Key Committee Backs Health Plan; Pelosi Allows Single-Payer Vote

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Friday evening voted 31-28 for a health-care reform plan that uses a relatively robust "public option" and other strategies to insure the nearly 50 million Americans who currently lack health-care coverage.

The plan, which would cost $1 trillion over ten years, would be financed by controlling Medicare and Medicaid costs and by taxing businesses and the wealthiest Americans.

With the House breaking for its August recess, the roughly 1,000-page Energy and Commerce plan will become an improtant focus of an intense month of grassroots campaigning for reform and high-stakes lobbying against it.

The tenuous nature of the reform push was highlighted by the extraordinary wrangling in the committee late Friday.

Committee chair Henry Waxman, D-California, had to scramble to win support for the measure from progressive Democrats on the committee, after he cut a deal with conservative "Blue Dogs" who wanted to undermine existing protections for low- and moderate-income Americans.

Waxman did this by agreeing to provisions that place more demands on businesses to cover their employees while expanding support Medicaid programs that aid the poor. He also got House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to agree to allow a full House vote on the single-payer reform that more than 85 House Democrats have endorsed.

Congressman Anthony Weiner, D-New York, worked with Waxman to get the deal on single-payer and declared a sort of victory Friday, saying that: "Single-payer is a better plan and now it is on center stage. Americans have a clear choice. Their Member of Congress will have a simpler, less expensive and smarter bill to choose. I am thrilled that the Speaker is giving us that choice."

Even if single-payer is not likely to carry the day, its on the table.

And that's an indication of the extent to which House leaders had to move to keep progressives on board.

That movement did not please more conservative Democrats.

Five of them voted with the Energy and Commerce Committee's 23 Republicans to block the bill Waxman advanced, which includes a relatively robust public option. The Democrats who voted with the "party of no" were all conservatives or moderates who thought the measure was too progressive: Representatives Rick Boucher of Virginia, Bart Stupak of Michigan, Jim Matheson of Utah, John Barrow of Georgia and Charles Melancon of Louisiana.

Still, Waxman, a liberal chairman whose struggles to gain the votes of a handful of conservative Blue Dog Democrats almost blew up the process, said, "We reached compromises and brought together a very diverse group of conservatives, moderates and progressives... I am confident we will pass [the legislation] when it reaches the House floor."

The Energy and Commerce measure is the most up-to-date and detailed of three health-care reform bills backed by different House committees, and various plans are in play in the Senate.

But none will be voted on until September.

That means that the Energy and Commerce Committee vote was not the end of any process, but rather a beginning.

According to the Washington Post:

The House legislation's centerpiece is a government-financed alternative to compete against private insurance in an effort to drive down health-care costs. Special interests on both sides of the issue expect to spend millions of dollars in the roughly 50 to 60 congressional districts that are considered swing votes, in an effort to define the "public option" proposal on their terms.

Sensitive to the hard-hitting advocacy campaigns already targeting some members, Democratic leaders gave lawmakers marching orders to promote the plan in their congressional districts during the recess or face the prospect of its defeat once it comes to the House floor.

"If we want the public option, we have to sell it to the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday.

Actually, activists -- working in conjunction with the only serious reformers in Congress, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)-- are going to have to use the August recess to make the case for it.

Progressive Democrats of America, which has worked closely with CPC members, is pledging to organize during the congressional recess to get more Democratic members of the House and Senate to back real reforms -- not conservative compromises that make the "cure" worse than the disease.

It will be frustrating work in some senses, as the public option is itself a compromise.

It falls short of the single-payer plan that is needed to bring real reform.

But the Energy and Commerce bill as it is now formulates is a better proposal than what was on the table at the start of the week, when conservative Blue Dogs in the House and corporate Democrats in the Senate got close to killing off the public option altogether -- and to undermining Medicare and Medicaid.

The bill that got through Energy and Commerce ended up better than had been expected because progressive members of the House and activists across the country objected to conservative compromises.

The demands will have to be louder in August -- much louder -- if there is to be hope for anything akin to real reform.

Comments (192)

1. Vaccination is one of the most effective ways to minimize suffering and death from influenza, the Health and Human Services Department says on its Web site.

   But some senior citizens complain they've been left off the list of people who will be first in line to get the swine flu vaccination, when it is ready. It is then suggested the omission is in line with the Obama's administration's plan to "minimize" health care for the elderly!

   On its Flu.gov Web page, HHS says the government is working to produce enough vaccine for the entire population, but there will be shortages when a vaccine first becomes available – probably in mid-October.

   That means the "limited supply" will have to be "prioritized for distribution and administration."

   On July 29, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – a group that advises the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- recommended that novel H1N1 flu vaccine be made available first to the following five groups:

   -- Pregnant women -- Health care workers and emergency medical responders -- People caring for infants under 6 months of age -- Children and young adults from 6 months to 24 years -- People aged 25 to 64 years with underlying medical conditions (e.g. asthma, diabetes)

   Nothing is said about people over the age of 64, with or without underlying medical conditions.

   ----------

   Ahhhhh... don't you just feel the warmth, love and compassion of the leftwing extremist agenda? The Obamanation that make desolation and the Demoncrats want to abort the unborn and euthanize the elderly!

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 10:50pm

2. bigpasture-There is no evidence that shows that democrats want to abort the unborn and kill the elderly,but it was nice of you to replace reese/plunger so quickly.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 10:59pm

3. bigpasture-The is no evidence that even implies that the GOP is anti abortion.Like with so many,you listen to words and ignore actions.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 11:01pm

4. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 10:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Perhaps you should at least try to read the bill! Stealth abortion is to be funded by taxpayer doctors and elderly care is to be rationed just like the vaccine for flu!

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 11:02pm

5. bigpasture-The bill does not even imply that the democrats want the unborn aborted or that they want to euthanize the elderly,as you stated.Some senior citizens complaining that they may not get the flu vaccine first or that they may have fewer benefits is quite different from killing all of the elderly.I'm getting older and see no reason why tons of money should be spent on me when I get even much older.That money should be spent on a child who needs it and not me when I turn 80 years old.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 11:28pm

6. bigpasture-There is no evidence that shows that democrats want to abort the unborn and kill the elderly,but it was nice of you to replace reese/plunger so quickly.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 10:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   PG 425 Lines 4-12 Gov't mandates Advance Care Planning Consultation. Think Senior Citizens end -of- life

   Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Gov't will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

   PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Gov't provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death

   PG 427 Lines 15-24 Gov't mandates program for orders for end of life. The Gov't has a say in how your life ends

   Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "advanced care planning consultation" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates

   PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government !!'

   .Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

   PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Gov't will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

   So how do you want them to END your life?

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 11:29pm

7. Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 11:29pm

   This proposal is Orwellian. Page 16 outlaws private health insurance.

   Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 11:35pm

8. bigpasture-The democrats have put forth a bill that forces the elderly to be killed?Doctors are already ending patients lives and insurance companies already limit treatment to the elderly, children,and everyone else so this sounds no different than what is already going on..I prefer a morphine drip myself.That is much better than drooling on myself,crapping my pants,not knowing who I am,being in constant pain,etc

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 11:37pm

9. The House committee that is considering the main House health care restructuring plan defeated a pro-life amendment Thursday night that would stop any mandate for abortion coverage. The vote saw Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon change his vote, allowing for its defeat.

   The panel's vote and re-vote came along with a vote for a phony measure that abortion advocates said would stop abortion funding in the health care bill, but would actually do otherwise.

   Reps. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania republican, and Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, combined for a bipartisan amendment to prevent mandated abortion coverage in the essential benefits package.

   The amendment said abortions could not be a required basic benefit of any government or private plan.

   The House Energy and Commerce committee initially approved the amendment on a 31-27 vote.

   However, Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who is the committee chairman, switched his vote from nay to yea at the last minute, so he could call for a re-vote later in the night.

   A few hours later, when Waxman brought up the amendment for reconsideration, it failed by a vote of 30-29 with Waxman switching sides along with Gordon, who has a pro-abortion voting record on other issues. Also, a Democrat who hadn't voted the first time, Rep. Zack Space of Ohio, voted against the amendment under reconsideration.

   Rep. Joe Barton, a pro-life Texas Republican who is a member of the committee, talked about the vote switch and the defeat of the pro-life Pitts-Stupak amendment.

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 11:41pm

10. "The House Energy and Commerce Committee's majority Democrats managed to have it all ways on the abortion issue Thursday night, at first opting to make abortions available under the government's 'public-option' health plan, then deciding to disallow them as a basic benefit, and finally reversing that decision just before midnight,' he said.

    Barton said the Pitts-Stupak amendment was "designed to prohibit the kinds of abortion services that traditionally have been excluded from government sponsorship."

    The congressman also commented on the Capps amendment, that pro-life groups are condemning.

    He said her proposal "created a murky accounting mechanism that effectively permitted the government's 'public option' insurance plan to contain coverage for elective abortions."

    "Capps argued that it continued traditional bans on federal funding of abortion services, but [Stupak] refuted that stand, saying the proposal abrogated long-standing ban," he said.

    Making abortion services not only available, but "cheaper and more affordable? That's not a principle I can endorse," Stupak said of the Capps amendment.

    -----

    Like I said the Demoncrats and the Obamanation that makes desolation will abort the unborn and euthanize the elderly as part of their "health plan". Adolph used some of the same methods in Nazis Germany and now his followers are doing it here!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 11:45pm

11. bigpasture-You have yet to back up your claim.Do you have any evidence that shows that the democrats want the unborn aborted and the elderly taken out and killed?The hitler reference is reese/plunger.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 11:48pm

12. bigpasture-According to your thinking the GOP wants the unborn aborted since they have never done anything about the issue when they had power and the right wants children,the elderly,and others killed because the right supports the insurance companies that restrict treatment which results in the patient dying because insurance company refused to cover the treatment.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 11:58pm

13. mmmm,

    crackers.

    rio, older people are less susceptible to h1n1 because they most likely have already been exposed to swine flu.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2009 @ 12:44am

14. posted by John Nichols on 07/31/2009 @ 9:34pm - in Part:

    "The plan, which would cost $1 trillion over ten years, would be financed by controlling Medicare and Medicaid costs and by taxing businesses and the wealthiest Americans."

    When has government ever controlled costs? When has taxing business ever created jobs?

    Posted by Incoming at 08/01/2009 @ 12:50am

15. the comments of several posters here borders on the pathological.

    one poster actually believes that the bill outlaws private insurance. that in itself is all we need to know about the combination of ignorance and propaganda eminating from the right wing.

    that same poster actually invoked ORWELL to describe this bill. can you imagine that? orwell?!

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2009 @ 01:32am

16. Don't worry Rio, the bill provides for complete coverage of the mentally ill.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/01/2009 @ 01:52am

17. There's a weird duplicity going on with the GOP...

    The right wing noise machine included auto worker's benefits when they tried to paint them as overpaid and unable to compete. They usually lied anyway giving a much larger number but still qualifying it as including health insurance.

    Then, they turn around and caterwaul how health insurance companies deliver the best care with controlled costs.

    Either the auto workers are unionist marxists whose wages are out of line and breaking their company...

    OR, sans health insurance, they would be considered socialist marxists who want public healthcare.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/01/2009 @ 03:45am

18. Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 10:50pm |

    They prioritize immunizing people who would act as carriers and present a significant risk of infection to others (like the elderly).

    If you can say one thing about the elderly, it's that they don't get out and about as much as younger folk and are thus less likely to lambada with the infected.

    And weren't you the one who was trying to scare people with threats of forced immunization just two days ago?

    Yes, we can...remember your Constitutional right to be a friggin' idiot.

    I think the hate-speech has backed up and is causing some kind of cranial pressure to be exerted on your pre-frontal cortex, BogPasty.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/01/2009 @ 06:42am

19. "Adolph used some of the same methods in Nazis Germany and now his followers are doing it here!"----Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 11:45pm

    ((Wanna see RIO shut up...just ask-))

    "Okay, RIO...so what do you plan on DOING about it, if that 'Nazi' health care plan passes? Moving to Aruba? Taking up arms?"

    ((Shuts him up every time...because even HE doesn't believe his own crapola!))

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2009 @ 06:49am

20. That money should be spent on a child who needs it and not me when I turn 80 years old. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 11:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    hope I die before I get old, talking 'bout my generation.

    a phony sentiment to be sure. very few people get to 80

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:32am

21. Representatives Rick Boucher of Virginia, Bart Stupak of Michigan, Jim Matheson of Utah, John Barrow of Georgia and Charles Melancon of Louisiana.

    The Dem reugs listed above need to be purged from the party.

    I will be calling them and letting them know that it might be a good idea for them to look for another job..

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 08:48am

22. it was nice of you to replace reese/plunger so quickly. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2009 @ 10:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    bring back Bloppy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:57am

23. Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 10:50pm

    Spreading dis-information, poison and lies again I see! Crap I can't even leave town for a day without coming back to this shat.

    The WHO suggested many of these priorities and suggested that individual countries should target groups based on local priorities. All countries are following the WHO recommendations with slight tweaks regarding regional differences.

    Elderly people in general seem to have a higher natural immunity to this flu virus as they have been exposed to similar virus throughout their lives. Pregnant Women are at a much higher degree of risk as well as younger people in general. And immunizing health care workers is a no brainer.

    But miscreants such as yourself would rather use the "Deather" talking points about how Obama Care wants to kill the elderly!

    This could be a serious pandemic we are facing in the entire world, and using partisan right wingnut talking points for political points is despicable!

    Go to Hell!!

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 09:12am

24. Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 11:29pm

    I see you have also been on Drudge or some other wingnut site, or perhaps received your viral e-mail that appears to be from joe blow citizen but is actually from a GOP think tank toilet of lies.

    The bills (like 5 or 6 of them in the House and the Senate) have not even been completed yet. Let alone reconcilliation of all the Bills into one complete final product.

    But you post page and line numbers out of thin air. As if there is a completed final Bill? You really ought to be horse whipped. These are nothing but lies. And if you think that even for a second, that they will fly here or have any credibility here, you are sadly mistaken...

    Take your poison elsewhere! Or better yet find a conscience before your soul is lost forever...

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 09:29am

25. hehehe

    BP sure is funnee...taking his clues from Phred Thompson...another celebrity entertainer. I cannot imagine what it is like to live with such a high degree of fear!

    "Page 425 does deal with counseling sessions for seniors, but it is far from recommending a "Logan's Run" approach to Medicare spending. In fact, it requires Medicare to cover counseling sessions for seniors who want to consider their end-of-life choices – including whether they want to refuse or, conversely, require certain types of care. The claim that the bill would "push suicide" is a falsehood."

    Here is an actual factoid, RIOKORESH...

    about 50% of most peoples health care expenses will be incurred during their final 6 months of life. Much of that money is used for pain relief and attempts to drag out a few more weeks of life. I am not advocating euthanasia by any means, but as you and your fellow neo-cons want small finite limits put on healthcare spending, does it not make more sense to spend that money on several younger people than on one older person who is going to dies anyway? If I wanted to twist your ideology around I could easily say that you want to see children die horrible lingering deaths so that you can FEEL better about spending someone elses money to keep your grandma alive for a few more days. And here I thought it was a good thing to die and go to heaven?!

    Just think of all the fetuses that you could save! We all know that fetuses have more rights than mothers, right?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 09:34am

26. CHAOS, this is where this tripe is coming from...

    "On former Sen. Fred Thompson's radio show, former lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey said that the House's proposed health care bill contained a provision that would institute mandatory counseling sessions telling seniors how "to do what's in society's best interest … and cut your life short." House Minority Leader John Boehner made a slightly more measured statement, warning that the same provision "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law."

    On July 16, McCaughey, who founded a group called the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths in 2004, appeared on Thompson's program to discuss health care. Citing page 425 of the bill, McCaughey claimed that "the Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what's in society's best interest … and cut your life short." Thompson chuckled at this and said, "I've seen bits and parts of [the bill], Betsy, but I didn't know that." He hasn't seen that bit, of course, because it doesn't exist.""

    That in turn led to the viral emails...probably from the same "patriots" that claim Obama is an illegal alien and IS GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS!!!!

    What should we expect from those whose core belief system is based on things that don't exist? Things like "prophetic symbolism".

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 09:39am

27. Oh, the dreaded Liberal MSM!!!

    Phred, we hardly knew ya.

    "As I understand it, the intent of the provision is to have patients be provided an opportunity to discuss with their own health care professional, probably the one they have been seeing for the past many years, what their treatment wishes might be as they approach the end of life," said Keyserling, who stressed that consultations like this are treatment-neutral. Comparing this to forced euthanasia is like saying that a bill making retirement planning easier would force Americans to quit their jobs."-Jon Keyserling, vice president of public policy at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 09:41am

28. A short list of things feared by our neo-cons:

    Iraqi wmd's

    Saddams ties to Bin Laden

    Bill Ayers

    Marxist presidential candidate

    a Christian minister

    being under attack from atheists and having their religion taken from them

    Churches being closed by Marxist atheists

    Xmas being warped by liberals (but not by Big Business, nope)

    Euthanasia required by the federal govt

    The federal govt, but not the feds of Bush Co, because it is OK for Alberto to read their mail, email and listen to their phone calls

    God's wrath

    Anybody seeing a pattern?

    Ghosts, goblins and things that go bump in the night (excluding President Ford)

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 09:46am

29. This proposal is Orwellian. Page 16 outlaws private health insurance.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 11:35pm

    You know, oddly enough almost every country that currently has (35 to 38 of them) a form of government health care bans and makes it illegal for a private for profit healthcare company to sell policies for primary basic healthcare. Even Switzerland which has mostly non-profit private healthcare punishes this crime of for profit healthcare.

    For Profit Healthcare Companies are allowed to provide non-essential care for Cadillac policies to those who can afford it. But, For Profit Corporate Healthcare for primary basic healthcare is a crime. Just like it should be here. And in any country that calls itself civilized!

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 09:48am

30. "Obama has a hatred of white people, of white culture" claims FOX analyst Glenn Beck.

    Freud would have a field day with this one....Oh, wait, the neo-cons don't believe in Freud.

    I don't think any con has ever answered my question:

    How many and which industrialized democracies have no "socialized medicine"?

    How is it that the EU countries are able to do it and remain at the top of GDP? How is it that the deep seated fears of the neo-cons has no basis in reality? Only by using Cuba as an example can they prop up their fear based fantasies, but they refuse to use Iraq as an example of unfettered capitalism and free market rule?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 09:52am

31. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 11:35pm

    I have a hard time keeping up with Larry's various incarnations. But unless you are part of the small elitist capiltalist 1% then you are a fool for spouting the lies of the super rich.

    You are posting their lies and working against your own best interests.

    I know quite a few people like that. And it never ceases to amaze me...

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 09:55am

32. Here you go RIO and other fear mongers, just like the Obama the alien "controversy" the damned liberals at Annenburg have laid waste to your pants shitting fear based mythologies:

    http://factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/

    Obama-"I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions," and "we want doctors and medical experts to be making decisions," based on scientific evidence of what is likely to result.

    We would note, as does Obama, that denials of coverage are routine among private health insurance companies and under Medicare in our current system

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 09:59am

33. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=crabwalk

    "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." americas longest serving and greatest president. a rich guy who made life more comfortable for poor folks and won TWO world wars, against formidable foes, not that crap that passes for war in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 10:02am

34. prop up their fear based fantasies. Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 09:52am

    I used to think it was propping up "fear" based fantasies. But now I think it is "hope" based fantasies. Like someone hoping to win the lottery.

    I think these damaged people actually fantasize that they too may someday be part of the "powerfull elite", and they hope that the "Daddy" Pimp rich elitist will somehow recognise their potential as a greedy worm and groom them for success.

    And they mimic the use of fear that these elitists use.

    Just a thought.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 10:06am

35. Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 10:02am

    I wonder how much good could have been done if the bloviators and their brainless minions had focused on positive change the last dozen years, instead of near constant fear mongering and drum banging over the latest "outrage" of the "left".

    They have not outlawed abortion, not saved a single heterosexual marriage, Islamic terrorism is alive and well, the national debt rose under their president and congress, unemployment can be traced directly to their trade policies and de-regulation.

    Human versions of these:

    http://tinyurl.com/monzhd

    ----------------

    HA!

    "Wait wait..." had a good one!

    Recycle the elderly!! Mulch?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 10:14am

36. Meanwhile...back at the ranch...

    The GOP's reigning Queen :

    "And first, some straight talk for some, just some in the media because another right protected for all of us is freedom of the press, and you all have such important jobs reporting facts and informing the electorate, and exerting power to influence. You represent what could and should be a respected honest profession that could and should be the cornerstone of our democracy. Democracy depends on you, and that is why, that's why our troops are willing to die for you. So, how 'bout in honor of the American soldier, ya quite makin' things up. And don't underestimate the wisdom of the people, and one other thing for the media, our new governor has a very nice family too, so leave his kids alone.

    ...got to stiffen your spine to do what's right for Alaska when the pressure mounts, because you're going to see anti-hunting, anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood and here's how they do it. They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets..."

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 10:30am

37. Palin for President

    2012-

    2013 1/2!

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 10:32am

38. Is Phred Thompson "tiny" or "very talented"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 10:34am

39. Recycle the elderly!! Mulch?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 10:14am

    Or maybe Soylent Green? Thorn says something like (paraphrased) "How did we come to this?" "Soylent Green is People!"

    I wouldn't find it surprising if the Repugs started pushing a lie that the Elderly will be made into "Dog Food!" If we pass single payer healthcare.

    Nothing surprises me anymore. Maybe I shouldn't be giving them any ideas. And perhaps I am dating myself with the reference to that movie. Actually, I saw in on the "Big Screen". Uh oh.. :D

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 10:40am

40. Posted by Incoming at 08/01/2009 @ 12:50am

    There hasn't been a winger post here since the above at 12:50am.

    Dare I hope that we have banished them to the nether regions of political discourse?

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 10:46am

41. The Gov't has a say in how your life ends

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 11:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    ++++

    The government already has that power. But I'd rather the government have that power than some heartless corporation, which is what we have now. How anyone other than an insurance company CEO can defend the private healthcare insurance system is baffling. But then again, as some of the comments here prove, we live in the Land of the Stupids.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 08/01/2009 @ 10:51am

42. Every right wing paranoia is grounded in a left wing fantasy. "They want to take away our guns" is based on the fact that a bunch of leftists "Want to take away their guns". "We don't want socialism" is based on a bunch of leftists saying "We want socialism". "We don't want confiscatory taxes" is based on banners hung in Berkeley saying "Tax the rich till there ain't no more rich". Every right wing fear can be found in an oh-so-nuanced article from KVH. John Rawls to the rescue!

    Posted by sntauri at 08/01/2009 @ 11:07am

43. Posted by sntauri at 08/01/2009 @ 11:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Ayn Rand? again? this is literature for high school sophomores.

    grow up!

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 11:12am

44. With all the Obamanation and Demoncrat spin and LIES out there, just how does our healthcare really compare to socialized medicine?

    Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America's health care system.

    1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

    2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

    3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 11:38am

45. 4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:

    •Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

    •Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

    •More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

    •Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

    5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."

    6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long--sometimes more than a year--to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

    7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Aus

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 11:39am

46. The abortion stuff is slanderous. All of radical pinkos know that leftists will only kill the anti-socialist unborn not the fetal commies.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 11:39am

47. Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

    8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

    9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade--even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

    10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

    Despite serio

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 11:40am

48. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 11:41am

49. "Tax the rich till there ain't no more rich". Posted by sntauri at 08/01/2009 @ 11:07am

    Exactly! The majority of the population has no need for the "Rich", especially the obscenely Rich.

    What possible advantage is their to a society where the greedy top 1% hold over 20% of the entire nations income and probably 90% of the power? There is no advantage, except for the top 1%. Once these figures get to where they are now, and exceed 20% or more of a nations wealth, that translates into 100% of the power. Wealth has always been about "Power".

    That is why there is no more Democracy. Nearly all of the politicians in a "representative" government now work for a handfull of greedy, controlling Oligarchs.

    At this point things have gone to far. The representative government has gone down the toilet. No longer are the needs of the people given any importance because nearly everyone who is supposed to be representatives of the prople are now representatives of the corporate personhood, the Oligarchy.

    When things are allowed to get to this point, there is only one option for the people to bring back balance.

    That usually involves violent revolution. When that point is reached there seems to be no other alternative.

    These things get very messy when they get to that point. Look at History.

    And usually throw the country/society into Chaos and Disorder before equality is established. It is a very bloody and messy way to address equality.

    Inequality is the root of all social problems...

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 11:43am

50. Mr. Nichols - thanks for this concise update. I'm encouraged. Let's have our cell phones and houses and shampoo and investments be MARKET driven, our healthcare and military/police/fire and highways be COMMON GOOD driven.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 11:43am

51. RIO, it's super cool for you personally that you don't know how 3rd grade your posts are...

    RIO RESE LOGIC: Americans with wallpaper are more satisfied with their wallpaper than are Canadians with their wallpaper. Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 11:40am

    REALITY: Nearly 46 million Americans don't have wallpaper.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 11:49am

52. The 10 healthiest countries in the world as ranked by Forbes magazine:

    1.Iceland

    2.Sweden

    3.Finland

    4.Germany

    5.Switzerland

    6.Australia

    7.Denmark

    8.Canada

    9.Austria

    10.Netherlands

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 11:58am

53. Give it up Rio. You are no where near as proficient in copy and paste as Judibrownie....

    At least she copies and pastes with talent, and does so with honesty. You on the other hand have no talent in this area..

    You just make yourself look stupid. While Judibrownie just comes off as slightly irritating.

    If you have no original thoughts of your own, and can't compose a single cogent idea without the help of other miscreants, maybe you should go back to school..

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 11:58am

54. The 10 healthiest countries in the world as ranked by Forbes magazine:

    1.Iceland

    2.Sweden

    3.Finland

    4.Germany

    5.Switzerland

    6.Australia

    7.Denmark

    8.Canada

    9.Austria

    10.Netherlands

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 11:58am

    You forgot to mention what they all have in common.

    Some who post here are a bit dense, or worse..

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 12:01pm

55. and they ALL have giant insurance companies making huge profits, in part by denying care. they have ALL given up on universal coverage and single payer. (irony alert)

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 12:10pm

56. Inequality is the root of all social problems...

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 11:43am

    And we have no need to worry, no need to have any concern about the means by which chaoszen will bring the egalitarian utopia to reality.

    Posted by sntauri at 08/01/2009 @ 1:18pm

57. You forgot to mention what they all have in common. Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 12:01pm

    Sara Palin can see 'em all from her house?

    A lot of white people and reindeer?

    Sicko picko governments and lots o' standing bureaucrats doing their standing directly between you and your doctor?

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 1:38pm

58. "With all the Obamanation and Demoncrat spin and LIES out there, just how does our healthcare really compare to socialized medicine?"

    well, then, you should encourage your representatives to campaign on a pledge to eliminate all entitlement programs by 2012, because, on principle, you are fundamentally opposed to government "hand outs".

    so, why not encourage your reps to simply privatize every social service, then that way things will improve for all americans.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2009 @ 1:56pm

59. Why do we need health-care reform? Everything is just fine the way it is.

    "Go ahead, shoot me. I like the status quo on health care in the United States. I've got health insurance and I don't give a damn about the 47 million suckers who don't. Obama and Congress must be stopped. No bill! I'm better off the way things are.

    I'm with that woman who wrote the president complaining about "socialized medicine" and added: "Now keep your hands off my Medicare." That's the spirit!

    Why should I be entitled to the same insurance that members of Congress get? Blue Dogs need a lot of medical attention to treat their blueness. I'm just a regular guy and definitely deserve less.

    I had cancer a few years ago. I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won't be able to get any insurance because of my illness. It reminds me of my homeowners' insurance, which gets canceled after a break-in. I like the choice I'd face if, God forbid, the cancer recurs--sell my house to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment, or die. That's what you call a "post-existing condition."

    I like the absence of catastrophic insurance today. It meant that my health-insurance plan (one of the better ones, by the way) only covered about 75 percent of the cost of my cutting-edge treatment. That's as it should be--face cancer and shell out huge amounts of money at the same time. Nice.

    I like the "lifetime limits" that many policies have today. Missed the fine print on that one, did you? It means that after you exceed a certain amount of reimbursement, you don't get anything more from the insurance company. That's fair."

    MORE: http://www.newsweek.com/id/209817

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/01/2009 @ 2:11pm

60. "Every right wing paranoia is grounded in a left wing fantasy."

    That must make you very proud of your paranoia. Blaming others is so...Palinesque, or is it leftism?

    When is the last time anybody came to "take" a gun from you SNTAURI? Was it right after you found yourself unable to pray for Christ at home?

    I have been a gun owner for over 30 years, not once has anybody tried to take one away from me.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 2:21pm

61. hey crab!

    you should come visit on sarnia for the "moon the balloon" festivities:

    "A Sarnia man is planning a "moon the balloon" demonstration to protest the surveillance camera a private security company has aimed at Sarnia from a dirigible hovering 1,000 feet over Port Huron, Michigan.

    "Canadians are known for their sense of humour about stuff and I think a good old touch of mass mooning is the way to deal with this," said Eli Martin, a 49-year-old city musician.

    Martin, a former teacher, said the 50-foot surveillance balloon launched last week shows a lack of respect for Canadian sovereignty.

    WILLING PARTICIPANTS ARE INVITED TO CENTENNIAL PARK ON AUG. 15 FOR A CO-ORDINATED MOONING OF THE AIRCRAFT AT 5 P. M., said Martin, who plans to videotape the protest and post it on YouTube.

    "No cheeks will be turned away."

    The balloon, owned by the Sierra Nevada Corporation, is shaped like an airplane wing and carries a $1-million camera sensitive enough, U. S. officials say, to read the name of a ship from a distance of nine miles.

    The company is testing it at the at the St. Clair River international boundary and hopes to sell the technology to U. S. Homeland Security."

    http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1679065&FORM=ZZNR9

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2009 @ 2:28pm

62. hey crab!

    here is the sum total of ms. palin's genius.

    BEHOLD!:

    http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200907.jpg

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2009 @ 2:31pm

63. REALITY: Nearly 46 million Americans don't have wallpaper.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 11:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yea, the obamanation used the same lie except the report he used was 47 million uninsured, conveniently leaving out the fact that 9.5 million are illegal aliens preying on our system and counting those making over $75,000 who refuse to buy health insurance. However, when the "racist in chief" speaks the leftist think its messianic gospel.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 2:52pm

64. For Profit Healthcare Companies are allowed to provide non-essential care for Cadillac policies to those who can afford it. But, For Profit Corporate Healthcare for primary basic healthcare is a crime. Just like it should be here. And in any country that calls itself civilized!

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 09:48am

    Karl would be proud of you!

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/01/2009 @ 4:41pm

65. Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 08:48am:

    That would be fine, purge them from the Democrat party. They could just switch to the Republican party this fall - works for me.

    Posted by pyeatte at 08/01/2009 @ 5:11pm

66. Let's look it in the economic side. Why are (and were) the big trio in problems? (I mean GM, Ford, Chrysler)

    Aside from specifics of the business model (ex. SUV's vs. say hybrids) the one sole factor cited to be damaging to GM's bottom line was paying for Health Care of its associates and I believe into a fund for retired workers. Its Japanese competitors of course had the public option. That sole factor makes a US company not able to compete.

    Now, a typical small business with say 10 employees. They are the base of all our GDP. The main reason for their decline is they cannot afford to pay Health Insurance (HI) to its people and or paying just too much. The public option could literally save small businesses and made them viable again. I don't know what kind of "loyalty-to-business" is that the associations of small businesses don't publicly support the public option.

    In essence, the public option strengthens the bargaining power of users when negotiating with health care providers and pharmaceutical companies. It drives costs down, it will make it affordable for small companies and they will start to hire again and/or give HI as benefit.

    About 75% of Americans say they are satisfied with their HI. Two issues: it is that we have got used to these outraging prices and that we don't know of anything else. Reality is that when disgrace touches our families....only then we find out the economic limits of our contracts and we go broke.

    Even if the system was high quality (which is light years of being so) just to make it more affordable to companies and individuals, the public option should be always considered.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/01/2009 @ 5:25pm

67. God Bp, how old are you? Jebus Cripes, you need to grow up. Same goes for sntauri, you guys are really showing your ignorance today, even more than usual. And Anti you should be ashamed of yourself for incouraging these idiots!

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/01/2009 @ 5:26pm

68. RIO...I asked a question, you might have missed it...

    Given the impending "Nazi death camp" scenario of Obama's health care plan...

    What do you plan on DOING about it? Moving to Aruba? Taking up arms? Keep talking like a raving lunatic even though EVEN YOU don't really believe it?

    What?

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2009 @ 6:17pm

69. Rick Boucher of Virginia, Bart Stupak of Michigan, Jim Matheson of Utah, John Barrow of Georgia and Charles Melancon of Louisiana. +++

    Please, let's take away the public option that these fine fellows and their Republican lackey dogs enjoy. You know, the taxpayer-funded healthcare insurance they get as part of their lordly compensation.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 08/01/2009 @ 6:39pm

70. Rio, you can't even feign debate. Thought you once were able to but maybe not. Has something happen to you cognitively in the past couple months? Overdose, head trauma?

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 7:00pm

71. Please, let's take away the public option that these fine fellows and their Republican lackey dogs enjoy. You know, the taxpayer-funded healthcare insurance they get as part of their lordly compensation.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 08/01/2009 @ 6:39pm

    Congress does not have a public option. They purchase from a choice of 400 private insurance companies. The primary difference is that like employee provided health care, they are guaranteed coverage.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/01/2009 @ 7:34pm

72. "choice of 400 private insurance companies." antisocialist at 08/01/2009 @ 7:34pm

    What you wrote sounds mostly correct. Those with Medicare may use it, in part. Came across this (L A Times):

    Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan. Take it or leave it.

    Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 8:39pm

73. Rep. Steve Kagen, a Democrat from Wisconsin, has refused to accept federal healthcare benefits, making him the only member of Congress to do without. He will continue, he said in an interview, until everyone in America can enjoy the same coverage as federal lawmakers.

    "If every member of Congress put their heads on their pillow every night like I do . . . knowing this could be the night I lose my house, we'd fix healthcare in a week," said Kagen, who spent decades as a doctor in the Green Bay area before winning election in 2006.

    Kagen said his wife and three of his four children have health coverage. But not his oldest daughter, 28, who can't afford insurance.

    She's a nurse in Miami.

    It's nice to see one congressman with integrity and compassion.

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/01/2009 @ 8:48pm

74. Nichols says,

    'The plan, which would cost $1 trillion over ten years, would be financed by controlling Medicare and Medicaid costs and by taxing businesses and the wealthiest Americans.'

    So this bill will be paid for on the backs of senior citizens. It says so right there. If there is going to be an onslaught of baby boomers tapping into M/M, how in the hell are those costs going to be controlled? M/M needs to be bolstered, not depleted further.

    Also, the rich and businesses will pass any taxes they incur on to the middle class and the poor. Tax businesses and they won't be to quick to hire. They will cut their full time employees into part timers to avoid having to pay any benefits or to give any raises. This is not fear mongering, this is smart business.

    Obama's health care plan needs to be scrapped.

    All that is needed is a plan that will have tort reform which will actually SAVE a trillion over ten years, a voluntary government insurance plan to provide coverage against catastrophic illness, legislation that will make it illegal for private insurers to deny claims because of prior condition and finally the obvious need to strengthen M/M.

    If a public option can be worked out so that everyone will have coverage, that would save money and also help illeviate stress on ER's where the poor go for everything from a sniffle to a suicide attempt, I say go for it. Everyone should have some form of basic coverage but not the catch-all that the Obama plan proposes.

    I wonder if Congressmen and women are busy burning the midnight oil reading this plan.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/01/2009 @ 9:22pm

75. REALITY: Nearly 46 million Americans don't have wallpaper.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 11:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yea, the obamanation used the same lie except the report he used was 47 million uninsured, conveniently leaving out the fact that 9.5 million are illegal aliens preying on our system and counting those making over $75,000 who refuse to buy health insurance. However, when the "racist in chief" speaks the leftist think its messianic gospel.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Rio, you can't even feign debate. Thought you once were able to but maybe not. Has something happen to you cognitively in the past couple months? Overdose, head trauma?

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 7:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    What is to debate when YOU post the same totally incorrect information the obamanation has already been proven WRONGLY quoting>

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 11:03pm

76. Obama's '47 Million Uninsured' Claim Is False

    President Barack Obama claimed during his Wednesday night press conference that there are 47 million Americans without health insurance.

    A simple check with the U.S. Census Bureau would have told him otherwise.

    Obama said: "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance."

    That assertion conflicts with data in the Census Bureau report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007." The report was issued in August 2008 and contains the most up-to-date official data on the number of uninsured in the U.S.

    The report discloses that there were 45.65 million people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance in 2007.

    However, it also reveals that there were 9.73 million foreigners -- foreign-born non-citizens who were in the country in 2007 -- included in that number. So the number of uninsured Americans was actually 35.92 million.

    And of those, "there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year who did not choose to purchase health insurance,"

    The Census Bureau report also shows that the number of people without insurance actually went down in 2007 compared to the previous year -- from 47 million to 45.65 million -- while the number with insurance rose from 249.8 million to 253.4 million.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 11:11pm

77. http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/07/31/ img-mg---week-in-cartoons-731-08---bolling_004246970649.jpg

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2009 @ 11:29pm

78. The "racist in chief" the Obamanation that makes desolation needs to get something passed. Anything. The details don't matter. Once it's in place, health-care "reform" can be re-reformed endlessly. Indeed, you'll be surprised how little else we talk about. So, for example, public funding for abortions can be discarded now, and written in -- as it surely will be by some activist liberal judge -- down the road. What matters is to ram it through, get it done, pass it now -- in whatever form.

    If this seems a perverse obsession for a nation with a weak economy, rising unemployment, and a war on two fronts, it has a very sound strategic logic behind it. As was written in National Review a week or two back, health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. That's its attraction for our ambitious president: It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists -- to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular.

    That's not why it's tanking in the polls, of course. It's floundering because Obama sold it initially on the basis of "controlling costs," and then the Congressional Budget Office let the cat out of the bag and pointed out that, au contraire, it would cost $1.6 trillion, and therefore either add to an unsustainable deficit, or require massive tax increases, or (more likely) both.

    Why would we buy something built on LIES and followed by more lies?

    I guess there are many fools who care nothing about freedom of choice and liberty. You know, fools who see no advantage to making self determinations for their own lives and think others would profit by their myopic selficsh ignorance!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/01/2009 @ 11:48pm

79. "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, And the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

    Abraham Lincoln, November 21, 1864

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2009 @ 11:52pm

80. The Obamanation is squarely against Benjamin Franklin, who said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Franklin realized that politicians who attempted to buy votes by promising rich entitlements could not look out for the good of the entire country. Thus, an inevitable decline would occur.

    Some fools think the "Rich" will pay for all this, or we will punish healthcare corporations whom leftist hate just like they hate anyone who has ONE DOLLAR more than they have. They can't even see the idiocy of their myopia which will destroy them and others.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 12:18am

81. John Nichol's article is characteristic of those by leftist pundits, who want government-run health care. It either talks about the so-called "heroic" efforts of self-proclaimed "progressives" in congress, who want to pass single payer, or how this health care "plan" would solve most of our health care concerns. What articles like these never discuss is how government-run health care has a history of worsening the problems it's supposed to solve.

    It does so because it suffers from a fatal flaw: when something's free, the demand goes up, and when demand goes up, so do the costs to keep pace with the demand. So to achieve one of it's main objectives - keeping costs down - government imposes price caps, beyond which it will pay no more for health services. Therefore, with no additional resources to meet the demand, health care providers must, in turn, limit the demand.

    The way the do so is through rationing, which disproportionantly affects the elderly or those with terminal illnesses. As is the case with the British and Canadian examples, which are similar to what Obama proposes, the reason is the cost of care vs. the quality and length of life. For example, in these countries, if you're a 73-year old with lung cancer a gov't-run review board can decide to deny you care because you're a) old; b) would have only a few months or years added to your life; and c) therefore, the money would be better spent elsewhere. But, even if a, b, or c doesn't apply, you'll still have to wait much longer than in the U.S. to receive the care you need, which for some is too late.

    So we end up in worse shape than before. Some people will (in effect) have no health care, like before, while the U.S. will have at least a trillion dollar debt, which is worse than before.

    Posted by skeetjr at 08/02/2009 @ 12:47am

82. "Even if single-payer is not likely to carry the day, its on the table.

    And that's an indication of the extent to which House leaders had to move to keep progressives on board."--JN

    Mr Nichols, seriously, isn't there ANOTHER way of interpreting that...that's a bit more pejorative???

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2009 @ 06:49am

83. Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2009 @ 11:52pm

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 12:18am

    Being fair, so asking both...

    Could you provide the original source for those quotes from Lincoln and Franklin?

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2009 @ 06:51am

84. it's written on the back of the penny in really tiny letters.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2009 @ 08:02am

85. Leon Penatta should resign FORTHWITH. His message that the CIA and policy makers can break the law, trash the constitution, lie to congress, break international treaties, , etc, etc, and get away with it (we should just move on without holding anyone accountable) sends the message that CIA will do the same under his leadership. He should go NOW. Also, all those republicans who run down the recovery act if they are military and federal retirees, do they realize that if the recession was not arrested their monthly pension checks could have stoppped. They need to thank Pres Obama for taking decisive action to protect them!

    Posted by jamerican at 08/02/2009 @ 08:09am

86. For example, in these countries, if you're a 73-year old with lung cancer a gov't-run review board can decide to deny you care because you're a) old;

    in this country you are denied an organ transplant because you're too old, and I speak from personal experience.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 09:30am

87. When has taxing business ever created jobs? Posted by Incoming at 08/01/2009 @ 12:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

    well, a lot of people work for the gov't. they are paid out of tax dollars. ergo, tax money does create jobs.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 10:01am

88. And the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

    Abraham Lincoln, November 21, 1864

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2009 @ 11:52pm

    It has been the decline of this republic ever since Reagan enthroned himself into power about 30 years ago and declared that "the best government was no government". Many people believed this nonsense and ever since the government has lost strength steadily and therefore has not been strong enough to curtail the sharks in this economy ( banks, insurance companies, the industrial-military complex, etc) of transferring wealth continuously from the people to them. This "new right" and the so called neo-cons have been a calamity and pure decadence for this country.

    People as far right as Eisenhower did predict the perils of the military-industrial complex.

    And about vote buying, ask mostly the Reps that are backed by strong concentrations of capital and defend their paychecks everyday in Congress.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/02/2009 @ 10:31am

89. "As is the case with the British and Canadian examples, which are similar to what Obama proposes...."

    this morning's most blatant lie.

    i'm all for a canadian system, but this is not what obama has proposed. that's profoundly obvious to anyone paying attention....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2009 @ 10:43am

90. The 10 healthiest countries in the world as ranked by Forbes magazine:

    1.Iceland 2.Sweden3.Finland4.Germany5.Switzerland

    6.Australia7.Denmark8.Canada9.Austria10.Netherlands

    Posted by winyahn at 08/01/2009 @ 11:58am

    You forgot to mention what they all have in common.

    Some who post here are a bit dense, or worse..

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/01/2009 @ 12:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Tell us more about these economic and fiscal GIANTS and how they compare to the productivity and resourses of the U.S.A.! How many of them are BANKRUPT economies? Stagnant socialist havens? Totally dependent on tourism for their economies? Staggering under tax rates that make individual accomplishments totally foriegn ideas?

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 11:20am

91. Could you provide the original source for those quotes from Lincoln and Franklin?

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2009 @ 06:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Try Linclon and Franklin if it isn't to hard!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 11:22am

92. Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 11:20am

    RIO LOGIC: Yeah, well what about Beluga whales and the fall of Rome and anyway, smokers are free to smoke and you are a commie who hates America and hate creates jobs and that's why I worship Limbaugh but hate government but love Reagan the head of a government former govenator and Lincoln and taxes and Palin and brave soldiers liberty tourism tree hugger and my neocon pillow and Cheney doll tell me so.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/02/2009 @ 11:31am

93. "A top White House adviser says he can't rule out a tax on middle-class Americans to pay for President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

    As a candidate, Obama pledged not to raise taxes for most Americans. But economic adviser Larry Summers says he cannot promise that Obama will stick to that campaign pledge.

    Summers says it's too early to tell what will be needed to pay for a broad restructuring of how people receive healthcare.

    Summers says controlling healthcare costs will be crucial to reducing the deficit. He says the health of the economy is directly tied to how Americans take care of their own health. "

    LIE, LIE, LIE, and that is how the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats got into office, so now they are doing what they lied about not doing!'

    So now thtat 9,000,000 people are without jobs and unemployment is anywhere from 10% to 20% depending on what state you live in they can't even bring back those jobs or support the businesses that could make them available, but they can line their own pockets and give ownership and bailouts to auto unions and bank who supported them in stealing the 2008 elections!

    Some fools still support them unwaveringly!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 11:38am

94. FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS Bush Rejects Idea of Sending Illegal Immigrants Home

    "I'm not stupid" said Bush responding to reporters questions. "First I don't think my cow fence can keep 'em off my ranch. They are smarter than cows you know. Not Iraqis but Mexicans. Some people like even Dick Cheney and my mom talk about how all brown people are the same. But it's not true. I guess the Mexicans who escaped to Iraq underwent some kind of conversionification."

    Posted by winyahn at 08/02/2009 @ 11:45am

95. "Tell us more about these economic and fiscal GIANTS and how they compare to the productivity and resourses of the U.S.A.! How many of them are BANKRUPT economies? Stagnant socialist havens? Totally dependent on tourism for their economies? Staggering under tax rates that make individual accomplishments totally foriegn ideas?"

    scandinavia is on fire right now. in terms of creativity, the art, design and music coming out of those countries is mindblowing. the people are sophisticated, multi-lingual, cosmopolitan, intelligent, resourceful, and healthy. their economies are not bankrupt.

    but i have heard reports that the american economy is, and that obama had caused it.

    oh, wait, you're not arguing that OUR economy is bankrupt.....i see.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2009 @ 12:32pm

96. SINGLE PAYER (ALREADY) WORKS IN USA

    "Half the elderly in America had no health insurance when Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law on July 30, 1965. One third lived in poverty. Medicare helped alleviate both those problems.

    Now the elderly are among the best-insured Americans, with upward of 95 percent covered by Medicare. The rate of poverty among those 65 and older is under 10 percent. The decline in elderly poverty began with the creation of Social Security -- but it accelerated, according to Census Bureau data, only after Medicare coverage began...

    Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare's cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare's cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per-capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

    So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn't have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

    Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance "cooperative" that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate."

    http://tinyurl.com/lrxakv

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 1:11pm

97. Try Linclon and Franklin if it isn't to hard!---Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 11:22am

    Can't you prove that is Franklin's quote?

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2009 @ 1:15pm

98. Posted by crabwalk at 08/01/2009 @ 09:41am:

    Seniors know exactly what "mandatory" end-of-life counceling means and it is not the warm fuzzy trust-in-my-government crap you and the left portend. Opposition to this plan is partly the dictatorial nature of the details. We all have problems with various insurance companies but at least we have the option of going elsewhere. If you have a government controlled healthcare system you have no options when things go awry because there is no one else. We would be much better off making needed reforms to the current system instead of just blowing it up and starting all over with a substandard operation. Note that the goons in Congress that want to force us into a system they control are not willing to be in the same system themselves.

    Posted by pyeatte at 08/02/2009 @ 1:29pm

99. One of the main reforms to the current system would be tort reform to reduce costs. Something the dems will not entertain for an instant because they are on the take in a big way. That is another reason the Congress deserves our scorn and contempt for trying to impose their left-wing tripe on a free people.

    Posted by pyeatte at 08/02/2009 @ 1:35pm

100. LIE, LIE, LIE, and that is how....

     Rio, I thought you were making a historical compendium of our 8 years with Bush. Now, there we had outright, blunt lies almost every day. But talking about lies, you cannot exclude yourself off the prize pod.

     Forget about lies for just one instance and tell us for example about your business relationship with the insurance companies. Else, why do hate that much the people of the United States? There must be something in there, maybe it was Sunday school where they taught you that "Commie" meant the demon itself?

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/02/2009 @ 3:19pm

101. Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2009 @ 12:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Thanks for the Duuuuhhhh contribution to a health argument!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 3:55pm

102. Posted by winyahn at 08/02/2009 @ 11:31am | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by winyahn at 08/02/2009 @ 11:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

     At an exercise in creative ignorance you are the champ hands down! How is life in the pointless forest?

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 4:00pm

103. Can't you prove that is Franklin's quote?

     Posted by Mask at 08/02/2009 @ 1:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     You can't disprove it and that is your problem. Go ahead don't be afraid to research and read, just give us the reference disproving it!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 4:03pm

104. until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Abraham Lincoln, November 21, 1864 Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2009 @ 11:52pm

     Excellent post.

     Posted by ficheye at 08/02/2009 @ 4:44pm

105. Could you provide the original source for those quotes from Lincoln and Franklin?

     Posted by Mask at 08/02/2009 @ 06:51am

     The complete quote(Lincolns), with source. Googling the first sentence comes up with many hits. The website is a strange one called 'Donkey O.D.'

     "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." ~U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

     Posted by ficheye at 08/02/2009 @ 6:50pm

106. Good news! Why aren't people complaining about our trillion dollar, no return military budget that does nothing to help sick people get healthy but only helps fat cats get wealthy.

     Posted by Dave Simpkins at 08/02/2009 @ 10:07pm

107. Why aren't people complaining about our trillion dollar, no return military budget that does nothing to help sick people get healthy but only helps fat cats get wealthy.

     Posted by Dave Simpkins at 08/02/2009 @ 10:07pm

     Ssssshhhh, you mean Republican Socialism? -- Us neocons prefer you don't talk about this.

     Posted by winyahn at 08/02/2009 @ 11:01pm

108. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp

     •• well, lincoln should have said it!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2009 @ 11:32pm

109. Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 4:03pm

     So YOU say something, but I have to prove it's true????

     Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 07:43am

110. •• well, lincoln should have said it!---Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2009 @ 11:32pm

     Sorry, FZ...a little pet peeve of mine. This phoney quote stuff that "proves Thomas Jefferson believed in libertarian economics" or "proves Abraham Lincoln was a Neo-Keynseian" .

     Mind you, as with RIO/Big Posture, it seems more a thing of the Right these days than the Left but had to call you out on it as well.

     BTW, that quote of RIO's is usually attributed to Alexander Tyler and even that is disputed.

     Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 07:47am

111. Tell us more about these economic and fiscal GIANTS and how they compare to the productivity and resourses of the U.S.A.! How many of them are BANKRUPT economies? Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 11:20am

     Hey Rio! We were talking about Healthiest, not Wealthiest!

     Wealth would be another subject. But in case you haven't noticed, the U.S.A. is a bankrupt economy far exceeding the debt of any EU nation.

     In case you haven't noticed our country has been bled dry by a cadre of sociopathic capiltalists that has brought this country to it's knees.

     Some of us are trying to fix it. But many of us like yourself are braindead...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 08:54am

112. All this quoting of Lincoln, Jefferson and Franklin among others, is a right wing tactic to try and find support from great Americans that are long dead. Repug think tanks spend a lot of time and money to scrutinize and dissect every word or passage of these men. If they find a jewel that can be taken out of context and warped to their ideology they fire it off to the spin doctors.

     I have debunked all of these that I have addressed. But I can't spend the time on all of them. Suffice to say it is "slim pickens" for these miscreants. The fact is most of the founding fathers would be considered "far left" communists or socialists nowadays.

     If they fail to find anything at all to spin, they will resort to making up quotes out of whole cloth. I have seen this many times. They know that most people do not have the time to do the research. And many are swayed by these lies.

     But why they post them here is a mystery to me. Most of the lefties who post here know what is true and what is false. Seems like a waste of time to me.

     Unless we are some sort of right wing testing ground for lies.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 09:25am

113. well, a lot of people work for the gov't. they are paid out of tax dollars. ergo, tax money does create jobs.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 10:01am | ignore this person | warn this person

     obviously. but not every gov't job works for the people.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 09:34am

114. The Democrats who voted with the "party of no" were all conservatives or moderates who thought the measure was too progressive: -- JN

     Jesus, this takes the cake. Yeah, that's what they object to is that it is "too progressive".

     Not "too expensive"; not "a waste of time"; not "antithetical to the principles of liberty upon which this country was founded"; not "a fucking retarded idea". No, what these Democrats object to is that is to "too progressive".

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:48am

115. Hey Rio! We were talking about Healthiest, not Wealthiest!

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 08:54am

     Although its besides the point, all of those countries have extremely high GDP's per capita. Some are even higher than that of the U.S.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/03/2009 @ 09:49am

116. Doesn't it bother you that Nichols is sounding like a cult leader?

     "We mearly want people to be happy and at peace. But I tell you brother, there are dark forces who profit from misery. It is up to us to bring people into the light. We must expose those who belive we are "too progressive" which only means that we are "too pro-happiness and pro-peace and pro-joy".

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:52am

117. Posted by Dave Simpkins at 08/02/2009 @ 10:07pm |

     We were warned about the "Military Idustrial Complex" ironically enough by a Republican. Eisenhower's speech on this in 1961 was truly prophetic. Every time I read it, or listen to it, I gain much respect, not only for Eisenhower himself but for how valuable the real Republican party truly was.

     Our military is completely out of control. The founding fathers never meant for us to have a huge standing army. They well understood the danger of anything like that. I don't think they ever completely envisioned a time when our country would resort to Imperialism and Corporate profit from War and Death.

     Maybe some did. But Eisenhower saw it clear as day.

     Read or listen to his speech. It's awesome.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 10:14am

118. but not every gov't job works for the people.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 09:34am

     lloyd blankfein's, for example.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/03/2009 @ 10:32am

119. chaoszen wrote:

     "Our military is completely out of control. The founding fathers never meant for us to have a huge standing army. They well understood the danger of anything like that. I don't think they ever completely envisioned a time when our country would resort to Imperialism and Corporate profit from War and Death.

     Maybe some did. But Eisenhower saw it clear as day."

     --it's easy for the son (fledgling united states) to imagine he'll never become his father (great britain at its world conquering).

     --it's much more difficult for him to actually not become his father.

     --the founding fathers didn't live in a time of jets, tanks, automatic machine guns, and atomic bombs. the world has changed.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 10:35am

120. Jesus, this takes the cake. Yeah, that's what they object to is that it is "too progressive".

     Not "too expensive"; not "a waste of time"; not "antithetical to the principles of liberty upon which this country was founded"; not "a fucking retarded idea". No, what these Democrats object to is that is to "too progressive".

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:48am

     Hey Troll! The phrase "too progressive" was from the "Blue Dogs", not John Nichols.

     And strangely enough I agree with you that the current proposals for reforming healthcare will be "too expensive" and a "retarded idea". It would have been much better for both houses to go straight to single payer proposals and then to reconcile the two and send it to Obama.

     "A Waste of Time"? No, I would say better than nothing. Some changes need to be icremental given the current state of corruption in Washington due to lobbyists and Corporate personhood.

     "antithetical to the principles of liberty upon which this country was founded".

     I can't agree with that statement either. Single Payer Healthcare would take the burden of providing healthcare off the backs of small business and would make us more competitive in the world economy. It would save Trillions of dollars over time. It would ensure that every American would have access to primary healthcare.

     And would fit very well into the Declaration of Independence guarantee of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 10:36am

121. Posted by nkurland at 08/03/2009 @ 09:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

     another inconvenient truth.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 10:44am

122. "And would fit very well into the Declaration of Independence guarantee of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

     --not for insurance company execs, workers, investors, and their families.

     aside to mask: and, more importantly, what would they do for jobs?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 10:46am

123. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

     What a strange, unusual and beautiful concept. Never before seen written in the founding documents of any nation. Makes me proud to be an American when I see such a poetic and esoteric statement.

     Fits rather well into the idea of Universal Single Payer Healthcare.

     For how can anyone have Life, if they are sick and may die? How can anyone experience Liberty if they are unwell? And how can anyone be Happy if they have to worry about losing everything including their dignity and independence if they should become ill?

     Bottom line is no one can experience the joy of any of these things under the current system of profit from misery.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 10:52am

124. •• well, lincoln should have said it!---Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2009 @ 11:32pm

     I had no idea that people were twisting quotes from other people to fit their agenda, conservative or liberal.

     As I said, there are MANY sites on the net which also wrongly attribute the quote in question to Lincoln.

     Posted by ficheye at 08/03/2009 @ 10:56am

125. chaoszen wrote: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. What a strange, unusual and beautiful concept. Never before seen written in the founding documents of any nation. Makes me proud to be an American when I see such a poetic and esoteric statement."

     I wonder if anyof the slaves the founding fathers owned appreciated the poetic and esoteric nature of the statement "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? they probably just appreciated the hypocrisy and irony of it.

     chaoszen wrote: "For how can anyone have Life, if they are sick and may die?"

     --we're all going to die. every last one of us. it's up to each one of us to make something for ourselves out of the gift of Life.

     chaoszen wrote: "How can anyone experience Liberty if they are unwell?"

     --"Liberty" clearly meant freedom from tyranny. As in taxation without representation. and not going to jail for crossing the king. it has nothing to do with a right to be healthy.

     chaoszen wrote: "And how can anyone be Happy if they have to worry about losing everything including their dignity and independence if they should become ill?"

     --there are plenty of reasons a human can be unhappy (and plenty of ways a human can go broke).

     chaoszen wrote: "Bottom line is no one can experience the joy of any of these things under the current system of profit from misery."

     --so no one in the history of the united staes has experienced life, liberty, or even been able to pursue happiness? how do you intend to prove this theory?

     your arguments are far too arch to withstand criticism.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 11:06am

126. I can't agree with that statement either. Single Payer Healthcare would take the burden of providing healthcare off the backs of small business and would make us more competitive in the world economy. It would save Trillions of dollars over time. It would ensure that every American would have access to primary healthcare.

     And would fit very well into the Declaration of Independence guarantee of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 10:36am

     Absolute marxist nonsense.

     Sgl payer is:

     1. Unconstitutional

     2. Is a marxist redistribution of wealth

     3. Forced taxation for a "benefit" that not everyone wants.

     I do not have nor want health insurance. Yet you libs and marxists if you get your way would steal thousands of dollars every year from me. If I only was taxed $500 per month under this mandatory program, that is $6000 per year stolen from me by the govt.

     If this goes through, you will see a revolt in this country by people who love liberty. It will be time to fulfill the words of Jefferson.

     <The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

     Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787

     If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.

     Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802>

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 11:18am

127. more importantly, what would they do for jobs?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 10:46am

     My first reaction to a concern about the people who currently make their living on the suffering of others is "who cares"?

     A more measured and compassionate reaction from me would be.. All is not lost! Those people can still find Employment selling folks policies that cover all sorts of non critical healthcare issues. Plastic Surgery, Penile Implants, Rectal Implants, Breast Enlargement, Breast Reduction, Top O' The Line Hospital Suites with semi Nude Dancing Girls, Big Screen HDTV, Gourmet Meals, and all the stuff that makes the obscenely rich feel better than everyone else...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 11:21am

128. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802>

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 11:18am

     Here goes Anti again on his never ending quest to form Jefferson into a NeoCon Fascist. Odd, that he would pick a Liberal to attempt this transformation.

     Larry you should have just stuck with Patrick Henry, no one would be calling you on that asshole.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 11:36am

129. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

     For how can anyone have Life, if they are sick and may die?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 10:52am

     "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever. " -- David St. Hubbins

     I guess it's a fine line between beauty and ugly. In the original draft of the Declaration that line read, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property."

     And the second point, everybody dies.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:40am

130. chaoszen--care to respond to my 11:06 post? probably not, huh?

     chaoszen wrote: "My first reaction to a concern about the people who currently make their living on the suffering of others is "who cares"?"

     --there's not a job in the world that doesn't make someone else suffer. a person who cleans toilets, by his very existence, is taking away a job from someone else who doesn't have a job and could use the money he would make cleaning toilets to buy food, clothes, a place to live, (an internet connection), etc.

     chaoszen wrote: "A more measured and compassionate reaction from me would be.. All is not lost! Those people can still find Employment selling folks policies that cover all sorts of non critical healthcare issues. Plastic Surgery, Penile Implants, Rectal Implants, Breast Enlargement, Breast Reduction, Top O' The Line Hospital Suites with semi Nude Dancing Girls, Big Screen HDTV, Gourmet Meals, and all the stuff that makes the obscenely rich feel better than everyone else..."

     --there are plenty of plastic surgeons who do non-elective work. think burn victims, for example.

     --some women have such small breasts that enlarging their breasts to even a large A cup or small B cup is a self-esteem issue that makes them feel more normal.

     --some woman have such large breasts that they suffer debilitating neck and upeer back issues b/c of the weight the are carrying around on their chest.

     --i know plenty of people with average or below average income that have big screen tvs.

     also--it's safe to assume you were against the bank bailouts and auto bailouts right? plenty of bank and auto big wigs love many of the thigns you listed.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 11:41am

131. your arguments are far too arch to withstand criticism.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 11:06am

     An arch is a structure that spans a space while supporting weight.

     So are you saying that my arguments are a bridge too far?

     Or are you saying that my arguments can't withstand criticism simply because they reach a new level of construction that you deem unsupportable?

     Either way, if humanity never attempted to explore new ground and take the risk involved we would still be in a stone age mentality.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 11:46am

132. Here goes Anti again on his never ending quest to form Jefferson into a NeoCon Fascist. Odd, that he would pick a Liberal to attempt this transformation.

     Larry you should have just stuck with Patrick Henry, no one would be calling you on that asshole.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 11:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

     thomas jefferson was a "liberal"?

     --he who owned slaves?

     --he who was against woman's suffrage?

     --he who's first act as president re: Indians was to make a deal with the state of Georgia that if Georgia were to release its claims to land in the west then the U.S. military would help expel Cherokees from Georgia. (Jefferson's deal with Georgia violated a treaty the U.S. already had in place with the Cherokees guaranteing them land in Georgia).

     --he who believed in an agrarian economy rather than an economy based on commerce and manufacturing?

     --he who was against a national bank?

     --he who an anti-federalist (a states' righter over a supporter of big federal gov't)?

     --he who was for the ownership of firearms?

     --he who opposed the doctrine of judicial review?

     so, I ask, if jefferson were alive today, can anyone reasonably think he'd be labeled a "progrssive," never mind a "democrat"?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 11:58am

133. chaoszen wrote: "An arch is a structure that spans a space while supporting weight."

     --'arch' meaning 'extreme' (and I used it pejoratively). many words in the english language have more than one meaning.

     chaoszen wrote: "if humanity never attempted to explore new ground and take the risk involved we would still be in a stone age mentality."

     --another arch statement (go ahead and focus on the word 'arch' again if that deflection makes you feel useful). not all explorations net value. not all risks are worth taking.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 12:07pm

134. Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 11:41am

     If any plastic surgery necessary was of a non-vanity nature and included plastic surgery to correct a birth defect or horrible injury it would be covered under primary care.

     Your attempts at discrediting what I say are for the most part, futile.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 12:07pm

135. your arguments are far too arch to withstand criticism.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 11:06am

     Well formed rebuttal.

     It is obvious from his many posts that Chaozen believes in a govt which takes care of your every need from cradle to grave. It's a shame he has either a low opinion of liberty, or completely misunderstands it. Liberty includes personal responsibility and the right to pursue happiness, but not a guarantee.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 12:15pm

136. --'arch' meaning 'extreme' (and I used it pejoratively). many words in the english language have more than one meaning. Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 12:07pm

     Yes the word "Arch" has more than one meaning. Since you did not bother to specify, I took the common meaning.

     But no where in a dictionary I could find does it mean "extreme".

     It can have other meanings such as: Chief, Principle, Mischevious; roguish, knowing or superior, coyly, playful. But I really don't see any definition that pertains to "extreme".

     Maybe you should find another word, or perhaps just use the word "extreme", then I would have known what you were referring to.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 12:18pm

137. chaoszen wrote: "If any plastic surgery necessary was of a non-vanity nature and included plastic surgery to correct a birth defect or horrible injury it would be covered under primary care."

     --so you're saying the current system works. interesting...

     chaoszen wrote: "Your attempts at discrediting what I say are for the most part, futile."

     how about responding specifically to my 11:06 post? (rather than deflecting)? how about responding to all of my 11:41 post? how about responding to any of my 11:58 post?

     but i'll hand it to you--you've got the mantra of the defeated down pat: "I'm right because I say I'm right."

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 12:19pm

138. Yes the word "Arch" has more than one meaning. Since you did not bother to specify, I took the common meaning.

     But no where in a dictionary I could find does it mean "extreme".

     It can have other meanings such as: Chief, Principle, Mischevious; roguish, knowing or superior, coyly, playful. But I really don't see any definition that pertains to "extreme".

     Maybe you should find another word, or perhaps just use the word "extreme", then I would have known what you were referring to.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 12:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I'm sorry your vocabulary is limited. However, it's been explained to you already that I used "arch" pejoratively to mean "extreme." If that definition of arc is not in your dictionary you need a better dictionary.

     But you're still just deflecting from the true substance of the conversation. again:

     how about responding specifically to my 11:06 post? (rather than deflecting)? how about responding to all of my 11:41 post? how about responding to any of my 11:58 post?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 12:26pm

139. WINGNUT LIES ABOUT HEALTHCARE REFORM:

     Recently one of the wingnut commenters on these threads, repeatedly posted false claims about the new healthcare bills in the works -- apparently based on a crazy wingnut mass email.

     "An independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform ... has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans, and the foundation provides point-by-point analyses of the plans on its Web site.

     "It's awful," she said. "It's flat-out, blatant lies. It's unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false."

     FOR INSTANCE:

     "• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! FALSE! Section 122 outlines broad categories of benefits that must be included in an essential benefits package. It prohibits cost-sharing for preventive care and limits annual out-of-pocket spending to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, indexed for inflation. It says nothing about rationing or limiting treatment.

     • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. FALSE! Section 142 outlines the duties of the Health Choices commissioner, who is charged with regulating insurers. The commissioner should seek insurers to offer different types of insurance, including basic, enhanced and premium. Individuals will be able to choose among competing insurers who are regulated via the exchange. "

     MORE :

     http://tinyurl.com/n7v4jy

     35 MORE WINGNUT LIES ABOUT HEALTHCARE DEBUBUNKED:

     http://tinyurl.com/nxahut

     Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 12:37pm

140. It is obvious from his many posts that Chaozen believes in a govt which takes care of your every need from cradle to grave. It's a shame he has either a low opinion of liberty, or completely misunderstands it. Liberty includes personal responsibility and the right to pursue happiness, but not a guarantee.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 12:15pm

     More "Larrified" Gobbledegook. If that is the best you can do, you are lost.

     "Chaozen believes in a govt which takes care of your every need from cradle to grave".

     Larry, it is you NeoFucks that constantly use the phrase "Cradle to Grave" or "Nanny State", (One of Hannity the Manatee's favorites).

     I never see anyone on the left ever using or advocating these straw man positions.

     I believe in personal responsibilty. But by the same token, I believe that it is the personal responsibility for every American to ensure that even the least of us has a basic social safety net. That no one is left living on the street hungry, homeless and sick. Kind of like your "Jesus" preached.

     Too bad you can't follow the preachings of your own God.

     I work 6 days a week and pay about 35% on my income at present in taxes of one sort or another. I don't bitch about that. I don't cry and whimper like you do about my "social responsibilty".

     However that being said, I do bitch about how my money is being spent. It is being spent for anything but the things it should be. It is being spent to support an Oligarchy that is consumed with profit and Empire.

     I will fight to the death to change that. Will you?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 12:39pm

141. chaoszen wrote: "I believe in personal responsibilty. But by the same token, I believe that it is the personal responsibility for every American to ensure that even the least of us has a basic social safety net. That no one is left living on the street hungry, homeless and sick. Kind of like your "Jesus" preached."

     --you can be part of that net today. go down to your local library. many of the people using the computers for the free internet connection are homeless. quietly (without trying to embarass them) find out who's homeless and give them money. godspeed.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 12:48pm

142. I will fight to the death to change that.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --by "fight to the death" you don't mean anonymously commenting under an interweb blog do you?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 12:50pm

143. how about responding specifically to my 11:06 post? (rather than deflecting)? how about responding to all of my 11:41 post? how about responding to any of my 11:58 post?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 12:26pm

     Your posts are becoming increasingly inane.

     I have responded. But no more. I can't waste any more time on you. You are irrevelvant and I have better things to comment on and do.

     Lost cause.. Like everyone who is of yout ilk you have nothing to contribute and like a succubus or incubus, you only seek to drain the time and energy of others.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 12:55pm

144. However that being said, I do bitch about how my money is being spent. It is being spent for anything but the things it should be. It is being spent to support an Oligarchy that is consumed with profit and Empire.

     I will fight to the death to change that. Will you?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 12:39pm

     yes, it's time the American people rise up and tell Obama and the Congress to stop the unconsitutional spending on education, healthcare, housing, and every domestic social spending whim of Congress.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 12:55pm

145. yes, it's time the American people rise up and tell Obama and the Congress to stop the unconsitutional spending on education, healthcare, housing, and every domestic social spending whim of Congress.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 12:55pm

     Well, I suppose it has come to that hasn't it?

     We are so polarized and divided at this point that a class war and revolution is sadly inevitable.

     That you oppose education, healthcare, housing and other domestic issues clearly shows that you are a selfish corrupt elitist.

     Perhaps I will see you on the battlefield. Good Luck.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 1:02pm

146. WINGNUT "PROTESTS" AGAINST HEALTHCARE REFORM: ORGANIZED BY LOBBYISTS.

     "PR and lobbying firm organized harassment strategy they'll face in townmeetings back home this month:

     This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama's reforms."

     An African-American president backs healthcare reform, and lobbyists arrange a mock lynching. NICE.

     No surprise that they have experience in arranging race-baiting "populist" events:

     "The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress...."

     http://tinyurl.com/n8wp5o

     And their wingnut strategy is familiar -- lie, and disrupt the democratic process:

     "While many Americans actually want to talk to their elected officials about important issues, like health care, during the Congressional recess, that's not the case for the right-wingers. A volunteer for the the right-wing group Freedom Works, who is also a teabaggers, distributed the three-part strategy: 1) Artificially Inflate Your Numbers; 2) Be Disruptive Early And Often; and 3) Try To "Rattle Him," Not Have An Intelligent Debate."

     http://tinyurl.com/n8wp5o

     Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 1:04pm

147. Your posts are becoming increasingly inane.

     I have responded. But no more. I can't waste any more time on you. You are irrevelvant and I have better things to comment on and do.

     Lost cause.. Like everyone who is of yout ilk you have nothing to contribute and like a succubus or incubus, you only seek to drain the time and energy of others.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 12:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --you making two posts about "arch" was worth your time, huh?

     --oh, I see. when you have no substantive response you claim the person asking for a response is not worht your time (even though they were worth your time before they were asking you to respond to what they were actually saying).

     --how is antisocialist worth your time when he's agreeing with the points and arguments I've made to refute your points and arguments?

     naturally i now don't expect you to actually come up with a coherent response.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 1:08pm

148. IT'S THE INSURANCE AGENCIES, STUPID

     "Finally. The Democrats seem to be coalescing around a message for health insurance reform. It's about taking on the insurance industry. It is, indeed: With the House already gone and the Senate set to clear out by Friday, the terms of the recess battle are becoming clear. Republicans will assail the government coverage plan that Democrats and President Obama are advocating as a recklessly expensive federal takeover of health care. And Democrats will counter that GOP opposition represents a de facto endorsement of insurance industry abuses.

     "We know what we're up against," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters on Friday. "Carpet-bombing, slash and burn, shock and awe -- anything you want to say to describe what the insurance companies will do to hold on to their special advantage."

     It always has been about the insurance industry. No one likes dealing with their insurance company. Insurance bureaucrats ration care. They jack up our rates. They deny coverage. They cut off coverage. I'm not exaggerating when I say that almost everyone I know has done some kind of battle with their health insurer."

     http://tinyurl.com/lqqcz6

     Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 1:20pm

149. That you oppose education, healthcare, housing and other domestic issues clearly shows that you are a selfish corrupt elitist.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 1:02pm

     Now we have the definitive explanation by Chaozen. those who believe in the constitution are selfish and corrupt elitists.

     Why do you not want to see the constitution followed and continue to have domestic issues like healthcare, education and housing addressed at the state level as the constitution calls for?

     <Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

     by Rep. Ron Paul

     A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more "goods" seem to be becoming "rights" in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare.

     But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

     The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

     Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.>

     Ron Paul graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County.

     http://tinyurl.com/nd2hqs

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 1:23pm

150. WITH WINGNUT LIES ABOUT "Killing Granny," Conservatives Aim to Kill Health Care

     "Who knew that a living will was but the first step that would set us down the treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia? In a use any angle fear mongering campaign to derail the comprehensive US health care reform legislation now working its way through the Congress, conservatives are now pitching on right wing radio and on their blogs that living wills are the first step towards euthanasia. It is particularly offensive that this campaign is being targeted at seniors.

     The Washington Post provides the background:

     The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.

     But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."

     Though the counseling provision is a tiny part of a behemoth bill, the skirmish over end-of-life care, like arguments about abortion coverage, has become a distraction and provided an opening for opponents of the president's broader health-care agenda. "

     READ MORE:

     http://tinyurl.com/lju3kg

     Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 1:28pm

151. It's awful," she said. "It's flat-out, blatant lies. It's unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false." Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 12:37pm

     It is my opinion that there should be some legislation that makes it a crime to blatantly lie or distort facts.

     Call it something like "Truth in America Act". Our elected representatives are supposed to tell us the facts. They are public employees who should be ethic bound to debate issues based on "facts". Differences of opinion based on facts are one thing, but telling outright lies should be a crime. That should include the MSM aswell.

     As it is now the people are being hammered with outright lies and distortions by the media. Just watch FOX news for an hour an you will be treated to a barrage of lies by psychopaths and criminals like Glen Beck, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Bill O' Reilly among others.

     These "people" are given free reign to tell all the lies they can muster. There should be an ethical responsibilty to debate issues based on facts. If they are found guilty of misleading the public these media outlets should have their licenses revoked and the individuals responsible should be fined and jailed.

     It is unfortunate that they can't police themselves in this matter. As the legislation necessary to ensure that the American people are at least given the Truth could be abused.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 1:34pm

152. healthcare is definitely a right, as written in the universal declaration of human rights, on which the united states is a signatory:

     "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care."

     in any case, you'd think ron paul would support a healthcare system which SAVES MONEY. but alas, he'd rather hold true to an outmoded principle.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/03/2009 @ 1:34pm

153. i'm still perplexed as to why conservatives support a system in which americans SPEND MORE ON HEALTHCARE, PER PERSON, THAN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH.

     are they in denial of that fact?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/03/2009 @ 1:35pm

154. gee, if ron paul is so opposed to government healtchare, then perhaps he should campaign on a pledge to eliminate medicare, medicaid, and the va.

     if he's really a man of the "constitution", then let's see him put his money where his mouth is and pledge to dismantle all entitlement programs.

     there goes the senior vote, the minority votes, and the military votes, in one fell swoop, and he'll never, ever work in politics for the rest of his life.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/03/2009 @ 1:46pm

155. i'm still perplexed as to why conservatives support a system in which americans SPEND MORE ON HEALTHCARE, PER PERSON, THAN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH.

     are they in denial of that fact?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/03/2009 @ 1:35pm

     You should not be perplexed. Conservatives work for their Corporate Masters. And many so called Democrats. There are few real "Conservatives" left in this country.

     We spend nearly twice as much on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. For profit Healthcare Companies and Big Pharma are Capiltalist Vampires who would gladly suck the lifeblood out of this country for their own personal gain. They have no conscience in this matter and no patriotic allegiance to this country or it's people. They are interested in nothing but profit and self interest.

     This is what happens when you have unregulated Capitalism.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 1:55pm

156. the ron paul philosophy of human rights:

     "if you get really sick, then don't ask for help"

     Posted by darladoon at 08/03/2009 @ 2:06pm

157. healthcare is definitely a right, as written in the universal declaration of human rights, on which the united states is a signatory:

     "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care."

     Posted by darladoon at 08/03/2009 @ 1:34pm

     Obviously Dr Paul and the millions of us who share his view, value liberty and freedom more than you do Darla

     <United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights

     by Glenn Woiceshyn  (December 11, 1998)

     On December 10th the United Nations celebrated the 50th anniversary of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a five-page, 30-article document specifying everyone's alleged rights. Rather than celebrate it, we should condemn it as a destroyer of rights and a charter of tyranny.

     The 18th century concept of individual rights is founded on the opposite and revolutionary idea -- that each individual is an end in himself, with his (or her) life and happiness as the moral purpose. That's what the United States' founding fathers meant by the individual's right to "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness." These rights, being "unalienable," cannot be abrogated by government decree or majority vote.

     continued

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 2:12pm

158. hannity and limbaugh: "there is no healthcare crisis in this country"

     and yet everyone knows that wages haven't kept up with healthcare costs. not even close.

     and yet raising the minimum wage (to make healthcare affordable) or lowering healthcare costs (to keep in line with stagnant wages)? never! it's unconstitutional!

     Posted by darladoon at 08/03/2009 @ 2:12pm

159. continued from previous post

     United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights

     by Glenn Woiceshyn (December 11, 1998)

     Because these rights apply to each individual, nobody's rights can negate anyone else's. Individual rights are not entitlements to food, shelter, health care, money, love, sex, etc., forcibly extracted from others. They are freedoms of action that a rational being requires to choose and achieve the values that his life and happiness require, actions such as creative thought, productive work, voluntary association and free trade. Only such freedoms can yield peaceful coexistence and prosperity.

     Individual rights are precisely what the UN's declaration is designed to destroy. No, it doesn't openly attack individual rights; that would be rejected outright by freer countries. It destroys rights by internal corruption -- by perverting the meaning of rights into its exact opposite.

     The declaration first covers what appear to be legitimate rights, such as "the right to life, liberty and security of person," "the right to own property," and freedom of "thought" and "opinion." (The right to pursue happiness is absent, for reasons that will soon become obvious.) It then introduces a series of "economic rights," such as a person's "right" to work, paid holidays, protection against unemployment, social security, free education, and a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care .

     continued

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 2:14pm

160. continued from previous post

     United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights

     by Glenn Woiceshyn (December 11, 1998)

     If people are entitled to these, who will be forced to provide them? Whose property will be seized to pay for them? Such "economic rights" obviously contradict the right to liberty and property. There can be no such thing as a right to violate the rights of others. "Economic rights" merely hand government the power to violate individual rights, thereby rendering the individual a slave to the needs and desires of others. They effectively make communism the social ideal.

     The declaration deserves moral condemnation and rejection. The only human rights are individual rights -- which have made possible the freedom and prosperity that we currently enjoy, but risk losing. Rather than allow political power lusters to destroy the remnants of individual rights that still protect us, we should be eternally vigilant in protecting and restoring our inalienable rights.

     http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=210

     Unfortunately, marxist teaching in the public education system has created brainwashed types like Darla, Chaozen, ms Judy, and the rest of the libs who support this rush to abrogate our natural rights as first proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 2:17pm

161. gee, if ron paul is so opposed to government healtchare, then perhaps he should campaign on a pledge to eliminate medicare, medicaid, and the va.

     if he's really a man of the "constitution", then let's see him put his money where his mouth is and pledge to dismantle all entitlement programs.

     there goes the senior vote, the minority votes, and the military votes, in one fell swoop, and he'll never, ever work in politics for the rest of his life.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/03/2009 @ 1:46pm

     Are you really that sheltered from news there in the Republik of San Francisco?

     Dr Paul has campaigned and legislated exactly for the repeal of those unconstitutional programs for many years. with the exception of the VA. That is a part of the employment contract with the govt in exchange of which men and women surrender many of their liberties while on active duty. Furthermore, most VA treatment is for injuries incurred while on active duty and thus the govt is responsible for those injuries and their care.

     Dr Paul is re-elected overwhelmingly by his constituents.

     <Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. His nickname "Dr. No" reflects both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.>

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 2:28pm

162. United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights

     by Glenn Woiceshyn (December 11, 1998) Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 2:14pm

     So now we are treated to pap once again by the senior writer from the Ayn Rand Institute. Courtesy of the forever clueless.

     The Ayn Rand Cult has been throughly debunked for many years.

     Strange that Larry should quote someone related to an organization/cult from the author of such idiocy as "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged".

     Especially since Ayn Rand was an Atheist. And expoused Objectivism based on self interest, thought control and hostility to the outside world.

     Anyone who has bothered to read this crap, would wonder at just why Anti would worship it..

     But if you look deeper, I think that would be self evident.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 2:40pm

163. chaoszen wrote: "Strange that Larry should quote someone related to an organization/cult from the author of such idiocy as "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". "

     --two books that were wildly successful in the free market.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

164. Strange that Larry should quote someone related to an organization/cult from the author of such idiocy as "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged".

     Especially since Ayn Rand was an Atheist. And expoused Objectivism based on self interest, thought control and hostility to the outside world.

     Anyone who has bothered to read this crap, would wonder at just why Anti would worship it..

     But if you look deeper, I think that would be self evident.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 2:40pm

     I realize that you struggle sometimes with direct evidence, but I lifted that article from Capitalism magazine. the information in his article was dead on correct.

     Rather than debate it you give the usual marxist response.

     Frankly, other than calling for a total marxist takeover of this country, there is little you do offer to these blogs.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 3:18pm

165. --two books that were wildly successful in the free market.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

     As a Buddhist by nature, and an Atheist by reason. I believe that dieties only exist in the imagination. I suggest and do not advocate any belief in "Gods". This is nonsense, and should be reserved for the musings of children.

     As far as these books being wildy successful in the free market. Well, there is no lack of suckers in the world as expressed by P.T. Barnum.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 3:18pm

166. --two books that were wildly successful in the free market

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

     As were scores of other books that I'm sure you have no interest in defending based on that criteria.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/03/2009 @ 3:18pm

167. As far as these books being wildy successful in the free market. Well, there is no lack of suckers in the world as expressed by P.T. Barnum.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 3:18pm

     Right. look at how marx suckered you in.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 3:19pm

168. We are so polarized and divided at this point that a class war and revolution is sadly inevitable.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 1:02pm

     This was one of my favorite George Will observations.

     I suspect the "class" that you will fight with is "the poor". George Will's observation is that the number one health issue for "the poor" is obesity. Good luck getting them off the couch, much less getting them to walk the three blocks down to the revolution.

     I plan to fight with my class, "the rich". We're thinking that this war is going to be pretty easy to win. Admitedly, it's not terribly sporting to shoot an opponent sitting on his couch, playing X-box, and hiding behind a bag of Doritos, but hey, a win's a win.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 3:30pm

169. What 'Right' to Health Care?

     Historically, the huge rise in health care costs began in the 1960s with the Great Society programs, especially Medicare. Fiscally, that program is approaching insolvency. To create an even greater labyrinth of bureaucracy now -- in new programs that, after juggling the figures, advocates are proud to say will cost less than a thousand billion dollars over 10 years -- is to add to the very cause that led to the rising costs and to invite a monumental financial crisis in the next decade. Economically, this is hard to dispute.

     But such economic arguments have not stopped the train to further government intervention, and we should ask why The answer is that the advocates of government medicine are upholding health care as a moral right. Desiring to mandate this "right" by legislative fiat, they have been unwilling to face the cause and effect relationship between increasing government actions and rising prices. That is because the moral goal of equality, measured against the claims to a right to health care, has trumped the mere economic arguments.

     As a result, calls for more and wider programs -- to enforce the "right" -- have continued, even as prices rise. This has led to even greater price distortions, which have fueled calls for more interventions, leading to higher prices and demands for more programs.

     continued

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 3:30pm

170. What Right to Healthcare continued

     Those who want to see an end to spiraling medical costs should challenge the premises behind the government interventions.

     The first premise is moral: that medical care is a right. It is not. There was no right to such care before doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies produced it. Health care is a service, which we all need, and none of us are better served by placing our lives and our doctors under coercive bureaucratic control.

     The second premise is economic: that the government can produce a positive result by redistributing thousands of billions of dollars from its most productive citizens. This is the road to stagnation and national bankruptcy, not universal prosperity.

     http://tinyurl.com/mpbqpw

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 3:31pm

171. Just in case Darla shows up again with her "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

     Here is what our famous socialist ex-1st Lady Eleanor Roosevelt said about this

     <Roosevelt, head of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 1948, led the drafting discussions of the UDHR. She did so representing the United States and summed up its position: "… my government has made it clear in the course of the development of the Declaration that it does not consider that the economic and social and cultural rights stated in the Declaration imply an obligation on governments to assure the enjoyment of these rights by direct governmental action." She added, "This in no way affects our wholehearted support for the basic principles of economic, social and cultural rights set forth in these articles.">

     http://tinyurl.com/qz9xr6

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 3:33pm

172. The Ayn Rand Cult has been throughly debunked for many years.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 2:40pm

     How do you "debunk" a cult?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 3:33pm

173. chaoszen: "As a Buddhist by nature, and an Atheist by reason."

     --buddhist by nature? you mean you were born with an innate buddhism? you have a buddhism gene? explain.

     --atheist by reason. sure, me too. what of it?

     chaoszen: "I believe that dieties only exist in the imagination. I suggest and do not advocate any belief in "Gods". This is nonsense, and should be reserved for the musings of children."

     --what does this have to do with the conversation at hand? (by the way, interesting that when I make poitns that refute things you say, I'm a "waste of your time," but when I make points that allow you to go off on tangents irrelevant to the discussion, you're suddently interested in talking.

     chaoszen: "As far as these books being wildy successful in the free market. Well, there is no lack of suckers in the world as expressed by P.T. Barnum."

     --you're going to quote a capitalist who was wildly successful in teh free market (after dissing another that was wildy successful in teh free market) in order to prove some point about socialized medicine? yikes!

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 3:39pm

174. --two books that were wildly successful in the free market

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

     As were scores of other books that I'm sure you have no interest in defending based on that criteria.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/03/2009 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --chaoszen essentially tried to call antisocialist a "cult member." hardly a "cult" when the books mentinoed are best-sellers. but point taken--guess we have to start calling marxists "cultists"

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 3:52pm

175. I realize that you struggle sometimes with direct evidence, but I lifted that article from Capitalism magazine. the information in his article was dead on correct.

     Rather than debate it you give the usual marxist response.

     Frankly, other than calling for a total marxist takeover of this country, there is little you do offer to these blogs.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 3:18pm

     Capitalism Magazine? You are more far gone than even I imagined.

     And then you accuse me of "Marxism"? Strange that I have never mentioned that, or even quoted a single sentence from any text related to Marx or Engels.

     You seem to be the one obsessed with the political philosophy of Marx and Engels.

     My politics don't arise from any political dogma. They arise from my own personal observations. On the other hand you seem to obsessed with Objectivism and Capitalist priniciples that extole a cultish fascination with diseased principles of self interest, greed and atheistic non involvement with your fellow man.

     You are a contradiction and wear the term Christian as a cover for Evil.

     Interesting.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 4:07pm

176. chaoszen--at least antisocialist has the balls to answer questions. you, on the other hand, dodge and deflect and when the going gets tough you give up. probably comes from your "personal observations" of how you've reacted to being cornered with reasonable questions in the past.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 4:13pm

177. I think perhaps I just exposed the many faceted face of Liluth, Adams first wife according to legend. A demon.

     Perhaps Ayn Rand was a figure of the cult of Liluth.

     Fascinating.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 4:20pm

178. I see I am surrounded by Demons. At least the modern version of such.

     And alone to boot.

     Hmmm. Even my supposed "leftie" compatriots have abandoned me to fight alone.

     This doesn't surprise me. Most liberals run for cover like the weak-kneed cowards that they are.

     No wonder the wingnuts on the right gain traction with their lies.

     It is because those who pretend to be on the left are cowards...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 4:31pm

179. chaoszen sings (looking in a mirror):

     liberals to the left of me, conservatives to the right, here i am, stuck in the middle with you

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 4:38pm

180. --chaoszen essentially tried to call antisocialist a "cult member." hardly a "cult" when the books mentinoed are best-sellers. but point taken--guess we have to start calling marxists "cultists"

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 3:52pm

     Whatever floats your boat. God knows it wouldn't be your first distortion.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/03/2009 @ 4:57pm

181. chaoszen sings (looking in a mirror):

     liberals to the left of me, conservatives to the right, here i am, stuck in the middle with you

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 4:38pm

     Now that is funny!!!!

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 6:20pm

182. You are a contradiction and wear the term Christian as a cover for Evil. Interesting. Posted by chaoszen at 08/03/2009 @ 4:07pm

     I enjoy your posts. Don't let the dogma get you down.

     Posted by ficheye at 08/03/2009 @ 6:27pm

183. To all you wing nuts on both sides, let's look ahead ten years. Here is what could very well be in our future, and may very well come to be known as the 2019 GOP Republican Healthcare Strategy, as an alternative to Single Payer Healthcare...

     Prediction #1: In 2019 one large, lone, health insurance company named Halli-care will purchase the GOP party.

     Prediction #2: In 2019 GOP Halli-care Family Premiums will be over $3000 per month and $5000 deductibles for even minor procedures, and will rise with the price of oil.

     Prediction #3: 50% of the US population will not buy health insurance due to the high costs, and choose to join the newly created GOP Halli-care Emergency Room Labor Camp, where all healthcare is guaranteed in exchange for a written commitment to lifelong servitude that help profitable private industries.

     Prediction #4: In 2019, GOP Halli-care Co. will own 50% of the residential real estate previously owned by the same sick and bankrupt citizens who could not afford health insurance.

     Prediction #5: In 2019, GOP Halli-care will introduce a Cadillac insurance plan with a family premium of $1 million dollars per year that includes a "Survival of the Fittest" option that guarantees first place and first class care in all hospitals, clinics and providers throughout the world.

     Prediction #6: In 2019, Halli-care Electrolyte Beverages will replace fresh water for all applications.

     :)

     Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 08/03/2009 @ 7:21pm

184. Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 08/03/2009 @ 7:21pm

     I vote none of the above

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 7:30pm

185. Prediction #6: In 2019, Halli-care Electrolyte Beverages will replace fresh water for all applications.

     :)

     Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 08/03/2009 @ 7:21pm

     Well duh! Everyone knows that plants crave electrolytes.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 7:43pm

186. Now that is funny!!!!

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --thanks larry!

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 11:46pm

187. Historically, the huge rise in health care costs began in the 1960s with the Great Society programs, especially Medicare. Posted by antisocialist at 08/03/2009 @ 3:30pm

     No original thoughts Larry? Quoting an article by John David Lewis, a notable whackjob and "teabagger". It figures.

     In large part, "the huge rise in healthcare costs" is the direct result of for-profit HMO's. Which is now the predominant method of healthcare delivery in the U.S. They insure mostly healthy people who are largely affluent and "dump" chronically ill patients.

     In the past healthcare delivery was mainly from local nonprofit entities, that are now national for profit firms.

     Couple that with the fact they we pay as much as 1000 times more for pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world, and the fact that Medicare can't negotiate drug costs and we have a recipe for disaster.

     And all that so a handfull of people can get obscenely rich while the rest of us suffer.

     But you already know all this, don't you?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/04/2009 @ 03:58am

188. What's not to like about Single Payer Healthcare?

     Many people seem to want to work against their own best interests. They listen to the barrage of fear mongers who have their own agenda, which is exactly opposite of the best interests of those who swallow the "fear pill".

     Single Payer Healthcare would eliminate much wasteful spending. There would be no more need for many programs in their current form. Medicare, would upon being expanded to include everyone, serve the healthy as well as the sick. As it is now the Medicare program is full of high risk unhealthy people. If Medicare was expanded into a Single Payer System the cost per person would drop dramatically. Because the cost of medical services would be spread among those who need more services and those that don't.

     Veterans would also be covered, which would by and large eliminate the need for the Veterans Administration. Employers would no longer need to pay the high cost associated with Workers Comp Insurance as the medical costs would be covered under the National Insurance.

     Employers would also save a lot of money currently being spent on providing healthcare for their employees.

     For the consumer there would be no more co-pays or deductibles to worry about. And no one would lose their house if they should become ill. And no more complicated billings that no one can understand. If you get sick you just go to the doctor. If your teeth are bad, you go to the dentist.

     There would be no more insurance companies standing between you and your doctor.

     So what's not to like about Single Payer Healthcare?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/04/2009 @ 04:35am

189. The cobbled up mess of legislation that is currently passing as Healthcare Reform is nothing of the kind.

     Real Healthcare Reform is Single Payer Healthcare. Anything less is just a waste of money and time. The American people need meaningful Healthcare Reform Now! Not four or eight years from now.

     This is a Domestic Crisis that if not addressed quickly will further bankrupt an already crumbling economy. We can no longer compete in the world unless we quickly address issues like Healthcare Reform, Ruinous Trade Policies, Education and Energy Independence. And most importantly, Campaign Finance Reform.

     The business as usual crowd will destroy this country unless we act.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/04/2009 @ 05:00am

190. chaoszen wrote: "The business as usual crowd will destroy this country unless we act."

     --you're a fear monger. your argument is essentially the same as George W. Bush saying we have to act before we see evidence of WMDs in the form of a mushroom cloud. true persuasion and fear never co-exist.

     --and what's your definition of "act"? what are you going to do to "act"? anonymously comment under a blog?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/04/2009 @ 08:34am

191. In large part, "the huge rise in healthcare costs" is the direct result of for-profit HMO's. Which is now the predominant method of healthcare delivery in the U.S. They insure mostly healthy people who are largely affluent and "dump" chronically ill patients.

     In the past healthcare delivery was mainly from local nonprofit entities, that are now national for profit firms.

     Couple that with the fact they we pay as much as 1000 times more for pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world, and the fact that Medicare can't negotiate drug costs and we have a recipe for disaster.

     And all that so a handfull of people can get obscenely rich while the rest of us suffer.

     But you already know all this, don't you?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/04/2009 @ 03:58am

     you remain as ignorant of the facts as ever.

     the largest HMO is Kaiser- an non profit. They in fact are struggling because they have not been raising prices enough to keep up with costs.

     The second largest is Blue Cross and Blue Shield, also non profits.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/04/2009 @ 11:23am

192. Hey, Nation: how about answering my damn customer service request? I can't access any subscriber-only content and have sent numerous requests for relief through your joke of a customer-service system. So desperate for money that you're ripping off subscribers now, are you?

     Posted by jasontoon at 08/05/2009 @ 5:09pm