# Government-Run Nonsense and other dubious right wing lies shot down



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

FactCheck.org : &#8216;Government-Run&#8217; Nonsense




The GOP's dumbass claim of  so called "Obamacare" being government run health care gets debunked yet again and again but these piss stains insist on repeating the same claim over and over again.


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves.  Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along.  It's been quite obvious.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.





Good save.


----------



## California Girl (Nov 22, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...



What, you mean Obama lied? Cuz he said he saw the current bill as a 'first step' towards it. Just sayin'.


----------



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> 
> Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves.  Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.
> 
> This has been the plan all along.  It's been quite obvious.



Socialized "medicine", what the fuck is wrong with you? When you were in the military and even now you have Tricare as a retiree, do you call that "socialized medicine?" You dumb fucking right wingers look like sick puppies parroting the bullshit of your pundits, "socialized medicine," what a dick head.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 22, 2011)

California Girl said:


> What, you mean Obama lied? Cuz he said he saw the current bill as a 'first step' towards it. Just sayin'.



Ah, yes. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans."

Very sinister! Don't take this the wrong way, but some of you are idiots.


----------



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

The claim from the right wing dumbasses was that the current health care law is government run health care. which was a lie.


----------



## naturegirl (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...



A rose is a rose, no matter what you call it.  Socialized medicine is socialized medicine, no matter what you call it.


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 22, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You mean when he said..
Obama has said in 2003: 
_I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program._
pnhp.org/news/2008/june/barack_obama_on_sing.php -

If he is a proponent (in favor) of single payer .. 
that means there is ONLY one payer.

That means there are no other payers.
THAT MEANS the destruction of 1,400 health insurance companies,
500,000+ more people out of work, (employees, agents,adjusters,etc.)
That means $100 billion in Federal/state/local INCOME taxes and
local property taxes ALL paid by those 1,400 companies DESTROYED!
That's what Obama MEANS to do!


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> 
> Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves.  Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.
> 
> This has been the plan all along.  It's been quite obvious.



So now it's changing from "it's a government run program" to "it's the first step to a government run program"?  

*We are the ONLY modern, industrialized nation without government run healthcare.* I refuse to believe that we cannot only do it but also do it better than any other nation in the world. The single best thing we could do help make our companies more globally competitive is to remove employee healthcare costs from their cost of doing business.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2011)

Does that look government run to you?


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...



Hey now it is fine if I have it but you cannot have it.
Or if you have lifetime health care from the govt for military service but not from a corporation if you are in a union.  Even thought that would not be socialist.

You must be a bit weak on your definition of socialism?


----------



## California Girl (Nov 22, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > What, you mean Obama lied? Cuz he said he saw the current bill as a 'first step' towards it. Just sayin'.
> ...



Yea, I've seen Universal Health Care up close and personal. Which is why I don't support it for my country. Every country that has it is desperately trying to save their system from collapse.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 22, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Every country that has it is desperately trying to save their system from collapse.



You might want to look around, dear. So are we.

We pay more than anyone else and our costs are rising faster. Find me a nation in which more of its GDP is gobbled up by health spending.


----------



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman the dickhead fails to realize that the Tricare he's receiving is the closest thing to so-called "socialized medicine" because Tricare is paid for by the government and administered in government/military hospitals but in keeping in line with parroting right wing shit without researching the facts and realizing his own contradiction he says bullshit like "socialized medicine."


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 22, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...



You're kidding right?  Who do you think is expected to "pay" for Obamacare?  Your guy, Barack just added to the cost of doing business in America...one more thing that makes us less competitive globally.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 22, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



But it works just fine for our military? And senior citizens who demand that the politicians keep their hands off their Medicare?


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 22, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If we would just do away with that pesky minimum wage for health care workers all would be fine.


----------



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



You're full of shit, name one country that has collapsed or is on the brink of collapse because of universal healthcare. If the Republicans wouldn't have opposed the single payer system health care costs in our own country wouldn't be so high. Explain why health care costs more in America by a wide margin but in is cheaper in the countries with universal health care that you say are on the brink of collapse?


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 22, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



We're not talking about "Obamacare" We're talking about "government run healthcare". Try to keep up. 

Re-read the first post. This is exactly why you wingnuts get your talking points mixed up and look like fools.


----------



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

Tricare isn'r "socialized" medicine but is closer to "socialized" medicine than so called "Obamacare" is, why all this fucking scare mongering?


----------



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> 
> Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves.  Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.
> 
> This has been the plan all along.  It's been quite obvious.



Are you willing to dump your Tricare? Did you refuse Tricare while you were in the military? Hypocrite.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 22, 2011)

I have actually refused all VA benefits since I was released from the service.
Did not want anything else to do with them for quite a while.


----------



## konradv (Nov 22, 2011)

naturegirl said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Medicare?


----------



## naturegirl (Nov 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Medicare is paid by employers and employees, it's run basically like Social Security.  I don't consider something you pay for socialized, however when the government gets it paws on the $, it somehow loses it's value and effectiveness.


----------



## konradv (Nov 22, 2011)

naturegirl said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > naturegirl said:
> ...



The fact that the government does something is _de facto_ socialistic, whether you paid for it or not.  The point that makes it so, is the fact that you're not limited in your benefits by your contribution, unlike private plans.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> The claim from the right wing dumbasses was that the current health care law is government run health care. which was a lie.



From your link, Failer:



> The new law does expand existing programs, and it establishes new  subsidies and imposes additional regulation of health insurance  companies. But it doesnt come close to establishing a government-run  system like those of Britain or Canada.



Your link admits that there is further government control and intervention but conveniently throws out the disclaimer that it's nothing like the systems in Britain or Canada.

Obama himself stated that it's a good start towards that goal.

And how can you not call it gov't-controlled when we have a government agency (IRS) determining who needs to have which plan?



Appropriate name; Failer


----------



## konradv (Nov 22, 2011)

hortysir said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > The claim from the right wing dumbasses was that the current health care law is government run health care. which was a lie.
> ...



To be fair the UK and Canadian plans aren't equivalent.  Britain's is government-run and not popular.  Canada's is a single-payer system and very popular.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Okay, I'm only on my second cup of coffee, but what's the diff between govt-run and single-payer?
Wouldn't the gov't *be* the single payer?


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 22, 2011)

Is anyone so stupid as to believe that the costs of healthcare will be removed from employers?  Seriously?   Is anyone so stupid as to believe that.

It can't happen.  The costs of health care will be moved from the "insurance" columm into the "taxes" column.   Taxes on those employers will be raised to pay for all that free health care.  That is why employers are unwilling to hire.  They don't know how much taxes will be raised to pay for all that free health care.

The government can do things to control costs.  All medical personnel can be government employees with the same tort immunity as every other government employee which will do away with all medical malpractice lawsuits and the defensive medicine that doctors have to practice.   It kind of leaves the public out in the cold if the doctor screws up but at least the procedure was free.


----------



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

Single payer system you fucktards, that would lower costs substantially but the right wingers don't want that


----------



## hortysir (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> Single payer system you fucktards, that would lower costs substantially but the right wingers don't want that



Lower costs for who?
You?

You really think that you won't pay more for goods and services or more in taxes to pay for it?


----------



## Flaylo (Nov 22, 2011)

hortysir said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Single payer system you fucktards, that would lower costs substantially but the right wingers don't want that
> ...



Lower costs for the patients you dickhead. Right and for a long time the US has had the highest costs of health care in the world, conutries with so called universal health care have cheaper rates.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> Single payer system you fucktards, that would lower costs substantially but the right wingers don't want that



When have monopolies ever lowered costs?


----------



## paulitician (Nov 22, 2011)

Forcing Citizens to purchase Health Insurance on threats of fine & imprisonment is as Un-American as it gets. The Mandate should be ruled Un-Constitutional. The Government is clearly over-stepping. I hope the courts do the right thing.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 22, 2011)

And the Government will ration Healthcare. Make no mistake about that. The people denying this are lying. You will see your Healthcare rationed.


----------



## logical4u (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...



There is a well thought out response, NOT!
Tricare (VA) has been plagued by problems of poor or non-treatment.  Even the facilities near DC were pest infested, and needing repair.  VA (Tricare) is infamous for denying a problem (currently exposure to chemicals in Iraq) and after a huge percentage of vets die off, come out with a statement, oh yeah, we did cause that (currently agent orange and Hepititis).  There are not a lot of "medical advancements" or "break throughs" in the VA/Tricare. 

 Those "new proceedures" are usually done by civilian side hospitals/universities.  They are given insurance money, and in some cases, personal money to cover experimental proceedures (the patient pays and supplies the guinea pig, themselves!).  
In places where socialized medicine is used, the systems are breaking down; the patients are left without adequate personal care (in some instances starving or dying from thirst), and the facilities are not kept as clean as they are here in the private hospitals.

Let's look at some of the gov't controlled systems
IRS (strong arm of the gov't that can destroy people for "perceived non-payment that will be the collection facility for "healthcare" ... I wonder if they say there is a discrepency in your payment if medical care will be cut off until you pay what the gov't says you owe in taxes)
Post office: broke
TSA: essentially admitted to being useless in the stopping of terrorism, and has a growing list of crimminal activities against the people the agency was formed to protect
DOE: formed to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil in the '70s (how is that working out)
Dept of Education: more focused on destroying the American family thru teaching sex acts and political correctness over the 3 Rs will hurt this country for decades to come
EPA: set up to protect the environment, it has become the President's personal "good fellas" to intimidate and punish those that do not give the current administration what it wants
FDA: again, set up to protect "citizens" has been used to infringe on citizens' rights with no accountability
FAA: used to intimidate those that disagree with the President (we will promote equal time for all points of view, does this mean we will be subject to listening to dogs and cats for their views?)

And you, using your ability to reason, think handing health care over to the gov't is a "good idea"???????????????????????????????


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



How do they do it?

They do it by controlling costs and refusing care for the very young, very old and very sick.

In Britian for instance, people are instructed how to pull their own teeth.  Government workers are so lazy that doctors have to prescribe water to force the staff to give the bedridden something so basic as water.  

In these countries you can still pay for medical care.  I have a friend here from Britian who was in the hospital there.  If you want clean sheets, tip, you want meals, tip the delivery person, someone will come and mop up the vomit, for a price.  Even the doctors are not immune, yes they will run that test, it's just a little negotiation for the free test.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 22, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > What, you mean Obama lied? Cuz he said he saw the current bill as a 'first step' towards it. Just sayin'.
> ...



It's not the governments role to provide you idiots with healthcare.

Oh that's right, you clowns can't do anything for yourselves, you need government to take care of your sorry ass from cradle to grave.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 22, 2011)

The Government should not be forcing Citizens to buy Healthcare. If you don't see that,you really are lost.


----------



## logical4u (Nov 22, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Every country that has it is desperately trying to save their system from collapse.
> ...



Pick anything in this nation, and you will find that we spend more on _______ than any other nation.  We have choices in this nation where other nations' gov'ts limit their choices.  We choose to spend money on being healthy/looking healthy.  We probably spend more for corrective eyes surgery than any other nation (is that because there is something wrong with our system, or because people choose not to wear glasses to correct their vision).  We probably spend more on dental care than any other nation (is that because our teeth are worse than other people's or because we can "afford" to spend more money maintaining our smiles, late into life).  Why are so many people wanting to have their choices "limited" by the gov't (if the gov't pays, they control the service)?


----------



## logical4u (Nov 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I believe that Medicare is the number one rejector of medical care.  It limits the amount that it pays to doctors, and more doctors are refusing new medicare patients because it does not pay the cost of caring for patients.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 22, 2011)

Why would anyone be cheerleading for more Government-Run anything at this point? These people have completely lost it. What's wrong with them? Hasn't Big Government done enough damage to our nation?


----------



## hortysir (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...




At the rate of 20-40% income tax rate!!


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



And what, pray-tell, does government do now cheaper than other sources?? Do you not see that tax rates of socialist styled countries that offer 'social' health care thru government??

Do you not understand that those who pay less will be subsidized by others... or that the government will have to lower costs by forcing lower salaries for doctors, support staff, etc... which would do what for the medical industry?? You think it would actually draw more doctors? Give incentive for companies to create new drugs or technologies only to be paid less??

Kill yourself and lower your healthcare costs... it may not be good solution for other normal people, but for you it is a feasible option that benefits everyone


----------



## paulitician (Nov 22, 2011)

Yes lets have more catastrophic Government-Run failures. Just what we need. SHEESH!


----------



## konradv (Nov 22, 2011)

hortysir said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



It depends on who's staffing the doctors' offices and hospitals.  If they're private with their fees paid by the government, that's single-payer.  If the government is doing the staffing, then it's a government-run system.  The main difference between us and Canada is that here we have to deal with AND PAY FOR paperwork from hundreds of different entities, instead of just one.


----------



## Liability (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> &#8216;Government-Run&#8217; Nonsense and other *dubious* right wing *lies* shot down.





Fail-always vastly prefers the left wing *credible* lies.


As muddled as his thinking is and as dumb as he is, Fail-always does latch on to one thing:

Lefties lie so much, they get good at it.

That kind of thing impresses Fail-always.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2011)

You right wing retarded acolytes have not even basic the understanding of how a single payer system will help, not hurt the economy and the consumers, you just go on repeating the same BS that right wing equally retarded bloggers and pundits keep repeating.


The single payer system makes it cheaper and less expensive because it actually would force doctors to compete for those Medicaid and Medicare dollars as opposed to randomly naming whatever price they like, which is normally always high. For example, if the surgery for cataract removal on average costs about $5000 as the market value, different doctors are going to have to compete for that $5000 under the single payer system and will not be able to charge $9000 and $10000 for the same surgery. Under the current system, if a eye cataract surgery costs $5000 on average and some doctors are charging $9000 and $10000 for it, they  will pay that $9000 or $10000 and make up that $4000-$5000 difference raising up premiums on the consumer to cover it, and that's not even including premium raises they enact to cover the costs of the uninsured who don't pay. A single payer system eliminates and stops doctors from charging astronomical costs and stops health insurance companies from raising premiums to cover loses.



The Republicans originally wanted the single payer system but abandoned and went against it because they don't want Obama and the Democrats to get credit for doing something that is actually fiscally prudent, that's incredibly dumb on their part.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 22, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> You right wing retarded acolytes have not even basic the understanding of how a single payer system will help, not hurt the economy and the consumers, you just go on repeating the same BS that right wing equally retarded bloggers and pundits keep repeating.



dont want .gov care

will pay more 

thanks


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > You right wing retarded acolytes have not even basic the understanding of how a single payer system will help, not hurt the economy and the consumers, you just go on repeating the same BS that right wing equally retarded bloggers and pundits keep repeating.
> ...



No, you're wrong and stupid and will continue to pay more regardless, the single payer option prevents that, retards like to demonize the government and don't realize how much "government" is already taking are of you.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 22, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> No, you're wrong and stupid and will continue to pay more regardless, the single payer option prevents that, retards like to demonize the government and don't realize how much "government" is already taking are of you.



yes anyone who doesnt want their health care from the govenrment is wrong, stupid and retarded


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...



Weren't you leaving, asshole?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Every country that has it is desperately trying to save their system from collapse.
> ...



And Obamacare has bent the cost down? Yeah?


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...



If that's what helps you avoid the truth, sure.


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...


Oh, hush, you incoherent moron.

I earned my Tricare benefits.  You want everyone to have the same benefits simply by breathing.  

Dumbass.


----------



## rdean (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> FactCheck.org : Government-Run Nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's all they have.


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...


How about you hold me responsible only for the things I say, hmmm?


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> daveman the dickhead fails to realize that the Tricare he's receiving is the closest thing to so-called "socialized medicine" because Tricare is paid for by the government and administered in government/military hospitals but in keeping in line with parroting right wing shit without researching the facts and realizing his own contradiction he says bullshit like "socialized medicine."


Once again for the learning-impaired leftists (sorry for the redundancy) among us:

Military benefits are earned.  Socialized benefits are not.

And no, voting Democrat is not earning them.


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...


No hypocrisy.  I earned my benefits.  What do recipients of Demo vote-buying program benefits do to earn them?

Is the concept of earning things that utterly foreign to you?


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2011)

How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.

I don't want so called "Obamacare" or any other kind of "care" meaning insurance.

I won't have the option of not having it...will I ?


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> You right wing retarded acolytes have not even basic the understanding of how a single payer system will help, not hurt the economy and the consumers, you just go on repeating the same BS that right wing equally retarded bloggers and pundits keep repeating.
> 
> 
> The single payer system makes it cheaper and less expensive because it actually would force doctors to compete for those Medicaid and Medicare dollars as opposed to randomly naming whatever price they like, which is normally always high. For example, if the surgery for cataract removal on average costs about $5000 as the market value, different doctors are going to have to compete for that $5000 under the single payer system and will not be able to charge $9000 and $10000 for the same surgery. Under the current system, if a eye cataract surgery costs $5000 on average and some doctors are charging $9000 and $10000 for it, they  will pay that $9000 or $10000 and make up that $4000-$5000 difference raising up premiums on the consumer to cover it, and that's not even including premium raises they enact to cover the costs of the uninsured who don't pay. A single payer system eliminates and stops doctors from charging astronomical costs and stops health insurance companies from raising premiums to cover loses.
> ...



Leftists fail to understand that single-payer makes medicine far less attractive as a career, because school loans will take longer and longer to pay back.  

We're shorthanded on family practitioners.  And it's only going to get worse.  

U.S. Faces Shortage of Doctors - WSJ.com


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



The Government's Prayer

Our Government in D.C.,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy nanny state come
Thy mandate be done
On flyover country as it is in the coasts.
Give us this month our monthly check,
And audit us our trespasses,
As we file suit against those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into liberty,
But deliver us from ourselves.
For thine is the oligarchy,
And the power, and the glory,
Forever and ever.
Amen.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 22, 2011)

'Government-Run Nonsense.' Should have just stopped right there. Why would anyone want more Government-Run anything? What's wrong with these people?


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Listening said:


> How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.
> 
> I don't want so called "Obamacare" or any other kind of "care" meaning insurance.
> 
> I won't have the option of not having it...will I ?


Nope.  Liberals know what's best for you...or else.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 22, 2011)

The Mandate is Bullshit. It's as Un-American as it gets. Hopefully the courts will listen to logic & reason and rule it Un-Constitutional.


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.
> ...



Yes, I have heard the justification for this by people saying....well, if you get sick you become a burden on the system so you should pay.

I could use that rationalization to say we should round up all the fatties in this country and force them to lose weight.  If they stay fat, they represent a larger (pardon the pun) liability to the health care system.  I'd like to see them justify that !


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2011)

paulitician said:


> The Mandate is Bullshit. It's as Un-American as it gets. Hopefully the courts will listen to logic & reason and rule it Un-Constitutional.



Amen.


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Listening said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Don't give them any ideas.  The left likes them some totalitarianism.


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > You right wing retarded acolytes have not even basic the understanding of how a single payer system will help, not hurt the economy and the consumers, you just go on repeating the same BS that right wing equally retarded bloggers and pundits keep repeating.
> ...



Dave,

With all due respect, this does not matter to me.  The invitation is for them to show me that health care will cost less under their system and if they do...I'll shut up.

I don't care if it costs 50% less and is 2 times better.  I simply don't want the federal government in my health insurance program.  It is not within their scope....period.  So all this besides the point.  I am not shutting up.

I could care less if they were perfect in executing this system (which they are not).

Why can't they all decide to ban together and find a system that works for them ?  Why do they have to drag us in too ?


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > No, you're wrong and stupid and will continue to pay more regardless, the single payer option prevents that, retards like to demonize the government and don't realize how much "government" is already taking are of you.
> ...



Based on this post, I can only assume you don't want health care from the government.


----------



## daveman (Nov 22, 2011)

Listening said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...


Indeed.  This is symptomatic of leftism:  Ready, fire, aim!  They have no clue what the real-world impact will be, and they don't much care -- because they don't spend much time in the real world.  

The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to provide healthcare for all citizens.  But then, leftists don't much care for the Constitution, either.


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to provide healthcare for all citizens.  But then, leftists don't much care for the Constitution, either.



And that is pretty much where I am at.

I don't want to hear about "cheaper"...I am currently reading up on the history of Social Security and what a millstone it has become after about a 30 year honeymoon.

The point is that the Federal Government should not touch it.

I am more than happy to have that conversation within my state and if the states want to create portability...fine.  Pass an amendment.

After all....what I keep hearing from the howlers on the left is how 2000% of this nation wants universal health care.....should be no problem....passing an amendment.


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Don't give them any ideas.  The left likes them some totalitarianism.



My bad.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman has no real arguments against the single payer system so he makes untruthful claims that its unconstitutional and demeans government, and liberals as not knowing anything despite the fact that it was the Republitards that originally wanted the single payer system of universal healthcare. Its better to make personal attacks instead acknowledging that the single payer system drives down costs.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2011)

Listening said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



Well numbskull,even under a single payer system you do have a choice about your health care, the federal government isn't involved in that, its about the costs and at this rate without a single payer system costs are going to skyrocket, you rightwing monkeys can't have it both ways, you want to be fiscally smart then do it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 22, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.



It's this sort of comment that proves education has failed us. The Constitution is a specification of the powers granted to the government by the people, not a list of prohibitions on government. 

Seriously, read the Federalist Papers. Read some basic American history.


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

Listening said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to provide healthcare for all citizens.  But then, leftists don't much care for the Constitution, either.
> ...


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

Listening said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give them any ideas.  The left likes them some totalitarianism.
> ...


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman has no real arguments against the single payer system so he makes untruthful claims that its unconstitutional and demeans government, and liberals as not knowing anything despite the fact that it was the Republitards that originally wanted the single payer system of universal healthcare. Its better to make personal attacks instead acknowledging that the single payer system drives down costs.



Where are you going to get the doctors you need, Bass?  The left claims that millions of Americans don't have access to health care now.  What happens to the already-overburdened system when they're suddenly tossed into it?  Add to that a cap on reimbursement for treatment.

Who would want to go into medicine facing less pay and longer hours?

There are no personal attacks in this post.  Please answer my questions.


----------



## The T (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman the dickhead fails to realize that the Tricare he's receiving is the closest thing to so-called "socialized medicine" because Tricare is paid for by the government and administered in government/military hospitals but in keeping in line with parroting right wing shit without researching the facts and realizing his own contradiction he says bullshit like "socialized medicine."
> ...


Voting Democrat is being _bought._


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


You lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution.  It specifically describes what the Federal government may do.  If it doesn't grant the Feds a power, that power is then given to the States or the people.  

The Constitution isn't a blank check for the government.  Leftists consistently fail to understand that.


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

The T said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...


For an astoundingly low price, it seems.


----------



## The T (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


What price is _Liberty?_


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




One again jackass, explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution. Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution



cannot penalize for commercial inactivity


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman has no real arguments against the single payer system so he makes untruthful claims that its unconstitutional and demeans government, and liberals as not knowing anything despite the fact that it was the Republitards that originally wanted the single payer system of universal healthcare. Its better to make personal attacks instead acknowledging that the single payer system drives down costs.
> ...



There is no proof that universal healthcare makes people less likely to want to go into the medical field, these doctors charge sky high prices well above market value. I already explained that, doctors can charge whatever prices they want now, that's why the cost of health care in the US is more than any other country, even higher than in country that have universal healthcare. Enough with your hypothetical strawman argument.

The cap on reimbursement is to keep health insurance companies from passing on their losses and operating costs onto the consumers.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> One again jackass, explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution. Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?



Let's see....the 10th amendment.  Pure and simple.

And has been discussed already....the GOP never wanted healthcare.  It was thrown up as an alternative to a monster program they were fighting at a time when they were weak.

Please explain to me how the GOP, if they had wanted healthcare, didn't put something in place during GWB's time in office when he had the house and senate.  Do you really think the dems would have fought him.

If you stopped and thought about what you were saying (instead of quoting BS left wing horsecrap), you might see just how stupid it sounds.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Well numbskull,even under a single payer system you do have a choice about your health care, the federal government isn't involved in that, its about the costs and at this rate without a single payer system costs are going to skyrocket, you rightwing monkeys can't have it both ways, you want to be fiscally smart then do it.



O.K. piss-for-brains, does my "choice" include not participating ?


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.
> ...



It is amazing.

Even our President is a so-called Constitutioinal Scholar.  

What that means is that he is schooled in the art of getting around it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> 
> Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves.  Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.
> 
> This has been the plan all along.  It's been quite obvious.



Here's the thing, though. 

Private Health insurance in the long run is unsustainable. Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.  

Government has already taken on the hard-cases. the elderly, the poor, the disabled- who need constant and expensive care.  

So private insurance is left just caring for the people who are mostly healthy.  

ObamaCare attempts to preserve the status quo by forcing people to pay into the system who could and  weren't and adding additional government subsidies for those who can't, but it speeds up the demise of the system by essentially eliminating the ability of insurance companies to refuse payment for pre-existing conditions. 

Essentially, allowing you to buy car insurance AFTER you've had the accident.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 23, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> [ Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.



tort reform and reduce .gov red tape

there are better margins at cheaper cost with less of both


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Private Health insurance in the long run is unsustainable. Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.



I don't quite get this statement.

Insurance is spread out risk.  It assumes that it collects enough to cover the payouts.

What is the basis for this comment ?


----------



## Liability (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Basshole, stop being so massively dishonest in the way you engage in "debate," moron.

The concern about the questionable Constitutionality is NOT whether Universal Health Care is ITSELF a violation of the Constitution, stupid.

The concern is the way it is being sought by our beloved central government.  COMPELLING citizens to buy a particular "product" is antithetical to the precept of a government of LIMITED power and LIMITED authority.

You are a hugely unpersuasive trollish hack piece of crap.

Stop with your idiot version of the leftwing talking pointlesses, you stupid hack.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Name the part of the Constitution that says government is responsble for our healthcare.


----------



## conner700 (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> 
> Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves.  Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.
> 
> This has been the plan all along.  It's been quite obvious.



I agree with Health Care for all---just not mandated.  If the gov forces everyone to buy Health Care where will it end.  A huge slippery slope. Today Health care, tomorrow Firestone Tires.

However, I don't think the Sct. are clear headed people.  They are the court that said Corporations are People?  Look how that has gone over in the country.  People are outraged.  

Without the mandated portion of the bill---the entire bill fall apart.  There is other way to pay for it unless healthy people pay for sick people's care.  But when people get sick they should get care and not be allowed to die just cause they can't afford it.  

As a country we should take care of the sick.  It is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be forced to purchase a product we don't need or want.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 23, 2011)

conner700 said:


> However, I don't think the Sct. are clear headed people.  They are the court that said Corporations are People?



and to what extent did SCOTUS affirm the individual right under incorporation ?


----------



## konradv (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.
> ...



Then you must be reading them incorrectly.  That's basically a Leninist line, anything not specifically permitted is prohibited.  Democracies usually favor, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted.  The Constitution was not meant to be set in stone, but to be flexible with the times.

_Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. _Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution) 


Critiques Of Libertarianism: Quotations


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 23, 2011)

konradv said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Therein lies the confusion (incoherence, really) of the "government-run" term. Since this thread seems to have focused almost exclusively on single-payer concepts, presumably people are not conceptualizing "government-run" to mean the government _actually_ running health care. That is, a VHA or NHS type situation where a government doctor or government contractor is the one offering care. 

Single-payer, obviously, primarily focuses on the payment side, not the running of the health care sector, though payment policy obviously has huge incentives for provider behavior. A single basic benefits plan is tax-funded and available to all, though the actual administration of that insurance function may well be contracted to private insurers and private supplemental coverage may well be available.

Then you have our system (outside of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VHA), the one cemented by the ACA, which is explicitly a private multi-payer system with private health facilities and professionals. That, too, apparently is "government-run."

It's a meaningless term at this point.



daveman said:


> No hypocrisy.  I earned my benefits.  What do recipients of Demo vote-buying program benefits do to earn them?



Wait, your objection isn't that the government can't effectively offer health insurance, and that when they do it's a terrible Mad Max nightmare scenario--it's that when government _does_ offer insurance, it's so good that most people aren't deserving of it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 23, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing, though.
> 
> Private Health insurance in the long run is unsustainable. Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.
> 
> ...



The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it.  In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive.  That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.

Putting government in charge doesn't solve the problem.

Giving everyone access to the latest and most expensive treatments available is never going to be affordable.  Rationing is going to have to occur.  The only question is how it should occur.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 23, 2011)

conner700 said:


> As a country we should take care of the sick.  It is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be forced to purchase a product we don't need or want.



Wrong.  There's nothing moral about forcing 'A' to pay the bills of 'B.'


----------



## Intense (Nov 23, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> FactCheck.org : Government-Run Nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDbd4jQpkA&feature=related]Soap - Chuck and Bob Mindreading - YouTube[/ame]
Soap - Chuck and Bob Mindreading


----------



## Chris (Nov 23, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the thing, though.
> ...



Every other industialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. The French have the best system. They  incorporate cost saving methods such as their medical schools are cheaper, so they have many more doctors per capita, they limit liability, so doctors don't have to pay for high insurance, and they negotiate drug costs with Big Pharma. And they cover everybody with a basic level of insurance. And if people want to buy additional private insurance, they can.

You can read about it at this link from Businessweek....

The French Lesson In Health Care


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 23, 2011)

konradv said:


> > It's this sort of comment that proves education has failed us. The Constitution is a specification of the powers granted to the government by the people, not a list of prohibitions on government.
> >
> > Seriously, read the Federalist Papers. Read some basic American history.
> 
> ...



ROFL!  What an idiot.  It's only "Leninist" if it applies to people, not the government.  In the former case, it strictly limits individual liberty.  In the later case, it expands individual liberty.  Claiming it's "Leninist" is Commie propaganda.



konradv said:


> Democracies usually favor, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted.  The Constitution was not meant to be set in stone, but to be flexible with the times.



ROFL!  It was meant to be a "stone," as you put it, around the neck of government.  Preserving individual freedom means severely circumscribing the authority of government.  Giving the government "flexibility" means giving it authority to run your life.

the truth is the exact opposite of what you claim.

Big surprise there.



konradv said:


> _Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. _Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)
> 
> Critiques Of Libertarianism: Quotations



You elided big chunks of that quote.  Why is that, because it wouldn't support your point otherwise?


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Nov 23, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 23, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it.  In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive.  That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.



You think Medicare pays _more_ for a given quantity and quality of health care than other payers?


----------



## hortysir (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



Let me dumb it down for you;

The Constitution is a document that lists what powers the Federal Gov't has.
Any powers NOT listed is relegated to the States.

So the burden lies with YOU:
Show where the Constitution gives the Fed Govt authority to mandate a citizen to buy a private product.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Pick anything in this nation, and you will find that we spend more on _______ than any other nation.  We have choices in this nation where other nations' gov'ts limit their choices.



In other news today: Report: U.S. Outspends Other Countries On Health Care  Capsules - The KHN Blog



> Were No. 1. In health spending.  Again.
> 
> The United States far outpaces other countries in how much it spends on health care, although Americans have a lower rate of doctor visits and hospitalizations than most of the other 34 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
> 
> ...


----------



## Intense (Nov 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it.  In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive.  That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.
> ...



No, they pay less, forcing Doctors to charge others more to Non Medicare Patients.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it.  In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive.  That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.
> ...




When you figure in all the fraud, yes it does.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 23, 2011)

Intense said:


> No, they pay less, forcing Doctors to charge others more to Non Medicare Patients.



That notion raises some questions, as Uwe Reinhardt pointed out in the article mentioned in this thread:



> One reason that economists have trouble with the cost-shift theory is that it implies that providers of health care leave money on the table, so to speak, when they bargain with private insurers over prices and that this reservoir is tapped by providers whenever government lowers the prices it pays providers. To phrase it in the form of a question: Why would a provider wait for a short-fall in public revenue to negotiate higher rates from its private payers if those payers are willing to pay higher prices? How widespread that behavior might be, economists argue, would depend on local market conditions, especially the degree of market power that providers have relative to private insurers in the local market.7 There also would have to be a companion theory explaining why providers would routinely charge insurers less than the traffic would bear.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

konradv said:


> Then you must be reading them incorrectly.  That's basically a Leninist line, anything not specifically permitted is prohibited.  Democracies usually favor, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted.  The Constitution was not meant to be set in stone, but to be flexible with the times.
> 
> _Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. _Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)
> 
> ...



Oh, he's got it read just right.

The Federalists were written to assuage the fears of those who were concerned about to strong a federal government.  Look at what the "union" started with....a toothless government that could not even fund a standing army.

Your argument is either ignorant, wishful thinking, or a an out-and-out lie.

All you need do is look at the structure of the government to know it was set up to keep the federal government small and the states in control.

Any changes that Jefferson is referring to are achieved via a process called amending.


----------



## konradv (Nov 23, 2011)

Listening said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Then you must be reading them incorrectly.  That's basically a Leninist line, anything not specifically permitted is prohibited.  Democracies usually favor, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted.  The Constitution was not meant to be set in stone, but to be flexible with the times.
> ...



I don't see that as a given.  He does use the word 'amendment', but IMO it's in the broader sense of changes in public attitude, rather than strict legalism.  He also mentions "the progress of the human mind", a notion akin to evolution rather than legislation.  The Constitution is a short document for a reason.  The FFs realized we'd need some wiggle room in the future and they gave it to us.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 23, 2011)

The enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that would authorize a universal single-payer system is the same one that authorizes Medicare, which is a non-universal single-payer system: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the general welfare of the United States."

I'm not sure if the ability to actually run and provide a British-style government-run health-care system is authorized, though. But that's not what's being proposed seriously by anyone.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 23, 2011)

Dragon said:


> The enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that would authorize a universal single-payer system is the same one that authorizes Medicare, which is a non-universal single-payer system: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the general welfare of the United States."



how does the commerce clause apply if not buying insurance = not engaging in commerce


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Nov 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > What, you mean Obama lied? Cuz he said he saw the current bill as a 'first step' towards it. Just sayin'.
> ...




Making it work for all Americans? Like the way the Federal Government currently handles medicare and medicaid? What about Social Security, I'm sure there has never been a problem with how the government manages that program? Can you name me one government run program that is more fiscally efficient than that of the private sector? I'd be intersted in hearing your view of how exactly does "government do a better job at making it work for All Americans", considering their financial track record and Federal  budget issues.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 23, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, yes. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans."
> ...



It's odd--when the quote from my post trickled down into your response, the wording had changed. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans" became "government do[es] a better job at making it work for All Americans."

I'm not sure how I explain a quote (which isn't mine, by the way) that doesn't say what you seem to think it says. That does seem be the theme of this thread, though. Many folks seem unable to distinguish between the kind of private multi-payer system reinforced by the ACA and single-payer models or "government-run" systems or whatever other terrors lurk in their imaginations.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> how does the commerce clause apply if not buying insurance = not engaging in commerce



creative embellishment

EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Nov 23, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...




Is that why Democrats are always so quick to look at military spending cuts, and offering early retirement to reduce the scope of our military forces, when it comes to deficit reduction? The Democrats are also always looking to eliminate Medicare Advantage that provides additional benefits to seniors like vision, hearing, dental, and health and wellness with lower out of pocket costs than the original part A or B plans.    

Medicare Advantage Plans Provide Benefits and Savings : : Medicare : Simply Seniors


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Nov 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



So you can not provide ONE government program that is run more fiscally efficient than in the private sector. Yet you believe government is the answer to providing a Health Care system that works for All Americans. Interesting. Are you simply afraid to address the issue, so you resort to  a little "cop-out" response? Simply give me an example of a government program to which Federal Government did a more financially efficient job?


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 23, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> So you can not provide ONE government program that is run more fiscally efficient than in the private sector.



Most government programs don't do the same things as the private sector. They tend to take on enterprises that are more apt to lose money than make money (e.g. running health insurance programs for the highest risk populations: the elderly, the disabled, and the poor). That's why someone like yourself can marvel that, gee, it sure does cost the government more per individual to insure old folks with chronic conditions than it does for Aetna to insure healthy 30-somethings in high deductible policies!

Government programs exist precisely to step in where the private sector cannot or will not: those areas where social/public benefits do not align with what markets are producing. They're not meant to replace the private sector, simply to supplement it by filling in gaps where it's socially useful to do so.



> Yet you believe government is the answer to providing a Health Care system that works for All Americans.



I don't know what this means. Where are you getting this?


----------



## Dragon (Nov 23, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > The enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that would authorize a universal single-payer system is the same one that authorizes Medicare, which is a non-universal single-payer system: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the general welfare of the United States."
> ...



Look again. I said nothing about the commerce clause. I also said nothing about the individual mandate in Obamacare. I'm not at all sure that is constitutional, but a single-payer system would be.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.



on re-read you are right

then _United States v. Butler,_ 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936)

which limits the general welfare clause to money spent BY congress on matters delegated to their authority and not controlled by the states


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Nov 23, 2011)

Dragon said:


> The enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that would authorize a universal single-payer system is the same one that authorizes Medicare, which is a non-universal single-payer system: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the general welfare of the United States."
> 
> I'm not sure if the ability to actually run and provide a British-style government-run health-care system is authorized, though. But that's not what's being proposed seriously by anyone.




Actually if you looked at the Preamble to the Constitution, it states the mind and intent of the Founders when it comes to welfare.



> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, *provide* for the common defense, *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.



There is a big difference stated here between provide and promote. IF our Founders wanted the government to also PROVIDE for the general welfare, then why did they not state it here? Why did they specifically use the word PROMOTE towards the general welfare? Can you give me a specific reason to this change in wording? Seems to me there was a very specific reason why they chose to use that restrictive word here in the Preamble to the Constitution and not "provide", as in the common defense.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 23, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.
> ...



I think you need to take another look at that decision. Here's a link to it: United States v. Butler

"13. In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have power

to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,

the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 64.

14. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 65.

*15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. *P. 65. [p3] "

Emphasis added. The power to tax and spend is not unlimited, and one of the limits is that Congress can't use it as a back-door way to regulate what it isn't authorized to regulate (which is why the individual mandate may indeed be unconstitutional). That's the basis for the court striking down the AAA in this decision.

But Medicare faces no such dilemmas. It's based simply on the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. If it were extended to cover everyone, not just the elderly, its constitutionality would not be any more in dispute than it is now.

In avoiding a single-payer system, Obamacare creates a mess. It's an overly-complicated Rube Goldberg contraption that tries to preserve the health-insurance industry, and it's like that because the industry paid off a lot of Democrats, including the president. We could much more simply and effectively have expanded our existing single-payer system into a universal on. Medicare is already covering the most expensive patients (the elderly), so adding everyone else would not add proportional costs, it would add a lot more revenue, while saving employers big bucks in health-insurance costs. It would give the program bargaining leverage to hold down medical costs, just as foreign governments do. Compared to Obamacare, it would be a HUGE improvement.

But it would put most private health-insurance providers out of business and drastically reduce the business of those that survive, and that's why we don't have it.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 23, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.
> ...



I interject to tell the two of you that neither interpretation grants the federal gubmint the authority to require me to buy potatoes, or oranges, or insurance, with the only qualifier being birth.
My state can require me to purchase insurance if I CHOOSE to buy a car.
My country can't require to buy health insurance because I was BORN.
/


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 23, 2011)

Dragon said:


> [I think you need to take another look at that decision. Here's a link to it: United States v. Butler




good lord, moses, mary, judge wapner and atticus finch

just damn son 

you are presenting the causes of action

go back and look where it says _HELD_

and find this:

*(4) The power of taxation, which is expressly granted to Congress, may be adopted as a means to carry into operation another power also expressly granted, but not to effectuate an end which is not within the scope of the Constitution.*

come back if you need help with what _HELD_ means


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Nov 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > So you can not provide ONE government program that is run more fiscally efficient than in the private sector.
> ...



The reason Health care through Aetna, to use your example, is so expensive is due to individual state regulations that makes it impossible for some insurance companies to do business in certain states. What we need is to remove the boundaries of individual state regulations and allow insurance companies to compete across sate lines, to vie for a customer's business. 

Government involvement started under the Nixon administration, as a young senator Kennedy believed THEN that government can do a better job at lowering costs for health care. What was the result of government involvement? Did Health Care go down or increase even more through government involvement? Look at Massachusetts. Why did the result of STATE government controlling Health Care not reduce the cost? In fact, the costs of the program INCREASED when the state took over, it NEVER reduced. Yet you want me to believe that Federal Government can somehow bring a different result to what has already been proven? Give me an example of how government involvement reduced the cost and was more financially efficient than allowing competition through the private sector? Show me some facts that demonstrate that Government did a better job at handling costs, while not reducing or sacrificing care?



ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Yet you believe government is the answer to providing a Health Care system that works for All Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you stand AGAINST the Federal Government having more control over the Health Care System, and taking that control away from the private sector? You do not approve of a Government single payer system?


----------



## hortysir (Nov 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > So you can not provide ONE government program that is run more fiscally efficient than in the private sector.
> ...




You, kind sir, are plain out eat up


----------



## Dragon (Nov 23, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > [I think you need to take another look at that decision. Here's a link to it: United States v. Butler
> ...



I read that section. I also read where the court EXPLICITLY stated that the power to tax and spend is a separate and independent power and NOT limited by the OTHER enumerated powers. Which is what relates to the current discussion.

All that the section you just quoted means, is that the government can't create new powers for itself, DISTINCT FROM the power to tax and spend, and use the power to tax and spend as a way of enforcing those powers; it can use the power to tax and spend as a way to enforce powers it is already granted, instead of imposing criminal penalties or some such. But a single payer system wouldn't require creating any new powers. It would require nothing beyond taxing and spending itself, which is granted by the first clause of I:8 AS A SEPARATE POWER, not limited by the other powers.


----------



## Intense (Nov 23, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Everyone knows that when it's time to get the real work done, Government subcontracts for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

hortysir said:


> I interject to tell the two of you that neither interpretation grants the federal gubmint the authority to require me to buy potatoes, or oranges, or insurance, with the only qualifier being birth.
> My state can require me to purchase insurance if I CHOOSE to buy a car.
> My country can't require to buy health insurance because I was BORN.



Apparently you didn't get the memo: The power to tax _implies_ the power to spend. The power to spend _implies_ the power to pass laws to support that spending. And since that _implied_ spending can be for anything that Congress claims is for the general welfare, they can pass any laws that they claim are for the general welfare. Got it?

Now, it might seem that extracting all these implications from a subordinate clause on the power to tax, itself a line item in a very _explicit_ enumerated list of Congressional powers, is a daunting challenge. But it's one that a long line of courageous statesmen have championed over the years. And against all reason, they have emerged victorious!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

Dragon said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



A single payer system wouldn't put the private insurance companies totally out of business but it would lower or altogether stop them from raising premiums sky high to cover their operating costs. If the current systems continues without a single payers system the costs will continue to go high.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 23, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> The reason Health care through Aetna, to use your example, is so expensive is due to individual state regulations that makes it impossible for some insurance companies to do business in certain states. What we need is to remove the boundaries of individual state regulations and allow insurance companies to compete across sate lines, to vie for a customer's business.



The point of my example was that it's cheaper to insure low-risk individuals rather than high-risk ones but okay. 



> Look at Massachusetts. Why did the result of STATE government controlling Health Care not reduce the cost? In fact, the costs of the program INCREASED when the state took over, it NEVER reduced.



The state doesn't control health care in Massachusetts. Some rather powerful hospital chains do. Only now is the state moving to address some of the serious structural issues with their existing system. All they did in 2006 was expand insurance coverage--they didn't take over health care but they also didn't address costs or the state's structural deficits. 



> So you stand AGAINST the Federal Government having more control over the Health Care System, and taking that control away from the private sector? You do not approve of a Government single payer system?



I have no particular interest in a single-payer system, no. I'm not an opponent of one but I also don't believe it's necessary to achieve a high-value health system. In a well-functioning health insurance market (yes, that requires regulatory intervention), well-defined choices between multiple payers can have some advantages. 

The existing public payers for high-risk populations can do--and now are doing--their part to affect the reforms on the delivery side needed to reign in costs and increase the value we're getting from the health system. If they do so in partnership with private stakeholders, I expect that the results can and will be be very good. That's why I'm pleased with the direction and developments of the past 18 months or so. And I agree with Obama that the 2010 reforms are a key first toward a well-functioning health system. Single-payer isn't required to continue that journey.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



That's like saying that the mere existence of the USPS is enough to push down the cost of FedEx.
It's not happened, and I'd rather pay more for FedEx than the post office for customer service.
I am certain the same would be with my health.
No thanks


----------



## Intense (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > I interject to tell the two of you that neither interpretation grants the federal gubmint the authority to require me to buy potatoes, or oranges, or insurance, with the only qualifier being birth.
> ...



No, actually I don't. You need to show cause and the consent of the Governed to be justified. I do clearly understand why you would want to create the impression that the Government is above it's reason for being though. When you violate the Trust, you will be brought to account, be it Government, Private Enterprise, or the Individual. Your Illusion will not stand against the Light of Day.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 23, 2011)

Dragon said:


> I read that section. I also read where the court EXPLICITLY stated that the power to tax and spend is a separate and independent power and NOT limited by the OTHER enumerated powers. Which is what relates to the current discussion.



right honeybun

and that was a finding of lower court (see the page number of that decision ?)

of which the appelate court

*held......*

it is limited to the scope within the Constitution


----------



## Intense (Nov 23, 2011)

There are some that would stoop to any level in the quest for Unlimited Power.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > I interject to tell the two of you that neither interpretation grants the federal gubmint the authority to require me to buy potatoes, or oranges, or insurance, with the only qualifier being birth.
> ...



Cute satire. Not a true statement, though. Nor one generally claimed, although FDR tried to get away with something like it.

The government may spend money on anything that promotes the general welfare of the United States, but that in itself doesn't mean "anything it wants," because that phrase has an established legal meaning: the welfare of the country as a whole, not the specific welfare of a single state. Also, while laws may be passed necessary and proper to the laying of taxes and spending of money (e.g., criminal penalties for tax evasion, or regulations on how money is to be spent), laws dealing with other matters besides taxing and spending are not authorized by this clause.

The power is broader than you would like, obviously. That does not make it unlimited, and you do not help your case when you refer to it as if it were.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 23, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > I read that section. I also read where the court EXPLICITLY stated that the power to tax and spend is a separate and independent power and NOT limited by the OTHER enumerated powers. Which is what relates to the current discussion.
> ...



All of the language that I presented was the language of the Supreme Court's decision. It may have referenced a decision by a lower court, but the language presented is what the court held, or the basis for it holding as it did.

That the power to tax and spend is "limited to the scope within the Constitution" is not in dispute. The question is whether it is a power in itself, or one subordinate to the other enumerated powers, so that Congress may tax and spend but only so as to enable itself to coin money, punish piracy, create an army and navy, etc. The Court affirmed in no uncertain terms that the power to tax (and hence spend) is a separate power all on its own, and not restricted to enabling of the other enumerated powers.

You may disagree with the Court's ruling, but it is either disingenuous or an example of poor reading comprehension to pretend that it does not say what it clearly does.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

Dragon said:


> That the power to tax and spend is "limited to the scope within the Constitution" is not in dispute. The question is whether it is a power in itself, or one subordinate to the other enumerated powers, so that Congress may tax and spend but only so as to enable itself to coin money, punish piracy, create an army and navy, etc. The Court affirmed in no uncertain terms that the power to tax (and hence spend) is a separate power all on its own, and not restricted to enabling of the other enumerated powers.
> 
> You may disagree with the Court's ruling, but it is either disingenuous or an example of poor reading comprehension to pretend that it does not say what it clearly does.



It's the ruling itself that is either disingenuous or an example of poor reading comprehension. In either case, it guts the concept of limited government, turning the idea on its head. It uses the taxation power as a lever to justify a broad _implied_ power so pervasive that it renders the enumeration of thie other powers irrelevant and makes the authors look beyond silly for even bothering.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 23, 2011)

Dragon said:


> All of the language that I presented was the language of the Supreme Court's decision. It may have referenced a decision by a lower court, but the language presented is what the court held, or the basis for it holding as it did.
> 
> You may disagree with the Court's ruling, but it is either disingenuous or an example of poor reading comprehension to pretend that it does not say what it clearly does.



You are waaaaaaaaay out of your lane son

SCOTUS is an appellate court

The lower court found what you assert

then SCOTUS HELD it is not

that is why the legislative tactic turned from General Welfare to the Commerce Clause (as I thought you referenced earlier)....the federal authority restricted to use the auspices of _general welfare_ by SCOTUS used its regulation of interstate commerce as the mechanism to assert Federal authority of items not speficially delegated to it in the Constitution and has been the basis of law since


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

The T said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


More than some are willing to pay.


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...


Weren't you bitching about personal attacks earlier?  


Bass v 2.0 said:


> ...explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution.



The Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to compel the purchase of a product.  If you believe it does, point out the article.


Bass v 2.0 said:


> Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?


It's been explained to you over and over.  You're either too dumb to get it or too star-struck by the Obamessiah to see it.  And since you bitterly cling to your ignorance, I don't believe I'll waste any more time trying to correct your dumbassery.


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...


So all you have is wishful thinking.  

Oh, and thanks for the obligatory leftist "I've decided they make too much money" class envy bullshit.


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...


Indeed.  Forcing the collapse is the plan.  Then government will have to implement single-payer.

As I said, the goal all along.


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

conner700 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...


What's the difference between corporations, groups of people organized for a common purpose, donating to political campaigns; and unions, groups of people organized for a common purpose, donating to political campaigns?

I can't think of one.  The left breathlessly assures me there is one, but can't seem to articulate it.  


conner700 said:


> Without the mandated portion of the bill---the entire bill fall apart.  There is other way to pay for it unless healthy people pay for sick people's care.  But when people get sick they should get care and not be allowed to die just cause they can't afford it.
> 
> As a country we should take care of the sick.  It is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be forced to purchase a product we don't need or want.


You can't legislate morality.


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Wait, your objection isn't that the government can't effectively offer health insurance, and that when they do it's a terrible Mad Max nightmare scenario--it's that when government _does_ offer insurance, it's so good that most people aren't deserving of it?


Is English your second...or third...language, or have you had a brain injury?


----------



## daveman (Nov 23, 2011)

Poli_Sigh said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


One moron applauding another.  How amusing.


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 23, 2011)

Listening said:


> How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.
> 
> I don't want so called "Obamacare" or any other kind of "care" meaning insurance.
> 
> I won't have the option of not having it...will I ?


Ron Paul said he'd let you die.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.
> ...



And I don't begrudge him that at all.


----------



## Annie (Nov 23, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.
> ...



The former is what the op 'said' was being said all along; truth is from the later. Over and over again you'll see that if you bother to look.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > how does the commerce clause apply if not buying insurance = not engaging in commerce
> ...



Very true and something that the right does not attack enough.  I mean what else can you expect when you have SCOTUS members like E. Warren basing opinions on whether or not something is right...not if it is contitutional.

General Welfare was explained by Madison later on and it has to have limited meaning in the context of the environment in which the USC was formed and ratified.  To claim this is essentially an open door to do whatever you want for any general welfare is simply not defensible (other than the fact that traitors like Warren have essentially used the USC to wipe their fat asses).


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



The moron is you because technically you are receiving "socialized medicine" or something very, very akin to it yet you're rallying against it heavily for everyone else.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> conner700 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And that is exactly what extremist right wingers attempt to do.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

Listening said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Now you're a retard, letting people die is ok?


----------



## Annie (Nov 23, 2011)

Annie said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



bump. So many dishonest characters.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



WTH are you talking about monkey? Its a well known fact that health insurance companies do pass on their operating costs to consumers by raising premiums and yes doctors in the United States charge whatever prices they want. If you want to be a damn fool and let companies get richer off of you via them passing on operating costs go right the hell on ahead but don't give me that class envy BS, you right wing jackasses who aren't rich look like retards parroting the class envy rhetoric of the rich.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Can you drive a car without car insurance? No, your BS is refuted and yes, universal health care was the idea of the Republicans first retard, so your leftist rhetorical BS doesn't fly here, pull your head out of your rectum.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Can you drive a car without car insurance? No, your BS is refuted and yes, universal health care was the idea of the Republicans first retard, so your leftist rhetorical BS doesn't fly here, pull your head out of your rectum.



As has been pointed out 1000 times...you can chose not to drive a car and so there is no requirement for insurance.  O.K. Did we get that one straight ?

Next, it has already been shown and pretty much agreed to that if the GOP wanted universal health care they would have passed it with Bush and his spend happy congress.

You heard the idea in response to Hillarycare...when Hillarycare died so did the GOP suggestions.

Here is a clue: They didn't want it.

So before you ask others to extract their heads.....


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

FactCheck.org : Health Care Overhaul: Constitutional?


FactCheck.org : Health Care Spin &#8212; Again


FactCheck.org : A &#8216;Job-Killing&#8217; Law?


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



And you are a jackass...why don't you read and comprehend before you let your crooked little fingers loose on the keyboard.

I am O.K. with him saying he will let me die.  I have every intention of taking care of myself and don't need his help.

Oh for the days when education meant something.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Ron Paul said he'd let you die.



You gotta link? I've never heard or read any such thing.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

Listening said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you drive a car without car insurance? No, your BS is refuted and yes, universal health care was the idea of the Republicans first retard, so your leftist rhetorical BS doesn't fly here, pull your head out of your rectum.
> ...



I've never seen someone so stubbornly damn stupid and brainwashed by the right, the individual mandate was originally the idea of the GOP as counter against the Democrats wanting a mandate that all employers provide health insurance for its workers. Mark Pauly, a conservative, originally came up with the idea.

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR

Ezra Klein - An interview with Mark Pauly, father of the individual mandate


The GOP originally wanted the individual mandate as a measure against the single payer systems that Democrats wanted and no one from the GOP questioned its constitutionality when it was proposed, now everyone wants to play like they're constitutional patriots and lawyers. The individual mandate was drawn up more as a tax, Marn Pualy the father of the individual mandate even says that.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



Whine all you want moron....you said it yourself...it was counter to Hillarycare.  When Hillarycare died.....the GOP let their proposal die too. 

If the GOP truly wanted federally funded healthcare, then they would have run on it and easily passed it in 2000.  But they didn't did they ?  Why not ?

Answer: They didn't want it.

If you don't understand the difference, talk to your local school board.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 23, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.
> ...



Link/Quote?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

Listening said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



BS, the individual mandate that you retards keep calling "leftist" and unconstitutional was originally proposed by Republicans *BEFORE* anything like "Hillarycare" existed and even Obama himself opposed the individual mandate before he flip flopped and signed it into law, but yes, it was originally a Republican idea and even heavily proposed by the Heritage Foundation:

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

hortysir said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



There isn't one. It's bullshit. It's from the debate where Wolf Blitzer demagogued a question referring to a sick man without insurance:

(from the transcript)
Wolf Blitzer: "Are you saying society should just let him die?"  (because of course the only two options are mandatory insurance and people dying in the gutter)
Ron Paul: "No"

Apparently some asshats audience said "Yeah!". But Paul clearly said no. I think Political Junky just got confused is all. That'll happen.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> *Can you drive a car without car insurance?* No, your BS is refuted and yes, universal health care was the idea of the Republicans first retard, so your leftist rhetorical BS doesn't fly here, pull your head out of your rectum.



Can my grandchild be BORN without being required to purchase health insurance by the time she's 25?


For someone that hates insurance companies so much and how much money they make you sure want them to gain as much business as possible, huh?


Oh....That's right!!
You'd rather the government get that money from you!!


idiot


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> BS, the individual mandate that you retards keep calling "leftist" and unconstitutional was originally proposed by Republicans *BEFORE* anything like "Hillarycare" existed and even Obama himself opposed the individual mandate before he flip flopped and signed it into law, but yes, it was originally a Republican idea and even heavily proposed by the Heritage Foundation:
> 
> History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org



Yeah. That's well known. So what?


----------



## Mr Liberty (Nov 23, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.
> ...



That is a bald face lie.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > BS, the individual mandate that you retards keep calling "leftist" and unconstitutional was originally proposed by Republicans *BEFORE* anything like "Hillarycare" existed and even Obama himself opposed the individual mandate before he flip flopped and signed it into law, but yes, it was originally a Republican idea and even heavily proposed by the Heritage Foundation:
> ...



When Republicans proposed it they raised no issue about it unconstitutional, now they are, that's my point, there are retards calling the individual mandate 'leftist' and unconstitutional while simultaneously either willing ignoring or forgetting that Republicans, some of whom oppose it now originally championed it.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



It was proposed by the Heritage Foundation who caught all kinds of grief for putting this out.  Republicans didn't back it.

They only held it up as shield against something they saw as being worse (and in 1993, they looked a lot like the GOP of 2009).

If the GOP wanted a mandated system, they would have had no problem passing it.

They didn't pass it......what does that tell you ?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

hortysir said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > *Can you drive a car without car insurance?* No, your BS is refuted and yes, universal health care was the idea of the Republicans first retard, so your leftist rhetorical BS doesn't fly here, pull your head out of your rectum.
> ...



I don't hate insurance companies making so much money you jackass, I specifically said I disagree with them passing their costs on to the consumer by raising premiums and also denying care to people, that's ripping people off.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

Listening said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Yes they did to back it, what are you retarded and hard of reading? They didn't catch any flack for it and the Dems opposed the individual mandate but have since flip flopped and passed it into law but back then the Dems opposed its so no, the Republicans couldn't have easily passed one, retard.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> When Republicans proposed it they raised no issue about it unconstitutional, now they are, that's my point, there are retards calling the individual mandate 'leftist' and unconstitutional while simultaneously either willing ignoring or forgetting that Republicans, some of whom oppose it now originally championed it.



Again so what? Lotsa hypocrites out there. Don't much care. I wouldn't call it 'leftist' so much as 'corporatist', which is much worse actually. It sucks ass either way.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > When Republicans proposed it they raised no issue about it unconstitutional, now they are, that's my point, there are retards calling the individual mandate 'leftist' and unconstitutional while simultaneously either willing ignoring or forgetting that Republicans, some of whom oppose it now originally championed it.
> ...



I don't like the individual mandate myself personally, I prefer the single payer system, but yes, I was calling out daveman the hypocrite for being such a dumb tool parroting right wing dogma with researching the facts, he likes popping off at the mouth talking about lefty this and liberal that. I'm no hypocrite and even pointed out how Dems flip flopped on the individual mandate even though I am no Dem and am a conservative. People need to quit being willfully dishonest in these discussions.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> I don't like the individual mandate myself personally, I prefer the single payer system, but yes, I was calling out daveman the hypocrite for being such a dumb tool parroting right wing dogma with researching the facts, he likes popping off at the mouth talking about lefty this and liberal that. I'm no hypocrite and even pointed out how Dems flip flopped on the individual mandate even though I am no Dem and am a conservative. People need to quit being willfully dishonest in these discussions.



Anyway, will you be supporting the fight to get the mandate repealed then?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the individual mandate myself personally, I prefer the single payer system, but yes, I was calling out daveman the hypocrite for being such a dumb tool parroting right wing dogma with researching the facts, he likes popping off at the mouth talking about lefty this and liberal that. I'm no hypocrite and even pointed out how Dems flip flopped on the individual mandate even though I am no Dem and am a conservative. People need to quit being willfully dishonest in these discussions.
> ...



I already have government health insurance as a federal employee, it really doesn't bother me personally, I prefer single payer because its fiscally less expensive and keeps doctors from ripping people off.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> I already have government health insurance as a federal employee, it really doesn't bother me personally, I prefer single payer because its fiscally less expensive and keeps doctors from ripping people off.



That avoids the question. You said you're opposed to the mandate. Will you be supporting the efforts to repeal it?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 24, 2011)

dblack said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > I already have government health insurance as a federal employee, it really doesn't bother me personally, I prefer single payer because its fiscally less expensive and keeps doctors from ripping people off.
> ...



No. I don't like the penalties part of the law.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 24, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



So you agree with my other 2 points.


Got it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



No? As in you won't be supporting repeal? Or No, as in you won't support the mandate?


----------



## daveman (Nov 24, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Poli_Sigh said:
> ...


That's been explained before.  To you.  Specifically.

Apparently, you were too stupid to get it then.  I have no confidence your level of intelligence has increased since then.  

I earned my benefits by performing a service to the nation.  You want people to receive benefits without earning them.


----------



## daveman (Nov 24, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > conner700 said:
> ...


You just keep ignoring when leftists try to do it.

Sorry...they haven't tried, they've succeeded.


----------



## daveman (Nov 24, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...


You really are a stupid little man.


----------



## daveman (Nov 24, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...


Not that old canard again.

The Federal government doesn't require you to buy car insurance, and you don't have to drive a car on public highways anyhow.  

But you just keep pretending you have a point.  It's funny.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 24, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> You are waaaaaaaaay out of your lane son
> 
> SCOTUS is an appellate court
> 
> ...



No. You're just simply, factually wrong. The SCOTUS was not quoting language in that passage, it was presenting its own.

Here's a bit more on the case:

United States v. Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Although it struck down the Act, the Court dealt positively with taxation and the expenditure of funds to advance the general welfare as specified in Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution. The Court stated that the issue presents the great and the controlling question in the case. After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

    "The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.  It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

And more: United States v. Butler

In fact, contrary to what you suggest, the Supreme Court did NOT overturn the lower court's ruling, it UPHELD it. The court of appeals had ruled the AAA unconstitutional, and it was the government that appealed to the SCOTUS.

Despite the broad ruling on the interpretation of I:8:1, the Court held the AAA to be unconstitutional because this power to tax and spend, although very broad, is not unlimited. It does not allow Congress to use taxing and spending to regulate matters that Congress is not otherwise authorized to regulate.

This precedent suggests that the individual mandate of the ACA may be unconstitutional, too, because it also attempts to use a tax to enforce a regulation that Congress is not otherwise authorized to impose.

However, there is no such problem with Medicare, and would be none if Medicare were expanded into a universal single-payer system, which is in my opinion what should have been done rather than the ghastly mess that is the ACA.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 24, 2011)

you might tell chicago school of law to teach from Wiki

United States v. Butler | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law




> Term:
> 1901-1939
> 1935
> 
> ...



the agricultural program struck down in Butler was reenacted by Congress under the commerce power and upheld in Mulford v. Smith (1939) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942).


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 24, 2011)

Dragon said:


> And more: United States v. Butler
> 
> In fact, contrary to what you suggest, the Supreme Court did NOT overturn the lower court's ruling, it UPHELD it.



from your link johnny cockring



> United States v. Butler
> 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
> Author: Joe
> 
> ...


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 24, 2011)

The lead paragraph from your wiki......



> United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was "but a means to an unconstitutional end" that violated the Tenth Amendment.



did you bong out this fine Thanksgiving morning ?


----------



## Dragon (Nov 24, 2011)

None of that contradicts what I said above. You are not only failing to demonstrate your position, you are failing to even TRY to answer mine.

1) The lower court had ruled the AAA unconstitutional.
2) The Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
3) The Court nonetheless interpreted the taxing and spending power broadly, saying that it is a separate enumerated power and not subordinate to the other enumerated powers.
4) The reason why the AAA was unconstitutional nonetheless is because the tax and spend power does not allow the government to implement a regulation it is not otherwise authorized to impose.

That the government put forth a somewhat similar law later based on the regulation of commerce clause is immaterial. The interpretation of the tax and spend clause remains unaffected by that. It was ruled to be a broad power not dependent on the other enumerated powers. That ruling has never been reversed, and remains the law of the land.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2011)




----------



## Listening (Nov 25, 2011)

Ah yes, well that becomes the dilema for myself and other conservatives.

I would love to have a very clean and straightforward argument for calling healthcare unconsititional.

However, that term is somewhat elusive.

Based on the historical bastardization of the constituion by the dems, SCOTUS, and GOP (yes GOP), it is hard to make a really clean argument.  At the same time, there is enough material to support our position that it can't be categorically ignored.

What is missing in today's GOP and conservative platorms is not the need to "return" things to the way they used to be, but instead to take them to the place we want them to be (after all, if it is a living breathing document....why can't we push states powers regardless of history ?).

When the RNC puts this in their platform, I'll take home.  Look now and you won't find it (or I could not find it).  And when it is eleveated in the eyes of the country, then the postition becomes clear as does the path to finding solutions for issues like health care....at the state level.

For now....we'll just repeat this same conversation over and over and over again.


----------



## Listening (Nov 25, 2011)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> I don't hate insurance companies making so much money you jackass, I specifically said I disagree with them passing their costs on to the consumer by raising premiums and also denying care to people, that's ripping people off.



In Kansas, we don't have an energy commissioner or an oil and gas commissioner.  But we do have an insurance commissioner.  I can't tell you exactly what their function is (and it is something I should find out).  But I wonder how much these companies can do this because there is no one to enter the market to compete against them because of the barriers of red tape.

I fully agree it is bogus for someone to pay into a policy for ten years, require treatment and be dropped.


----------



## abouadma (Nov 26, 2011)

are you 65 and getting on medicare? if so you can not afford not to visit 
New Jersey Original Medicare, Medicare Supplements Plans And Medicare Advantage Comparison and information[/url] 
lot of useful information.


----------

