Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

posted by John Nichols on 11/09/2009 @ 10:23am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (266)

Subscribe Now

The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Saturday night with overwhelming support from progressive Democrats who serve in the chamber and from a president who was nominated and elected with the enthusiastic support of progressive voters.

But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure.

In fact, some are openly and explicitly opposed to it -- among them former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and CPC member Eric Massa, D-New York, both of whom broke with the majority of their fellow Democrats to vote "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote Saturday.

How can this be?

Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives?

How can there possible be any subtlety or nuance to this debate?

Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders -- and media cheering sections -- would have Americans believe.

Key interest groups, such as the National Organization for Women, and key congressmen who have been long-term supporters of reform, such as single-payer backers Massa and Kucinich, argue that the bill is not the cure for what ails the U.S. health care system.

Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.

Many sincere progressives in the House, and outside of it, chose to back the bill as the best that could be gotten. Others supported it on the theory that flaws could be fixed in the Senate and in the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills.

But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.

For that reason, even supporters of the House legislation would be wise to consider the criticisms of it by groups that advocate for the rights of women, patient advocates, unions and some of the most progressive members of the House.

Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:

1. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment (to the House bill, which was approved and attached on Saturday) goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

• Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs

While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.

3. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"

At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.

This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.

4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes

It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States.

Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill.

These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.

5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH,: This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000 percent. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

6. FROM "SICKO'S" DONNA SMITH: The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us

Passing a healthcare reform bill that does not provide me with better access to care or protection from bankruptcy and financial ruin is not what I asked you all to do. Stripping away all reference to a progressively financed, single standard of high quality healthcare for all – also known as single-payer -- is done only to more deeply ensconce the deep pocketed interests in healthcare: the private, for-profit insurance giants, the big pharmaceuticals, the medical equipment companies, the hospital corporations and all the other making huge profits as thousands die needless deaths.

Healthcare is a basic human right. Granting that right is not something to be calculated differently in swing Congressional districts, off-year election strategy or second-Presidential term planning. It is your (members of Congress') duty to me, to my fellow citizens and to your nation.

And (members of Congress) are marching away from reality when you think all the hard-working people who counted on you to make this a better healthcare system will not notice when you deliver insurance purchase mandates and a corporate bail-out that will dwarf the Wall Street trillions you've already justified.

Watch Smith's video: "American Sickos: Will the Current Bills Help? No"

Follow Smith's organizing for real reform at the website of Progressive Democrats of America. She is the national co-chair of PDA's Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.

Comments (266)

Well, John, you didn't tell us how these "Six Smart Progressive" complainers voted on this "huge" win! Sure, you implied it with the broad stroke of "overwhelming support from progressive Democrats".....

After the vote, all this amount to is.......WHINING!

Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 09:45am
There's only one complaint that matter: The majority of voters don't want it.

Time to disolve The People and let Congress elect a new one.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 09:50am
"Healthcare is a basic human right."

-Donna Smith

This has been an assertion, in the context of a public option or single-payer argument, that just rubs me the wrong way.

If it is encumbent upon somebody else going to work and earning money so that it can be confiscated in order to pay for your healthcare, then no, you do not have a right to it.

You do not have a right to demand that other people sacrifice parts of their life for things you want or need. You have a right to whatever it is you want or need, and can provide to yourself. Everything else is either charity or, if demanded at the point of a gun or threat of a prison sentence, theft.

So no, it isn't a right. It cannot be a right if you have to first demand it from somebody else. Nobody provides me with free speech. I exercise it. That and every other "right" in the Constitution. Where does this new garbage come from?

What we can do is demand our government do everything in it's power to make healthcare as affordable as possible for the greatest number of us as possible. That's all, nothing more.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 10:13am
"Healthcare is a basic human right."

-Donna Smith

This has been an assertion, in the context of a public option or single-payer argument, that just rubs me the wrong way.

If it is encumbent upon somebody else going to work and earning money so that it can be confiscated in order to pay for your healthcare, then no, you do not have a right to it.

You do not have a right to demand that other people sacrifice parts of their life for things you want or need. You have a right to whatever it is you want or need, and can provide to yourself. Everything else is either charity or, if demanded at the point of a gun or threat of a prison sentence, theft.

So no, it isn't a right. It cannot be a right if you have to first demand it from somebody else. Nobody provides me with free speech. I exercise it. That and every other "right" in the Constitution. Where does this new garbage come from?

What we can do is demand our government do everything in it's power to make healthcare as affordable as possible for the greatest number of us as possible. That's all, nothing more.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 10:13am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 10:13am

Well stated. Unfortunately, your logic will either be ignored by the left or in most cases, ridiculed because it goes against their marxist agenda.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:35am
all criticisms are spot-on, and as usual, the progressive caucus contains some of the most intelligent critics in the congress.

"If it is encumbent upon somebody else going to work and earning money so that it can be confiscated in order to pay for your healthcare, then no, you do not have a right to it"

substitute "healthcare" for electricity, garbage, highways, schools, firefighting, police, etc, etc, etc.

but it's that "healthcare" one that gets under citizen-carriers's skin, for some bizarre, irrational reason.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:38am
the rest of the civilized world (including countries that are nowhere near as wealthy as ours) has some form of universal care, or single-payer care. and their healthcare systems are BETTER than ours according to every objective standard (except making really, really expensive pharmaceuticals, paying their administrators WAY too much money, and spending GOBS on advertising).

but no, we can't have that.....because according to some arcane political ideology (conservativism), we can't allow rich people to pay slightly more for poor people's healthcare.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:40am
"Unfortunately, your logic will either be ignored by the left or in most cases, ridiculed because it goes against their marxist agenda"

perhaps our government should try any policy it can to contain costs, and insure everyone (see: "marxism), while retaining our capitalist nature to solve other problems.

anti, are you completely opposed to any marxist approach to solving problems, even if they WORK?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:42am
after all, we've been hard-core stupid capitalist for a long, long time, and look where it's got us? can't we try at least a few "marxist" policies?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:43am
the other thing i find so bizarrely unpatriotic about people like citizen_carrier: they feel their money is being "confiscated" to pay for someone else's healthcare. even though that other person is.....

an American, and a human being.

do you not love your fellow countrymen and women? do you not love America?

what is America, if you could give a f*ck about Americans?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:48am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 10:13am

Well stated. Unfortunately, your logic will either be ignored by the left or in most cases, ridiculed because it goes against their marxist agenda.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:35am | ignore this person | warn this person

You and Citizen_Carrier are both wrong. Health care is a right. and so is free speech. It is granted by the Constitution. Only those nations which have a similar constitution have the right of free speech. It can and is abridged all the time in all other nations. Law & government are our guarantors of rights. With out the Constitution we would be like these other nations.

Also you and the Left are both wrong when you think the Obama administration is Marxist; Obama's agenda is corporatist (i.e. classical fascist) not Marxist. Obama and the government are not taking over the banks and corporations, rather the banks and corporations are taking over the government. Obama is fooling both the Left and the Right.

As for those on the left who are disappointed in the House bill that just passed, you are way too late in your disappointment. You should have raised the alarm as soon as Obama and the Dems abandoned Single Payer. You can continue to blame Republicans and the insurance companies for the health care bills, but in reality the Reps/Insurance Companies are just doing what they always do and you have no one to blame for the health care bill but yourselves because of your slavish attendance to Obama and the Democrats who are really just very slick and smart 21st Century fascists operating under a liberal and progressive cover.

Today, in America, there is no progressive party.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 10:51am
Well, John, you didn't tell us how these "Six Smart Progressive" complainers voted on this "huge" win!

Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 09:45am

Actually, in yesterday's column, Nichols told us the Kucinich voted against.

I don't know how Massa voted.

And NOW, the CA Nurses assn, Planned parenthood, and the Movie, "Sicko" don't get a vote.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 10:58am
...If it is encumbent upon somebody else going to work and earning money so that it can be confiscated in order to pay for your healthcare, then no, you do not have a right to it.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 10:13am

Yes, well said.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 11:01am
...If it is encumbent upon somebody else going to work and earning money so that it can be confiscated in order to pay for your healthcare, then no, you do not have a right to it.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 10:13am

Yes, well said.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 11:01am | ignore this person | warn this person

As more and more of us can not go to work and earn money (no jobs) under Bush/Obama, your argument is becoming more and more moot (not that it ever was valid - a healthy population is good for everyone). As soon as you are out of a job, you will understand.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 11:04am
substitute "healthcare" for electricity, garbage, highways, schools, firefighting, police, etc, etc, etc.

but it's that "healthcare" one that gets under citizen-carriers's skin, for some bizarre, irrational reason.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:38am

What the hell is wrong with you. Since when is every need a basic human right. If you and I are stranded on an island and I've got a cooler of sandwichs and you don't you think you have a right to my sandwiches just because you need them? I'd like to see you try to exercise your "rights".

You need a better understanding of English before you attempt to debate people.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 11:05am
"If it is encumbent upon somebody else going to work and earning money so that it can be confiscated in order to pay for your healthcare, then no, you do not have a right to it."

and darin thinks this is "well said". well, considering that the combined IQ of darin and carrier hovers around the mid 40s, we can't be too surprised they would agree with this utterly brainless comment.

well, darin and carrier, can you give us the precise amount of money "confiscated" by the two of you, to pay for the healthcare of someone (who presumably doesn't work)?

and can you also tell us how much is "confiscated" to pay for already existing government services (like firefighting)? to which government services are you opposed, and to which do you support?

are two botched military invasions/occupations on the list?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 11:06am
Darladoon, if you are ever stranded on an island with darin and carrier and they won't share their sandwiches, you can always cook and eat them. Unless, of course, there is a government available to protect their rights.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 11:09am
yeah, real "conservatives" support trillion dollar occupations of dangerous, unstable foreign countries. but this isn't "confiscation" of their money. that's called FREE-DOM.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 11:15am
and if you don't agree with that, then you "hate the troops"!

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 11:15am
the only way i can support a health bill that includes the parasites known as for-profit health insurance is if they are essentially a highly regulated, government controlled co-op or something.

why? because i'm a business hating commernist?

no.

because i detest murderous parasites and based upon their actions that is precisely what those emmer effers are.

what a slap in the american people's faces. how bought-and-paid-for baucus and all the other parasite slaves (therefore parasites themselves) can look themselves in the mirror each morning is beyond me. traitors and mercenaries. slime.

NO OTHER CIVILIZED NATION WITH WHOM WE COMPETE FORCES THEIR BUSINESSES TO KOWTOW TO INCOMPETENT PARASITES LIKE OUR PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES, OR SLOUGHS OFF SUCH RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BACKS OF BUSINESS.

competitive? we wish to compete with these companies, with these nations? yet we burden our business with this CRAP????

goddamned satano-aynrando bullshit. capitalism's worst enemy by far.

socialism? SOCIALISM??? REALLY???

bullshit.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 11:23am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 10:58am

Regarding Massa's vote, from Nichols' post above, guys:

"Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and CPC member Eric Massa, D-New York, both of whom voted "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote Saturday."

Posted by cka2nd at 11/09/2009 @ 11:40am
I have a few more points to make, on the order of "universal health care" not being a right...how about medicare? how do you feel about that? What if the government were just to chop off Medicare altogether? Would you feel that it was right and just to drop those people on their rears and tell them that they don't have a right to something they didn't go out and get for themselves? I do think that universal health care is an excellent idea, it should be a right and the health systems in Canada and the UK are MUCH better than ours and the costs are much more controlled...the copay for a prescription in the UK is about 10GBP, which is about $16.71 US at the moment...vs my health insurance for instance where my copay could be $50 for somthing as simple as an athsma inhaler. I am quite sad to know that the bill has suffered large scale demolition from when it was first hinted at during Obama's campaign speeches, but am not surprised because in the end, he's a business man just like almost ever president before him and the many more to come after. I was hoping for better, as we all do with the change over from one president to the next, but I have no reason to actually expect better. Votes have been bought and sold for decades by unscrupulous politicians looking to further their own agendas, and have had less and less to do with the american people year over year. In the end it is not about the people and what is available to them, but how much money someone will make before they leave office. Truly sad and yet rerepresented time and time again.

Posted by phoenix1327 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:43am
Speaking of "divided" groups of similar ideology...

Seem to be getting conflicting spin from the Right.

Half are saying "This bill is pure socialism, WHEN it's passed it's going to destroy capitalism, America, and the Constitution" (your mileage may vary)....

the other Half say "Big deal. Saturday is nothing. Just you wait until it gets to the Senate...they'll stop it or water it down!"

So which is it? Going to pass as is... or killed or made toothless by the Senate????

Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 11:45am
Citizen_c, and DTBFT, you guys are nothing if not hopeless, unfeeling jerkwads, talk about loving your country, why do you guts hate America?

Posted by Denise29 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:53am
And I realize I spelled "guys" wrong, but decided to leave it that way. It seems apropo.

Posted by Denise29 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:55am
So which is it? Going to pass as is... or killed or made toothless by the Senate????

Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 11:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

Mask, there are now two main conservative movements in America, the neocons who ran the Bush debacle, er, administration, and the crazycons who now speak for the Republican Party. So you will probably see differing if not downright conflicting viewpoints from the right. Just as we see conflicting viewpoints between the liberals and the progressives on the left.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 11:59am
I have a few more points to make, on the order of "universal health care" not being a right...how about medicare?

Posted by phoenix1327 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:43am

I feel that is Medicare were truly a right the Bill of Rights would have had eleven amendments instead of two.

Not everything the government gives you is a right. Is government cheeze a right? Does every citizen of the world have a God-given right to cheeze?

There are different kinds of rights.

There are inalienable rights.

There are constitutional rights.

There are statutory rights.

An inalienable right has absolutely nothing to do with government. I can say whatever the fuck I please. I can even shout, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. I just have to be prepared to accept the consequeces of my actions. I have the right to defend my life and the life of my family and even strangers if I choose. I have the God-given right to kill someone who threatens my property. If my actions violate laws, I have to be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.

A constitutional right is a provision in a country's constitution that limits government action or provides a guarantee to citizens.

The US constituion contains provisions limiting governments ability to legally punish me for my speech or for practicing my religion. The Canadian consituion, (technically, it is the Candian Charter on Rights and Freedoms, not the constitution) provides a guarantee of heath care. It makes good on that guarantee to about 97% of it's population.

These rights can only be modified or taken away by constitutional amendment.

Statutory rights are provided by law (or statutes). Medicare and OASDI are statutory rights. They can be modified or taken away by changing the law.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Like most rightists you completely misunderstand the purpose of the founding fathers and the Constitution. The Constitution was not written primarily to limit government per se but to limit control of the government by oligarchies, corporations and foreign intrigue. STOP READING AYN RAND & OLD REAGAN SPEECHES AND START READING THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. Our American government - a different kind of government that the world had never seen before, and as clearly defined in the first law of the land - Preamble to the Consitution - is the American citizens best hope and should be revered, cherished and supported -- not constantly maligned as you conservatives always want to do.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 12:12pm
whether health care is a right or not is not my concern.

whether it is run in such a way as to maintain a physically and fiscally healthy population at a reasonable price and not sloughed off on business is my concern.

american business rightfully does not want to be saddled with this responsibility and SHOULD NOT BE, especially since perfectly fine models of public run health care ABOUND in the world which by almost every measure of efficiency and ability to deliver affordable, quality care, are SUPERIOR TO OUR PROFITEERING PARASITIC BULLSHIT.

are any of these systems perfect? OF COURSE NOT, SILLY! nothing in and of this world IS perfect with perhaps the exception of pre-blonde sell-out shakira...

but to attempt to argue that any of them are inferior to the anarchic, overpriced, bullshit "system" under which the american people and business suffer is dishonest or slothful ignorance.

capitalism's worst enemy?

the socialism screaming ideologues at the cato and heritage propaganda and mercenary mind factories whose irresponsible lies and exaltation of wasteful greed and excess have led us down this pied piper path to third worlddom...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 12:20pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 11:59am

True, though I guess I'd rather be on the side with "idealists vs. pragmatists" then the side with...

"cynics versus the certifible"....heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 11:59am

True, though I guess I'd rather be on the side with "idealists vs. pragmatists" then the side with...

"cynics versus the certifible"....heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Roger, that.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 12:28pm
and if you don't agree with that, then you "hate the troops"!

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 11:15am

I asked you point blank if you support our troops who were doing their duty and obeying orders and your reply was an unqualified "NO."

If you would like to change your reply, now is your chance.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:36pm
time for trip down the enchanted highway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HURazV5BD-A

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 12:40pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

The best way to support our troops is to provide a decent living for their families (which we don't), adequate health care when they return (we are starting to do so), protective armor and vehicles when they are in combat (this is still a tragedy) and above all, bring them home from feckless wars abroad. Our troops should be used for defense not aggression.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 12:43pm
OMG

I just read a headline of RACISM! A black man was called a nigger and beaten. I'll try to find out more...

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:44pm
The bills sucks in it's current form. Obviously it doesn't address the money gouging endemic in the health care system and indeed, in the free market capitalism of today. That much is true. It's watered down just enough to get those votes. Barely.

Besides, we need a totalitarian socialist regime in place before I'm happy! Or I wanna be part of the plutocracy if I can't have that. Nothing in the middle. Nothing that might make sense. Let's not come together as a society after the failures of our 'system'... we must resist common sense at all cost! Don't give me that shot! It'll make me better!

Cowboy america, the urge to go it alone yet still maintain personal control over everything. The 'do as I say not as I do' society'. A society of 'Waltons'. All of us own some of that responsibility.

The joy of stepping on the necks of others still wells up from the Jungian substrate and slowly strangles all hope and common sense. My way or the highway. A nation or an aberration? Do I sound cynical yet?

Posted by ficheye at 11/09/2009 @ 12:48pm
Oops, false alarm. The black man was attending a tea party rally and the people who called him nigger and beat him up were union thugs. So no RACISM.

Nothing to see here, just move along.

**********

It has been more than three months since Kenneth Gladney was viciously attacked by SEIU employees. The assault wasn't an accident, but a deliberate attempt to intimidate and silence tea party activists and town hall protesters. The morning of the Gladney assault, the White House presented to Senate Democrats a ‘battle plan' to quell the protests. The White House advised Democrats "punch back twice as hard." Gladney was the first casualty.

The Gladney beating took place at a forum on ‘Aging', sponsored by Rep. Russ Carnahan. Carnahan had been caught flat-footed by earlier protests. This time he was more prepared; the day before the forum, Sara Howard took over as his communications director. Ms. Howard is a veteran leftist activist, holding senior positions with SEIU.

SEIU and partisan hacks like Media Matters have tried to spin away the Gladney beating. They would have you believe a 130 lb diabetic, recovering luekemia patient, picked a fight with men almost twice his size. The police report puts an end to that lie.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/09/exclusive- police-report-on-gladney-beating-by-seiu-thugs/

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:49pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Try to find out more about the difference between racism and bigotry. Racism is institutional & organized. Bigotry and prejudice are exercised by "individuals" such as those who did the beating and other ignorant & hate-filled trolls.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 12:50pm
SEIU and ... Media Matters ... would have you believe a 130 lb diabetic, recovering luekemia patient, picked a fight with men almost twice his size. The police report puts an end to that lie.

*****

Just in case you didn't read to the end and missed it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:51pm
I asked you point blank if you support our troops who were doing their duty and obeying orders and your reply was an unqualified "NO."

If you would like to change your reply, now is your chance.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

where did she reply with an unqualified "no"? i can't find it. on another thread?

sans another thread of something i'm missing, looks like another typical false dichotomy leading directly to a non sequitur accusation of non-patriotism or unamericanism.

i do not nor have i ever supported the stupidity of invading iraq although until the previous blustering incompetent know-it-alls blew it i DID support the afghanistan war...

but i've "supported" the troops themselves regardless, and not "just" with my haliburton bound tax dollars...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 12:51pm
Racism is institutional & organized. Bigotry and prejudice are exercised by "individuals" ...

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 12:50pm

Well, there I go again.

I forgot it was make up your own definitions day.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:54pm
Regarding the subject at hand:

Everyone is entitled to their political viewpoint on a whole range of issues. The vote that took place the other night was embarrassment to all Americans to say the least. What a transparent attempt to pass any piece of garbage with the subject of HC in it's text. It's probably the only example of transparency by this administration so far. Democrats didn't even have the courage of their convictions. The dems actually cheered and applauded the passage of that disaster as though they had done something good for the country. What a disgrace.

They did what was best for they and their useless constituents. They did not even get the vote of one republican in, ( THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!!!!), except for that idiot down in La.

No wonder some Senators said that the far left democrats silly bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

I've got to tell you, this is not what the Framers had in mind when they diliberated the formation of our Constitution. Tactics used by the democrats in getting that piece of garbage passed would never have paseed the laugh test at the Constitutional Convention.

I highly recommend the book, 'Plain, Honest Men, The Making of the American Constitution' by Richard Beeman, an award winning author and Prof. of history at the Univ. of Pa. This is a great read which illustrates how our government is meant to work. Since the time of the convention, our process has been bastardized. All progressives should be forced to read this book.

My question? Are there any plain, honest men/women left in our government?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:55pm
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/09/exclusive- police-report-on-gladney-beating-by-seiu-thugs/

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

"biggovernment.com"?

gee, darin...i bet we get some really good, unbiased, fact based poop from these guys...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 11:45am

You're a smart guy. If you've been paying attention, America, (never mind republican Senators), has been saying that this bill must be killed. Just because there is a radical movement on the left who see their last best chance to pass anykind of HC reform at all, doesn't mean that the adults in the room are going to lay down and be trod upon. The fight hasn't even begun yet.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:59pm
i do not nor have i ever supported the stupidity of invading iraq...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 12:51pm

So you are on record as a supporter of genocide.

Saddam put 400,000 Iraqi men, women, and children in mass graves, and you are on record as supporting his right to do so.

Nice.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 1:01pm
Let me get this straignt. Because I do NOT want to see America irrevocably shoved into the realm of "entitlement mentality" and dependency, this means I do not love America or it's people?

Because I believe a national entitlement mentality does not produce excellence, but only mediocrity?

"You and Citizen_Carrier are both wrong. Health care is a right. and so is free speech. It is granted by the Constitution."

Posted by dont_know

Yep, right there in the Constitution. We just didn't realize all these 238 years until now that we have a right to other people's wages for our own individual health care. I must've missed that installment of the Federalist Papers. Lately, we've been "finding" all sorts of extra "rights" in that document. Almost like they were written in lemon juice and we only just now held it up to the light.

"NO OTHER CIVILIZED NATION WITH WHOM WE COMPETE FORCES THEIR BUSINESSES TO KOWTOW TO INCOMPETENT PARASITES LIKE OUR PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES, OR SLOUGHS OFF SUCH RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BACKS OF BUSINESS."

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 11:23am

Also, no other civilized nation produces the amount of new medicines, procedures, technology, and Nobel Prize for Medicine awardees than we do either. What better reason than to scrap what we're doing and adopt those other countrys' operating procedures? I'm sure all that innovation will continue once we've taken the profit motive out of all this and turned it into the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:04pm
Let me get this straignt. Because I do NOT want to see America irrevocably shoved into the realm of "entitlement mentality" and dependency, this means I do not love America or it's people?

Because I believe a national entitlement mentality does not produce excellence, but only mediocrity?

"You and Citizen_Carrier are both wrong. Health care is a right. and so is free speech. It is granted by the Constitution."

Posted by dont_know

Yep, right there in the Constitution. We just didn't realize all these 238 years until now that we have a right to other people's wages for our own individual health care. I must've missed that installment of the Federalist Papers. Lately, we've been "finding" all sorts of extra "rights" in that document. Almost like they were written in lemon juice and we only just now held it up to the light.

"NO OTHER CIVILIZED NATION WITH WHOM WE COMPETE FORCES THEIR BUSINESSES TO KOWTOW TO INCOMPETENT PARASITES LIKE OUR PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES, OR SLOUGHS OFF SUCH RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BACKS OF BUSINESS."

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 11:23am

Also, no other civilized nation produces the amount of new medicines, procedures, technology, and Nobel Prize for Medicine awardees than we do either. What better reason than to scrap what we're doing and adopt those other countrys' operating procedures? I'm sure all that innovation will continue once we've taken the profit motive out of all this and turned it into the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:04pm
There's only one complaint that matter: The majority of voters don't want it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 09:50am

Every single poll I've seen lately has between 60-75% of Americans supporting a public option. That number has held pretty steady for a couple of months now.

From where do you get the support for your statement Darin?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:05pm
"i do not nor have i ever supported the stupidity of invading iraq..."

therefore to darin i must be

"on record as a supporter of genocide."

really darin? oh you really got me there with THAT false dichotomy...

why YES darin...i LOVE genocide and support it...

really?

so darin, do you support a US invasion of the sudan, myanmar, north korea, and the scores of other nations whose detestable governments could be rationally accused of "genocide" or genocidal activities?

if you don't support costly US military intervention and years of bloody occupation in each and every one of them then you must support GENOCIDE!!!!

really? that's how it works? i guess that dishonest and fallacious claptrap plays well to the palin worshipping crowd, but you are playing with kids here who are a few levels above and beyond that. does not work.

i think you are better than that.

try again...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm
Remember, there was only one republican (A one term representative for sure in any case), who voted for this bill. It is hardly something worthy of being presented to the Senate from the 'PEOPLE'S' House.

I don't think you will find one single Republican who will even consider reading Pelosi's behemoth let alone vote for it. Nancy Pelosi should resign after presiding over such a childish attemt to force America to accept something that the majority does not want just for the sake of political expediency. Is this what we can expect from democrats if we give them power? Yes, yes, I know, the republicans aren't much better exercising their power.

Hopefully the Senate will be able to trash that travesty and come up with a compromise that will benefit America and solve the problem of HC reform once and for all.

God help us all.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm
Like most rightists you completely misunderstand the purpose of the founding fathers and the Constitution. The Constitution was not written primarily to limit government per se but to limit control of the government by oligarchies, corporations and foreign intrigue. STOP READING AYN RAND & OLD REAGAN SPEECHES AND START READING THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. Our American government - a different kind of government that the world had never seen before, and as clearly defined in the first law of the land - Preamble to the Consitution - is the American citizens best hope and should be revered, cherished and supported -- not constantly maligned as you conservatives always want to do.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 12:12pm

Boy do you have it backwards. I read the Federalist papers every week and they are PRECISELY ABOUT LIMITING THE GOVT FROM INTRUDING INTO THE LIVES OF CITIZENS.

When citing the 9th amendment in Griswold v Conn to establish a right to privacy, SCOTUS noted that these rights are meant to be established to PREVENT GOVT INFRINGEMENT.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm
The fight hasn't even begun yet.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

If you were alive in the days just after Gettysburg and Appomattox, I bet you would have been one of those Johnny Rebs saying the same thing.

The real fight that has yet to begin is the fight for single payer universal health care. Keep watching.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:59pm

So why is that Democrats who can "pay attention" as well as you (obviously not me)...

are committing political suicide for 2010 and 2012????

Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 12:43pm

You've got a lot to learn. Research the history of America's interests in the ME regarding we and our allies and then try again.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:11pm
"substitute 'healthcare' for electricity, garbage, highways, schools, firefighting, police, etc, etc, etc.

but it's that "healthcare" one that gets under citizen-carriers's skin, for some bizarre, irrational reason."

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:38am

Problem with that is there is a meter on the side of my house that tells the electric company exactly how much electricity I've used. I then pay for it. I do not go next door and demand that my neighbor pay out some of his cash to my bill. Nor would he be correct to do so of me.

Same with these other things you cite.

Now, if you are willing to advocate a "public option" in which only the people who are on that government plan are the ones billed/taxed to pay for it, then you and I have no quarrel.

"do you not love your fellow countrymen and women? do you not love America?

what is America, if you could give a f*ck about Americans?"

Ah, your definition of love of America and it's people is the only definition here. I'm not supposed to consider unintended consequences, just the "intent" of what is proposed. If it is for "helping" people, then I should look no further than that simple statement.

For example, when it came to welfare checks to unwed mothers, I was just supposed to consider if it would "help" people, right? I wasn't supposed to ask if it might give rise to illegitimacy and fatherless homes, especially in the black community.

Nope, not supposed to do that sort of thing. Only consider the intent, not the consequences.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:15pm
"substitute 'healthcare' for electricity, garbage, highways, schools, firefighting, police, etc, etc, etc.

but it's that "healthcare" one that gets under citizen-carriers's skin, for some bizarre, irrational reason."

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:38am

Problem with that is there is a meter on the side of my house that tells the electric company exactly how much electricity I've used. I then pay for it. I do not go next door and demand that my neighbor pay out some of his cash to my bill. Nor would he be correct to do so of me.

Same with these other things you cite.

Now, if you are willing to advocate a "public option" in which only the people who are on that government plan are the ones billed/taxed to pay for it, then you and I have no quarrel.

"do you not love your fellow countrymen and women? do you not love America?

what is America, if you could give a f*ck about Americans?"

Ah, your definition of love of America and it's people is the only definition here. I'm not supposed to consider unintended consequences, just the "intent" of what is proposed. If it is for "helping" people, then I should look no further than that simple statement.

For example, when it came to welfare checks to unwed mothers, I was just supposed to consider if it would "help" people, right? I wasn't supposed to ask if it might give rise to illegitimacy and fatherless homes, especially in the black community.

Nope, not supposed to do that sort of thing. Only consider the intent, not the consequences.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:15pm
Well stated. Unfortunately, your logic will either be ignored by the left or in most cases, ridiculed because it goes against their marxist agenda.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:35am

I consider my agenda to be a Christian-based agenda. Feel free to call it what you will, Larry.

Basic healthcare in America, under the Hippocratic Oath, is already a "right" to all humans simply due to the fact that every doctor is required to provide service when needed. That is their oath. So, if someone is without insurance, a doctor still provides services. You end up paying for it either way, through higher insurance premiums, or longer lines because more emergency rooms are closing due to the FACT that those without insurance are using emergency rooms for their free healthcare.

It sounds like the two of you (and others) are advocating for doctors to not provide service to those without insurance. That is both immoral and unChristian. You would have people die before allowing a doctor to do his or her job as required under their oath. It is the duty of doctors to provide health care. There's nothing about insurance companies providing services to anyone; and in my opinion, they simply get between a doctor and the patient. In fact, most doctors (including the AMA) are tired of all the paperwork the insurance companies force on them. Single payer would essentially eliminate most of that paperwork and let doctors get back to being doctors (and the lines would get shorter).

PLEASE explain to me how any insurance company helps people get better from illness or injury and I'll be the first to jump on your "I Love Insurance Companies" bandwagon.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:15pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 12:51pm

Sorry if you missed it but I don't keep track of old threads the way some of you do. The discussion that day was about our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Darla, in her usual way, ignored the possibility that America might actually be there with good reason, as though she knows better than our leaders, current and former all the way back to Pres. Truman's days. I asked her point blank if she supported AMERICA, OUR TROOPS AND OUR POLICY! Her reply was NO, NO, and NO! There was quite a bit of dialogue by others regarding her response. I even accused her of belonging to Al Qaeda.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:18pm
It sounds like the two of you (and others) are advocating for doctors to not provide service to those without insurance. That is both immoral and unChristian. You would have people die before allowing a doctor to do his or her job as required under their oath. It is the duty of doctors to provide health care. There's nothing about insurance companies providing services to anyone; and in my opinion, they simply get between a doctor and the patient. In fact, most doctors (including the AMA) are tired of all the paperwork the insurance companies force on them. Single payer would essentially eliminate most of that paperwork and let doctors get back to being doctors (and the lines would get shorter).

PLEASE explain to me how any insurance company helps people get better from illness or injury and I'll be the first to jump on your "I Love Insurance Companies" bandwagon.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:15pm

Stephen, why do you continuing making stuff up?

Show me where I've ever said that doctors should not see someone who cannot pay? that is between the doctor and his/her patients.

And I'll repeat, I'm not supporting health insurance companies. I don't sell health insurance, I don't have health insurance, I don't own any health insurance stock.

I don't support either the govt or private system. I consider the govt system unconstitutional and the private system to be corrupt, alien to good health, and backwards in the way it's used.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:21pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

really?

i hear that canard over and over and over and i wonder...

really? if we were to take the combined nations of the EEU, which are roughly equal in population and economic scale to the US, what would the breakthrough count look like?

is this canard...

a. objective reality

b. sort of true but with important caveats or

c. true when divorced from critical caveats or

d. poppycock?

i'm looking and finding little at the moment, but if we compare the united statesitaly with a pop of over 300,000,000 to say the UK with a pop of 60,000,000, and both have comparable levels of economic development, i'd predict that the US has more medical breakthroughs without looking at statistic number one, much less two or three...

canada - pop of what, 30,000,000...

germany - 70,000,000?

italy - 60,000,000

japan - 100,000,000+?

no single modern civilized nation of compearable economic development comes close to the scale of the US population or economy, so it is the purest of logic to assume that our system will produce more breakthroughs, even if imperfect.

to assume that medical progress will cease once parasitical health insurance companies are castrated or big pharma is brought under something resembling control is not necessarily logically consistent either, though perhaps its possible.

maybe if they ceased spending buzillions of dollars a year pushing failed products that by chance alleviate some minor, previously unrecognized "condition" to a nation of traumatized hypochondriacs...

but yes, call me a dreamer...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 1:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Your perspective is not that of the founding fathers as expressed in the Federalist Papers but the perspective of the weak, feckless, anti-government Anti-Federalists and their descendants. If we had followed the anti-federalist approach America would never have survived. As it is, it has always been a struggle to maintain our freedom-preserving federal government against those who would weaken it including those who would weaken it by such sophistry as railing against "government infringement". In real history, as opposed to fantasy history, our United States government has only "infringed" when it has come under control of corporations or oligarchy or the oligarchical political party that supports the corporations over individuals.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:25pm
1.by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 10:13am Well stated. Unfortunately, your logic will either be ignored by the left or in most cases, ridiculed because it goes against their marxist agenda. Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:35am | ignore this person | warn this person You and Citizen_Carrier are both wrong. Health care is a right. and so is free speech. It is granted by the Constitution. Only those nations which have a similar constitution have the right of free speech. It can and is abridged all the time in all other nations. Law & government are our guarantors of rights. With out the Constitution we would be like these other nations.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 10:51am

Where does the constitution make health care a right?

Our constitution is based upon inalienable rights; that means they cannot be rights granted by govt, only recognized by govt and barring the govt from infringing upon them.

Why do you think a liberal congressman like Jesse Jackson Jr. introduced a constitutional amendment to make healthcare a right because he knows that currently it is not.

http://tinyurl.com/yhrv2eo

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:25pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 12:49pm

Are you trying to say that there are racists in unions?

Ummmmm. Duh.

There are racists everywhere...however, just because one is in a union, does not mean that one is "progressive" or even "liberal." Your post simply shows how ignorant you are of the subtle shades of racism in this country.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:26pm
"Problem with that is there is a meter on the side of my house that tells the electric company exactly how much electricity I've used. I then pay for it. I do not go next door and demand that my neighbor pay out some of his cash to my bill. Nor would he be correct to do so of me. Same with these other things you cite."

what about the lights lining every street? what about the electricity in public buildings?

and what about the highways?

if you use the highways, carrier, and i don't, then why should i pay for your lazy ass to use them?

nice attempt to gloss over the billions of dollars we all spend, ever year, for all kinds of things we all need. or don't need.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:30pm
Your perspective is not that of the founding fathers as expressed in the Federalist Papers but the perspective of the weak, feckless, anti-government Anti-Federalists and their descendants. If we had followed the anti-federalist approach America would never have survived. As it is, it has always been a struggle to maintain our freedom-preserving federal government against those who would weaken it including those who would weaken it by such sophistry as railing against "government infringement". In real history, as opposed to fantasy history, our United States government has only "infringed" when it has come under control of corporations or oligarchy or the oligarchical political party that supports the corporations over individuals.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:25pm

Baloney. I post from the Federalist papers virtually everyweek and I know what firm ground I stand on.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:31pm
"Just because there is a radical movement on the left who see their last best chance to pass anykind of HC reform at all, doesn't mean that the adults in the room are going to lay down and be trod upon."

look, gunslinger thinks the house bill emanated from the "radical left"!

yeah, so "radical" to give the private insurance industry 40 million MORE customers.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:32pm
"Where does the constitution make health care a right?"

the united nations made healthcare a universal right, and we are part of the united nations.

it's called 'the declaration of human rights'

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm

This is a very condescending post by you.

Just because you do not agree that America has a responsibility to protect it's interests and that of it's allies in a world economy, to say nothing of the very real threats to our way of life and our defense of freedom, doesn't make those with the opposite viewpoint any less entitled to their beliefs.

Do you realize, for instance, that even though we have the ability to wipe out civilization just with our nuclear submarine capability that some countries have the same ability to bring our economy to a standstill just as quickly just by closing the oil industry down? Do you remember Saddam Hussein torching oil wells after the first gulf war? What would happen if Saudi Arabia decided to change sides and entered a pact of agression with Venezuela, Russia and Iran? Far fetched?

Our diplomats through the years have been able to walk on the egg shells of balance that we call our foreign policy. To dismiss the very real threat that is ALWAYS present to us and our allies and to simplify or otherwise negate those threats as innanity by current or former Presidents would be an extreme act of ignorance.

We should ALWAYS present a united front of support for our troops where ever they are ordered to go. They take an oath to defend our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and OFFER THEIR LIVES to accomplish that end. The least you and people like Darla can do is to care about them.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:33pm
You're a smart guy. If you've been paying attention, America, (never mind republican Senators), has been saying that this bill must be killed. Just because there is a radical movement on the left who see their last best chance to pass anykind of HC reform at all, doesn't mean that the adults in the room are going to lay down and be trod upon. The fight hasn't even begun yet.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:59pm

Slinger - who is this "America" person you state has been saying that this bill must be killed.

Would that be America Ferrera, the star of "Ugly Betty?" I don't know of anyone else named "America" except her.

Also, how does 60-75% of the American people (when asked) who support a public option, constitute a "radical movement on the left?"

Are you using "hyperbole" (pronounced "hI'-per-bowl" by Republican head [and incredibly well-tanned] John Boehner) again?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm

You live in a fantasy world. You would have to change our Constitution to accomplish some of the things that progressives advocate. It won't happen in your lifetime.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:36pm
"I don't support either the govt or private system. I consider the govt system unconstitutional and the private system to be corrupt, alien to good health, and backwards in the way it's used"

nobody cares what YOU support antisocialist. without some modicum of western medicine, then millions of people will die.

so, we need something, and you are opposed to both public and private systems.

ergo, you support millions of people dying.

some christian you are....

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:36pm
Hell, I don't even think that some of the people who write for The Nation even believe what they write.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:37pm
antisocialist-Your claim that you do not have health insurance is misleading.If you were being honest you would have included the fact that you do not need to have health insurance because you are a veteran who can get care free of charge..It doesn't matter whether you take advantage of that or not because you have it and know you have it.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 1:37pm
Also, no other civilized nation produces the amount of new medicines, procedures, technology, and Nobel Prize for Medicine awardees than we do either. What better reason than to scrap what we're doing and adopt those other countrys' operating procedures? I'm sure all that innovation will continue once we've taken the profit motive out of all this and turned it into the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:04pm

CC, you DO realize that almost all of the money spent on research to GET those Nobel prizes comes from the government in the form of grants, right?

You think Pfizer, Amgen or United Health is in the business they're in for a Nobel Prize?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:37pm
"We should ALWAYS present a united front of support for our troops where ever they are ordered to go"

oh, man! this person really needs an education.

(see: vietnam, iraq, etc)

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:38pm
gunslinger, what if the troops were ordered to go into american cities and squash rebellion against......

healthcare reform???

would you support them in this case?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:40pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:33pm

If you need some help for whatever ails you Darla, go to any ER. You won't be turned away.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:41pm
Baloney. I post from the Federalist papers virtually everyweek and I know what firm ground I stand on.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Quoting the Federalist Papers does not mean you understand the writers purpose. As I said, you are only engaging in sophistry. Hamilton, Madison and Jay (not to mention Washington, Adams and Franklin) would not be "conservatives" nor Republicans if they were alive today.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:41pm
Also, how does 60-75% of the American people (when asked) who support a public option, constitute a "radical movement on the left?"

Are you using "hyperbole" (pronounced "hI'-per-bowl" by Republican head [and incredibly well-tanned] John Boehner) again?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:34pm

What do you want to do now, have a 'poll' war. please.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:42pm
"If you need some help for whatever ails you Darla, go to any ER"

(quote of the day, as it perfectly encapsulates the republican healthcare plan: just rely on the ER)

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:42pm
gunslinger1 = rep. stephen king

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:43pm
"Where does the constitution make health care a right?"

the united nations made healthcare a universal right, and we are part of the united nations.

it's called 'the declaration of human rights'

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Darladoon, you do not have to use anything from the UN to support your position. You have a much stronger document to support what you say on this topic. It is called the Preamble to the Constitution - the first law of the land.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:44pm
"What do you want to do now, have a 'poll' war."

perhaps you should, gun, as you claimed that a majority of americans are opposed to reform.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:44pm
I don't support either the govt or private system. I consider the govt system unconstitutional and the private system to be corrupt, alien to good health, and backwards in the way it's used.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:21pm

OK, Larry...other than eating well and not taking any pharmaceuticals, how would YOU fix the system (since 300 million Americans do not all think like you)?

If you're NOT supporting BigInsurance and NOT supporting BigPharma, and NOT supporting Big Government, then what DO you support as a way of fixing the obviously broken system for those of us who don't think like you? Or do you think the system is perfectly fine as is?

You've told us what you're against but not told us what you're FOR (just like the Republicans in Congress).

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:38pm

Yes Darla, American marines, soldiers, sailors, airman guardsmen, and reserves in Vietman and Iraq died for your sorry ass. You're a disgrace as a citizen and have no right calling yourself an American. Are you one of the people who spat on our troops when they came home from Vietnam? Maybe you don't feel that the Constitution should provide defense for traitors such as yourself. There's a difference between opposing policy and outright hatred of our armed forces. You reflect the latter.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:48pm
"Where does the constitution make health care a right?"

the united nations made healthcare a universal right, and we are part of the united nations.

it's called 'the declaration of human rights'

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:33pm

You are aware of how flakey this sounds, right?

I wasn't aware that we surrendered the sovereignty of my wallet to the pie-in-the-sky utopianist edicts of an organization dumb enough to put Sudan on the Human Rights Commission.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
"Where does the constitution make health care a right?"

the united nations made healthcare a universal right, and we are part of the united nations.

it's called 'the declaration of human rights'

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:33pm

You are aware of how flakey this sounds, right?

I wasn't aware that we surrendered the sovereignty of my wallet to the pie-in-the-sky utopianist edicts of an organization dumb enough to put Sudan on the Human Rights Commission.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm

You live in a fantasy world. You would have to change our Constitution to accomplish some of the things that progressives advocate. It won't happen in your lifetime.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Anyone who wishes to change the Constitution is not a progressive and for progressive ideals to be accomplished we not only must not change the Constitution we must uphold it. But you are correct that the American ideal will never be perfected in my lifetime not any ones lifetime. The American ideal is a process not a fixed set of rules. It must ALWAYS be fought for as Ben Franklin advised us.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:52pm
"I wasn't aware that we surrendered the sovereignty of my wallet to the pie-in-the-sky utopianist edicts of an organization dumb enough to put Sudan on the Human Rights Commission"

citizen_carrier debate strategy: avoid the actual document in question, find one controversial aspect of the entire united nations over the last 60 years, and use that as a debate tactic against.....taking care of human beings, because you don't feel like spending a tiny fraction of your income on someone who has nothing.

great job!

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:54pm
What do you want to do now, have a 'poll' war. please.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:42pm

Sure, why not? You show me three recent (as in the last month) national polls from well respected pollsters that show less than 50% of the American people do NOT want a public option.

Just three (3). No cheating. Obvious right wing pollsters don't count, nor do obviously left wing pollsters.

Can't be bothered, or can't find 'em? Your choice.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:54pm
antisocialist-I do not make enough money to go to an acupuncturist nor can I afford most natural pain killers or other natural remedies.So,while it is nice to recommend that people do such natural things there is this thing called reality that frequently gets in the way of doing that.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 1:58pm
CC, you DO realize that almost all of the money spent on research to GET those Nobel prizes comes from the government in the form of grants, right?

You think Pfizer, Amgen or United Health is in the business they're in for a Nobel Prize?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:37pm

Yes, I get it. Much like how we fund NASA and the tertiary industries connected to it. Not a problem for me. I've always been a supporter.

But nobody has yet explained how you have a "right" to demand the wages of other people in order to cover your own health insurance or care.

I can find no such thing in the Constitution. And Darla's contemptible United Nation's declaration of healthcare as a universal right doesn't do it either. That declaration does not mandate (nor can it mandate) a confiscation of property from one group or individual to another, by force, based on need. That just isn't how any of this was designed to work.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:59pm
CC, you DO realize that almost all of the money spent on research to GET those Nobel prizes comes from the government in the form of grants, right?

You think Pfizer, Amgen or United Health is in the business they're in for a Nobel Prize?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:37pm

Yes, I get it. Much like how we fund NASA and the tertiary industries connected to it. Not a problem for me. I've always been a supporter.

But nobody has yet explained how you have a "right" to demand the wages of other people in order to cover your own health insurance or care.

I can find no such thing in the Constitution. And Darla's contemptible United Nation's declaration of healthcare as a universal right doesn't do it either. That declaration does not mandate (nor can it mandate) a confiscation of property from one group or individual to another, by force, based on need. That just isn't how any of this was designed to work.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:59pm
Every single poll I've seen lately has between 60-75% of Americans supporting a public option. That number has held pretty steady for a couple of months now.

From where do you get the support for your statement Darin?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:05pm

Mostly, it's common sense. The last time 70% of American voters agreed on an issue it was the invasion of Iraq.

If politicians released their real internal polling numbers we'd get a real look at public opinion. Instead we only see the results of polls that are commissed to move public opinion, not reveal it.

If there was really was 70% support, do you honestly believe Pelosi would have had as much trouble as she had scaring up 220 votes?

Oh sure you guys pay lip service to nefarious "corporate interests" buying politicians, but you know they aren't going to get their way when public support is 70%:30% (over twice as much).

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 1:59pm
"Where does the constitution make health care a right?"

the united nations made healthcare a universal right, and we are part of the united nations.

it's called 'the declaration of human rights'

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 1:33pm

the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a recommendation and not a legally binding document

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 2:02pm
"Healthcare is a basic human right."

This statemnt is very true. Ive been reading these comments and I have to say most of you people do not deserve to live in my country. As a veteran, I have fought for your constitutional right to live in a free and safe country. To deny human beings the basic right and privilege of our great society to LIVE and LIVE WELL is unpatriotic. You people have no sense of your responsibility to your fellow countrymen or your country for that matter.

p.s. You don't have a clue of what socialism is if you think Obama is one!

Posted by Socialist-2-The-CORE at 11/09/2009 @ 2:03pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:48pm

slinger,

Just wondering if you support the current CIC during wartime as much as you supported the last CIC in wartime?

Or are you finding yourself supporting the current CIC during wartime less due to his policies?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm
You have a much stronger document to support what you say on this topic. It is called the Preamble to the Constitution - the first law of the land.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:44pm

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

dont_know, the Constitution can only promote the general welfare WITHIN the limitations of it's enumerated powers. It is a limiting document intended to reduce the intrusion of government into individual liberty and the sovereignty of individual states. The Preamble is not a blank check or a marvelous catch-all allowing us to rewrite the rule book to suit the flavor of the day.

So, unless there is some part of an article in the Constitution talking about wealth confiscation and unequal redistribution for healtcare--an idea we didn't even know was in there until recently, for some reason--then why didn't the Framers of the constitution or any other politician from then until now think of this before?

Because you are trying to rewrite the rule book according to the flavor of the day. Amend the Constitution if you want. You're certainly welcome to try.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm
You have a much stronger document to support what you say on this topic. It is called the Preamble to the Constitution - the first law of the land.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:44pm

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

dont_know, the Constitution can only promote the general welfare WITHIN the limitations of it's enumerated powers. It is a limiting document intended to reduce the intrusion of government into individual liberty and the sovereignty of individual states. The Preamble is not a blank check or a marvelous catch-all allowing us to rewrite the rule book to suit the flavor of the day.

So, unless there is some part of an article in the Constitution talking about wealth confiscation and unequal redistribution for healtcare--an idea we didn't even know was in there until recently, for some reason--then why didn't the Framers of the constitution or any other politician from then until now think of this before?

Because you are trying to rewrite the rule book according to the flavor of the day. Amend the Constitution if you want. You're certainly welcome to try.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm
"the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a recommendation and not a legally binding document"

translation: "screw human rights"

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm
"Because you are trying to rewrite the rule book according to the flavor of the day."

but not you, evidently! you have the most strict & literal interpretation of all!

i mean, just look at this interpretation from citizen:

"So, unless there is some part of an article in the Constitution talking about wealth confiscation and unequal redistribution for healtcare"

brilliant, strict, literal!

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:08pm
"You people have no sense of your responsibility to your fellow countrymen or your country for that matter"

that's true.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:09pm
notice this incredible hypocrisy from antisocialist:

he thinks abortion is murder, and yet abortion is legal. in other words, although he understands it is legal, he thinks it is immoral (murder).

on the other hand, the UN declaration of human rights is not legal (it is only a "recommendation"), ergo torture, slavery, lack of housing, lack of healthcare, and lack of food are all A-OK.

and then (!), he actually quotes mother f*cking theresa!

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:12pm
Hamilton, Madison and Jay (not to mention Washington, Adams and Franklin) would not be "conservatives" nor Republicans if they were alive today.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:41pm

I don't care what a bunch of slave owners would do today. (Who also counted their wives and children among their property.) I only care about what they meant when they wrote back then.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 2:15pm
Mostly, it's common sense. The last time 70% of American voters agreed on an issue it was the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 1:59pm

The last time more than 50% of Americans agreed on anything was the election of Obama. Common sense again, right? heheh.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:16pm
" I only care about what they meant when they wrote back then."

"what they meant" is much, much different than "what you think they meant". in fact, it's probably the opposite.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:16pm
"You people have no sense of your responsibility to your fellow countrymen or your country for that matter"

that's true.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:09pm

Because I do not approve of this 2000+ page healtcare monstrosity?

That is how my responsibility to my country is to be judged? By whether or not I sign on to confiscation and redistribution?

In my very first post I said that I want health insurance reformed and made cheaper and more accessible for as many Americans as possible. If this makes me heartless, then we've apparently redefined what heartlessness is.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:17pm
"You people have no sense of your responsibility to your fellow countrymen or your country for that matter"

that's true.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:09pm

Because I do not approve of this 2000+ page healtcare monstrosity?

That is how my responsibility to my country is to be judged? By whether or not I sign on to confiscation and redistribution?

In my very first post I said that I want health insurance reformed and made cheaper and more accessible for as many Americans as possible. If this makes me heartless, then we've apparently redefined what heartlessness is.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:17pm
"The last time 70% of American voters agreed on an issue it was the invasion of Iraq"

those same 70% also thought saddam was directly involved on 9.11.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:17pm
Darladoon, you do not have to use anything from the UN to support your position. You have a much stronger document to support what you say on this topic. It is called the Preamble to the Constitution - the first law of the land.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:44pm

Can you cite the last time a Constitutional scolar relied upon the preamble in an argument to the SCOTUS?

I don't either, but I'll bet it was prior to the 20th century.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:48pm

slinger,

Just wondering if you support the current CIC during wartime as much as you supported the last CIC in wartime?

Or are you finding yourself supporting the current CIC during wartime less due to his policies?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm

I will support Barack Obama, or any other President for that matter for as long as he listens to his military advisors. No civilian politician knows jack shit about military strategy and tactics.

As for my comments to Darladoon. I will not sit by while ANYBODY tries to shit on the sacrifice of our fallen troops. I only wish I had a larger vocabulary.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:19pm
"Because I do not approve of this 2000+ page healtcare monstrosity?"

no, no, no. you don't approve of ANY government-backed assistance for healthcare. you are opposed on PRINCIPLE to any single-payer system, or public option. so, indeed, you don't care about your fellow americans. at least the poor ones.

and whether the bill is 2000 pages is irrelevant.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:20pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

hmmm...

gunny, i like you and you seem like a big boy, so if i ever spew on you try not to take it too personally. i have a mighty roar online but am quietly polite in person.

i'm also not a flag waving, genuflecting, showy "patriot". my love for my country is like my love for my mother, undiminished by her many flaws and almost never openly proclaimed.

unlike my mother, however, i CAN in my small but not insignificant way, change my country, as can you or anyone else.

so while i definately "support the troops" in that i pray for them, do not blame them for the terrible judgment of their civilian leaders, etc, i do not nor have i ever joined in on this almost eerily fascist worship of the military either...

many people in this country have and continue to sacrifice greatly of themselves of all walks of life - not just the military - and all are a part of what has made our country wealthy, powerful, and yes, great.

what i often see on the right in terms of these conversations is some kind of attempt to get a "gotcha" moment by spuriously slurring those who do not immediately get all teary eyed and angrily defensive about the holy, sacred military.

i was in the military. my dad fought in WW2 (the big one as archie bunker called it) and yo know what?

he never talked about it much. he appreciated the appreciation shown on veteran's days, independence days and memorial days.

but he never expected anyone to kiss his ass for doing what he regarded as what he HAD to do, what he was supposed to do...

such sychophantic melodramatic crap disgusted him, in point of fact.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 2:23pm
"No civilian politician knows jack shit about military strategy and tactics"

ah, but rumsfeld and cheney were spot-on with their strategy and tactics.

and civilians can, and have, offer(ed) substantive criticism of our military misadventures in iraq and afghanistan.

iraq was a failure. that is well know. so was vietnam. the critics of those wars were proved correct. unfortunately.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:23pm
Darladoon, you do not have to use anything from the UN to support your position. You have a much stronger document to support what you say on this topic. It is called the Preamble to the Constitution - the first law of the land.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 1:44pm

Now that is truly an ignorant statement. The Preamble does not create any rights or establish them.

From the findlaw website

<PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?>

http://tinyurl.com/mw8s9

As noted here also, the preamble establishes for the first time, that this is a govt of, by, and for the people. That this government is established by the consent of the governed.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 2:23pm
"what they meant" is much, much different than "what you think they meant". in fact, it's probably the opposite.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:16pm

And yet you've thus far failed to cite anything "they" wrote to support a public option or a single payer plan.

The United Nations? Sorry, but we sign their paycheck, they don't sign mine.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:23pm
"what they meant" is much, much different than "what you think they meant". in fact, it's probably the opposite.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:16pm

And yet you've thus far failed to cite anything "they" wrote to support a public option or a single payer plan.

The United Nations? Sorry, but we sign their paycheck, they don't sign mine.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:23pm
But nobody has yet explained how you have a "right" to demand the wages of other people in order to cover your own health insurance or care.

I can find no such thing in the Constitution. And Darla's contemptible United Nation's declaration of healthcare as a universal right doesn't do it either. That declaration does not mandate (nor can it mandate) a confiscation of property from one group or individual to another, by force, based on need. That just isn't how any of this was designed to work.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:59pm

CC, By your argument, none of us has a "right" to free highways, either. Or firefighters, or police, or schools, or a standing military for that matter. We pay for all of these things through our taxes; we pay for war, we pay for highways, we pay for education, we pay for security. Why can't a small portion of our taxes be used to help keep our nation healthy? Why is it wrong to support the concept that we are all in this together; we are ALL Americans, supporting each other to help make our nation a better place for everyone? No one is confiscating anything from you. No homeless person is demanding you pay higher taxes to pay for their healthcare (which, BTW, you are already paying for in local taxes).

Why must it be so cut-throat with you Republicans? I am for self- responsibility, but not to the extent that those who find themselves (for whatever reason) unable to help themselves should be left out of the American Dream, or at least affordable and decent health care. What's wrong with that ideal?

Republicans like you all say you don't believe in evolution, yet "survival of the fittest" seems to be your strategy in everything. The really sad part is that you don't even see the dichotomy in that.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:25pm
"what they meant" is much, much different than "what you think they meant". in fact, it's probably the opposite.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:16pm

Yes, you're probably right. An African-American, lesbian, "herb" farmer probably has a lot more insight into the minds of our founding fathers than a rich, white, land-owning, business man, who grew up on a farm.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 2:26pm
"I will not sit by while ANYBODY tries to shit on the sacrifice of our fallen troops"

this is what's called "emotional blackmail". because a soldier has died obeying an immoral, irrational order, i HAVE to support him. no matter what.

well, that's total bullshit. i support the troops who fought hitler, who fought stalin, who fought franco and mussolini, et al.

but i don't support the troops in iraq. i don't hate them, i just don't support what they are doing, regardless of whether they are following orders.

same goes for afghanistan. i think that are troops should just get out of there, and risk court marshal.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:27pm
those same 70% also thought saddam was directly involved on 9.11.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:17pm

No, we didn't. We knew he was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of his citizens.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 2:28pm
"And yet you've thus far failed to cite anything "they" wrote to support a public option or a single payer plan"

we currently provide healthcare to seniors and poor people, as well as social security for all, so there is (clearly) justification for having single payer for everyone.

and besides, we ALL pay taxes, so we ALL deserve something in return: fire, police, schools, roads, etc.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:29pm
Oh sure you guys pay lip service to nefarious "corporate interests" buying politicians, but you know they aren't going to get their way when public support is 70%:30% (over twice as much).

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 1:59pm

You are so full of it today Darin.

Most Americans didn't support Bush's giveaway to BigPharma with Medicare Part D either, yet it was BigPharma who got the votes for it (both Republican and Democratic) and passed it, against the wishes of most of the American people. That's EXACTLY why Pelosi had such problems...over $1 million dollars A DAY has been spent lobbying (and threatening) legislators about not passing this health care reform.

Money buys power (and elections) in today's Congress, and if you don't agree with that, then you know less than nothing about how American politics work.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:30pm
dont_know, the Constitution can only promote the general welfare WITHIN the limitations of it's enumerated powers. It is a limiting document intended to reduce the intrusion of government into individual liberty and the sovereignty of individual states. The Preamble is not a blank check or a marvelous catch-all allowing us to rewrite the rule book to suit the flavor of the day.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Again with the same sophistry employed by the anti-Federalists, the confederate traitors and all the conservatives from Skull & Bonesman operative Teddy Roosevelt to Skull & Bonesman operative George Bush. The Constitution was NOT written to protect states rights. It was written to protect individual rights and, yes, promoting the general welfare in our modern times means universal healthcare under a single payer. Your sophistry only serves the insurance companies and the Wall St. casinos that bet on insurance policies and devious characters such as those in Skull & Bones. You yourself may not be a member of a secret anti-American, anti-Constitutional society but you sure write like one.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 2:31pm
"But nobody has yet explained how you have a "right" to demand the wages of other people in order to cover your own health insurance or care."

if your house burns down, or if you suffer a catastrophic illness, i really hope you have your shit in order, and take care of ALL of it yourself.

and i really hope you don't use interstate highways (cuz i don't) and i really don't want to pay your lazy ass to ruin my clear skies with your filthy, pollution belching car.

see my point?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:31pm
"No, we didn't. We knew he was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of his citizens."

yes you did. 70% of americans thought saddam was involved in 9.11 up until 2005. that is a fact.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:32pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 10:58am

Regarding Massa's vote, from Nichols' post above, guys:

"Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and CPC member Eric Massa, D-New York, both of whom voted "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote Saturday."

Posted by cka2nd at 11/09/2009 @ 11:40am

cka,

Nichols updated his comments! My post, the first one, is stamped 9:45 am and Nichols' stamp now, is 10:23 am. Nichols never indicates his changes w/"Updated" or drop down into the comments to acknowledge corrections early commenters point out!

But Darin did catch me....I did wrongly assume 6 members of Congress after skimming Nichols' long post.

Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 2:33pm
from USA today, septemer, 6 2003:

"Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country"

care to reconsider darin?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:34pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm

Back in the day of the Framers, blacks were slaves. They were considered property and their 'welfare' wasn't included in the text. They had to rely upon the good graces of their masters to get them whatever HC they needed to keep them productive. It was a different time.

To try to incorporate the philosophy of those days into the problems we have in the present would be a fundamental exercise in futility. It can be argued that most blacks were bettered cared for in terms of HC in the slave days than they are now. The major difference then and now, (citing poor people in the inner cities), is that workers were treated healthwise in proportion to their productive value. Today we are supposed to provide HC regardless of anyone's, (black or any other color), productive value. It's called 'entitlement.' In other words, they want something that they nor their families have earned.

The Framers had no idea that one day, descendents of slaves would multiply, within the abusive practices of the welfare system, to the extent to which they have. So now it is a modern problem. I don't really think that the Framers, for all of their collective wisdom, could have anticipated the problem that America faces today.

Therefore it is up to the Senate as the final arbiter to come up with some sort of palatable HC reform that will balance the needs of the truly poor with the reluctance of the working class to fork over more of their hard earned tax dollars to people they see as freeloaders. Good luck.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:35pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm

CC,

Why are you fighting so hard for the rich? All that "wealth redistribution" crap is all nonsense. The health care bill as passed by Congress is not "Robin Hood" writ large. In fact, it reduces the deficit by a few billions dollars over its lifetime. I thought all ya'll conservatives liked that deficit reduction stuff.

Evidently not.

The public option will be payed for by the people who use it because they will have to pay premiums, just like you do for your private insurance. It is NOT a free program except for those who simply cannot pay, because they are out of work (the number gets ever higher), or are simply poor (the number gets ever higher). The public options simply forces BigInsurance to have competition. I thought ya'll conservatives liked free market competition?

Evidently not.

So, what's with all this crap about wealth redistribution? Show me how this will be wealth redistribution?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:36pm
The Preamble is not a blank check or a marvelous catch-all allowing us to rewrite the rule book to suit the flavor of the day.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Again, there is no "rule book" there is only a process; it is called democracy.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 2:37pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 2:23pm

I suggect that when you see the word 'military' that you substitute for it the phrase 'our sons and daughters'. That might help.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:40pm
"It can be argued that most blacks were bettered cared for in terms of HC in the slave days than they are now"

(most moronic quote of the day)

"Today we are supposed to provide HC regardless of anyone's, (black or any other color), productive value. It's called 'entitlement.' In other words, they want something that they nor their families have earned"

(second most moronic quote of the day)

and, of course i must ask: how productive is gunslinger on this cool november day? he's been blogging an awfully long time......so he can't be too productive.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:42pm
I don't care what a bunch of slave owners would do today. (Who also counted their wives and children among their property.) I only care about what they meant when they wrote back then.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 2:15pm

Darin, did you lose your brain or something today?

They "meant" that black people were equal to 3/5 of a white person.

They "meant" that women did not have the right to vote.

They "meant" all sorts of things that no longer hold true in our society because times (and nations) change. A static nation is a dead nation. A flexible nation, built on the bedrock of the Constitution, is a nation that lives and thrives and prospers. Why do you think so many other nations have adopted some form of our Constitution? It's a magnificently flexible document for all sorts of different cultures and societies.

This conservative notion that the Constitution should not be a living document actually scares me a little because it literally means you and others want to harken back to the days when slavery was legal and women couldn't vote and many other things that no longer hold true to what they "meant" when they wrote the document.

You don't REALLY want that, do you?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm
"But nobody has yet explained how you have a "right" to demand the wages of other people in order to cover your own health insurance or care."

if your house burns down, or if you suffer a catastrophic illness, i really hope you have your shit in order, and take care of ALL of it yourself.

and i really hope you don't use interstate highways (cuz i don't) and i really don't want to pay your lazy ass to ruin my clear skies with your filthy, pollution belching car.

see my point?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:31pm

Yes, I pay for interstate highways. That is appropriate because I USE THEM.

Earlier, I wrote that I would support ANY public option or single payer plan in which only the people partaking in that plan or option would be the one's taxed or billed to pay for it.

Because people who already provide their own, or provide it to their employers at a cost should not have to pay an additional amount of money to pay for a public option they are not being a burden to.

All I've ever said, from the beginning, is if you use it, then you are the one who should pay for it.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm
"But nobody has yet explained how you have a "right" to demand the wages of other people in order to cover your own health insurance or care."

if your house burns down, or if you suffer a catastrophic illness, i really hope you have your shit in order, and take care of ALL of it yourself.

and i really hope you don't use interstate highways (cuz i don't) and i really don't want to pay your lazy ass to ruin my clear skies with your filthy, pollution belching car.

see my point?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:31pm

Yes, I pay for interstate highways. That is appropriate because I USE THEM.

Earlier, I wrote that I would support ANY public option or single payer plan in which only the people partaking in that plan or option would be the one's taxed or billed to pay for it.

Because people who already provide their own, or provide it to their employers at a cost should not have to pay an additional amount of money to pay for a public option they are not being a burden to.

All I've ever said, from the beginning, is if you use it, then you are the one who should pay for it.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm
gunslinger, if you pay taxes, then you've "earned" the right to healthcare.

heck, even if you don't pay taxes, then you deserve to see a doctor if you need on.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:27pm

Don't you even understand that All MILITARY PERSONNEL have the right to refuse a an irrational order?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:45pm
As a veteran, I have fought for your constitutional right to live in a free and safe country.....

Posted by Socialist-2-The-CORE at 11/09/2009 @ 2:03pm

I'm sorry you fought for the wrong country....but I do thank you for your service to America, land of the free and not land of the "Socialist"s.

By the way, to all Marxist veterans, the same to you!

Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 2:46pm
"All I've ever said, from the beginning, is if you use it, then you are the one who should pay for it."

this makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:46pm
OK, Larry...other than eating well and not taking any pharmaceuticals, how would YOU fix the system (since 300 million Americans do not all think like you)?

If you're NOT supporting BigInsurance and NOT supporting BigPharma, and NOT supporting Big Government, then what DO you support as a way of fixing the obviously broken system for those of us who don't think like you? Or do you think the system is perfectly fine as is?

You've told us what you're against but not told us what you're FOR (just like the Republicans in Congress).

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:46pm

I think people should have some kind of catastrophic coverage if they choose to do so.

I think the states can establish a fund for state covered extended care for those unable to qualify for coverage or the very poor.

I don't think health care insurance (public or private) should cover basic doctor visits. That has been a major driver in raising health care costs.

I have no problem with states mandating guaranteed renewable insurance protections.

The biggest problem though with the costs of healthcare, besides the effect from lifestyle choices, is that today, most people want their health care provider to take any steps necessary to preserve their life. As long as that mentality remains, healthcare costs will continue to rise dramatically. Basically, that does suggest rationing unless people recover a sense that no one lives forever on this earth.

As long as millions of Americans want someone to keep them alive, no matter the cost, this problem of paying for health care will continue.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 2:47pm
For Darladoon's education:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:49pm
Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 2:46pm

Sorry. gotta disagree with you there. This veteran, like all others fought for the freedom to believe in whatever political philosophy they want to.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:52pm
Healthcare is a basic human right."

This statemnt is very true. Ive been reading these comments and I have to say most of you people do not deserve to live in my country. As a veteran, I have fought for your constitutional right to live in a free and safe country. To deny human beings the basic right and privilege of our great society to LIVE and LIVE WELL is unpatriotic. You people have no sense of your responsibility to your fellow countrymen or your country for that matter.

p.s. You don't have a clue of what socialism is if you think Obama is one!

Posted by Socialist-2-The-CORE at 11/09/2009 @ 2:03pm

You must have fought for some European country then and not the US which I fought for.

I fought for liberty guaranteed by our republic which was founded as one of limited govt. It was not founded to be the socialist stated that you dream of.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:42pm

I've worked three jobs most of my life, sent my children to college and provided a home and HC for them with the fruits of my labor. They are now productive members of society and actually contribute something to America. What say you?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:55pm
Free healthcare is not a basic human right.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/09/2009 @ 2:56pm
I will support Barack Obama, or any other President for that matter for as long as he listens to his military advisors. No civilian politician knows jack shit about military strategy and tactics.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:19pm

Interesting that you say you "will support" Obama only if he listens to his military advisers. Does that mean that if he listens to them and decides to do something else (as is his right as CIC), that you will no longer support him? I thought that supporting the President during war was a no-brainer to conservatives. I guess that means only supporting him as long as he does what you want him to do.

And I'm curious, if the Founding Fathers had wanted a military person to always be President, why didn't they put that into the Constitution? I would posit there's a reason to their madness. The President's job is to do what is best for the country. Sometimes listening to and implementing what your military advisers suggest is not best for the country. Would you agree with that simple statement?

It is up to the People's choice as president to make that decision regarding war. It is NOT up to the military advisers to be making decision about what is best for the country during wartime. However, if strategy and tactics are at issue, then yes, I would agree with you, the advisers should be consulted. But even the decision to pull out of a war is not a strategic or tactical decision; HOW to pull out of a war with minimum casualties is a strategic and tactical decision.

BTW, how are you coming along with those three (3) polls showing that more than 50% of the American people oppose a public option? Can't find 'em?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:57pm
I don't really think that the Framers, for all of their collective wisdom, could have anticipated the problem that America faces today.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Wrong. Acutely wrong. The Framers, to their everlasting glory, anticipated all the problems that America faces today because, other than the details of circumstance, nothing new is under the son. Since the Greeks first formulated democracy to oppose oligarchy, humanity has faced the very same problems.

Again, the Constitution is a living document not a rule book.

There is really no difference between the oligarchical tyranny faced by the Framers, the confederate treason faced by Lincoln, the racial oppression faced by minorities, the anti-worker oppression faced by the union movement and the anti-universal health care promoted by self-described "conservatives", FOX news operatives, the devils from Skull & Bones, and the ridiculous & fading Republican party of modern times.

You on the right are FUNDAMENTALLY anti-American and it is about time all true progressives stopped shying from saying so. Conservatives should not be treated with any respect as a "loyal opposition" and should be called out for what they are: Selfish, anti-American, anti-human trolls. And it is their devious tactics as well as their sophist philosophical beliefs that make them disloyal to the American ideal. None dare call it treason. But perhaps some shall.

The Framers were the best progressives of all.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 2:58pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

Suggestion. I notice that you are always double posting. Could it be that you are using a cordless mouse that double clicks atomatically from the side (thumb) and singly from the top? Are you double clicking automatically?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:59pm
People in combat do not fight for idealistic reasons.People in combat fight for their buddies and risk their lives for their buddies and not for God,king,and country..

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 2:59pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

Suggestion. I notice that you are always double posting. Could it be that you are using a cordless mouse that double clicks atomatically from the side (thumb) and singly from the top? Are you double clicking automatically?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

This happens when The Nation moves their blog from one section of their server to another.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:42pm

Nothing moronic about either quote. They are both facts. You just don't like facts that don't fit your pie in the sky view of what this country really is.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

yes it was condescending. the argument he used was insulting to my intelligence and for his sake i will not countenance such stupidity from a man who regardless of his self reported IQ score is smarter than that.

ideology, however, too closely followed, DOES have a distinct effective IQ lowering tendency and when legitimate argument fails to defend, even otherwise bright folks all too often resort to fallacious arguments modes, including attacks ad hominum.

no prob with me. i tend to give back as good as i get, sometimes admittedly preemptively.

i also half seriously lampoon such thinking and logic when i point out how many american citizens have suffered needlessly and died prematurely as a direct result of a parasitical for profit health insurance and delivery system that is bleeding our economy and providing next to nothing worthwhile in return.

but ultimately i admit to being more than half serious the more i think about the health insurance scam.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 3:03pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

So you are saying that people who don't pay taxes aren't entitled to HC. Your slip is showing.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:03pm
As long as millions of Americans want someone to keep them alive, no matter the cost, this problem of paying for health care will continue.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 2:47pm

Well, Larry you ain't never gonna fix that problem because not everyone is as eager to die and go to heaven as you.

Oh, they may SAY they are, but most humans have an irrational fear of death, which is why so many of them believe in heaven in the first place. That's ultimately where faith lies (as in "happens", not dishonesty), because no one knows what happens after death (with logical assurances at least), which is why we turn to faith, which doesn't require logical assurances.

What's wrong with Americans wanting to stay alive anyway? Other than from the biblical viewpoint?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:57pm

Nice try.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:06pm
"It was written to protect individual rights and, yes, promoting the general welfare in our modern times means universal healthcare under a single payer."

It was not written to protect "economic rights". The Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties, stating what governments cannot do.

The spurious comparisons to interstate highways, etc. overlook the fact that those aren't rights either. That doesn't mean that they weren't good policies, but that doesn't make them rights.

The Preamble isn't binding law. The only "general welfare" clause in the Constitution PERMITS Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare; it doesn't require any particular expenditures.

PS, Citizen Carrier, will you please stop duplicate-posting your posts? Thanks.

Posted by brunowe at 11/09/2009 @ 3:06pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 2:58pm

Read the book, Plain, Honest men. It will clear up the misconceptions you have.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:07pm
This conservative notion that the Constitution should not be a living document actually scares me a little because it literally means you and others want to harken back to the days when slavery was legal and women couldn't vote and many other things that no longer hold true to what they "meant" when they wrote the document.

You don't REALLY want that, do you?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

that is such a red herring.

We have this part of the constitution calling for the right to AMEND the constitution. That was the means by which the founders provided for changing the constitution as needed or as desired by the people.

It used to be something that even liberals agreed with until they lost the battle for the Equal Rights amendment. Since then they have tried to circumvent the constitution.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 2:59pm

You are only partially right here. Yes, people in combat do, as a matter of survival, fight with and for their buddies. But when they are standing before our flag, taking their oath to preserve, and protect our constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, and are in effect offering their lives to hold up those principles, they are anticipating fighting for their country. It would be a real shame if you and others here don't understand that. So many have died.

There is a world of difference in those young people proudly swearing that oath and the likes of the Reverend Wright screaming, "God Damn America."

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:13pm
Wrong. Acutely wrong. The Framers, to their everlasting glory, anticipated all the problems that America faces today because, other than the details of circumstance, nothing new is under the son. Since the Greeks first formulated democracy to oppose oligarchy, humanity has faced the very same problems.

Again, the Constitution is a living document not a rule book.

There is really no difference between the oligarchical tyranny faced by the Framers, the confederate treason faced by Lincoln, the racial oppression faced by minorities, the anti-worker oppression faced by the union movement and the anti-universal health care promoted by self-described "conservatives", FOX news operatives, the devils from Skull & Bones, and the ridiculous & fading Republican party of modern times.

You on the right are FUNDAMENTALLY anti-American and it is about time all true progressives stopped shying from saying so. Conservatives should not be treated with any respect as a "loyal opposition" and should be called out for what they are: Selfish, anti-American, anti-human trolls. And it is their devious tactics as well as their sophist philosophical beliefs that make them disloyal to the American ideal. None dare call it treason. But perhaps some shall.

The Framers were the best progressives of all.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 2:58pm

Ok, I've figured it out-you're some high school prankster trying to tease the adults.

Because no one with average intelligence who functions as an adult would make the inane statements you have been posting.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 3:14pm
Therefore it is up to the Senate as the final arbiter to come up with some sort of palatable HC reform that will balance the needs of the truly poor with the reluctance of the working class to fork over more of their hard earned tax dollars to people they see as freeloaders. Good luck.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:35pm

Where, in ANY of the legislation currently before the House OR the Senate, does it say that the "working class" will pay for ANY of this legislation? Where?

Who IS this WORKING CLASS? Who is this generic AMERICA you quote that wants it killed? Who ARE these people?

How are those three (3) polls coming along, BTW?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 2:58pm

Read the book, Plain, Honest men. It will clear up the misconceptions you have.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Respectively, I will do just that and get back to you on a later blog when it is appropriate. Caveat emptor.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 3:17pm
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:49pm

Which is EXACTLY why Bush and Co. had to bend over backwards to make torture "legal."

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:17pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 3:03pm

I can agree with all of that. I too see the need for HC reform. I've pointed out several times here the things that need improving. The bill passed by the dems covered two of them. But unless they are going to address tort reform and the strengthening of Medicare, I see no hope for the republicans compromise.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:17pm
People in combat do not fight for idealistic reasons.People in combat fight for their buddies and risk their lives for their buddies and not for God,king,and country..

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 2:59pm

You and I entered the military for very different reasons.

from the time I was around 5 years old, I dreamed of when I would be old enough to serve in the military and fight for my country. That's why I enlisted when I was 17 and I never lost that feeling during my time in the service. I never hesitate to tell young people that my time in service is my greatest pride and that they should serve to show their love for their country.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:57pm

Nice try.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:06pm

Couldn't find three, could you? Could you find one (1)?

yeah, I thought not.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:21pm
Because no one with average intelligence who functions as an adult would make the inane statements you have been posting.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Please, dear sir, educate this below average intelligence prankster as to just what statements I have made that our inane?

That the constitution is a living document?

That human rights have always been fought for against people with viewpoints such as yours?

That the Framers were progressive?

What?

I obviously need your educated and adult guidance.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 3:22pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:15pm

Working people. Working people who pay taxes are willing to pay for theirs and their family's HC or recieve it as part of a benefit package. They do however frown upon using their hard earned money to pay for someone who doesn't feel the need to work because they are 'entitled.' Does that clear it up for you?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:17pm

Different issue. Not what Darla was referring to.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:25pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:21pm

I don't pay very much attention to polls. They don't mean very much and depend totally how the questions are asked. If you asked the same people what a single-payer system meant, they wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about. You have the right to cite as many polls as you wish and I have the right to disregard them as well.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:28pm
antisocialist-I have never known one combat veteran who did not say what I said and I have known hundreds from several different wars.Even those who write books say that.Some may have joined for what they thought was patriotism,but that goes out the window once the first bullets fly.From then on it's about your buddies and survival and not for country.Your world becomes quite small in combat and it becomes a handful of you vs a handful of them.The rest of the world becomes irrelevant.That is not just my experience.Every one I know is a combat veteran has said the same thing.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 3:30pm
from the time I was around 5 years old, I dreamed of when I would be old enough to serve in the military and fight for my country. That's why I enlisted when I was 17 and I never lost that feeling during my time in the service. I never hesitate to tell young people that my time in service is my greatest pride and that they should serve to show their love for their country.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 3:21pm

Larry, two questions...

1. Did you actually mean to say that your time in service is your greatest pride (and not serving god is your greatest pride - noting that pride itself is a sin)? and

2. When you were five years old, what was it exactly that made you want to "fight for your country?" Was it patriotism, the concept of duty, or something more banal?

When I was five, I had my G.I. Joe and my green toy soldiers all lined up as well (fought some amazing battles against other green toy soldiers), and listened rapturously as my father recounted his tales of WWII and General Patton (imagine being told the story of Patton pissing in the Rhine - my dad witnessed it - right before bedtime). I, however, wasn't old enough to think of "fighting for my country." I just thought toy soldiers were cool (and so was my Dad).

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:33pm
Six Smart Progressive = oxymoron, or maybe just six morons. Reguardless it will be immaterial to the Senate.

Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 3:35pm
Working people. Working people who pay taxes are willing to pay for theirs and their family's HC or recieve it as part of a benefit package. They do however frown upon using their hard earned money to pay for someone who doesn't feel the need to work because they are 'entitled.' Does that clear it up for you?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:23pm

and WHERE in either of the bills before the House and Senate does it say that "working people" will have to pay more taxes for either (or both) plans?

WHERE? WHERE? WHERE?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:36pm
antisocialist-The fact that I voluntarily enlisted and volunteered to be a combat medic and volunteered to go to war in order to save my fellow countrymen seems to suggest that love of country had something to do with why I enlisted.My fellow countrymen or women are my country.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 3:37pm
The health care bill as passed by Congress is not "Robin Hood" writ large.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:36pm

The Robin Hood of the Left is a lie.

Robin did not steal from the rich. When Good King Richard was off to war, his evil brother conspired with the Sheriff of Knotingham and taxed the people into poverty.

Robin fought a corrupt government. He stole from corrupt government tax collectors, not prosperous private citizens. He fought the Sheriff of Knotingham, a corrupt government official who stole from the people to enrich himself.

Robin hood is more Michigan Milita than Micheal Moore.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 3:38pm
They "meant" all sorts of things that no longer hold true in our society because times (and nations) change. A static nation is a dead nation. A flexible nation, built on the bedrock of the Constitution, is a nation that lives and thrives and prospers. Why do you think so many other nations have adopted some form of our Constitution? It's a magnificently flexible document for all sorts of different cultures and societies.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

Constitutions change as well. They change through the amendment process that is outline in the Consitution. It requires both houses of Congress and 75% of the states.

Read the amendments that is how constitutions change properly. Now somes laws change imporperly when the SCOTUS substitutes its political opinions for the text of the Consitution and invents "penumbras" and other non-existent words to justify its naked potlitical usurpation.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 3:42pm
Every one I know is a combat veteran has said the same thing.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Roger that.

And FYI, for those on the right who think my statements above are unintelligent, adolescent or inane, I hold 2 BAs (one in history), 1BS and an MS.

In 1967 I spent days caught in a covert observation post between Israeli and Arab forces while working for an unnamed U.S. agency that thought my opinions were far from "inane". That is where I first developed the foxhole mentality you describe.

In 1968 I was also on the ground reporting on the Soviet Invasion for our government. No bullets or tank shells came my way there, but only by luck.

And all of 1969 I spent in combat in Vietnam and Laos.

And I am not the only educated, adult and sensible combat veteran who is for universal health care for all Americans under a single payer and who knows that such a political position is not "socialist" but American.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 3:46pm
I don't pay very much attention to polls. They don't mean very much and depend totally how the questions are asked.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:28pm

That's a good point. There is not ambiguity what-so-ever in the question, "Do you support the military invasion of Iraq?" The 70% who responded, "Yes" knew exactly what that question meant.

One of the reasons the Left keep changing the names of things is to keep fudging the polls. Once "public option" (a.k.a. single payer by stealth) dropped below 50% Pelosi wanted it renamed "choice option" or "Public choice" or some confusing bullshit to try to get the poll numbers back above 50%.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 3:58pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Good thing FOX and the right doesn't keep changing the names of things to keep fudging the pools, hey?

And,

I don't pay very much attention to polls. They don't mean very much and depend totally how the questions are asked.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:28pm

We finally agree on something.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 4:03pm
don't_know, thank you for your service and for your wise words. I'm nobody, the same, thank you.

Posted by Denise29 at 11/09/2009 @ 4:19pm
Actually, Anti and Gunny, don't know about wise words, you guys sound more like wise-crackers, but... thank you for your service.

Posted by Denise29 at 11/09/2009 @ 4:21pm
"The biggest problem though with the costs of healthcare, besides the effect from lifestyle choices, is that today, most people want their health care provider to take any steps necessary to preserve their life. As long as that mentality remains, healthcare costs will continue to rise dramatically"

all of the empirical data proves the OPPOSITE is true. all other western industrialized countries spend LESS than we do while insuring EVERYONE, including foreigners.

antisocialist, how do you respond to this fact?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 4:23pm
"One of the reasons the Left keep changing the names of things is to keep fudging the polls"

yeah, only the Left fudges polls.

i'm sure darin thinks that the Left fudged the saddam/9.11 polls as well.......that USA today, so incredibly left wing.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 4:25pm
That the constitution is a living document?

That human rights have always been fought for against people with viewpoints such as yours?

That the Framers were progressive?

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 3:22pm

The constitution is not a living document. that is established by the document itself with the amendment process

Human rights could not be established by fighting against people like myself since as a libertarian, I believe and have fought for liberty and equality.

the founders were not progressives as the term is currently used. They were in the tradition of classic liberals which has become more known today as libertarian philosophy.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

Benjamin Franklin,

hardly today's "progressivism"

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 4:26pm
Roger that.

And FYI, for those on the right who think my statements above are unintelligent, adolescent or inane, I hold 2 BAs (one in history), 1BS and an MS.

In 1967 I spent days caught in a covert observation post between Israeli and Arab forces while working for an unnamed U.S. agency that thought my opinions were far from "inane". That is where I first developed the foxhole mentality you describe.

In 1968 I was also on the ground reporting on the Soviet Invasion for our government. No bullets or tank shells came my way there, but only by luck.

And all of 1969 I spent in combat in Vietnam and Laos.

And I am not the only educated, adult and sensible combat veteran who is for universal health care for all Americans under a single payer and who knows that such a political position is not "socialist" but American.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 3:46pm

Ok, I will officially change my view of you. I still believe you have fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution, but I honor you as a fellow vet.

BTW, it seems our backgrounds are more similar than dissimilar. And some of our duties parallel but most likely for different agencies in the military. I was recruited by my branch agency in late '65 and entered active duty in '67.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 4:35pm
I just read an amazing quote. I immediately thought of the Left hear boldly proclaiming, "Healthcare is a right" or "The US Consitution is a living document."

Here's the quote:

"To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, they have mistaken the ways of their tribe for the laws of nature."

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

(Link is for Nov 9, 2009)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 4:36pm
ok, darin, fuck it. healthcare is not a right. it' s a priviledge to those who can afford it.

and i hope you are so lucky....

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 4:46pm
Patton pissing in the Rhine

what's so great about that? I did it numerous times.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 4:51pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Again sophistry. Taking quotes out of context to prove a predetermined point rather studying the quoted persons life history and evolvement may make you feel good, but it doesn't prove any point unless you explain the specific context of the quote. And isolated quotes will not help anyone understand truth. Furthermore it is insulting to these great men. So is harping on the fact that many held slaves in order to prove that they were "racist". Again context matters. What the Framers, or anyone in history said, is subject to what argument they were trying to make, and to whom they were making it against and to whom they were making it for. Often in history, as well as in these blogs, people make "pragmatic" arguments that are often short of what they really believe or wish to achieve. It's called politics. You have to look at the whole and not just a few parts.

The Framers were not perfect; no one is. But I doubt anyone today comes as close as they did.

But the Framers were CERTAINLY progressive -- as America, as an idea, as that shining city on the hill, is the most progressive idea the human race has ever come up with.

And the amendment process is only one of the ways the Constitution is a living document. The Framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. It was their intent that the Constitution be interpreted according to contemporaneous society's needs.

Bottom line, most, perhaps not all, but most of the Framers if they were alive today would not be against HC reform. And they would be appalled at the degree of control of our society by the insurance companies, the multinationals and Wall St

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 4:52pm
Denise, thank you and it is a good time to thank all my fellow vets here including some who absolutely despise me

"Non Sibi Sed Patriae"

"Semper Fidelis"

"Haec protegimus"

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 4:52pm
as he listens to his military advisors

war is too important a matter to be left to its practitioners.

If Kennedy had listened to his military, there would have been a nuclear exchange over Cuba.

it was his, and any president's finest hour.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 4:55pm
Bottom line, most, perhaps not all, but most of the Framers if they were alive today would not be against HC reform. And they would be appalled at the degree of control of our society by the insurance companies, the multinationals and Wall St

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 4:52pm

I still emphatically disagree. The would most certainly be appalled at Congress intruding on Commerce. It would seem to them little diffeent than the list of grievances they had with King George that are so articulately stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 4:55pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

they are very little people with tiny minds and insignificant lives.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 4:58pm
ok, darin, fuck it. healthcare is not a right. it' s a priviledge to those who can afford it.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 4:46pm

It is neither a right nor a privledge: it is a service. Sometimes that service is needed desparately, but it is a service that is provided by others. Others who make career decisions based on an expectation that they will charge for their services.

It is a service that has grown tremendously expensive. This is partially because of an economic dislocation know as third-party payer. But it is also because technology has created the ability to deliver better care through the use of impossibly expensive equiptment such as MRI machines and artificial hearts.

It is also tremendously expensive because technology has created better drugs, but because the risk of damage that can be done by drugs is so great, it requires tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug approved by the FDA. These capital investments can only be recouped through the sale of these drugs.

Fundamentally, ours is a problem related to costs that are too high for the poor for things they need. You don't solve this problem by declaring needs to be rights. You don't solve this problem by taking healthcare away from the rich. You don't solve this problem by taking care away from the old.

You solve this problem by subsidizing the poor and forcing the free riders who can afford to pay to do so.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 4:59pm
antisocialist-Your claim that you do not have health insurance is misleading.If you were being honest you would have included the fact that you do not need to have health insurance because you are a veteran who can get care free of charge..It doesn't matter whether you take advantage of that or not because you have it and know you have it. Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

good point. who is paying for the satanic rev's health insurance? why you and I, the tax payers. it needed to be said.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 5:02pm
Are you using "hyperbole" (pronounced "hI'-per-bowl" Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

no it's not. it's pronounced hi-per-bowli.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 5:05pm
perhaps better as hi-per-bowlee. anyway, the e is not silent.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 5:06pm
Dineesh D'Souza summarizes it well

<We need to understand some big changes that have come over liberalism. The term liberal, in its Greek meaning, refers to the free man, as opposed to the slave. The liberals were originally the partisans of liberty. The American founders, for example, were committed to three types of freedom: economic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of speech and religion. In their classical liberal view, freedom was defined as limiting the power of government, and thus increasing the scope for individual and private action. The spirit of this philosophy is clearly conveyed in the formulations of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law…">

http://tinyurl.com/mmvlbu

It's just a 1 1/2 minute clip, but Justice Scalia hits it exactly right in this interview

http://tinyurl.com/yhr2drt

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 5:14pm
antisocialist-Your claim that you do not have health insurance is misleading.If you were being honest you would have included the fact that you do not need to have health insurance because you are a veteran who can get care free of charge..It doesn't matter whether you take advantage of that or not because you have it and know you have it. Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

good point. who is paying for the satanic rev's health insurance? why you and I, the tax payers. it needed to be said.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 5:02pm

More nonsense. I didn't use them when I fractured my knee three years ago. I didn't use them when I had my heart attack two years ago.

I don't use doctors or hospitals. I don't need to as long as I can still exercise common sense and natural health means.

JR, you can't possibly pay for something I haven't and will not use.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 5:19pm
Antisocialist, unless you have DONE something in support of your viewpoints (like vote in Congress against HC reform), I, for one, do not despise you personally. I just despise the reactionary, revanchist and irredentist ideas of the Right. There is nothing new about anything on which you have opined. Americans have faced such bad ideas from the Torries, the Confederates, the Jim Crow states-rightists, the Reagan revolutionaries, the neocons and now the Fox-driven crazycons. The basic roots of your "antisocialist" ideas have been around long before socialism was developed. Even before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth rock. And they will no doubt be around for a long time more. That is why progressives know that this HC debate & struggle will continue long after all of us are gone. Fortunately, we have the best weapon for progress ever developed, the living Constitution of the United States of America. I know you don't agree, but that is why we, on the patriotic Left, call it struggle. This HC debate is not the last battle. There are no last battles. Otherwise, human life and the American dream would have been perfect after Yorktown. And the fact, that what the House passed is far from what we want (see the blog article above), will not detour us from seeking to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The struggle will continue.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 5:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 5:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

well yes and no. there are and always have been clauses of the constitution the meanings of which have been debated and interpreted in different ways.

furthermore, the founding fathers were some pretty bright fellows who foresaw the inevitability of change in the future, of unforeseen events and developments that could make a dead document an impediment to freedom and prosperity, thus the process of amending the constitution.

as much as i respect the constitution of the united states, i do not worship it nor do i see it as perfect. its awfully vague, in fact, in a few areas, and definately open to interpretation.

if a polity, like a religion, ossifies to the point where it only credits its last dead prophets or revered statesmen, and refuses to grow and develop, it is doomed and dead. a dinosaur...

i understand yor reverence of the document and to some extent share it, but again...

1. yours is not the only possible, rational interpretation, and

2. it once sanctioned human bondage, for example and i do not therefore consider it something akin to the infallible word of god. i consider no book or human scribbling to be the infallible word of god, for that matter, no matter how much i may admire it.

here, of course, we differ.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 5:25pm
I suggect that when you see the word 'military' that you substitute for it the phrase 'our sons and daughters'. That might help.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grandparents, cousins, dear friends and despised enemies, as well...

"military" is much more succinct, however, lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 5:30pm
The [framers of the US Constitution] would most certainly be appalled at Congress intruding on Commerce.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 4:55pm

The framers were a product of the environment.

They would be appalled that women could vote.

They would be appalled that the landed gentry could not own slaves (let alone, let blacks vote, or even learn to read).

They would be appalled that homosexual or adulterous behavior was not punishable by prision or death.

They would be appalled that gentlemen could not settle their disputes through duels.

They would be appalled that teachers were prohibited from beating unruly children with sticks.

They would be appalled that a gentleman who diciplines his wife in public with the back of his hand would be arrested.

Anyone who believes the founding fathers would overlook all of these things and agree with him on healthcare has a serious lack of appreciations for the cultural changes that have taken place in the last 250 years.

Televisions, computers, airplanes, machine guns, nuclear bombs, crack cocaine, anal beads: the founders would roll up into a catatonic ball would would be unable to offer an opinion on healthcare.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 5:31pm
I don't pay very much attention to polls. They don't mean very much and depend totally how the questions are asked. If you asked the same people what a single-payer system meant, they wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about. You have the right to cite as many polls as you wish and I have the right to disregard them as well.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:28pm

OK, then. You certainly have that right (although it's not a constitutional right, you know).

But, like a typical Republican, you only use polls when they suit your needs.

Did you know that while saying he "never listened to polls," George W. Bush's white house (under Karl Rove) conducted almost daily polling of one sort or another?

I certainly hope we won't see you posting about this poll or that poll supporting some future political agenda. It would mean you're being a hypocrite about polls, you know.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 5:33pm
"All I've ever said, from the beginning, is if you use it, then you are the one who should pay for it."

this makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @

But a public option in which people who aren't using it are still taxed to pay for it, or have their existing private benefits taxed to pay for it...that makes sense to you?

To have to pay for something you aren't even being a burden to?

For example, one of the plans to pay for this healthcare bill is to TAX what are considered expensive healthcare plans.

Well, if you already have healthcare insurance, expensive or not, then just why in the hell should you have to pay for a healthcare bill that you obviously don't need?

But there's more. You tax the things you want to see less of, you subsidize the things you want to see more of.

If you are going to tax existing healthcare plans, you are necessarily making them more expensive. And how is this "competitive"?

If Coca-Cola could just arbitrarily decide to raise Pepsi's price by 10%, would you call that "competitive"? Just another reason injecting the government into this isn't creating competition. How do you compete against somebody who can make your product more expensive at the stroke of a pen?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 5:36pm
if a polity, like a religion, ossifies to the point where it only credits its last dead prophets or revered statesmen, and refuses to grow and develop, it is doomed and dead. a dinosaur...

i understand yor reverence of the document and to some extent share it, but again...

1. yours is not the only possible, rational interpretation, and

2. it once sanctioned human bondage, for example and i do not therefore consider it something akin to the infallible word of god. i consider no book or human scribbling to be the infallible word of god, for that matter, no matter how much i may admire it.

here, of course, we differ.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 5:25pm

You act as though we are saying it can't be amended to reflect changing moores and opinions.

Yes, change it! Change it every year for the rest of my life if you want. But change it through the democratic process. Don't change it by having nine unelected individuals hold a seance to determine if the meaning of the words yesterday are different from the meaning of the words today.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 5:37pm
2. it once sanctioned human bondage, for example and i do not therefore consider it something akin to the infallible word of god. i consider no book or human scribbling to be the infallible word of god, for that matter, no matter how much i may admire it.

here, of course, we differ.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 5:25pm

Contrary to most belief, the constitution actually was silent on slavery (which was the real debate on the subject at the Convention). It only became directly mentioned with the passing of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery.

The passage most often quoted from Article 1, Section 2, actually is misunderstood according to that great African American professor and economist, Dr Walter Williams

<The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:

"It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South." (emphasis added) The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.>

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 5:40pm
I don't use doctors or hospitals. I don't need to as long as I can still exercise common sense and natural health means. JR, you can't possibly pay for something I haven't and will not use.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 5:19pm

You just barely squirmed out of that one.

If you broke your leg, or collarbone, or if you had an accident that just couldn't be addressed by naturopathic medicine (which I use, by the way) you, reverend, are going to the hospital. A car crash? Fall from a height? A broken bone which hurts an artery which needs surgery? A bypass operation? Going to tell the family they are going to have to get along without you because you need to make a point to all the burgeoning legions of socialists?

You can say "I never put myself in those situations... it's a lifestyle choice... I take care of myself". You always say that.

But until you actually write the military and tell them that you don't want that health insurance anymore... please revoke my access to military health care... You are covered. You have health insurance. Period. And the subtle hypocrisy of that situation will always taint your views on the 'totalitarian socialist state' thing.

Posted by ficheye at 11/09/2009 @ 5:44pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

again, sometimes your discomfit is a product more of your interpretation that "legislating justices".

actually some of the parts which are vague dont' seem so vague to me.

"well ordered militia" springs to mind...

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

3/5 compromise. what were they talking about?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 5:46pm
One of the reasons the Left keep changing the names of things is to keep fudging the polls. Once "public option" (a.k.a. single payer by stealth) dropped below 50% Pelosi wanted it renamed "choice option" or "Public choice" or some confusing bullshit to try to get the poll numbers back above 50%.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 3:58pm

I swear to god you HAVE lost your brain today.

The Public Option was NEVER "single payer by stealth" as you say. Ask ANYONE who supports single payer if the public option is the same thing by stealth. Everyone I know who supports single payer (myself included) is almost as disgusted by the house bill as the Republicans. The Democrats NEVER argued for single payer (at least not successfully) because Obama and Pelosi said they couldn't get it passed, so they gave up before even trying.

That's when they came up with the idea of public option to force the insurance companies to deal with competition. Do you guys LIKE the fact that most states only have TWO choices (or fewer) when it comes to health insurance options? Is that your American sense of COMPETITION in business? PLEASE. You guys are driving me nuts because you don't even pay attention to what you yourselves actually post here. There is no logic in any of your assertions, just more right wing talking points.

It's a sad day when I think Larry has the most common sense amongst you conservatives.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 5:47pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 4:52pm

I like.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 5:56pm
Here in four concise paragraphs is why HC is going to fail and why those who claim that "polls show" 70% support change are delusional:

*********

Why is reforming health care so hard? Broad satisfaction and deep divides hinder change.

By Sean E. Flaherty and Joseph J. Karlesky

The American health-care system is widely perceived as too expensive, rigid, and inaccessible. Yet the results of a recent Franklin and Marshall College poll on health care conflict with that perception.

A substantial majority of those polled expressed satisfaction with the health-care system. In fact, nearly eight in 10 said the system meets their needs "very well" or "pretty well," while three out of four insured respondents rated their coverage as "good" or "very good."

Furthermore, fewer than one in seven said an insurer had refused to cover a doctor-recommended treatment or procedure, and fewer than one in 15 said an insurer had denied a request to see a specialist.

These numbers help explain the substantial political difficulties faced by those proposing major changes in a health-care system that satisfies many Americans, even though it excludes a minority of them. That most people are relatively satisfied with what they have increases their anxiety about change.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091109_ Why_is_reforming_health_care_so_hard_.html

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 6:01pm
no it's not. it's pronounced hi-per-bowli.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 5:05pm

That was precisely my point emile: John Boehner didn't pronounce it correctly when speaking with the media.

He also stood up in front of the Tea Baggers the other day and stated that his favorite part of the Constitution was the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. And this is the guy leading the Republicans....

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:01pm
The other misconception about the constitution and rights is that of women.

The constitution did not ban women from the right to vote.

In our early history, each state determined who was eligible to vote

That doesn't mean the founders felt that all women should vote, just as they felt that not all men should vote.

Because they specifically set up our govt as a republic and not a democracy, they believed in representative govt. In voting they believed in only an educated voter and one who owned property. Property did not just mean land, but also a business. That's why history shows that a few women did vote in the early years of the nation and in some of the newer states out west.

http://tinyurl.com/yld8j2k

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:01pm
Stephen snuck in but this is related to my last point:

The poll question, "Are you satisfied with your health coverage?" is not the least bit ambigous. It means the exact same thing to everyone, unlike this poll question:

Do you support the public option?

Well, so far, I've only read about 1300 pages of the bill, but I think I do.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 6:04pm
Posted by ficheye at 11/09/2009 @ 5:44pm

If I have am involved in an accident, and I CHOOSE to be treated, the other person's liability insurance is responsible for my medical bills. In my case, that would be if the injuries are not life threatening. If they are critical, I carry a living will in my wallet that states that no extraordinary care should be rendered.

If it's something like a bypass, I have no intention of getting one. It would either heal itself or I go home to the Lord. I don't think any of you truly appreciate how little my connection to this world means to me.

As to the military insurance, IM is misleading you. I must re-apply in any year that I wish to be covered. And while it sounds good, you cannot revoke your possible coverage anymore than you can revoke your Medicare part A coverage at age 65.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:09pm
Ficheye,

The last time I re-applied for my VA insurance was in 2000. I had to show proof of insurance with a missionary group before leaving for South Africa.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:30pm
The Public Option was NEVER "single payer by stealth" as you say. Ask ANYONE who supports single payer if the public option is the same thing by stealth.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 5:47pm

"the only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it's hard to do in one step…[it's better to let] people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer" -- Paul Krugman, Nobel eonomist.

"I'm for a strong public option. I think your strategy is suicidal for trying to get single payer. I think the best way we're going to get single payer – the only way – is to have a public option demonstrate its strength and power." -- Barney Frank

"Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there,' ... ‘I'm telling you, we're going to get there, over time, slowly.'" -- Jacob Hacker, professor of political science at Berkeley

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 6:38pm
Televisions, computers, airplanes, machine guns, nuclear bombs, crack cocaine, anal beads: the founders would roll up into a catatonic ball would would be unable to offer an opinion on healthcare.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 5:31pm

Which is precisely why the document should continue to be flexible, and therefore "living," instead of static (i.e. dead).

The Constitution, by its very nature, could not anticipate the changes in society, although the Fathers, in their wisdom, gave it their best shot. Imagine how the world has changed in 238 years and tell me what kind of changes we'll see in the next 238. You can't and that's exactly my point.

The Supremes are tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Constitution within the context of the current society, not as the society was 238 years ago; that is simply impossible because the world changes and the Fathers knew that (we can all agree they were pretty wise men).

The laws Congress makes and the foreign policies the Executive deals with could not have been imagined by the Fathers (could they envision a gun that shoots a thousand rounds a minute and believe that would fall under the Second Amendment?). The Constitution is the glue that holds it all together and it must be flexible glue or it will break. It may not break in our lifetimes, but if the Constitution is to be held with a strict constructionist viewpoint, that viewpoint will, I do not hesitate to say, break both our society and our nation.

We can only hope that the wisest minds of our day can come close to the wisdom the Fathers had, but for OUR times, not theirs. So far, Congress hasn't shown much wisdom because they're too busy being partisan.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:41pm
I don't think any of you truly appreciate how little my connection to this world means to me.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:09pm

Hoo boy. Then why are you so vociferous about what should be happening in government while you ARE here? There is so much peace and solace to be found in G-d's natural world, in the forests and the mountains. Get in a camper and be free! Your family will understand.

I respect you in some strange ways, Larry. But that statement just creates more questions than it answers... and you know it. You must also know that you are not perfect, and I'll accept that for now.

You know, I think that this is a job for Jack and Rexella. Maybe they would say that "this is your own personal apocalypse before you go to meet the lord your G-d, and you should just keep taking the fight to those heathen socialists until the final moment!"

Or maybe they would say that we are all children of G-d, and it is only Satan that makes us believe otherwise. Wait... does G-d believe in socialism, since he has a plan for ALL of us? We would all get the exact same coverage for everything if we would only believe.

Posted by ficheye at 11/09/2009 @ 6:42pm
"It used to be something that even liberals agreed with until they lost the battle for the Equal Rights amendment. Since then they have tried to circumvent the constitution.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

Actually, according to you, liberals "circumvented" the Constitution starting with the New Deal.

"The constitution is not a living document. that is established by the document itself with the amendment process "

The idea of the Constitution being a living can be reflected in the increased regulatory reach of government. The rapid industrialization of America after the Civil War created business that were on a national scale an were instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Since the nature of that commerce changed, the scope of what government could do changed with it.

"It would seem to them little diffeent than the list of grievances they had with King George that are so articulately stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 4:55pm | ignore "

Actually, their argument was that these decision were being made in Britain, not in Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Charleston, etc.

Posted by brunowe at 11/09/2009 @ 6:45pm
Which is precisely why the document should continue to be flexible, and therefore "living," instead of static (i.e. dead).

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:41pm

It is flexible. It can be amended through the democratic process; not through the judicial process.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 6:45pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 6:38pm

My point still stands: a public option and single payer are NOT the same thing and never have been. Krugman, Frank and Hackler actually prove my point: single payer is BETTER than a public option, but never did the one stand for the other.

They all believe that before one can have single payer in this country, we have to go through this long, interminable and torturous thing known as a public option before we can outright kill the damn medical insurance companies, who make a profit off denying sick people coverage. THE death panels already exist and they are called health insurance companies.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:57pm
antisocialist-Since when did veterans have to reapply every year in order to go to a veterans hospital?I have never reapplied for anything and can just call up and make an appointment.I can walk on any military base show my retired military ID and get treatment.I thought you were medically retired,too.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 7:25pm
Posted by ficheye at 11/09/2009 @ 6:42pm

Because while I'm here, I should be engaged in society, sharing the gospel and bringing the reality of Jesus into people's lives.

But like Paul, "I'm hard pressed, preferring to be with the Lord"

Of course I know I'm not perfect and I have family and friends to remind me daily.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 7:27pm
antisocialist-Since when did veterans have to reapply every year in order to go to a veterans hospital?I have never reapplied for anything and can just call up and make an appointment.I can walk on any military base show my retired military ID and get treatment.I thought you were medically retired,too.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 7:25pm

Nope. While I do have my PH's, I have never requested that status. Instead I take a level 5 approval. I would rather the money be spent on another veteran.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 7:38pm
Sign at Raneri's Garage:

We can do work good, fast and cheap: If it is good and cheap, it won't be fast If it is cheap and fast, it won't be good If it is good and fast, it won't be cheap

Posted by YM at 11/09/2009 @ 7:46pm
Its not that the bill has six flaws, but that it only has one positive: it expands coverage. But there's no guarantee it will be good coverage. Insofar as this bill encourages wealth redistribution as some allege, it simply redistributes that money into the pockets of the health care industry.

When Obama took office he had a real chance to solidify his support among the American people if he chose to get tough on two of the most unpopular sectors of the economy: the financial industry and the insurance industry. And yet, we see again a willingness by the administration to cozy up to the culprit. It seems that Obama is only too eager to remind the public at every turn that the campaign was a mirage, a piece of good advertising. No more no less.

Posted by nkurland at 11/09/2009 @ 7:56pm
antisocialist-I never requested to have that status,either.I was given it while in a military hospital and then officially retired on my last day of service.The money would not have been spent on another veteran anyway.That isn't how it works.They would have just blown the money before the fiscal year ended by buying extra paper clips..The military does not retire someone else just because you did not accept retirement.That isn't how it works.You tried to make yourself sound superior by claiming you sacrificed for fellow veterans just to discover that you helped no one,but did screw yourself.The cheap food that you did not buy at the commissary by turning down retirement was thrown away.They didn't give it to another veteran.You,obviously,have no idea how the govt works.You can still go to any VA hospital,though.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 9:56pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 9:56pm

He's special, just now the way he thinks. Good luck, by the way, with the reality angle.

Posted by winyahn at 11/09/2009 @ 10:25pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 5:31pm

Your posting at the time above about what would appall the founding fathers shows again that you do not understand human beings who are actually intelligent and not closed minded, lock-stepped ideologues. Of course, the Founders were products of their own times; hence the imperfections we see in them looking back from our times. But how you or anyone can possible say that the people who founded our country would not rapidly adjust & understand our modern norms is truly appalling, and, in my opinion, just another reflection of your lack of understanding of the human mind and soul. We are not animals and we are not robots. In my opinion, as I have written here, I believe the founders WOULD be appalled at corporate control of our society and that we do not have universal HC and are engaged in wars of aggression -- but I also firmly and resolutely believe that most of them would get down on their knees, wipe tears from their eyes and thank Providence that duels were no longer fought, that slavery was a distant memory, that women have the vote, and that the weakest among us have rights. They would see these wonderful developments as fulfillment of their lives goals and their promise to future generations. Please, sir, have more faith in the human soul and look for the Good (not the imperfect) in the Founders to whom you owe so much. They could not have known the specifics of the many changes during the last 238 years, but they new such changes would come and they, in their collective genius, developed a living Constitution that would continue to be valid even with these changes AND a mechanism for adapting to those changes involving all THREE branches of government including an independent judiciary.

Posted by dont_know at 11/09/2009 @ 10:52pm
Sure, let's kick out all the socialist freeloading programs, (or regulated, subsidized or managed by the govt) like: public roads, police, fire departments, water, sewer, electricity, parks, schools, farm subsidies, Air Traffic Control, NASA, EPA, FDA, AEC, (personal favorites, NAFTA, WTO, World Bank) FDIC, FSLIC, Immigration and Naturalization Service, FBI, CIA, ATF, the military and Coast Guard, National Weather Service, the internet, the govt itself of course,...OH yeah, by all means Social Security, Medicare. And then see how much fun it'll be living in the good ole USA!

But there is not enough critical thinking or scrutiny by we the people about the special status of Wall Street bankers, insurance companies, defense contractors, fuel/energy companies, etc. It's okay to subsidize those who already control the Monopoly gameboard?!

Posted by Jim_Petersen at 11/09/2009 @ 11:01pm
But, like a typical Republican, you only use polls when they suit your needs.

Did you know that while saying he "never listened to polls," George W. Bush's white house (under Karl Rove) conducted almost daily polling of one sort or another?

I certainly hope we won't see you posting about this poll or that poll supporting some future political agenda. It would mean you're being a hypocrite about polls, you know.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 5:33pm

I'm not a republican, I'm an independent.

All politicians use polling for every breath they take.

If I do refer to a poll, I'll be sure to run it by you first.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:03pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 5:31pm |

Sometimes you really make me smile.

This is one of those times.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:32pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:59pm |

Spoken like Boehner's hand puppet (free colonoscopy)!

Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:40pm
"I'm not a republican, I'm an independent"

who sides with republicans 99.9% of the time.

what a coincidence!

Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:45am
do you not love your fellow countrymen and women? do you not love America?

what is America, if you could give a f*ck about Americans?

Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:48am | ignore this person | warn this person

darla, sell your house and car and give the money to the needy. After you have done this, I will believe you are something other than a hypocrite.

Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 09:49am
"Sure, let's kick out all the socialist freeloading programs,"

Posted by Jim_Petersen at 11/09/2009 @ 11:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Well, we could also go the other way, Jim. Let's just do away with money, and all work for the good of all. Everybody has a job, and nobody actually owns anything. No need for banks, since everything is controlled by the government. No one starves and no one is homeless - everyone has everything they need, and nothing more. Who could ask for more than perfect comfort?

You'll never have to worry about paying your mortgage! You'll never need to worry about gas for your car! (Damn, that sounds kind of familiar)

Wait! Am I entitled to my Cancun vacations, also? And I really like this supercharged computer system that most people don't even understand. Would I still get that even though most people don't want it?

What about my car? I like my Corvette. Would I have to drive a clunky sedan instead? I really like going out for Italian food, a good steak, etc., several times a week. How's that going to work? I could end up skinny! (Maybe a good thing)

If we're all entitled to healthcare, surely we're all entitled to our leisure activities, aren't we? Please? Life has few enough pleasures for most of us. Surely the government should buy our Italian food and vacations.

Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:36am
I am tired of seeing writing from economic illiterates!

For figures since 1900, (about as far back as there are reliable statistics,) the highest unemployment rate always comes six to eight months AFTER a recession is over.

Recovery has to already be in operation to create the employment opportunities. DUH!

That is why unemployment is a "lagging statistic", not a predictive one.

Basic logic.

John D. Froelich

Posted by balataf at 11/10/2009 @ 10:43am
Another interesting fact: In a recent survey, over half the population of our country don't know where the federal government gets it's money! (I hope no one on this forum is that uninformed)

The theory of Obama's "re-distribution of the wealth" idea is, tax the rich and give to the poor.

The problem with that idea is, you can't tax the rich!

No matter how much you tax the rich, they just raise the price of the products they sell to the poor to cover the cost of the new tax. Thus, the poor end up paying the tax.

Therefore, the "re-distribution of the wealth" is a myth. The idea that free healthcare is possible is also a myth. It will be paid for, and heavily, by the middle class.

Obama, Congress, and your Senators understands all of this.

Why do you think they are pretending otherwise?

Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:52am
Yes, change it! Change it every year for the rest of my life if you want. But change it through the democratic process. Don't change it by having nine unelected individuals hold a seance to determine if the meaning of the words yesterday are different from the meaning of the words today.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 5:37pm

What little respect you show for the greatest judicial body in the history of the world to compare what they do (which yes, does sometimes come down to parsing language) to a seance.

Of course words mean different things today than they did yesterday. Does anyone use the word gay anymore to describe feeling happy? Not really.

The word "cool" is used to describe things that are good, as opposed to the opposite of hot.

And while these are two slang expressions, ask any lawyer if legal terms don't change as well.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:33pm
Want to see the future of Healthcare in Amerika? Check out who got 1st crack at the limited supply of Flu Vaccine-the Wall Street FAT CATS! When are you going to get it? Call, write, email all the elected officials and tell them: GET Wall Street OUT of Healthcare! NO MORE Managed Care Companies! NO MORE greedy Insurance Companies! NO MORE Healthcare as part of the GDP!

Posted by sickoftheright at 11/10/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

your post is da bomb.

don't mind Darin, he's a moron, er, intellectually challenged.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 12:59pm
"Therefore, the "re-distribution of the wealth" is a myth."

Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:52am

It sure wasn't a myth during the Bush administration when they redistributed what little money the poor and middle-class had TO the wealthy.

Posted by kricketp at 11/10/2009 @ 1:41pm
None of this matters. As long as there is privately funded elections, there is no democracy in the US. With no democracy, there is no rule by the people.

Vote for publicly funded elections, then we can start on basic democratic principles like healthcare, educations and civil rights.

I'm voting Kucinich and Nader again next election. Most other Dems and all Republicans are worthless in a democracy.

Posted by LarryB at 11/10/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:52am

It sure wasn't a myth during the Bush administration when they redistributed what little money the poor and middle-class had TO the wealthy.

Posted by kricketp at 11/10/2009 @ 1:41pm

liberal ignorance personified.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:10pm
I would assume that "anti socialist" is stridently opposed to our current drug policy and military occupations worldwide with special stridency to our military interventions. Otherwise I strongly suggest he/she change his moniker and stop trying to hide his socialistic leanings. Nothing is more socialistic than war.

And socialists would love our status quo. Besides the two forever wars, we have regulated industries that provide government protection to keep out market competition since all our regulated industries do just that and are regulated for the benefit of those being regulated. And then there are the wealthy government contractors. Nothing sends the taxpayer bill through the roof faster than cost plus - spare no expense - government contracts. This is especially true of military contracts which is why socialists love forever wars whose primary strategy is "not to lose" to our "enemies" - whoever they are.

If there were a positive correlation between wealth and productive enterprise I would be sympathetic to the "smaller government" impostors who whine about wealth being distributed downward. The actual proportion of taxpayer wealth going downward is minuscule compared to the wealth going upward. How do you explain huge bonuses being given to people who run big losses and lay off thousands of workers? Free enterprise? Reward for a job well done? I thought only communism rewards failure so lavishly. Silly me!

Posted by rimchamp77 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:25pm
Silly me!

Posted by rimchamp77 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:25pm

You definitely got that part right.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 4:06pm
So far anti socialist hasn't posted anything more socialistic than war. Of course, since it war doesn't transfer wealth to the wealthy I guess it doesn't count. Only when you provide bread and circuses for the masses is it socialistic. Giving out government contracts for military spending or prisons on a cost plus and spare no expense basis is not socialistic? I suppose taxpayers don't pay that money?

Whenever I see a bunch of anti socialist Republicans giving a standing ovation I can almost hear the chant in the background: Clap if you believe in military spending fairies! Clap if you believe in law enforcement spending fairies! Because anti socialists don't believe that this kind of spending comes from taxpayers.

Posted by rimchamp77 at 11/10/2009 @ 4:59pm
Posted by rimchamp77 at 11/10/2009 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

do you know that your handle contains a double entendre?

Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 6:33pm
not that there's anything wrong with it. J. Seinfeld

Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 6:36pm
So far anti socialist hasn't posted anything more socialistic than war. Of course, since it war doesn't transfer wealth to the wealthy I guess it doesn't count. Only when you provide bread and circuses for the masses is it socialistic. Giving out government contracts for military spending or prisons on a cost plus and spare no expense basis is not socialistic? I suppose taxpayers don't pay that money?

Posted by rimchamp77 at 11/10/2009 @ 4:59pm

Every week we get some uniformed, brainwashed leftist who erroneously tries to suggest that the military is part of socialism. This is just another marxist tactic that was developed in the past decade because they ran out of arguments on constitutional grounds. This one they knew would tie people up trying to defend against a logical fallacy known as a "proof of assertion".

<Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

This logical fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertion.>

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

Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 6:44pm
You left out any comment regarding the additional Billion$ to be spent on illegal aliens. Contact Numbers USA for actual information and data. In the meanwhime actively work to defeat this, or any other, bill providing American taxmonies to foreign criminals in our country.

Posted by tucanofulano at 11/10/2009 @ 7:45pm
We need single payer.

Posted by kirquaker at 11/10/2009 @ 8:36pm
Why should I be forced to give money to insurance companies? They are already overfed crooks! This bill is bogus, the Democrats are owned by the same corporate lobbyists who run Republicans. This is not reform, it's a guarantee of public money going to private insurance companies, anyone can see it, it's so obvious.

Posted by KayEbeling at 11/10/2009 @ 10:02pm
Why should I be forced to give money to insurance companies? They are already overfed crooks! This bill is bogus, the Democrats are owned by the same corporate lobbyists who run Republicans. This is not reform, it's a guarantee of public money going to private insurance companies, anyone can see it, it's so obvious.

Posted by KayEbeling at 11/10/2009 @ 10:02pm
Any 1900-page bill is a bad bill.

Any bill of more than 20 pages is a bad bill.

The Constitution of the United States is 4 pages long, 5 with the Bill of Rights.

Posted by Ted Voth Jr at 11/11/2009 @ 12:26am
After reading so many of these posts where obviously immoral people are crying the concept of universal health care and calling such an obviously more efficient and moral system of providing medical care for the American populace by calling this common sense approach "marxism", I am definitely convinced that this "marxism they are talking about must be a very good thing.

If such immoral idiots oppose it, I guess that makes me a patriotic American marxist.

Yeah... that feels good.

Posted by PatTullyJr at 11/11/2009 @ 03:41am
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 6:44pm |

"Proof by assertion" neatly defines the majority of the arguments you make here, Rev. Every time you reach for a Bible quote, you're doing the EXACT same thing.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled profiteering on the specious basis of MIC contracts being renegotiated every two years thus SUPPOSEDLY side-stepping the very explicit language limiting standing armies in Article 1 Section 8 of that Constitution you claim to hold dear (but seem unwilling to understand).

<To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than TWO YEARS;>

Now if you made the argument that our founding document could not conceive of a threat that would require a longer term for standing armies and that it should be amended to support same, you'd be slightly less hypocritical, but still an advocate of the MIC attaching itself to the government tit.

Corporate welfare is still welfare.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 06:30am
Posted by rimchamp77 at 11/10/2009 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

do you know that your handle contains a double entendre? Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 6:33pm |

I do not want to see the competition which determines who gets to carry that title.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 06:32am
tastes vary.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:41am
It doesn't really make a difference if healthcare if a right or not. The facts are, the US ranks number 37 in healthcare and France ranks number 1. France has a single payer system, the US has healthcare for profit. People in France pay half of what people here in the US pay for healthcare. Why wouldn't anyone want better healthcare for less cost? Someone please answer that question.

Posted by Bwheel at 11/11/2009 @ 1:50pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 06:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:41am | ignore this person | warn this person

geez, doesn't anybody get a joke anymore?

Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 2:59pm
When someone argues that healthcare is not a right, that person is arguing that some people (logically that would be poor people) do not have a right to life-saving medical procedures. When you say that you do not support universal healthcare, you do not believe everyone has a right to live. You believe that it is okay to leave children to die instead of allowing them to be hospitalized.

You have a right to your opinion no matter how ethically reprehensible it may be. However, when you say "healthcare is not a right" or "I don't believe in universal healthcare" be really honest with yourself and with others about what you are saying. You DO think it is okay to deny life-saving procedures from some people.

Posted by pmacdonell at 11/12/2009 @ 11:25am