# The single biggest problem with Obamacare.



## Brutus (Feb 27, 2011)

It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 27, 2011)

Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance. Being American doesn't mean being able to make a buck no matter what the cost, but you can feel free to believe that.


----------



## Polk (Feb 27, 2011)

Last time I checked, the exchange is a market...


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 27, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



Calm down.  The old socialist system of Nixon, Kennedy and Eisenhower let me show up at the hospital anytime and receive treatment on your dime if I got shot no matter how unable to pay I was.  

At least a good honest system which demands folks pay into insurance their whole working lives will make freeloaders pay for SOMETHING.

There is a point of being a realist.  Under the old system if I was poor, never had insurance, and catch cancer from the nuclear power plant the local hospital and do any level of paperwork, they will give me treatment on YOUR DIME!  Just because the socialists in the 50's 60's and 70's decided hospitals must treat everyone.

The alternative is letting capitalism rule and allowing me to open a city of hospitals which will throw your broke butt out on the street the moment you can't pay any longer.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 27, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



The biggest problem with obamacare is that it IS obamacare.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 27, 2011)

There's a real discussion to be had here about the flaws with the proposal. Shame the OP just wants to troll.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 27, 2011)

its UNconstitutionl


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 27, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> its UNconstitutionl


that' debatable

it's also not the issue



JBeukema said:


> I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 27, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > its UNconstitutionl
> ...



No... its been found unconstitutional by two federal judges.  That means this administration is supposed to stop implementing it till it goes to the SCOTUS. So, OK.... its not final. 

As for it not being the issue.... wrong. the OP asked "The single biggest problem with Obamacare." 

So I gave my opinion....


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 27, 2011)

It could be unconstitutional.  Just like it may be unconstitutional for the President to in effect declare war, to force Colorado to let that river flow into virtually uninhabitable Arizona, to force my hospitals not to allow you to die in peace(Oregon!) or to force my city of hospitals to treat folks who can't pay.

Regardless, doctors were more trouble than benefit in the time of Benjamin Franklin.  Heck, I'm not sure if I wouldn't have wanted to be treated in the time of the Romans.  Our founding fathers did not see the problem of healthcare costs breaking the average American.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 27, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> It could be unconstitutional.  Just like it may be unconstitutional for the President to in effect declare war, to force Colorado to let that river flow into virtually uninhabitable Arizona, to force my hospitals not to allow you to die in peace(Oregon!) or to force my city of hospitals to treat folks who can't pay.
> 
> Regardless, doctors were more trouble than benefit in the time of Benjamin Franklin.  Heck, I'm not sure if I wouldn't have wanted to be treated in the time of the Romans.  Our founding fathers did not see the problem of healthcare costs breaking the average American.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 27, 2011)

> No... its been found unconstitutional by two federal judges. That means this administration is supposed to stop implementing it till it goes to the SCOTUS. So, OK.... its not final.
> 
> As for it not being the issue.... wrong. the OP asked "The single biggest problem with Obamacare."
> 
> So I gave my opinion....



Let me restate.  Unless you want a Constitutional amendment to allow the president to tell the military to bomb Tripoli it is pretty lame to demand one in this case.  Both are for the general welfare.

I do agree though, it takes a pretty open Constitutional interpretation to allow either Ronald Wilson Reagan to tell the New Jersey to shell Beruit, us to declare "Police Action" or whatever recently, or Obamacare to slide through.

Still I think we should all go out and vote for an Obamacare ammendment


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 27, 2011)

Make more sense now?


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 27, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...




A dozen others had no problem with it





> As for it not being the issue.... wrong. the OP asked "The single biggest problem with Obamacare."
> 
> So I gave my opinion....




What of the slavery and abolition?


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 27, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



 (plus, both were corrected)


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 27, 2011)

abolition was corrected? what?


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 27, 2011)

Nahh... Im not following you down the rabbit hole.

Later


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 28, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Nahh... Im not following you down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Later



I am not sure I follow....Are you saying you oppose the National Healthcare Plan because it is unconstitutional?  But otherwise you would support it?

Seems like demanding an amendment to correct an issue the founding fathers could not have seen coming.  With any luck we will get that amendment.


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



While this may be true, what we had before "Obamacare" certainly did not rely on "free enterprise".  If you believe it did, you are sadly mistaken.  There is very little in our healthcare system that even remotely resembles "free enterprise".  Beyond this though, is a very simple fact.  Healthcare is not a product that can or should be considered a luxury.  It is a necessity, and with that, making it available to as many as possible becomes a necessity.  In the end, everyone does receive some kind of healthcare regardless of whether they can pay or not.  The problem is that the cost is passed on to everyone who can pay, one way or another, and that way currently is extremely inefficient.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 28, 2011)

It is a fiscally unsustainable system, just like the one we have now that is crashing. So long as there are exemptions for anyone paying, it will never work. So long as the "rich" and "middle class" carry, pay for, and support the "poor" it will go bankrupt.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 28, 2011)

"What is called sound economics is very often what mirrors the needs of the respectably affluent." J. K. Galbraith

The biggest problem with free enterprise is power. A concept worshippers of this particular ideology fail to recognize in their blind faith.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith 

The biggest problem with Universal Healthcare in America is the corporate tools, also known as republicans and democrats, and their tools many of whom post here.

"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions... is... the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith

The biggest problem with free enterprise is it brought us the Great Depression, constant booms and busts, and recently a near collapse of our economy.

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."  Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

The biggest problem with UHC is it was not broad enough in its coverage of all Americans and caved into the interests of the powerful corporations who today control our political body due to the quest for reelection and the money required to bribe the fools, aka tools.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-all-your-questions-on-uhc-5.html#post1422612

*The trouble with UHC today is Americans have lost their 'can do' spirit as they sit in front of the boob tube, tweet nonsense, read corporate think tank BS, listen to diluted baloney from corporate media, and are generally too lazy, spoiled, and preoccupied with personal narcissistic crap to speak up for ALL Americans and to do the right thing.*

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

And see my sig.


----------



## Brutus (Feb 28, 2011)

Auditor0007: There is very little in our healthcare system that even remotely resembles "free enterprise". 

Brutus: that is why it is bankrupting the nation. Now you know why liberal management failures caused the Chinese, for example,  to switch to free enterprise.

You see, at a certain point one has the IQ to understand that free enterprise encourages lower prices and better service. In fact this is how America got to be the richest country in human history.


----------



## Brutus (Feb 28, 2011)

Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance.

Brutus: of course that comment is testimony to your low IQ. In fact, liberals made free enterprise illegal in the health care industry.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance.
> 
> Brutus: of course that comment is testimony to your low IQ. In fact, liberals made free enterprise illegal in the health care industry.



You're insulting my IQ but you can't figure out how to properly quote a message on this forum. Bwahahahaha!! Thanks for that laugh. 

As for your "response". Could you be any more vague? Please. Half of your response is an attempted insult the other half you merely restate your original post. I'm glad you have sound reasoning and support to go along with your original statement.


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Auditor0007: There is very little in our healthcare system that even remotely resembles "free enterprise".
> 
> Brutus: that is why it is bankrupting the nation. Now you know why liberal management failures caused the Chinese, for example,  to switch to free enterprise.
> 
> You see, at a certain point one has the IQ to understand that free enterprise encourages lower prices and better service. In fact this is how America got to be the richest country in human history.



The Chinese switch allowing more free enterprise in the healthcare field has made a complete mess of their healthcare system.  You should actually read up on this.  They have much bigger problems than we do.


----------



## Brutus (Feb 28, 2011)

Tornado: At least a good honest system which demands folks pay into insurance their whole working lives will make freeloaders pay for SOMETHING.

Brutus: fine, but that does nothing to increase quality and lower prices. Health insurance stocks are up since BO care!! Capitalism creates wealth, not a mandate.

Tornado: The alternative is letting capitalism rule and allowing me to open a city of hospitals which will throw your broke butt out on the street the moment you can't pay any longer.

Brutus: of course as we know from the Cuban,USSR and Red Chinese example that capitalism makes things cheap and of very high quality so everyone can afford to pay for almost everything.


----------



## Brutus (Feb 28, 2011)

RDD: You're insulting my IQ but you can't figure out how to properly quote a message on this forum. Bwahahahaha!! Thanks for that laugh. 

Brutus: strawman fallacy

RDD: As for your "response". Could you be any more vague? Please. Half of your response is an attempted insult the other half you merely restate your original post. I'm glad you have sound reasoning and support to go along with your original statement.

Brutus: as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand capitalism or free enterprise so why not ask a question like: why is capitalism better than socialism.


----------



## manifold (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



So I guess you think the US military is also anti-American for the same reason then. 

It'd biggest problem is the mandate, which the Federal government does not have the authority to enforce.  Period.


----------



## Brutus (Feb 28, 2011)

Manifold: So I guess you think the US military is also anti-American for the same reason then.

Brutus: I don't think anyone in history said a military could be or should be macro managed by free enterprise principles. Are you nuts?? 

Manifold: It'd biggest problem is the mandate, which the Federal government does not have the authority to enforce. Period.

Brutus: the IRS will hire 12,000 new agents to collect the tax, so I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> RDD: You're insulting my IQ but you can't figure out how to properly quote a message on this forum. Bwahahahaha!! Thanks for that laugh.
> 
> Brutus: strawman fallacy
> 
> ...



Thank you for reminding me why I enjoy coming back to this site time after time.


----------



## manifold (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus: I'm a worthless trolling twat.

Anybody else: You don't say?


----------



## Brutus (Feb 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > RDD: You're insulting my IQ but you can't figure out how to properly quote a message on this forum. Bwahahahaha!! Thanks for that laugh.
> ...



Brutus: because as a liberal you lack the IQ for substance?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



Sorry bout that,

1. My intelligence is not the question here sir!
2. Brutus the Barber Beefcake?
3. Have you seen Carrot Top lately? He's ripped!

Thanks,
SirRDDofIllinois


----------



## Brutus (Feb 28, 2011)

RDD: Sorry bout that,

1. My intelligence is not the question here sir!

Brutus: then why can't respond to OP intelligently, rather than change subject?????? You've just learned what liberalism really is.



2. Brutus the Barber Beefcake?
3. Have you seen Carrot Top lately? He's ripped!

Thanks,
SirRDDofIllinois


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Tornado: At least a good honest system which demands folks pay into insurance their whole working lives will make freeloaders pay for SOMETHING.
> 
> Brutus: fine, but that does nothing to increase quality and lower prices. Health insurance stocks are up since BO care!! Capitalism creates wealth, not a mandate.
> 
> ...



Capitalism has left the just mildly above average American so well off they can afford a new kidney tomorrow if they need one?

Brutus there is a problem with the math for health insurance companies.  The cost of newer treatments is going up faster than incomes are going up.  At some point there will either be folks deciding "well that new heart will cost my wife our home, I don't need one".

By forcing everyone to buy insurance every day of their lives the theory is we put off that date a little bit longer.  This gives time for a new specialty called "how to make this affordable" time to catch up.

BTW, when I think of capitalism and small government I think of Mexico.  Not a very nice place to be.  We flourished in the post New Deal era for a number of reasons.  One is we ended up with a middle class.


----------



## Brutus (Feb 28, 2011)

Toranado: Capitalism has left the just mildly above average American so well off they can afford a new kidney tomorrow if they need one?

Brutus: who can say what the real price would be under capitalism. Remember, nothing was affordable to Russians and Chinese before capitalism. All things are much cheaper under capitalism.

Toronado: Brutus there is a problem with the math for health insurance companies. The cost of newer treatments is going up faster than incomes are going up. At some point there will either be folks deciding "well that new heart will cost my wife our home, I don't need one".

Brutus: as I said, who can say what the real cost of anything is when there is no competition.

Toronado: By forcing everyone to buy insurance every day of their lives the theory is we put off that date a little bit longer. This gives time for a new specialty called "how to make this affordable" time to catch up.

Brutus: no idea what you are talking about?? Only capitalism makes things affordable. Always remember the USSR and Red China. China switched to capitalism and instantly saved 10's of millions from slow starvation.

Toronado: BTW, when I think of capitalism and small government I think of Mexico. Not a very nice place to be. 

Brutus: capitalism requires law and order. It can't function with out it. We have had it here thanks to religion.

Toranado: We flourished in the post New Deal era for a number of reasons. One is we ended up with a middle class.

Brutus: a middle upper and lower class is assumed. I have no idea what your point is.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 28, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Nahh... Im not following you down the rabbit hole.
> ...



No.... the whole damn thing should be thrown out, and NO the government needs to saty the Hell out of my healthcare business PERIOD!

You cant ammend a law that is'nt supposed to be there to begin with.... repeal it.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 28, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



ahhhh, but if you want them to stay out of your life completely regarding health insurance then the gvt should also not give your company a tax break for what they spend on your health care, or if you are paying your own health care without an employer, the gvt should NOT give you a tax break for what it costs you.

the government is deeper than deep when it comes to health care, FOR EVERYONE, including you....if you have insurance.


----------



## Polk (Feb 28, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



And three judges have ruled that is constitutional, so where are we going with this?


----------



## Polk (Feb 28, 2011)

Care4all said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



I'm sure he'll tell us how that's "different".


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toranado: Capitalism has left the just mildly above average American so well off they can afford a new kidney tomorrow if they need one?
> 
> Brutus: who can say what the real price would be under capitalism. Remember, nothing was affordable to Russians and Chinese before capitalism. All things are much cheaper under capitalism.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind basically I am a capitalist.

Remember 9/12/2001?  Socialist controls made fuel affordable for your car.  Amend your statement to "Capitalism with socialist controls and the fear of a popular revolution makes things affordable."

Capitalism requires law and order? Laws sound like the first step to the left regulating what folks can and can't do.

The problem with the math....how to explain.... is we all want the latest and greatest treatment.  This gallbladder removal I had was not available to my great grandfather when he was 30 so he did not have to worry about spending money on it. He just had pain and died sooner.  My children may be able to rid themselves of arthritis for $$$,$$$.  An expense I do not have.  They also may have a $$$,$$$,$$$ cure for Alzheimer's.  Something I may just suffer from and die.  These will all be increased costs to their health insurance company.  

Follow me so far?


----------



## Brutus (Mar 1, 2011)

Toronado: Keep in mind basically I am a capitalist.
Remember 9/12/2001? Socialist controls made fuel affordable for your car. Amend your statement to "Capitalism with socialist controls and the fear of a popular revolution makes things affordable."

Brutus:  socialism is government ownership in the belief that bureaucrats can manage the commanding heights better over the long term. It is not a governmental response to war.   

Brutus: Capitalism requires law and order. 

Toronado: Laws sound like the first step to the left regulating what folks can and can't do.


Brutus: all sides of the political spectrum are for laws so I have no idea what your point is. Do you? 

Toronado: The problem with the math....how to explain.... is we all want the latest and greatest treatment. This gallbladder removal I had was not available to my great grandfather when he was 30 so he did not have to worry about spending money on it. He just had pain and died sooner. My children may be able to rid themselves of arthritis for $$$,$$$. An expense I do not have. They also may have a $$$,$$$,$$$ cure for Alzheimer's. Something I may just suffer from and die. These will all be increased costs to their health insurance company. 

Brutus: sorry but that seems absurd! Today everyone can afford jet travel whereas it was only for the rich when first invented. Same with car, etc etc.
The Soviets had liberal control and pricing and so no one could afford anything.
Capitalism creates affordable, widely distributed wealth that no one could have imagined. You are looking at health care with Soviet eyes, that is to say, blindly!! sorry. 


Toronado: Follow me so far?

Brutus:  sure, liberal misunderstandings are easy to follow


----------



## Brutus (Mar 1, 2011)

Polk: And three judges have ruled that is constitutional, so where are we going with this?

Brutus: but the 3 were liberals; so don't count. Lets remember that liberal spied for Stalin.  If the Feds can make you buy insurance under the commerce clause they can make you do almost anything and then we no longer have a limited government of enumerated powers.

Its changes the entire concept of America from freedom and liberty from government to communism just as the liberals would like. Can we at least be honest about it?


----------



## Polk (Mar 3, 2011)

Ah yes, the rulings don't count because you don't like the outcome.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 3, 2011)

Brutus, you can't just go claiming regulation and laws limiting my capitalist rights are part of capitalism but regulating a capitalist economy is socialism.

Honest, folks NEED a fear of starving and NEED the possibility of rewards to work the hardest.  It is just human nature.  So is crime and sin.  So we need a good number of socialist like or socialistic laws.


----------



## Brutus (Mar 4, 2011)

Toronado: Brutus, you can't just go claiming regulation and laws limiting my capitalist rights are part of capitalism but regulating a capitalist economy is socialism.

Brutus: you seem confused. Capitalism is private ownership. socialism is public ownershhip!

Toranado: Honest, folks NEED a fear of starving and NEED the possibility of rewards to work the hardest.  

Brutus: I agree, so???

Toronado: It is just human nature.  So is crime and sin.  So we need a good number of socialist like or socialistic laws.

Brutus: again you seem confused about what socialism is so a discussion is difficult.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 4, 2011)

We have not had free enterprise;especially regarding health-care /health insurance; in decades.

Want to reduce costs; reduce government intervention;not only at the Federal level but at the State level too, get third parties out of paying everything from a paper cut to brain surgery; have insurance for the major stuff;like the brain surgery;pay for the paper cut yourself, separate employment from insurance; have insurance that is individual and portable..


----------



## Brutus (Mar 4, 2011)

johnrocks said:


> We have not had free enterprise;especially regarding health-care /health insurance; in decades.
> 
> Want to reduce costs; reduce government intervention;not only at the Federal level but at the State level too, get third parties out of paying everything from a paper cut to brain surgery; have insurance for the major stuff;like the brain surgery;pay for the paper cut yourself, separate employment from insurance; have insurance that is individual and portable..



Brutus: all good points Johnrocks. I would add that we need to make interstate insurance competition legal and mandate published prices so you'd have real competition.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 5, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado: Brutus, you can't just go claiming regulation and laws limiting my capitalist rights are part of capitalism but regulating a capitalist economy is socialism.
> 
> Brutus: you seem confused. Capitalism is private ownership. socialism is public ownershhip!
> 
> ...



Regulation and control are part of the planned economy of socialism.  If I wanna regulate Wall Street or the Airlines I am called a socialist.

I agree with your decision to limit state rights for regulating Insurance Licensing.  The notion is outdated and at the very least robs economics of scale.


----------



## Spoonman (Mar 6, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



The single biggest problem with Obamacare is that it exists


----------



## Brutus (Mar 7, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...




Brutus: I agree but it is helpful to say what aspect of its existence is most offensive. For me, it is that it assumes free market solutions won't work without being able to explain why. My own view is that they lack the IQ to do so.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 7, 2011)

Brutus said:


> For me, it is that it assumes free market solutions won't work without being able to explain why. My own view is that they lack the IQ to do so.



As was already pointed out to you, an exchange _is_ a market--indeed, the concept is the very same as the one that anchored Paul Ryan's health reform bill and it's the concept behind ruby red Utah's ongoing reorganization of its small group market.


----------



## Brutus (Mar 7, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > For me, it is that it assumes free market solutions won't work without being able to explain why. My own view is that they lack the IQ to do so.
> ...



Brutus: A Democratic exchange in not a free market because the government is very heavily involved. Is that really so hard to understand?


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 7, 2011)

Use your words: what are you talking about? Utah's exchange is heralded a conservative triumph but it certainly isn't distinguished by a lack of government involvement. The Utah state government contracts out to handle premium aggregation, they administer the risk adjustment mechanism, and they run the website that collects and shares plan information. Utah's market isn't Democratic but it certainly sounds like it's far too liberal for your tastes.

"Democrats = bad" and "government = bad" isn't quite the sophisticated argument you seem to think it is.


----------



## Brutus (Mar 7, 2011)

Greenbeard: "Democrats = bad" and "government = bad" isn't quite the sophisticated argument you seem to think it is.

Brutus: Jefferson thought it was the most sophisticated idea in human history. Why don't you even after having seen the 20th century??


----------



## Brutus (Apr 13, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > For me, it is that it assumes free market solutions won't work without being able to explain why. My own view is that they lack the IQ to do so.
> ...




an insurance exchange is not a free capitalist market because it is mandated and managed by the government! Is that really over your head?


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 14, 2011)

johnrocks said:


> We have not had free enterprise;especially regarding health-care /health insurance; in decades.
> 
> Want to reduce costs; reduce government intervention;not only at the Federal level but at the State level too, get third parties out of paying everything from a paper cut to brain surgery; have insurance for the major stuff;like the brain surgery;pay for the paper cut yourself, separate employment from insurance; have insurance that is individual and portable..



Getting insurance out of the employers hands would be the best thing we could possibly do.  The problem is that without mandating catastrophic coverage, or as it used to be called, major medical, too many would go without insurance, and that would just cause bigger problems.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 14, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Greenbeard: "Democrats = bad" and "government = bad" isn't quite the sophisticated argument you seem to think it is.
> 
> Brutus: Jefferson thought it was the most sophisticated idea in human history. Why don't you even after having seen the 20th century??



I just want to know which country in this world of ours offers a great standard of living with such limited government.


----------



## editec (Apr 14, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.


 
That's your deep understanding of the problem, is it? That you sense that its socialist?

My problem with the Obama HC plan is that it does nothing to decrease the overall costs of HC.

Additionally it serves as a handmaiden to the private HC insurers by forcing people to buy HC insurance.

Its smacks of FASCISM far as I can tell.


And in case you still haven't figured this out, yet, FASCISM is a form of socialism that designed to benefit the investment class.

It was the invention of a cat named MUSSOLINI, who described Fascism as CORPORATISM.

So you and I ARE on the same page, but for different reasons.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 14, 2011)

Private insurance companies would be loved if Democrats would let them compete


----------



## Brutus (Apr 14, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard: "Democrats = bad" and "government = bad" isn't quite the sophisticated argument you seem to think it is.
> ...



The USA has the most freedom or limited government and the highest standard of living. Got it now?


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 14, 2011)

Brutus said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



You keep telling us that we have a socialist government and we are becoming a nanny state with a low standard of living.  Now you are changing your mind?  Which is it? 

I completely understand wanting to somewhat reduce government spending, but your idea, from what I have gathered based on your posts, is to completely dismantle the federal government other than a few basics, leaving the rest up to the individual states.  Sorry, but I don't see that as a realistic way to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of Americans.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 18, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Our founding fathers did not see the problem of healthcare costs breaking the average American.



of course you've missed the point as usual. Americans can't afford health care for the same reason the Red Chinese could not afford food: the government regulated the free market!! 

Now government regulation is much reduced and in China and no one is starving to death. Please repeat that 1000 times until it sinks in. Do you want to be a liberal all your life?


----------



## Brutus (Apr 18, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> You keep telling us that we have a socialist government and we are becoming a nanny state with a low standard of living.  Now you are changing your mind?  Which is it?




dear I think all agree that the more European style  socialism we have the more our standard of living will drop to theirs.



auditor0007 said:


> I completely understand wanting to somewhat reduce government spending, but your idea, from what I have gathered based on your posts, is to completely dismantle the federal government other than a few basics, leaving the rest up to the individual states.  Sorry, but I don't see that as a realistic way to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of Americans.



but do you have a reason to feel government is good when America is founded on the idea of freedom and liberty from government?? It will not even occur to a liberal to have a reason will it?? Liberalism is about feeling, not thinking. Sadly, liberalism means: low IQ


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 18, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Our founding fathers did not see the problem of healthcare costs breaking the average American.
> ...



The Chinese example is a bit extreme and ignores the theory behind using big government to bribe American farmers to use or not use their land.

.....which unregulated country do we have to look to for the shining example of healthcare?


----------



## Brutus (Apr 19, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:
			
		

> The Chinese example is a bit extreme



too stupid!!! Its like saying east/west German is too extreme or Cuba/FLA is too extreme!!!





			
				Toronado3800 said:
			
		

> and ignores the theory behind using big government to bribe American farmers to use or not use their land.



What?????????



			
				Toronado3800 said:
			
		

> .....which unregulated country do we have to look to for the shining example of healthcare?




too stupid!! the USA has the least regulation and the most wealth!!


----------



## Wiseacre (Apr 21, 2011)

The single biggest problem with ObamaCare is that it uses price controls in an attempt to hold down costs.   Providers are already not accepting new Medicare patients, who's going to treat those 30 million new people who are going to be covered.   If you reduce costs even further, to the tune of $500 billion, the only way he can do that is lower price controls, way lower.   So we'll have an extreme shortage or they'll have to raise those prices which means it's going to cost more than he said it would.   The budget gets busted or people don't get care.   

Bottom line  -  we're being lied to.   There is no way ObamaCare can work as advertised.    Either it's going to cost way more or the access to health care is going to take a huge hit.   Probably both.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 21, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Brutus, think harder. WWII left the rest of the world in shambles. Thanks to both a good system and in large part to GEOGRAPHIC ISOLATION from Germany and Japan our country was not the battleground which needed reconstruction.

Do you know anyone who owns acreage? Agricultural Subsidies | Downsizing the Federal Government

Lord Brutus. Would you care to be spoon fed some more?

Old healthcare system: socialist, everyone got it even if you showed up at the hospital broke. Not everyone paid. 

New system over simplified: everyone is required to have insurance. Everyone will get treated, everyone will pay.

Now think, if the USA has the least regulated economy in the world I will yell FCC FDA FDIC a whoke bunch of other letter agencies and the patent office at you. Even in the good ol days there was big government buying Indian lands from falling European countries and giving it away.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 22, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> The Chinese example is a bit extreme



too stupid!!! Its like saying east/west German is too extreme or Cuba/FLA is too extreme!!!


What?????????



			
				Toronado3800 said:
			
		

> .....which unregulated country do we have to look to for the shining example of healthcare?




too stupid!! the USA has the least regulation and the most wealth!![/QUOTE]


			
				Toronado3800 said:
			
		

> Brutus, think harder. WWII left the rest of the world in shambles. Thanks to both a good system and in large part to GEOGRAPHIC ISOLATION from Germany and Japan our country was not the battleground which needed reconstruction.



too stupid!! Japan and Germany would have passed us long ago, even after rebuilding, if they had kept growing!!! See why we are positive a liberal will have alow IQ!!



			
				Toronado3800 said:
			
		

> Lord Brutus. Would you care to be spoon fed some more?



when did you start???????????



			
				Toronado3800 said:
			
		

> Old healthcare system: socialist, everyone got it even if you showed up at the hospital broke. Not everyone paid.
> New system over simplified: everyone is required to have insurance. Everyone will get treated, everyone will pay.



too stupid by 1000. BO just put an additional 20 million on Medicaid!!!!!!! 



			
				Toronado3800 said:
			
		

> Now think, if the USA has the least regulated economy in the world I will yell FCC FDA FDIC a whoke bunch of other letter agencies and the patent office at you. Even in the good ol days there was big government buying Indian lands from falling European countries and giving it away.



too stupid!!!!! least does not mean , none!!!!!!!!!!!!  Do you see why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ??


----------



## jillian (Apr 22, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> its UNconstitutionl



No. It's not. But feel free to provide the caselaw you're relying on that makes you think it is.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 22, 2011)

jillian said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > its UNconstitutionl
> ...



It s obviously unconstitutional given that the Constitution does not empower the Fed to control medical care or to force us to buy insurance


----------



## Brutus (Apr 23, 2011)

Heraclitus said:


> The constitution doesn't empower the federal government to involve itself in economics. Since the late 1880s, the governemnt has been passing laws regulating the American economy, without even bothering itself with passing an amendment to the constitution. The only thing government should be able to do in a free-market is to tax, only so it can continue to exist and function in ways granted to it. But when government begins to pass laws without any ground to do so, the citizen and the state both have rights to say they are unconstitutional, and nullify the law. Just as during the Civil War when Lincoln said that it was illegal for a state to secede, therefore the Confederate states never left, it is illegal for government to regulate economy, because they never gave themselves the right to do so. So when you say, provide the law that says its unconstitutional, well, why don't you provide me the law that says it is constitutional for government to regulate the economy.



That is all very true. The Constitution does however have the Commerce Clause, but that was merely intended to settle disputes between states or to smooth trade between states or between the US and foreign countries.

Having a low IQ makes the liberal think of government in Santa Claus like terms. They imagine they can tell the government what they want, and it then can provide it. How can you fight such perfect ignorance?

Teaching them that they can get more of what they want from free enterprise would require of them intellect which they just don't have.


----------



## nraforlife (Apr 24, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance. .................



The insurance industry is the root cause of unaffordable healthcare. What we are calling 'insurance' is simply a middleman who adds a huge non-value added markup to every medical proccedure. Imagine what our auto 'insurance' bills would be if we expected them to pay for oil changes and tire rotations.......a Grand a month to 'insure' an econobox with an oil change billed at $100???????

The purpose of insurance is to pool large but relatively rare risk, NOT to pay ordinary predictable expenses.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 24, 2011)

Too stupid!!! Intelligent people love insurance companies. The only problem with them is that liberals made it illegal for them to compete. Ask your parents to explain to you what for example cars would be like if there was no competion.


----------



## nraforlife (Apr 25, 2011)

The insurance industry is the root cause of unaffordable healthcare. What we are calling 'insurance' is simply a middleman who adds a huge non-value added markup to every medical proccedure. Imagine what our auto 'insurance' bills would be if we expected them to pay for oil changes and tire rotations.......a Grand a month to 'insure' an econobox with an oil change billed at $100???????

The purpose of insurance is to pool large but relatively rare risk, NOT to pay ordinary predictable expenses.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 25, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



You're kidding.

It's a huge fucking gift to free enterprise. And on the back end..it sets up rules that say;

Keep your promises.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 26, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...



actually if it was a gift to free enterprise it would be free enterprise: competition, published prices, consumers spending their own money, etc!! A liberal lacks the IQ to grasp the importance of even these   basics.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 26, 2011)

nraforlife said:


> The insurance industry is the root cause of unaffordable healthcare.



wrong wrong wrong!!! Liberalism is the root cause because it made competition in health insurance illegal.

see why we are 100% positive that the liberal will have a low IQ??


----------



## Brutus (Apr 26, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance.



too stupid!!! the liberals made competition illegal in health insurance.

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competition and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it? We have to hope the liberal will develop the IQ to understand such basic things. If not, our democracy is doomed


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 26, 2011)

Brutus said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance.
> ...



Brutus my man, I cringe when we agree because you sound like such an angry fool stating your dislike for states to regulate health insurance inside their "semi-sovereign" borders.  For the life of me I the Republican/Conservative idea of state's rights to regulate insurance and everything else amazes me.

You are arguing against some perceived idea of "liberal".  If you drop that random hatred you have some pretty decent ideas. 

Your support of "anti-trust" and "anti-state" laws prove you have free thought and just don't toe some kind of ultra capitalist party line.  Go with it my friend, drop the hatred.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 26, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



it is our moral duty to hate liberals. If you disagree please try to say why?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 26, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



That is just odd.  Especially from someone with such liberal anti-state views on healthcare competition.  Views I agree with BTW.  Sounds like some kind of weird religious cult chant.

As I have been pointing out, the differences between liberals and conservatives in this country just aren't that extreme to be hating over.  

How can the average American who might love gun rights but be pro-choice hate liberals or conservatives?

How about a fella who loves his state's environmental laws AND hunts but supports welfare?  Who should he hate on?  

No one, no moral duty, no clear cut right and wrong in these cases.  Not Hitler and Stalin we are talking about here.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 27, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> As I have been pointing out, the differences between liberals and conservatives in this country just aren't that extreme to be hating over.




too stupid!!! Read "The Road to Serfdom." Obama has a long association with communism and will take us there if he can. He admits to being for single payer and had 2 communist parents. Do you think Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot admitted to their liberal end game in the beginning?

Obama can't destroy us as long as the ghost of Jefferson reigns over this country!!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 27, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > As I have been pointing out, the differences between liberals and conservatives in this country just aren't that extreme to be hating over.
> ...



Brutus, your replies seem simple and repetitive with the use of "stupid" so often.  Take a breath, you doing ok?

I am sure the members of the Soviet Communist Party admitted they were communists from the beginning. Similar with the rest of the commies. Interesting view on Hitler.

Watch the use of the term "liberal" on non Americans. To be simple, what would Mao's liberal interpretation of our Constitution have to do with anything?


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 27, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ&feature=relmfu]YouTube - Ronald Reagan speaks out on Socialized Medicine - Audio[/ame]


----------



## nraforlife (Apr 28, 2011)

The insurance industry is the root cause of unaffordable healthcare. What we are calling 'insurance' is simply a middleman who adds a huge non-value added markup to every medical proccedure. Imagine what our auto 'insurance' bills would be if we expected them to pay for oil changes and tire rotations.......a Grand a month to 'insure' an econobox with an oil change billed at $100???????

The purpose of insurance is to pool large but relatively rare risk, NOT to pay ordinary predictable expenses.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 28, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> I am sure the members of the Soviet Communist Party admitted they were communists from the beginning. Similar with the rest of the commies. Interesting view on Hitler.




too stupid!!! BO admitted to being a commie when he voted to the left of Bernie Sanders



Toronado3800 said:


> Watch the use of the term "liberal" on non Americans. To be simple, what would Mao's liberal interpretation of our Constitution have to do with anything?



too stupid!! to a liberal the Constitution means nothing. It is a living document and so changes to meet a liberals commie objectives. THis is how they found the right to abortion in the Constitution and how they stopped a kid from growing pot for personal use on grounds that it was, somehow,  interstate commerce. 

The liberals could not get an amendment or law so they just found what they wanted in the Constitution. Its subversion or treason, just like when they spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 28, 2011)

nraforlife said:


> The insurance industry is the root cause of unaffordable healthcare.



of course that is perfectly stupid and liberal given that liberals made competition in health insurance illegal.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 28, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> YouTube - Ronald Reagan speaks out on Socialized Medicine - Audio




you have to love Reagan!!!Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech: 

Reagan quoting Norman Thomas

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. He went on to say: I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 28, 2011)

The biggest problem is that it does not go far enough

It does not control costs
Does not increase competition
Does not include a public option


----------



## Brutus (Apr 28, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> The biggest problem is that it does not go far enough
> 
> It does not control costs
> Does not increase competition
> Does not include a public option



of course, perfectly stupid and liberal!! Capitalism does all those things!! liberal socialism kills or impoverishes. Red China just switched to capitalism and instantly saved 10's of millions from liberal en masse starvation thanks to capitalist cost controls and competition. Is that really over your head


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem is that it does not go far enough
> ...



You have a problem with competition in healthcare?


You Commie!


----------



## Brutus (Apr 28, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



too stupid!!!!conservative intellectuals universally support capitalist competition in health care as the way to raise quality and lower costs

A liberal simple lacks the IQ to understand capitalism


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



No they don't

They suck up to the insurance companies and protected them from the competition of the Govt option.  They also sold out to Big Pharmacy and proected them from competition in Medicare part D


----------



## Brutus (Apr 28, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> No they don't
> 
> They suck up to the insurance companies and protected them from the competition of the Govt option.




a public option would be wonderful as long as the government relied 100% on premiums to pay for any health care, rather than on its unlimited taxing authority. THey of course would never agree to that in a million years. The idea that the liberal socialists who run the Post office, motor vehicle departments, and who ran the USSR and Red China could do anything efficiently and competitively is absurd!

A liberal will simply lack the IQ to understand capitalism.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > No they don't
> ...



How naive..

Public option was always to be paid for by premiums.  Lower overhead, lower pay for executives, no advertising budget........lower premiums and more competition

republicans sold out to the insurance companies...as always


----------



## Brutus (Apr 28, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



too stupid!! 
1) no one believed it would pay for itself, all government costs far more than planned 

2) it was a trojan horse for socialism

3) it libturds wanted competition they would let insurance companies compete with each other

4)  if government competition  was anything but purely idiotic we'd have a public option for food, clothing, and shelter

See why we are 100 %positive the liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism??


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 29, 2011)

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



Nice talking points...

Did the insurance lobby give them to you?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 29, 2011)

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



Brutus my friend, your posts are rather mean and insulting. Having the effect of limiting bipartisan debate and making folks turn off to any points you have.

It is good however to note you are not Catholic and probably not practicing any religion. Many folks who classify themselves as conservative do so partially for religious reasons.

How do I know you are not a follower of a Catholic like god or any god I am familiar with? You are so mean and insulting St Peter wouod turn you away.  Heck, if I were a practicing Catholic I would be nicer then u are being just so I wouldnt have to confess my sins every week. That many Hail Marys woukd get booring.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 29, 2011)

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem is that it does not go far enough
> ...



With the virtually unregulated capitalist hot rod market I have been unable to afford an aftermarket multi port injection system for twenty years.  Oh well, maybe by the time I really need one I will be able to both keep my house and afford a kidney.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 29, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> With the virtually unregulated capitalist hot rod market I have been unable to afford



too stupid and perfectly liberal!! UNREGULATED???????
unregulated??????????????????
Medicaid medicaid schip VA, insurance regulation, MD unions(AMA)
COBRA. See why we are positve the liberal is very very slow!!!


Capitalism creates the maximum pressure to lower price and increase quality!! America has more capitalism than anywhere and is richer than anywhere. China just did the experiment and instantly saved 20 million from slow liberal en masse starvation.

1+1=2 got it now??????????


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 29, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > With the virtually unregulated capitalist hot rod market I have been unable to afford
> ...


Calm down.

U misunderstood. 

With the unregulated market on performance multi port injection systems the price has not gone down in twenty years.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 29, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> The biggest problem is that it does not go far enough
> 
> It does not control costs


hummm, I seem to remember ...yes, lets see; bend the cost curve...?




> Does not increase competition



I agree.



> Does not include a public option


----------



## Brutus (Apr 29, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> With the unregulated market on performance multi port injection systems the price has not gone down in twenty years.



Too stupid !!!Of course if true it would be a great invitation to new competitors.Thats the wonderful thing about freedom. Also, you have to consider that some capitialists compete with their would-be competitors before they actually are competitiors.


----------



## rdean (Apr 29, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



Adding a profit motive to helping sick people is incredibly stupid.  Are all right wingers this dumb?  After watching these town halls, I guess not.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 29, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> With the unregulated market on performance multi port injection systems the price has not gone down in twenty years.



of course if true 1)perfect invitation to competitors 2) most prices go up because of liberal inflation and more features  3) smart capitalists compete with would-be competitors so they don't become actual competitions.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 29, 2011)

rdean said:


> Adding a profit motive to helping sick people is incredibly stupid.



1) 120 million died in USSR and Red China because no one had profit incentive to do anything. 

2) see how many sign up to be MD's without big profit motive

3) without profits as guide posts you have no idea where to invest limited resources so you must guess as they did in USSR and Red China.


See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 29, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > With the unregulated market on performance multi port injection systems the price has not gone down in twenty years.
> ...



Sorry for the overly complicated example of the technology driven field. Thought you could see the similarities to the medical industry.

Oh, so good capitalists eliminate competition to keep prices up. So u say we must eliminate pure capitalism with some leftist style controls I see or face runaway costs.

Seriously buddy. Why say all the mean hatefull things calling everyone stupid? You doing ok? Any problems in your personal life?

Did you ever think about reading up on proper discussion techniques? Debating and persuasion after you master that.


----------



## rdean (Apr 29, 2011)

Brutus said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Adding a profit motive to helping sick people is incredibly stupid.
> ...



I'm "awed" at Republican logic and you are the complete package.  Dumb, delusional, silly, ignorant and just plain weird all rolled up together.  And some people think those without education have no imagination.  Well, see how wrong they are?  Delusion is definitely a form of imagination and you have both in "spades".  Bravo!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 29, 2011)

rdean said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Do you think there is anything I can say to help him along? 

The fellow really doesnt even toe a pure open market line, he comes up loving anti trust laws and talking of how free market capitalists eliminate competition.

He'd be ok but he just likes to spout that random hate talk which makes him look silly, stupid, juvenile or mean.


----------



## TheGutterMaster (Apr 30, 2011)

Why does everyone call this bill Obamacare? The only thing it regulates is health private health insurance. What about cutting administrative costs and getting rid of for-profit motives?

And how is this unconstitutional when it gives you a TAX DEDUCTION for not buying health insurance? There is a penalty for not getting insurance, but its not a mandate. Its a TAX and you receive a tax deduction for not buying insurance.

The word "mandate" isnt even mentioned in the bill. Its called "collective responsibility" because it doesnt actually force people to get insurance. 

The fact that just two judges ruled it unconstitutional doesnt make its unconstitutionality official. 

My friends, come on? Why cant we get a single payer system?


----------



## editec (Apr 30, 2011)

In my opinion the biggest problem with it is that it doesn't solve the problem.

Neither does market forces.

I'm not really sure there is a solution to this problem.

Socialism really doesn't offer a solution and neither does capitalism.


----------



## Chris (Apr 30, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



Huh?

Healthcare reform requires that everyone buy insurance from health care corporations.

It is basically the same program the Republicans introduced in the 1990's.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 30, 2011)

Heraclitus said:


> The bill is called Obamacare because it is the bill he basically made, with all of his promises. It is unconstitutional for government to get involved in economics, I've said this at least five times already, and yet people still ask how this bill is unconstitutional. Healthcare is not the governments issue, it is a private business to be regulated by the economy. So this bill basically taxes you for not buying something, that they shouldn't even be messing with.



I sort of agree. I also support an ammendment if necessary to make national healthcare legal.

Problem is the pecident system. Lastly Ashcroft liberally decided he Washington had the power to tell folks in Oregon the had to abide by his medical care decisions.

Before that a number of Presidents, most recently Bush and Reagan, liberally decided they had the right to effectively declare war.

And first, we have had a socialized healthcare system. Show up at the hospital broke with an appendix problem in 1960 and they treat you. Same in 1970, 1980, 1990 and through today.  Only difference now is we are paying for this right to treatment before hand with forced national care not afterwards.

Should eliminate some of the taking advantage of the system.

Honesly I believe the healthcare math problem snuck up on folks who should have seen this coming soon as the medical profession became trustworthy and stopped bleeding folks to death.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 30, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Sorry for the overly complicated example of the technology driven field. Thought you could see the similarities to the medical industry.



too stupid!!! A cat scan costs $1200 here and $200 in Japan! If we had Republican capitalist competition we could cut costs maybe 80%



Toronado3800 said:


> Oh, so good capitalists eliminate competition to keep prices up.



too stupid! if you eliminate competition you only encourage new competition. The only way to win consistently is to have the best product at the lowest price. Is that really over your head.



Toronado3800 said:


> So u say we must eliminate pure capitalism with some leftist style controls I see or face runaway costs.



too stupid!! pure capitalism controls cost perfectly as consumers shop among competitors for the lowest cost.


----------



## Brutus (Apr 30, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Only difference now is we are paying for this right to treatment before hand with forced national care not afterwards.



thats not true of course! BO and Democrats are mostly about welfare. He is immediately adding 30 million to Medicaid. They are not paying diddly, but hey its only 30 million people or $300 billion a year!


----------



## Brutus (Apr 30, 2011)

Chris said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...



too stupid and perfectly liberal:

1) BO just added 30 million to Medicaid. They pay nothing!!

2) there is no Republican capitalist competition in health insurance because liberals made interstate competition illegal!


----------



## Brutus (Apr 30, 2011)

Heraclitus said:


> It is unconstitutional for government to get involved in economics, I've said this at least five times already, and yet people still ask how this bill is unconstitutional.




 you mean it should be found to be unconstitutional and I agree with you 100%. Unfortunatly, the liberals think of the Constitution as living, i.e., changing to mean whatever they want it to mean. Sadly, our Founders forgot to protect us sufficiently from liberals, even though it is clear they thought they had protected us from them.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 30, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for the overly complicated example of the technology driven field. Thought you could see the similarities to the medical industry.
> ...



Stop changing lol.  You said anti trust laws were necessary. You said companies try to eliminate competition unless the government steps in. 

And for the love of god, at least buy a thersarus and get a different word than stupid.  Repeating it so often sounds.....


----------



## Brutus (Apr 30, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Stop changing lol.  You said anti trust laws were necessary. You said companies try to eliminate competition unless the government steps in.




of course you are a liar! If I said that you'd show the quote.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 30, 2011)

Remember when I started kidding you about loving them liberal anti trust laws? Was that in the stupid liberals post of yours?


----------



## Brutus (Apr 30, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Remember when I started kidding you about loving them liberal anti trust laws? Was that in the stupid liberals post of yours?



show the quote or admit to being a liar and a liberal


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 30, 2011)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-to-understand-capitalism-11.html#post3548546

The whole lot here about police enforcing capitalism and anti trust laws being necessary? You said it like three or four times.


----------



## Brutus (May 1, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-to-understand-capitalism-11.html#post3548546
> 
> The whole lot here about police enforcing capitalism and anti trust laws being necessary? You said it like three or four times.




and????????????


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 2, 2011)

Are you confused because I provided a link to you saying anti-trust/monopoly laws are important enough to use police to enforce?  Fine, here are some quotes from Brutus.



Brutus said:


> Aha! Bluto is a BIG GOVERNMENT CON$ervative who wants his BIG GOVERNMENT to impose Capitalism. No surprise there!!!
> 
> 
> Brutus: of course capitalism must always be imposed with policemen courts, government contracts, anti-trust laws, etc!! sorry!!





Brutus said:


> hoodwink83 said:
> 
> 
> > How would you propose we create more granularity in the financial system without at least some degree of government intervention?
> ...





Brutus said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Can Capitalism be imposed?
> ...



So of course most everyone else, me, and apparently you believe although the Constitution does not expressly give Washington the power to eliminate monopolies it is necessary.  Guess the Sherman act is a pretty liberal interpretation of Section 8.

I agree with you btw.  Anti trust laws are very necessary, monopolies are an evil of economics of scale, a problem the founding fathers.  

Just like the healthcare problem is one they did not see coming while George Washington's doctor's were bleeding folks back to health.


----------



## Brutus (May 2, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> So of course most everyone else, me, and apparently you believe although the Constitution does not expressly give Washington the power to eliminate monopolies it is necessary.  Guess the Sherman act is a pretty liberal interpretation of Section 8.



monopolies are trivial as capitalism cures them automatically, but I suppose there is no harm breaking one up if ever there is a really harmful one. IBM broke up the GE monopoly, Microsoft  broke up the IBM monopoly, Google broke up the Microsoft monopoly. This is the cycle to expect. It is taught in business schools in fact. THe commerce clause is designed to facilitate interstate  and international trade so could be used as basis I'm sure.



Toronado3800 said:


> I agree with you btw.  Anti trust laws are very necessary, monopolies are an evil of economics of scale, a problem the founding fathers.



too stupid!!! there are no trusts or monopolies really thanks to capitalism. Socialism creates them



Toronado3800 said:


> Just like the healthcare problem is one they did not see coming while George Washington's doctor's were bleeding folks back to health.



too stupid you want a Federal health care trust. BO wants single payer.


----------



## Chris (May 6, 2011)

Heraclitus said:


> Yes, monopolies and trusts, and a lot of other economic issues we have are bad. I do think the government should have the power to be able to look out for the interests of the people by restricting all of these. But thats not what the Healthcare bill is, the Healthcare bill is encouraging something of a trust. By giving us socialized healthcare, they are passing the boundary of looking out for us, and going into lets look out for everyone. People who aren't paying into the system can crowd into the medical offices. People taking advantage of an unconstitutional system, that is welfare and related programs, can push people who contribute to the country out of the office. Socialized healthcare isn't at all beneficial to the people who actually deserve it.



Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. 

But here's a question, "Who are the sick people that don't deserve healthcare?"


----------



## Brutus (May 7, 2011)

Heraclitus said:


> . I do think the government should have the power to be able to look out for the interests of the people



I'm sure Hitler Stalin and Mao would have agreed with such a vague statement. We need limited government and sharply defined government. That is what our Founders believed. Any looking  out for the people as regards economic matters should be limited to encouraging capitalism.

If for example a company develops a very coercive monopoly, then the government should encourage competition.


----------



## Brutus (May 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> [
> Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.




Yes, most things in Europe and Canada cost about the same as here.
Why is our health care 2-3 times more ? Because we have an inefficient socialist system with many competing overlaping soviet bureaucracies: Medicare, Mediciad, Scip, VA, obsene regulation of insurance.

European countries have less inefficient soviet monopolies without overlap and duplication etc so price in 2-3 times less than there.

This means that if we had capitalist health care here it would cost about half of Europe's health care.


----------



## Brutus (May 7, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Anti trust laws are very necessary, monopolies are an evil of economics of scale, a problem the founding fathers.



that of course is absurd. That is why you are so afraid to name the monopolies. There are none. Capitalism takes care of them. A monopoly becomes complacent, falls behind, and encourages new competition.

The big case recently was against IBM. Our sleeping liberal soviet bureaucrats were taking IBM to court while Microsoft was inventing the PC to destroy them.

Then our soviet liberals  then took Microsoft to court while the internet, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, At&T and Verzion were surrounding them.

Now you understand how capitalism works!


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 7, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance. Being American doesn't mean being able to make a buck no matter what the cost, but you can feel free to believe that.



Not true.

Now, once I disabuse you of your misunderstnding, I assume a logical person such as yourself will join those of us opposed to this fraudulent bill.

1. Nearly 40% of New Yorkers counted as "uninsured" actually have health security. They are eligible for existing government programs such as Medicaid and have failed to sign up. When they go to a hospital or clinic for care, they will be enrolled. New York runs ads, hands out brochures, and works with community organizations to inform families about these programs.

2. New Yorkers between 19 and 35 years of age are far more likely to be uninsured than older adults. One reason is that New York's insurance laws exploit the young. Young adults are compelled to pay the same "community-rated" price for a health plan as middle-aged people. That's unfair to young adults who need, on average, only $1,500 worth of health care a year.

3. The uninsured are largely newcomers to America, whether here legally or illegally. The UHF data show that 89% of New York's uninsured are foreign born. More people have moved to the U.S. over the last seven years than during any other seven year period in history. Nationwide, 49% of the uninsured have been in the country less than 6 years.
To many newcomers, health insurance is an unfamiliar notion.
'More Uninsured Are Among Ranks of the Employed' - July 9, 2008 - The New York Sun


And, let's not forget that 100% of those in America, citizens and otherwise, all have healthcare.

Again...100%.


Nor should one remain ignorant of the real motivation behind ObamaCare: expansion of the command-and-control type of economy:

4.	The federal government will dictate even the tiniest of details, right down to the wording in marketing brochures. As of 2014, health insurance companies will have to follow federal rules in how they market their plans.

a.	The standards developed by HHS must require that a plan meet marketing requirements. Those requirements are not spelled out, giving HHS free range. HHS could assert authority to regulate every aspect of marketing content of promotional materials; which forms of distribution can be used, and for which enrollees; the languages that must be used; and the size of the type font. 
Section 2715 of the Public Health Service Act, added by Section 1001.


----------



## Brutus (May 7, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance.



Actually our liberal soviet Democrats made competition in health insurace illegal. You see, when companies compete they do it by offering lower prices and better services.

Now you understand how freedom and capitalism works


----------



## jgarden (May 7, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.


*- anti-American

- does not rely on free enterprise

- the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise 

According to the 2011 CIA World Factbook, that notorious source of liberal propoganda, the life expectancy of the average Canadian (81.38 years) is 3.01 years longer than his/her American counterparts (76.37 years).

Does it make Canadians "anti-American" and/or "mentally challenged," that their public healthcare system cionsistently delivers better results, at a fraction of the cost - which afterall is exactly what "free enterprise" claims to provide! 

Does it make some US citizens, "anti-American" and/or "mentally challenged," that they would seek to look beyond their own borders and at least examine the benefits if a public healthcare system on its own merits - one that has been systematically "demonized" by vested-interests in their own country?  

If and when the American private sector can provide a healthcare system available to all citizens and comparable to Canadian health outcomes and costs - more power to them!  The fact that depite intense public debate, neither they nor their Republican "friends" have neen able to "delivered the goods" speaks volumes!

For "Brutus," real Americans must accept, as a matter of patriotic "faith," that conservative ideology provides all the answers - so why would anyone concern themselves, particularily with "troublesome" facts that might suggest otherwise?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html*


----------



## Chris (May 7, 2011)

Brutus said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Free enterprise has left 30+ million plus people without the ability to purchase adequate health insurance.
> ...



No, here's how capitalism works.

You elect George Bush president, then you create a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme and suck all the money out of the American economy. 

Then you get a bailout from the government and start the cycle all over again, all the while screaming "Socialist!" at anyone who tries to stop you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 7, 2011)

jgarden said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...



1. Do you understand that propaganda is designed to manipulate one's thinnking, so as to produce a particular outlook?
You may change your view when you realize what your statistics include.

Good...then you may understand how you have been manipulated when you consider the following:

the *United States of American has the greatest life span in the Western world*.

That is a reflection of the healthcare in the USA.
Healthcare. Medical care.

1. How to judge healthcare:

a) life expectancy: many people die for reasons that *cant be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder,* etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the *US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy*!

One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as *diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values.* It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that *Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.*

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Dave Petno | On Freedom

b) How about the result of* having food*? With so much food, so many choices (tell me about it), we Americans are eating ourselves to death: *obesity.*  Is this the fault of poor healthcare?

From a NYTimes article about Sicko, and Cuba:
Because they *dont have up-to-date cars*, they tend to have to exercise more by walking, he said. And they may not have a surfeit of food, which keeps them from problems like obesity, but theyre not starving, either.
Michael Moore - Cuba - Health Care - Medicine - Movies - Cannes - NYTimes.com

2. "If and when the American private sector can provide a healthcare system available to all..."
Well, celebrate!  Every single person in the United States has healthcare. Right now. Before ObamaCare.
Wise up.


3. "...comparable to Canadian health outcomes and costs -"

a. The following Universal Healthcare countries have higher out-of-pocket costs than the United States:
Out-of-pocket spending as a share of total expenditure on health, 1980-2000 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/53/22364122.pdf (table 4)
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, *Canadian, *Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either fundamental change or complete rebuilding.

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

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

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

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

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

I pay over 30K a year in health insurance premiums. One of my employees has lung cancer now. They have already run up over 100K in bills. And my carrier is the largest health insurance company in the country. To date, they have paid NOTHING. They have denied every bill. Why? They claim my employee is disabled because of her cancer and that she qualifies for Medicare and SS disability. And under the law they can claim whatever they want. Even the hospital where the biopsies and tests were done is filing appeals and taking the position that they should pay. Stall, delay, whatever they can do to try to not pay. We are seeing more and more of this and the doctors have told us the same.
Government health care is bad but what we have is not much better.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

Until Americans get their heads out of the sand and know that 60% of all health care dollars in America is spent on disease care for 5% of the population, and growing each year, the current scenario will get worse.
We have the best disease care in the world. We should as we devote little or no $$ to preventive medicine and primary health care. 
The kicker is 7 out of the top 8 diseases we treat with that 60% of all health care dollars ARE PREVENTABLE.
Most Americans are dumb asses. Someone else pays their health insurance premiums, they do not know how a business operates, never have run a business and the only thing they know about business or health insurance is  they carry a health insurance card in their wallet.
And one wonders why health care costs for the last 20 years have outpaced inflation by 5 to 1 each and every year.


----------



## Brutus (May 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> the only thing they know about business or health insurance is  they carry a health insurance card in their wallet.



true but more importantly Democrats want this so people will be dependent on government and vote for Democrats. Its naked subversion if not treason..

Saintly Republicans want capitalism and vouchers so people are shopping with their own money among competing companies. This would cut cost of health care by 60% at least. It would be a true Republican Jeffersonian miracle.


----------



## Brutus (May 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Government health care is bad but what we have is not much better.



what we have is government health care: medicaid, medicare, VA, Schip, obsence regulation of insurance and making competition illegal.
Saintly Republicans propose capitalism and freedom.


----------



## Brutus (May 8, 2011)

Brutus:  
It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.


jgarden:
According to the 2011 CIA World Factbook, that notorious source of liberal propoganda, the life expectancy of the average Canadian (81.38 years) is 3.01 years longer than his/her American counterparts (76.37 years). 

Brutus:
 that is childish, and everyone ought to know it  by now of course, life expectancy depends on many things other than medical care, like diet, exercise, gun violence, wars etc!!


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 8, 2011)

Brutus sir,we are better and more mature than to insult eachother's IQ. If for no other reason than doing so repeatedly makes one look foolish and creates partisanship.

If anything bring up the opinion you share with your liberal brothers and demand the end of state regulations so insurance companies can compete nationally


----------



## Brutus (May 8, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> If anything bring up the opinion you share with your liberal brothers and demand the end of state regulations so insurance companies can compete nationally




actually it is liberals who made health insurance competition illegal and Republicans who want to make it legal again.Health insurance has not been very good. This is because liberals made competition illegal!

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 9, 2011)

The single biggest problem with Obamacare is it exists.


----------



## sparky (May 9, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> I pay over 30K a year in health insurance premiums. One of my employees has lung cancer now. They have already run up over 100K in bills. And my carrier is the largest health insurance company in the country. To date, they have paid NOTHING. They have denied every bill. Why? They claim my employee is disabled because of her cancer and that she qualifies for Medicare and SS disability. And under the law they can claim whatever they want. Even the hospital where the biopsies and tests were done is filing appeals and taking the position that they should pay. Stall, delay, whatever they can do to try to not pay. We are seeing more and more of this and the doctors have told us the same.
> Government health care is bad but what we have is not much better.



i hear stories like this _all_ the time dawg

my impression is, most Americans just  can't identify a monopoly calling the _supply_ shots  from a capitalist system that pursues _demand_


----------



## sparky (May 9, 2011)




----------



## Brutus (May 9, 2011)

sparky said:


> my impression is, most Americans just  can't identify a monopoly calling the _supply_ shots  from a capitalist system that pursues _demand_



pure  gibberish. I'm sure you thought that meant something. Why not try again


----------



## Brutus (May 9, 2011)

Heraclitus said:


> Even if they do pay half per capita, keep in mind, they get what they pay for.



please keep in mind:

1) Americans pay more in part because they are about 35% richer than the Europeans

2) our health care system is badly screwed up more than any other sector of our economy because it is more controlled and regulated by the government than any other segment of our economy.


----------



## Zona (May 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



Wall street and the bankers are excellent examples of almost destroying this country. 

God bless.


----------



## Zona (May 9, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



and then what happened?


----------



## Brutus (May 9, 2011)

Zona said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...



you don't keep up; that is perfectly typical of a liberal. All agree it was liberal regulation that almost destroyed the country, not bankers. Hear it  from the mouth of the best liberal and conservative economists and from the pages of the best liberal and conservative nespapers:


"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding  interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages  of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > my impression is, most Americans just  can't identify a monopoly calling the _supply_ shots  from a capitalist system that pursues _demand_
> ...



Brutus sir,  he was making an implication you and other americans would not recognize the supply problems capitalism creates.

Here is an innocent one. Imagine if thanks to flooding the bean crop is poor this year. With demand the same prices can be expected to rise.  

Next year farmers are planning what to plant and everyone decides on beans since the mark up is so high.

Oops, everyone planted beans.  Prices on beans fall to nothing farmers go out of business.  No one eats next year.  Riots.

You undersrand right buddy even if you disagree?


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



Lets get more basic. Brutus, do you understand the FDIC and agree its existance is a good thing?


----------



## Brutus (May 9, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Next year farmers are planning what to plant and everyone decides on beans since the mark up is so high.
> Oops, everyone planted beans.  Prices on beans fall to nothing farmers go out of business.  No one eats next year.  Riots.



perfect example of brain dead liberalism, you and liberal bureaucrats  are  smart and can predict the future but dumb farmers who have been in the business for generations can't. Liberals have Nazi-like self-assurance about their own superiority so feel it is their duty to impose their will on others, Heil Hitler


"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."-Jefferson


----------



## AquaAthena (May 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



It is robbing those who are barely getting by, to pay for the medical expenses of those who will not or can not. This program also decreases the quality of care for ALL.  It is a Robin Hood solution that is unconstitutional and unfair.


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 9, 2011)

Brutus, 



> Lets get more basic. Brutus, do you understand the FDIC and agree its existence is a good thing?


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Next year farmers are planning what to plant and everyone decides on beans since the mark up is so high.
> ...



I CAN predict the future Brutus.  

Lets say a population used 1,000,000 bushels of wheat a decade ago.  The population increases three percent per year, so does the intake of wheat.  We NEED to have programs to insure this wheat is largely available.

If supply falls more than XX% then uh oh, riots in the street.  If it falls X% perhaps rice can pick up some of the slack.  Just can't let anything anything radical happen though or there could be a real socialist revolution.

Let's take a wear item we could all put off buying.  Cars.  I bet even though junked cars could be salvaged you can figure out how many new automobiles America will purchase next year within a few percentage points.

Disagree?


----------



## AmericanFirst (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > its UNconstitutionl
> ...


It is not debatable. The gov't. does not have the right to tell you you have to buy something.


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 11, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...



This so called reform program has done nothing but redistribute the wealth. under the guise of providing health care to all, all are required to have health care. So even if you can't afford it you still probably have to pay something.  A little of what everyone pays is allocated to pay for the folks who are already being subsidized through Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Housing and other assitance programs.


----------



## assbeef (May 11, 2011)

obamacare?
unconstitutional-period.
i will not comply.
fucking make me.


----------



## Brutus (May 11, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Sadly, the liberals hate America and so want the Constitution to be living and changing as they see fit. This means it is growing to mean anything they want it to mean, regardless of what it says.

If they can find the right to an abortion there they can find the right to make you buy insurance.


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 11, 2011)

assbeef said:


> obamacare?
> unconstitutional-period.
> i will not comply.
> fucking make me.



Its debateable philosophically.

The general cause is hospitals treat everyone.  Let them throw folks out on the street who cant pay when you show up with a gunshot wound and you'll have capitalism in healthcare.  Make me pay for Mary who show up at the hospital and cant pay and i want her to have to pay for healthcare every day she ever works at McDonalds.

I dont like compulsive health insurance because I like others but because I want everyone FORCED to pay for themselves.


----------



## Brutus (May 11, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Let them throw folks out on the street who cant pay when you show up with a gunshot wound and you'll have capitalism in healthcare.



but no one is proposing that of course! What conservative intellectuals propose is cutting the cost of health care by 60% with capitalism and increasing the ability to pay for it with capitalism.

If parents don't feed their children you don't say, thats fine the children cant pay for their own food; thats capitalism for you. Capitalism is an economic system only, it does not take care of all problems.


Also, it does no good to try to make people pay if they are on welfare and have no money or if you have a socialist health care system that can waste all the money there is. The USSR had higher workers participation than we do, but that does not mean people could pay for things. Liberal socialism makes things very expensive so fewer and fewer can afford them.


----------



## Jessica Blume (May 22, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



It's all unconstitutional, and not paid for, and once we print the money to do so, we won't get the health care anyway, because it will bankrupt our country.


----------



## Brutus (May 23, 2011)

toronado said:
			
		

> Let them throw folks out on the street who cant pay when you show up with a gunshot wound and you'll have capitalism in healthcare.



but no one is proposing that, of course! What conservative intellectuals propose is cutting the cost of health care by 60% with capitalism and increasing the ability to pay for it again with capitalism.

If parents don't feed their children you don't say, "thats fine the children cant pay for their own food; thats capitalism for you." Capitalism is an economic system only, it does not take care of all problems.


Also, it does no good to try to make people pay if they are on welfare and have no money or if you have a socialist health care system that can waste all the money there is. The USSR had higher workers participation than we do, but that does not mean people could pay for things. Liberal socialism makes things very expensive so fewer and fewer can afford them.


----------



## lehr (May 24, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



hillary healthcare advisor - vincente navarro is a leninist - lenin invented national healthcare just to register whole populations

obamacare has nothing to do with health !


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 24, 2011)

lehr said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...



Sir or madam, has the social security administration not already registered you with a national ID number?


----------



## TheGutterMaster (May 31, 2011)

Jessica Blume said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...



The government has put us through 2 wars, added $14 trillion to our debt and we are still here, and we aren't experiencing "hyperinflation."

But now that the government wants to invest on something as important as health insurance for average people, it's "too much?"

Are you kidding me? We can afford 2 wars but not better healthcare?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 2, 2011)

TheGutterMaster said:


> Are you kidding me? We can afford 2 wars but not better healthcare?



You don't seem to understand at all because you are a liberal? All the governemnt does is tax you to pay for health care so it is 100% impossible for you to get more or better care that way.

In fact, because they will be playing with your money, not theirs, you will be guaranteed 200% to get worse care or liberal care.

Also, because the government will be creating a liberal government monopoly with no competition you will get still worse care by 300%. 

Liberalism is a lose lose lose situation and so should be make illegal as our Founders intended


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 5, 2011)

Brutus said:


> TheGutterMaster said:
> 
> 
> > Are you kidding me? We can afford 2 wars but not better healthcare?
> ...



Brutus, calm down! This is not that different than before except you will be penalized if you do not carry health insurance. 

The penalty is a math trick to keep middle class folks from "cheating the system" by not carrying health in surance when they are young and think they are healthy.  It seemed like a win win, cheat Brutus cheat Brutus system for them.  1 they were not paying for health insurance. 2 if they did get sick or have an accident big Eisenhower era government would step in and make the hospital take care of them.  Worse come to worse and they do get stuck with a bill? Pay it off ten bucks a month forever or declare bankruptcy and poof, poor Brutus takes care of them.

If the billwas purely that simple would you support it?


----------



## Skynet (Jun 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds
> It is not debatable. The gov't. does not have the right to tell you you have to buy something.



if you read the ruling from the judges who has said the law is constitutional its actually quite interesting. they have said that health care is not a product one chooses to use or not, as every american at some point will use the services of a health care provider. due to this fact, and the fact the health care crosses state lines, the courts ruled that the government has the authority to regulate this market under the commerce clause. 

i think a simple fix to this entire debate over the individual mandate could be put into the law and that is a simple exclusion waiver. if an individual does not want to purchase health care from a provider, they must sign a simple waiver, but by signing that waiver they revoke the right to receive any treatment at any time from any doctor without paying for those services in advance, this would include emergency and life saving services provided by EMT's and Emergency Rooms. Thus if you were in a car accident. or had a heart attack or stroke and were rushed to the hospital and did not have coverage you would be left to suffer until it was determined that you could pay for those services. that is the other side of this argument that no one ever talks about. is this a fair trade off if you oppose the mandate?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Skynet said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds
> ...



1) a state mandate, like in MA, is fine because a state can regulate commerce

2) on Federal level it is a stupid socialist inefficient liberal bureaucratic monopoly. 

3) on Federal level it is 100% unconstitutional because Commerce Clause is only suppose to settle significant trade disputes between states or between states and other countries. If a Federal mandate was legal in America then anything could be legal and America could be a communist country, not a free country as our Founders intended.


----------



## Skynet (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



the fed has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since health care crosses state lines this falls within the guidelines.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> The penalty is a math trick to keep middle class folks from "cheating the system" by not carrying health insurance




Too bad you're not a real American. The mandate gives the Feds 
the power to do anything they want next, while the Founders gave the Feds only specific enumerated powers because the Feds were thought to be evil usurpers.

If this is too conceptually complex for you please explain where so I can help you further.
Thanks


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Skynet said:


> the fed has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since health care crosses state lines this falls within the guidelines.




it seems you don't know the Commerce Clause at all. It only gives power to regulate significant trade disputes between states because under the Articles of Confederation each state had their own rules and so often but tariffs on goods from other states. Got it now??

It does not mean they can regulated anything they want. That should be common sense given that we are a free country,i.e., free from government. It is 100% amazing how little a liberal will know about the basics of his own country. Actually that is the definition of a liberal.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Are you kidding me? We can afford 2 wars but not better healthcare?



You don't seem to understand at all because you are a liberal? All the governemnt does is tax you to pay for health care so it is 100% impossible for you to get more or better care that way.

In fact, because they will be playing with your money, not theirs, you will be guaranteed 200% to get worse care or liberal care.

Also, because the government will be creating a liberal government monopoly with no competition you will get still worse care by 300%. 

Liberalism is a lose lose lose situation and so should be made illegal as our Founders intended[/QUOTE]


----------



## Skynet (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > the fed has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since health care crosses state lines this falls within the guidelines.
> ...



the commerce clause per the SCOTUS has interpreted the commerce clause to mean the regulation of good and services the cross state lines. hence any product or service that crosses state lines the fed has the power to regulate. so it does not matter what the good or service it, it can be regulated. 

the definition you are trying to follow is the original strict constructionalist version. what i am referring to is its current meaning based upon supreme court decisions

"The court held Congress may regulate a non-economic good, which is intrastate, if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce." from  Gonzales v. Raich

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has in the last two decades played a part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life. The Commerce Clause has been the most widely interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales,


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Skynet said:


> the definition you are trying to follow is the original strict constructionalist version.



well if you dont follow the original meaning then you can follow any meaning and just be a liberal, but not a real American. 

The Court swears to uphold the Constitution not give it any liberal meaning they want. What could be more treasonous than liberalism?


----------



## Skynet (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > the definition you are trying to follow is the original strict constructionalist version.
> ...



thats what the court has ruled. so how is it not law? just because you disagree with it, doesnt make it false. there are many things i disagree with that the courts have done (especially in terms of campaign financing and lobbying) but that doesnt mean the laws are any less true.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Skynet said:


> thats what the court has ruled. so how is it not law?



what?? the Court can vote we should be Nazis or communists and so regulate any amount of commerce they want in any way they want, but that does not mean it is not anti American not in the Constitution and treasonous.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 9, 2011)

Skynet said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > Skynet said:
> ...




That is a bullshit argument.

I don't cross state lines when I drive across town to see my doctor.


----------



## Skynet (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > thats what the court has ruled. so how is it not law?
> ...



hahahahaha youre really stupid. 

the Supreme Court is the final word when it comes to all laws. if you dont like their rulings move!


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

boedicca said:


> That is a bullshit argument.
> 
> I don't cross state lines when I drive across town to see my doctor.



you are 100% correct and the Founders would agree 100%.  But, the liberals hate America and so need to interpret the Constitution in a Communist way.

They went so far as to say you can't grow pot for personal use because that would lower the demand for interstate shipments of pot.
If it affects interstate commerce they then claim they can regulate it. With that interpretation they can regulate anything and America is no longer America, just another liberal cess pool.


----------



## Skynet (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > That is a bullshit argument.
> ...



nope but if you go on vacation and get hurt in another state, they dont transport you back to your home doctor, they take you to the nearest facility. if you want to go see a specialist out of state, you cross state lines. in essence your argument is that if you cross state lines you automatically lose your health insurance, or it becomes null and void. so if you travel you would actually need to purchase a policy for each state that you travel to. great argument.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.


*Free enterprise?  Surely you jest.  

Healthcare prices are not established by the free market.  Insurance companies form networks forcing providers to accept the amount they are willing to pay.  If the provider chooses not to participate, they will give up a large part of their business.  Government, state and federal now pays more than 50% of our healthcare bills.  The government doesn't pay the providers prices.  They ignore the prices and pay according to their own schedule.

50% of Americans now get their private health insurance from non-profit organizations.  Most people get their health insurance through their employer.  They have little or no option in the choice of the company and often no option at all in choosing the plan.   According to a recent AMA study, employers are finding less competition in the group healthcare market.  In many rural areas, an employer may find he has only one choice to consider.

Patients have little or no choice when it comes to prescription drugs.  Doctors prescribe and the patient pay with little or no alternative.

62% of our hospitals are nonprofit serving the community not stockholders.

So just where is all this free enterprise?

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/compstudy_52006.pdf*


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Skynet said:


> nope but if you go on vacation and get hurt in another state, they dont transport you back to your home doctor, they take you to the nearest facility. if you want to go see a specialist out of state, you cross state lines. in essence your argument is that if you cross state lines you automatically lose your health insurance, or it becomes null and void. so if you travel you would actually need to purchase a policy for each state that you travel to. great argument.



this seems over your head. Yes some medical care is provided across state lines and some products were shipped across state lines in 1787 but this does mean the commerce clause should be used to socialize commerce.

The Commerce Clause was for when one state put a tarriff on goods coming into its state.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > The penalty is a math trick to keep middle class folks from "cheating the system" by not carrying health insurance
> ...



Brutus, my four year old niece knows how to convert people to her point of view with her nice words.

You on the other hand have the powers of Al Gore who if he were speaking in favor of the humane society would make ppl want a hunting season on puppies.

I will give you the Constitutionally questionable part.  

Too bad Ashcroft already widened the feds power over healthcare removing the Republican's podium to complain about it at the same time.

General welfare kicks in as well as the interstate part already mentioned.

Suppose that is the same ground which gave Reagan the right to declare war on Grenada or Bush Panama.  You just can not have a strict reading when you want and a loose reading when it disagrees with you.

More complex.  The four year old is learning that.

Curious, if federal districts 1 to 50, errr, states mandated health insurance would you support it?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Too bad Ashcroft already widened the feds power over healthcare removing the Republican's podium to complain about it at the same time.



Aschroft???????????? What????????????



Toronado3800 said:


> General welfare kicks in as well as the interstate part already mentioned.Suppose that is the same ground which gave Reagan the right to declare war on Grenada or Bush Panama.  You just can not have a strict reading when you want and a loose reading when it disagrees with you.



what?????????




Toronado3800 said:


> More complex.  The four year old is learning that.
> 
> Curious, if federal districts 1 to 50, errr, states mandated health insurance would you support it?



no idea what do you mean???????


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2011)

If the Supreme Court rules against the individual mandate, the only option left will be the public option.

Which would be great.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> If the Supreme Court rules against the individual mandate, the only option left will be the public option.
> 
> Which would be great.
> 
> Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.



Fact, Pittsburg has more cat scanners than all of Canada. We do 200% more knee replacements than Europe! We have 60% better breast cancer survival here than England. We hold 80% of all recent medical patents.

However,  it is very important to understand that our system is very expensive for 4 reasons:

1) we have a liberal welfare population that is very sickly

2) technologicially we are able to provide far more extensive care than is available in other countries

3) we are richer and so can afford more health care than in other countries

4)  our system is in some ways more socialistic than Europe in that we have several inefficient forms of  socialism, e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, VA, Schip, insurance regulation to make competition illegal, Medicare Advantage, Medicare supplements, prescription drug bill,(part D) etc.


The solution to our health care problems is capitalism, but since the liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism we can't be sure what will happen.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 9, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad Ashcroft already widened the feds power over healthcare removing the Republican's podium to complain about it at the same time.
> ...



Brutus, did I use cell phone slang or something confusing?  Or is the "what" exclamation a statement indicating you disagree?


----------



## Skynet (Jun 10, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > nope but if you go on vacation and get hurt in another state, they dont transport you back to your home doctor, they take you to the nearest facility. if you want to go see a specialist out of state, you cross state lines. in essence your argument is that if you cross state lines you automatically lose your health insurance, or it becomes null and void. so if you travel you would actually need to purchase a policy for each state that you travel to. great argument.
> ...



too bad you can't read either:

Article I, Section 8

Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To *regulate Commerce* with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

Clause 1 refers to taxes:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## Brutus (Jun 10, 2011)

Skynet said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > Skynet said:
> ...



no idea how that relates to our conversation?? Commerce Clause was designed to promote free trade among the states and with foreign countries. At one point England would not ship goods under Articles of Confederation to us because each state had different requirements and tariffs. Get it now?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 10, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



please try to make your point using good English. Why not read what you write before posting?


----------



## Skynet (Jun 10, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



it relates because it gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. as health care is considered commerce, it falls under their jurisdiction. you claimed the commerce clause was to regulate interstate tariffs, which is incorrect.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 10, 2011)

Skynet said:


> it relates because it gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. as health care is considered commerce, it falls under their jurisdiction. you claimed the commerce clause was to regulate interstate tariffs, which is incorrect.



if it gives them ability to regulate in general why not regulate that everything must cost 99 cents. You see, to be American you have to regulate as the Founders intended, not as Marx would have liked. Is this really over your head?


----------



## Skynet (Jun 10, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > it relates because it gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. as health care is considered commerce, it falls under their jurisdiction. you claimed the commerce clause was to regulate interstate tariffs, which is incorrect.
> ...



the fed doesnt regulate every single piece of commerce. it doesnt regulate the food grown and shipped within the same state. it doesn't regulate the corner boutique who only sells to walk in customers. it can though regulate merchandise they purchase in other states and ship in. you have really shown that do not understand the constitution at all. do you think the founders had the internet in mind when the drafted it? what about automobiles? what about airplanes? this is why the courts must interpret the constitution based on the world today. back when it was written there wasnt very much interstate commerce, as transportation was very limited and had high costs. thus most everything an individual needed was available locally. now we are national / global economy. this is the result of the capitalism. certain things are made or grown cheaper and easier in certain parts of the county, or world. the same can be said for health care. if you live in Florida but want to see a specialist in New York, you have now crossed state lines. the same HC providers and insurance companies operate in multiple states, thus their product crosses state lines. is this really that hard to understand?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 10, 2011)

Skynet said:


> the fed doesnt regulate every single piece of commerce. it doesnt regulate the food grown and shipped within the same state.



wrong wrong wrong!!!!! In the most famous recent case it held that it could stop a kid from growing pot for his own consumption because it would decrease demand for commercial pot and thus affect interstate commerce!  

It can easily regulated intrastate food as filthy liberal communists would want. This is why intellectual Republicans want to make liberalism illegal as our Founders intended.


----------



## Skynet (Jun 10, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > the fed doesnt regulate every single piece of commerce. it doesnt regulate the food grown and shipped within the same state.
> ...



your lack of evidence speak volumes. 

cause here was the ruling:

The court held Congress may regulate a* non-economic good*, which is intrastate, *if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce.*

although i disagree with the majority opinion and side with the dissenting opinion in this case. i still understand it.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 10, 2011)

Skynet said:


> back when it was written there wasnt very much interstate commerce,



actually there was tons and tons of interstate and international commerce. The Boston Tea Party was about international trade, for example. 

As I said  the Commerce Clause grew out of problems under the Articles of Confederation wherein most states had tarriffs against other states. THe Founders were Republicans for free trade.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 10, 2011)

Skynet said:


> your lack of evidence speak volumes.



lack of evidence about what exactly????


----------



## Skynet (Jun 10, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> > back when it was written there wasnt very much interstate commerce,
> ...



actually most of the founding fathers were federalists. 

and you are correct in the commerce clause grew out of the Articles, as each state had different agreements with other states, this was to set a single governing body to control and regulate that. 

im just curious, how have you shown that health care is not interstate commerce? because that seems to me that the major issue here and whether it falls under the commerce clause. which i have shown it does.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 10, 2011)

Skynet said:


> back when it was written there wasnt very much interstate commerce,



actually there was tons and tons of interstate and international commerce. The Boston Tea Party was about international trade, for example. 

As I said  the Commerce Clause grew out of problems under the Articles of Confederation wherein most states had tarriffs against other states. THe Founders were Republicans for free trade. A treasonous liberal reads the Clause any way he wants so it has no meaning.



Skynet said:


> actually most of the founding fathers were federalists.



far more importantly, Federalists who believed in free trade




Skynet said:


> and you are correct in the commerce clause grew out of the Articles, as each state had different agreements with other states, this was to set a single governing body to control and regulate that.
> 
> im just curious, how have you shown that health care is not interstate commerce?



it is interstate commerce but that does not mean it is subject to liberal communist regulation. THe commerce clause was designed to promote free trade , not liberal communism. 



Skynet said:


> because that seems to me that the major issue here and whether it falls under the commerce clause. which i have shown it does.



as I said the liberal communists found that one person growing pot for personal use affects interstate commerce by decreasing demand for interstate commercial pot and so is subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. To a treasonous liberal everything falls under the commerce clause so it means exactly what they want, not what the founders intended.


----------



## Yoda (Jun 10, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



Yes, but tell us how you really feel about it. 

That's the only problem with it? How about the fact that the American government only knows how to screw everything up in the first place?


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > If the Supreme Court rules against the individual mandate, the only option left will be the public option.
> ...



Fact

Capitalism caused the Great Depression.

Fact 

Capitalism caused the crash of 2008.

Fact

The French have the best healthcare system in the world and they live two years longer on average than we do. If you studied their system you would learn a lot.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2011)

Brutus said:


> It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.



I understand free enterprise in healthcare very well.

When my mother was dying of a stroke, the for profit hospital she was in dumped her into another hospital an hour away, because her supplemental insurance ran out.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2011)

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

The French Lesson In Health Care


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 11, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



You REALLY do not understand??? I am sorry.

Last decade John Ashcroft decided the good people of Oregon could not determine what end of life medical care they received.  

Under some strange religous banner about your body being a gift from god Republicans supported the power of the Federal government over this seemingly internal state matter.  

So by using Ashcroft to impose their views on Oregon Republicans lost a good amount of traction on the whole state's rights in healthcare matters issue.

Follow so far?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 11, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> So by using Ashcroft to impose their views on Oregon Republicans lost a good amount of traction on the whole state's rights in healthcare matters issue.
> 
> Follow so far?



I follow the healthcare debate very very closely and see no evidence whatsoever that Republicans lost traction because of Ashcroft on Oregon. Gee I wonder why you forgot to present your evidence?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 11, 2011)

Chris said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.
> ...



as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand that with Medicaid Medicare, VA, Schip, insurance regulation, etc etc there is no free enterprise in health care.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 11, 2011)

Chris said:


> In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th,



So sorry but the WHO ranking are pretty much meaningless

1) they are based in large part on financial fairness; this means that when compiled by a socialist organization( UN) a country with market incentives(USA) will be marketed down heavily, automatically!

2) Also, they don't take into account that Americans  are fat; so die sooner because of what they eat not because of the health care they get

3) also, infant mortality is higher here because of our particular liberal welfare drug culture, not because of our health care system

4) the WHO ranking don't take into account that drug companies give away drugs at reduced welfare prices to the top 37 countries because they are too poor to pay their fair share! And, they don't take into account that the USA had 80% of recent medical patents and does almost all  medical research!. This means that without the USA the  other countries would have no health care system at all, to speak of!!

5) lastly , the WHO ranking don't acknowledge that the inefficiency in our system is in large part due to several conflicting, inefficient, overlapping, socialist, liberal bureaucracies: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Schip! 


6) the who ranking don't take into account that we do 55% more knee implants or that breast and prostate cancer survival here is about 60% higher than in socialist Europe.

7) they don't take into account that Pittsburg has more cat scanners than all of Canada.

The solution is not to adopt socialism, which we already have in large part, but to adopt capitalism,  which we don't have at all, but which we know works for obvious reasons, which is of course why Red China just switched to it to instantly end centuries of liberal mass starvation!.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 11, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > So by using Ashcroft to impose their views on Oregon Republicans lost a good amount of traction on the whole state's rights in healthcare matters issue.
> ...



Oh. So you disagree with Ashcroft on that whole state's rights issue​?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 11, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



you must present the evidence or admit you can't before you are allowed to change the subject. Sorry!!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 11, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



There is not a study on it Brutus.  Just folks who support Ashcroft were against state's rights in that case which was against their beliefs.  Think them Republicans want to limit federal power and let folks in Oregon to get the medical care the good ppl of Oregon voted for?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 11, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Oh. So you disagree with Ashcroft on that whole state's rights issue​?



you must present the evidence or admit you can't before you are allowed to change the subject. Sorry


Toronado3800 said:


> There is not a study on it Brutus.



do you mean there is not evidence to support what you said??


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 11, 2011)

actions. Defenders of the Oregon law, including some people who personally oppose legalized physician-assisted suicide, have accused Ashcroft and the Bush Administration of hypocrisy. All five of Oregon&#8217;s House members have condemned Ashcroft&#8217;s action against the state. Ashcroft seems to support states&#8217; rights only when the states are exercising their rights in a manner that pleases him and the president. exercising their rights in a manner that pleases him and the president. Ashcroft insists that he is a strong advocate for states&#8217; rights but feels that.....
To Hang On or Let Go | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

There. Respected ppl picking on a hypocrit.  Think they will listen as loudly when Ashcroft or his party yells "states rights!"

Or think Ashcroft and his party members wanna give up their federal power over the right to die so badly?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 11, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> actions. Defenders of the Oregon law, including some people who personally oppose legalized physician-assisted suicide, have accused Ashcroft and the Bush Administration of hypocrisy. All five of Oregon&#8217;s House members have condemned Ashcroft&#8217;s action against the state. Ashcroft seems to support states&#8217; rights only when the states are exercising their rights in a manner that pleases him and the president. exercising their rights in a manner that pleases him and the president. Ashcroft insists that he is a strong advocate for states&#8217; rights but feels that.....
> To Hang On or Let Go | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> There. Respected ppl picking on a hypocrit.  Think they will listen as loudly when Ashcroft or his party yells "states rights!"
> ...



this is evidence that the Republican position on states rights as enumerated by the Constitution and established by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson is compromised or has " lost traction."?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 11, 2011)

Yup. A reminder to you Republicans have abandoned it when it does not suit them.  Think folks in Oregon have forgotten?  

Imagine this, you've voted on a single issue like abortion for thirty years and have had little done.  Then after a few decades you wisen up that you are being played and start voting on world views on the whole.

Sorta thing that is difficult to poll but you think it does not happen?


----------



## Brutus (Jun 11, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Yup. A reminder to you Republicans have abandoned it when it does not suit them.  Think folks in Oregon have forgotten?
> 
> Imagine this, you've voted on a single issue like abortion for thirty years and have had little done.  Then after a few decades you wisen up that you are being played and start voting on world views on the whole.
> 
> Sorta thing that is difficult to poll but you think it does not happen?



actually to Jefferson and Henry, State's Rights was never an absolute concept.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 11, 2011)

> Quote: Originally Posted by Toronado3800 General welfare kicks in as well as the interstate part already mentioned.Suppose that is the same ground which gave Reagan the right to declare war on Grenada or Bush Panama. You just can not have a strict reading when you want and a loose reading when it disagrees with you.



This is along the same lines of liberally reading the constitution when it suits you.  In this case it is two examples of Republican President's "right" to declare war.  

Or time to start making excuses that placing combat units who are firing weapons in foreign countries is not an act of war.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 13, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by Toronado3800 General welfare kicks in as well as the interstate part already mentioned.Suppose that is the same ground which gave Reagan the right to declare war on Grenada or Bush Panama. You just can not have a strict reading when you want and a loose reading when it disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if you have an objection to conservatism why not say what exactly it is and why you object.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 13, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad Ashcroft already widened the feds power over healthcare removing the Republican's podium to complain about it at the same time.
> ...



Ok then. Onto the last part you wanted more clarification on.  I was just curious if you supported hypothetical state laws mandading health insurance.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 13, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Ok then. Onto the last part you wanted more clarification on.  I was just curious if you supported hypothetical state laws mandading health insurance.



yes, states can do what they want. If you don't like it you can move.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 13, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote: Originally Posted by Toronado3800 General welfare kicks in as well as the interstate part already mentioned.Suppose that is the same ground which gave Reagan the right to declare war on Grenada or Bush Panama. You just can not have a strict reading when you want and a loose reading when it disagrees with you.
> ...



Conservatism is not what I was complaining about.  I was bringing up instances where folks suddenly became quite flexible with their reading of the Constitution when it suited them.  Which seems to be most of my life.  

SOOO, i figured since no one thought it was necessary to ammend the Constitution then why would it be necessary now.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 13, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> I was bringing up instances where folks suddenly became quite flexible with their reading of the Constitution when it suited them.



 why be so afraid to present your best example?????



Toronado3800 said:


> SOOO, i figured since no one thought it was necessary to ammend the Constitution then why would it be necessary now.



then?????? for what????? now????for what?????


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 13, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > I was bringing up instances where folks suddenly became quite flexible with their reading of the Constitution when it suited them.
> ...



Brutus my man.  Maybe read back a couple lines and refresh yourself with the discussion we were having.  There were examples mentioned.

I browse a few boards and sometimes it is difficult to keep the train of thought going.


----------



## Brutus (Jun 13, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



yes me too that is why each post must be 100% self contained


----------

