignored the challenge. Perhaps because you can't prove it's safe and want to keep spewing garbage.
Falcon
One of the reasons why governments thing having an ID is mandatory.
Yea, the Soviet Union loved them. I bet Hitler did too. Unlike those places though in the US the government does not have the power to require them. Nor should it.
Either you haven't thought this through or you don't care.
I described a situation in which an illegal alien on purpose accessed the US health system. You describe being hit on your bike, and complain I did not take you in consideration. Hmm.
You also asked if people were required to show ID. If you're required to show ID for treatment then you're basically requiring ID be carried at all tymes.
Falcon
I'm interested to hear your reasoning behind this, because there's still a very vibrant private health-care market in the UK despite the existence of government mandated health-care contributions.
If you can't opt-out it is mandatory. How hard is that to understand? It doesn't matter if you can pay a private provider more, you still have to pay the government. I was wrong though, if it's mandatory it's worse than a monopoly. At least with a monopoly, unless it's a government monopoly, if you don't pay a goon squad won't break your door down and drag you away. Governments do that. You can't refuse to pay taxes in in the US unless you're self employed. Employers are required to withhold your taxes. It may be different in the UK but I doubt it.
Falcon
With the amount of regulation on nuclear, how can it be profitable?
The bell rang. It's not just in the US that nuclear power not profitable. Obviously you didn't read the Freemarket CATO Institute's, reprint of a "Forbes" business article I provided a link to. Because you can't be bothered to read links provided I see no reason continue this.
Troll
Falcon
The FTC really only got in the game at that point because those are markets that have essentially already boiled down to 2-3 players. Although the difference between search and ad-networks and insurance is that there's a lot more consumer choice -- not number of choices, but freedom to switch at any time. This is the big reason why insurance isn't and doesn't need to be competitive: there's really little consumer pressure.
Insurance needs to be competitive because it is so important, and as I said it isn't competitive now because of the government. If I wanted I could not switch my insurance policy issuer when I should be able to switch.
This is actually an example of why it's a *major* advantage to be huge if you're an insurance company. Until you get to a certain size, providers like that hospital you're mentioning actually have more power in negotiating terms than you do, and the only way to get more leverage is to increase your customer base, and the easiest way to do that in a market that doesn't have a lot of consumer choice is to merge.
Not if all health care providers, hospitals and doctors, refuse to accept certain insurance policies. Do you really think insurance companies are more powerful than hospitals and doctors? Doctors and hospitals can and do give medical care free, can insurance companies do that?
Also many insurance companies are corporations and the charter which grants them limited liability can be revoked. If businesses are allowed to get away with anything it's because people allow it to not because it can't be punished.
An intriguing idea.
The first two corporations granted their corporate charters was Dutch East India Company in 1602 and the British East India Company in 1604. They were granted their corporate charters because they were both shipping companies and that was an industry that improved peoples' lives, the more trade the better the economy gets. When corporations no longer improve the common or public good their charter can be revoked.
It was understood how powerful corporations could get. Who do you think said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country'? It wasn't Marx, Lenin, or any other communist. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those who wanted liberty and small government. As government got bigger and more powerful so did corporations. With some exceptions people whether voters or the elected held the feet of corporations to the fire.
Now what I say may seem a contradiction, advocating free markets but then wanting to hold corporations accountable. Actually that's part of a free market, holding businesses accountable whether proprietary (owned by a single owner) or corporations.
Falcon
Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine?
Section 8, powers of the congress, first sentence: General welfare.
General Welfare doesn't mean what you think it does. I'll go ahead and copy and paste another post I made on it:
Limited vs. Universal Powers
"I say... to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
Quote by James Madison
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Quite simply the USA's Founding Fathers didn't mean for "general welfare" to be used to get around the limits of the Constitution.
Falcon
You are, by your own admission, dependent on the Government for support, yet you turn right around and rail against extending that opportunity to anyone else.
I've also railed that others have to pay to support me. On the other hand I had no choice but to pay the taxes when I did work just for when I needed the help. Personally I would have preferred to have the choice as to whether I'd pay for insurance or not pay. I'd also prefer the person, and their employer, who was responsible for my disability to pay. I do believe in personal responsibility, while your post seemed to imply otherwise.
As it is now, and has been for years, I want to start working and supporting myself as soon as I can. I'm hoping I can start working part tyme as a photographer RSN though with the economy the way it is I doubt I'll make much money. Then when I can pay for it I want to get back into college and finish my degree.
Falcon
Competition in the PC industry is much stronger than in insurance or health care.
That is because the market for PCs is freer than the market for health care and insurance. I can go many places in any state and buy a PC from any of a number of makers. I can not go across a state line and buy health insurance in another state. And when I do buy health insurance I do not get the same tax deductions an employer gets for offering the insurance to employees.
Quite simply the market for insurance is heavily government regulated, and subsidized for some but not all, driving up insurance premiums.
They all apparently have a tendency to find something wrong with your application years after the fact right after you're diagnosed with an expensive condition.
Ever hear of the courts? Or lawsuits? One purpose of government is to enforce contract law. Actually about the only thing I consider "good" in the bill is the preexisting condition clause. But that could have been done alone not as a massive 2000 page bill. A bill I doubt a single representative read all 2000 pages of.
You should really do more homework before you post as much.
I should? You're the one that said Republicans did not for 6 years, I gave 4 examples of where they in fact did do something. But you refuse to acknowledge you were wrong.
Falcon
A better health care system, same as everyone else, despite their paranoid bleating?
No, a worse health care system despite the bleatings of supporters. A gun in the belly when someone who lives a healthy lifestyle refuses to pay the health care of the fat slob that eats at McDonalds a lot perhaps, but they won't get much more than that. Quite simply there is no free lunch but people like you refuse to accept that and instead want others to pay for others' health care.
Let's see... Did the government create the Shriners Hospital for Children? No, the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine did. Did the government create Danny Thomas's St. Jude Children's Research Hospital? No, Danny Thomas the actor and comedian did. Does either one turn patients away because of lack of ability to pay? Does either one get taxpayre money? No to both, both run on donations. Yet in their fields these hospitals are about the best in their fields.
Civil society and free markets can do more than governments can where there is not a natural monopoly.
Falcon
Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare...
Limited vs. Universal Powers
"I say... to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
Quote by James Madison
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
I am sure I can find more but if this doesn't change your mind I doubt bringing the Founding Fathers back to life to explain it to you would help either.
Falcon
That's precisely the point. People here use an asinine pseudo-legal argument to say "infringement is not stealing", and then proceed to prove the argument that infringement is not theft.
Why are you telling me then instead of those who use words improperly? I do that with others, the words I do this with mostly is "hacker", "liberal", and "polygamy". Hackers aren't criminal thieves, liberals believe in liberty and small government, and polygamy is where both male and females can have more than one spouse. And when I'm wrong I appreciate being corrected. Of course my problem when corrected is that I may not recall it, my memory is bad.
Falcon
You do realize that the founding fathers understood that they could not predict the future, right? That clause is in there to account for things they could not foretell.
Yes, they knew they could not foresee the future. Therefore they included a way to change the Constitution, by amending it. Now are there any amendments to give the federal government the power to control, mandate, or regulate health care and insurance? No, therefore the federal government does not have that power. The power it does have it is not using, and the bill the House passed does not change that fact. The interstate commerce clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" is not used. Because the federal government does not use that clause here, I can not go across a state line and buy health insurance where it is cheaper. If that one simple clause was enforced and people got the same tax deductions employers get for buying insurance the competition between insurance policy issuers would lower the cost of both health care and insurance.
Falcon
PleasE go to college. You'll learn all about the Constitution. You really need the knowledge.
I have gone to college, I actually learned about the Constitution in Jr High though. Did you learn about it and US history anywhere? After having fought a tyrannical regime for independence the USA's Founding Fathers wanted to make sure government would not become tyrannical again. They set down guidelines by which government was to stay within. If the authority is not in the Constitution then the federal government can't do it. Especially notice amendments 9 and 10. Nine says that just because a right is not enumerated that it can be disparaged or denied. The tenth specifically states that if the Constitution does not give the federal government the power it does not have that power. That power is left to the states or the people.
Why an I wasting my tyme, I seriously doubt you'll change even when given facts.
Falcon
But all those laws did not. Just like then right now I can not go buy my own health insurance and get the same tax deductions employers get for offering their employees insurance. Government giving employers tax deductions but not giving individuals the same deductions is a distortion of the market.
Falcon
If we accept basic health as a right (which I do, and see no reason not to)
So do I but that does not mean believe it'[s the government's responsibility to provide it. If you want it you pay for it, don't use the force of arms to make me pay for it. Which is what government does. With your way, government should provide a right to everyone, then government should be providing everyone with firearms. After the right to bear arms is specifically stated. And government should provide everyone with radio and tv stations, after all free speech is a right. Have you really thought what you believe in thoroughly?
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.
On this we agree. I think this whole health-care thing has been presented wrong. You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government. On this we agree. I think this whole health-care thing has been presented wrong. The debate is long on buzz words, and short on actual substantive argument. No one really is making any cases either way. This seems to be endemic of American politics these days, long on words short on founding principles (philosophy, if you will).
All these words and we agree?
Though, us as individuals seem to be doing our part at least, disagreement and spirited arguments are what make our Government good, sadly we've lost that beyond the (increasingly insignificant) individual level of discourse.
I think that's because to do otherwise takes people out of their comfort zone, which they don't want to leave. I have to admit I get that way myself though I try not to.
Falcon
I meant the rest of the first world. In the rest of the first world, there are zero, I repeat, zero, bankruptcies due to sickness or health care costs.
No bankruptcies =!, does not equal, no complaints.
Here's another indication the French system, considered the best in the world by many, is broken: Troubles with the French healthcare system. And that's from someone who advocated the US use France's system as a model.
Falcon
If you didn't mean what I said then I apologize.
However I see a problem with your post I replied to.
ANY reform on medical costs is worth it. several OB-GYN and and an anesthesiologist that I know (none with any previous issues) are paying over 100K/year for malpractice. That is outrageous.
According to more than one study medical malpractice adds little to the cost of health care, .5% is sited.
Falcon