New York Senator Chuck Schumer, on Meet the Press, says there will likely be a public option in the Senate health reform bill, but there will be a provision for states to opt out. Schumer says they’re close to the 60 votes Democrats have said they need to move the bill forward.
“How does forced health care…make us a safer nation? …a better nation?”
It makes us healthier. Debate concluded.
But let’s look at the probabilities of you dying:
Heart Disease 1-in-5
Cancer 1-in-7
Stroke 1-in-23
Air Travel Accident 1-in-20,000
Flood 1-in-30,000
Tornado 1-in-60,000
And terrorism?
“…if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000…”
I’m going to tune it to Rush, so I can get the “real” truth..Like Death Panels and Oaths of Office being taken on the Korran
This isn’t a Dem-Repub thing with me Lefty. They are all in bed together when it comes to eroding our freedoms, our Constitution.
……………
This is true, the difference is that the right, fears control of business by the government, while the left fears control of the government by business.
I know I will hear it from K again but after working all night I need to get some sleep.
So, in the words of Karthiks I am going to “shoot and scoot”.
Have a good day K and Lefty.
1–This has nothing to do with the election.
2–We do not live in a democracy. We live in a representative Republic.
We elected representatives to enact healthcare.
3–National defense is priority one of our federal government. Without that we would have not lasted as a Republic as long as we have.
That’s a matter of opinion.
Many military actions have not been necessary.
And you seem to have accepted the gradual erosion of our liberties and freedoms.
Like torture, turning our money over to huge corporations, privatizing our voting,
Forced unnecessary defense spending not keep us free. It will not protect our borders. It only feeds the military industrial complex and grants them even more control over our government and ourl ives. I am not now nor will I ever be willing to give up any of our freedoms for security, OR DEFENSE CONTRACTS.
Only registered user allowed |
there will be a provision for states to opt out.
—-
I predict…no states will opt out.
Daddio Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 11:59 am
You are probably right Guido. I say that because there are probably provisions in the bill to punish states that choose to opt out. That is how the Feds get many states to go along with their agendas.
A public option will destroy the private insurance industry. That is why the liberals in Congress are pushing it so hard. Just listen to the words of Barney Frank.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“A public option will destroy the private insurance industry.”
I sure as hell hope so. Few industries are so richly deserving of absolute destruction. My only regret is that we’ll have fewer opportunities to throw insurance executives into prison.
Daddio Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
How about Rocky for dictator. You sure sound like that is the kind of America you would love to have.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“…the kind of America you would love to have.”
If you leave today it’ll be all blue skies and sunshine.
libpatriot Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Hee, hee!
jazmine Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
I guess, tickling them to death is out of the question? It’s just tickle torture….hahaha
Damn!
libpatriot Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Daddio could volunteer for it, and then he could tell us if it’s really torture or not….if we ever let him catch his breath.
jazmine Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Only long enough to tell us and not a second longer…
michael Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“I predict…no states will opt out.”
I sure as hell hope not! I’m not so optimistic though. I think that folks like Gov. Rick “Texas might have to secede from the union” Perry and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana would be more than happy to opt out of this “socialist, Marxist, fascist, evil” plot to provide all Americans with health care coverage!
October 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Nancy Pelosi was asked by a reporter where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to demand every American get health insurance. Her response–”Are you serious. Are you serious.”
Translated–Damn the Constitution. We are the all powerful elite. You serfs out in America, you do as we say or else.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
George Bush: “It’s just a piece of paper.”
My suggestion? Get yourself some Vicodin. Because this is just year one and you’re gonna have a whole lot more you won’t like coming straight at you.
Of course, you should feel free to secede if that’s what you want.
TDro319 Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“We are the all powerful elite. You serfs out in America, you do as we say or else.”
You’re confused, Daddio. That happened during the LAST eight years under the Bush administration.
vegasman Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Article. I.
Section. 8
The Constitution of the United States states.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Is this where in the Constitution says that the government can provide the U.S. citizens with health insurance, single-payer, public option.
libpatriot Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Vegasman, it could certainly be interpreted that way! And it’s certainly a less far-fetched interpretation than Daddio’s interpretation of Nancy Pelosi’s response.
But Daddio will try to say whatever he can to protect the elites in the insurance industry and corporations in general. Daddio’s side is the side of the elites, in truth.
Daddio Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 8:46 am
That is the general welfare of the United States. It doesn’t refer to forcing every American to buy into a health insurance plan. And it doesn’t refer to the government being our nanny or to the government forcing us to buy anything.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 8:52 am
OK Willy I’ll bite.
Prove to me that this so-called “Strong National Defense” contributes more to the general welfare of the United States than “forcing every American to buy into a health insurance plan”.
Daddio Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 8:58 am
It keeps us all safe or safer from our enemies. How does forced health care, or stiff fines if you don’t carry any, make us a safer nation? How does stiff fines for not carrying health insurance make us a better nation?
How does mandated health coverage make us a freer nation? How does fining someone for not buying health insurance keep us a free nation to make our own choices?
A woman can choose to kill her own baby in the womb as her free choice and free will but I cannot choose whether or not I want to have health care coverage? Where is the freedom for one to choose and not the other?
vegasman Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Daddio
You must not own a car, and walked everywhere you go or take public transportation. Because if own a car the government will force you to buy auto insurance.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:08 am
“It keeps us all safe or safer from our enemies”
Prove it.
“How does forced health care, or stiff fines if you don’t carry any, make us a better nation?”
Prove that so-called “Strong National Defense” makes us a better nation than “forced healthcare”.
You’re just saying those things as though they were obvious truths. Prove them.
OldLefty Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:16 am
““It keeps us all safe or safer from our enemies”
…………………
It sure keeps the fat wallets of the fat cats in the defense department safe.
michael Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Congress may do whatever is necessary and proper to fulfill its enumerated powers. To “provide for the general welfare” is one of Congress’ enumerated powers. Just because you don’t like universal health care doesn’t mean that it’s unconstitutional. When Pelosi said “Are you serious?” she was in disbelief that the media was giving this bogus argument the time of day.
John Galt Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Because if own a car the government will force you to buy auto insurance.
Only liability for the other driver. No one forces you to purchase insurance to protect your own vehicle.
provide for the general welfare
Daddio is right; this does not grant the government the ability to provide every need of every citizen.
Daddio Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Thanks John, but the liberal mind will not allow them to accept the fact that the Constitution does not give the government the power to force it’s citizens to buy health insurance.
My not wanting national health care Michael, has nothing to do with the fact that forcing me to buy some health care is blantantly unconstitutional.
And a strong national defense makes us a better nation by protecting our freedoms that we enjoy. Forced health care on Americans does not make us a better nation. It brings us to a more powerful centralized government who call all the shots.
OldLefty Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Daddio said,
“, but the liberal mind will not allow them to accept the fact that the Constitution does not give the government the power to force it’s citizens to buy health insurance.”
…………………………..
As opposed to the conservative mind that will never accept the fact that the constitution DOES give Congress the power, as it states in Article 1, sec 8:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
And the ”conservative mind” seems to be unable to grasp the difference between a “strong national defense”, and plundering the treasury in order to line the pockets of defense contractors.
Daddio Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I don’t know Lefty. The Constitution that I have says nothing about forcing all American citizens to buy health care or be fined a few thousand dollars. It is the same Constitution that says nothing about a woman’s right to kill her own baby. Or the constitution that does not give one the right to NOT be offended.
Daddio Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Where does it stop Lefty? Then they will have the power to take every cent we earn for our own welfare? They have the power to force us to take in other families into our homes and force us to care for them and feed them? They have the power to tell us we can no longer eat fried foods?
All in the name of “general welfare”?
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:42 am
“And a strong national defense makes us a better nation by protecting our freedoms that we enjoy”
Again,more axioms.
Where is your proof that the $$$ spent on “SND” actually worked? Where is your proof that those $$$ contributed more to “general welfare” than the Healthcare proposals?
OldLefty Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Well, Daddio,
How many times can I repeat, “…. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
It’s up to the people to decide what constitutes ” general welfare ”
Also YOUR constitution should speak of the penumbra of rights under the 9th amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Daddio Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:47 am
The proof is all around you Karthiks. Look at all the freedoms you enjoy.
A strong national defense brought down the Evil Empire. It beat back the evil forces of Hitler, Tojo, and Mussilini. A strong national defense looked the Soviets in the eye and made them back down during the Cuban missile crisis.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:50 am
“The proof is all around you Karthiks. Look at all the freedoms you enjoy. ”
Ehhh?
What an absurd proof!!!
You claim as an axiom that SND “protects freedom”.
And your proof is freedom exists!!!
How do you know the SUN didnt cause those freedoms and not your so-called SND?
OldLefty Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am
“Where does it stop Lefty? Then they will have the power to take every cent we earn for our own welfare?”
………….
They have been doing that for years….it’s just that the GOP ( and often the Democrats) redistributes wealth from the the bottom up.
They socialize the risks and losses while privatizing the profits.
They use our blood and treasure to open new markets, and line the pockets of mercenaries, while subsidizing multi national corporations, helping THEM to destroy local competitors.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am
“A strong national defense looked the Soviets in the eye and made them back down during the Cuban missile crisis”
The same “Strong National Defense” led us into the Vietnam disaster. The same “Strong National Defense” CREATED Osama, Saddam.
So SND creates monsters, then attacks them, and you put it on par with the Hitlers,Mussolinis etc?
OldLefty Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:56 am
“A strong national defense brought down the Evil Empire.”
……………
Remember, that was before and around the time that Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex……not to be confused with a “strong national defense”
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Now:
Since you ask me to pay for creating these monsters and later attacking them, in the name of SND: All of which makes certain groups(defense contractors and related businesses) rich:
Tell me why the $$$ spent there (A) are better spent than the $$$ proposed to be spent on healthcare(B). Tell me Why A takes precedence over B. If you cant demonstrate it, Just accept the fact that you lost the election, this is a democracy. When you wanted A, you forced us to pay for A. Now we want B, deal with it.
Daddio Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Then one should have the right to use the “N” word whenever one wants to. That actually falls under the first amendment. Or one should be able to rent to whomever one wants to under their private property rights. And how about eminant domain? Our government now permits a private contractor take one’s home simply because they will supply the local government with more tax dollars. That is blantantly unconstitutional. Yet our all powerful government thumbs it’s collective nose at the citizens of this country.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Willy changing the topic at will.
Answer to the point can you? Why are you switching horses once you shoot? Cant take the heat of people’s counterarguments?
OldLefty Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:03 am
You DO have the right to use the N word…. and and others have the right call you racist.
“And how about eminant domain?”
You should talk to Bush about that.
That is how he got the property for his stadium.
Daddio Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:04 am
1–This has nothing to do with the election.
2–We do not live in a democracy. We live in a representative Republic.
3–National defense is priority one of our federal government. Without that we would have not lasted as a Republic as long as we have.
National defense should ALWAYS take precedence over any and all social spending. We have allowed our federal government to become way to powerful over our daily lives. And you seem to have accepted the gradual erosion of our liberties and freedoms.
Forced health care will not keep us free. It will not protect our borders. It only feeds the federal government and grants them even more control over our lives. I am not now nor will I ever be willing to give up any of our freedoms for security. For if you do that then you have neither.
Daddio Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:09 am
This isn’t a Dem-Repub thing with me Lefty. They are all in bed together when it comes to eroding our freedoms, our Constitution.
There are very few, very few politicians today, from either party, that are there to serve the country. It has turned into a power game, and the longer they are there the more powerful they become. Plain and simple.
OldLefty Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:13 am
1–This has nothing to do with the election.
2–We do not live in a democracy. We live in a representative Republic.
We elected representatives to enact healthcare.
3–National defense is priority one of our federal government. Without that we would have not lasted as a Republic as long as we have.
That’s a matter of opinion.
Many military actions have not been necessary.
And you seem to have accepted the gradual erosion of our liberties and freedoms.
Like torture, turning our money over to huge corporations, privatizing our voting,
Forced unnecessary defense spending not keep us free. It will not protect our borders. It only feeds the military industrial complex and grants them even more control over our government and ourl ives. I am not now nor will I ever be willing to give up any of our freedoms for security, OR DEFENSE CONTRACTS.
Daddio Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I know I will hear it from K again but after working all night I need to get some sleep.
So, in the words of Karthiks I am going to “shoot and scoot”.
Have a good day K and Lefty.
OldLefty Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:17 am
This isn’t a Dem-Repub thing with me Lefty. They are all in bed together when it comes to eroding our freedoms, our Constitution.
……………
This is true, the difference is that the right, fears control of business by the government, while the left fears control of the government by business.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Nancy Pelosi is the WING-NUT of the week. What a buffoon!!!
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Blow it out your backhoe.
TDro319 Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Pay no attention to Daddio. He’s afraid of smart women, which is why he criticizes them when they threaten him. His speed is more like Carrie Prejean and Michelle Malkin.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
What do health insurances do as middle man?–really !!
jazmine Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
They are there to carry that hefty fee to the bank!!
pierre Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
If that’s all they do why do we need them?
jazmine Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
We don’t, that’s why they need to move on. Health care is not a commodity, it’s a necessity.
John Galt Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Health care is not a commodity
Of course it is. You can buy and sell it. You can invest in it and get more and/or better of it. You can import it or export it. If you need more of it, it goes up in price. If you demand less of it, it goes down in price. The longer it exists, the more standard it becomes and the less costly it becomes.
it’s a necessity.
Lord have mercy. Food is more of a necessity than medical care; water more than food. And because we expose both to the market, we have both, on demand, for almost free.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
“Food is more of a necessity than medical care; water more than food”
Why should they be necessities? Why should they not be commoditised?
For that matter, why not security, the holy grail of conservatives? Why should society pay for national security (which ends up making defense contractors rich), but people buy/sell healthcare as a commodity?
John Galt Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Why should they not be commoditised?
They are. We sell them on exchanges. You can buy December wheat on the CME. Or January corn; November pork belly.
What are you talking about?
For that matter, why not security, the holy grail of conservatives?
I agree with many on the left that feel our military is too big–I’m sure for different reasons, but I agree that we need to reduce.
libpatriot Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
“Food is more of a necessity than medical care; water more than food. And because we expose both to the market, we have both, on demand, for almost free.”
But they don’t get denied to the buyer, or sold at a higher price, because of the buyer’s “pre-existing condition”, now do they? The free-market model, when applied to health care, simply isn’t serving our public well. Too little preventative care, too many emergency room visits for the uninsured, and the premiums of the insured continue to skyrocket to pay for the emergency room visits of the uninsured. It serves the heath care insurance middlemen well, no doubt about that.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 1:09 am
libpat,
you’re confusing health care with health insurance again…
libpatriot Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Guido,
One aasures better access to the other in a timlier fashion, so they’re quite interconnected, no?
libpatriot Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Darn typo…”assures”
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:26 am
but they are assuredely not the same thing…you can recieve very good healthcare in this country sans health insurance (and if you apply yourself you can usually get everything cheaper than if you had insurance)
insurance is over used in this country, current plans are to make it more overused. insurance should be used for catastrophic and emergency situations, not to clean your teeth, or get a routine physical exam.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:34 am
” insurance should be used for catastrophic and emergency situations, not to clean your teeth, or get a routine physical exam.”
Agree.
Your points here are all valid: A question for you…
” if you apply yourself you can usually get everything cheaper than if you had insurance”
That is true,too: However,I contend that the sans insurance option costs are inflated by the insurance companies as a barrier against more people taking that path.
Take your own examples:
” to clean your teeth, or get a routine physical exam”
What IS the cost of taking those care measures? How do those costs breakup? What is the insurance company doing that possibly influences those costs?
Lee Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
” insurance should be used for catastrophic and emergency situations, not to clean your teeth, or get a routine physical exam.”
Agree.”
Disagree.. There are two things wrong with this position:
1) It incentivizes ‘intervention’ over prevention and from a cost perspective there is no comparison over which is better.
2) If you skew the propensity of people to obtain routine-care along the lines of affluence, then you also cause better health outcomes for the rich and worse outcomes for the poor in addition to a bizarre cost curve where poor people end up being on the hook for more healthcare costs than the rich. Only in a bizarro Conservative view is this remotely fair and ‘just’.
You remember ‘Justice’? It’s one of those things other than ‘freedom’ that we American’s believe everyone should get.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Lee…
I don’t understand your rationale for point 1.
and point 2 is a fundamental difference in thought. You think it’s the states responsiblity to make sure people are healthy and I think it’s the persons responsibility to make sure they are healthy.
Karthik…there are several factors involved…for starters by paying for minor and unnecessary care it raises the cost of insurance thereby creating a system where available dollars for personal healthcare are sucked up by insurance premiums additionally it creates a disconnect from the price of service and worth of cost to the patient, in that situation the costs will always rise…as well as other things. Also by cutting a step out of paying your bill there are fewer people that need to earn their living off you paying your bill and prices could come down or at least cease to inflate at current rates until it eventually catches up to what people would actually pay in a market based system.
I’m not an expert, and these are my humble positions.
Um Cara Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Food is more of a necessity than medical care; water more than food. And because we expose both to the market, we have both, on demand, for almost free.
I bet you are waiting for the day that ‘the market’ finds a way to monetize the air we breathe.
Lee Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Guido,
“I don’t understand your rationale for point 1.”
If you don’t have check-ups and thus don’t seek medical attention until you are symptomatic of a disease, it thus skips the stage of prevention.
For example, getting your blood pressure checked or ‘pre-diabetes’ etc through blood tests.
The cost of treating heart failure or diabetes is far greater than the cost of prevention through regular check-ups.
Similarly even in your dental example the cost of a root canal is much greater than fixing an early-stage cavity found during a routine cleaning/check-up.
As for 2) It’s like vehicle liability insurance. Now, you have to be careful with such analogies.. For a start, unlike a car you don’t have a choice whether to repair/replace ‘yourself’ after an accident. That’s why if we were cars, everyone would have to get comprehensive insurance or else we’d be quite reckless as someone has to bear the cost of fixing ourselves.
Let’s be honest, the difference in philosophy here has nothing to do with belief the State should take care of you versus the individual. Instead it’s a belief that when it comes to healthcare you shouldn’t have to pay for other people (Conservatives) versus we should pay our fair share to make sure everyone does (Liberal).
jazmine Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
John,my Bad—- Health care should NOT be a commodity. I could say more….but, I really don’t feel like it. Thanks in advance:)
John Galt Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Health care should NOT be a commodity.
But it is. And when rightly treated as such, could result in prices and availability resembling food.
libpatriot Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“And when rightly treated as such..”
A public option will ensure that it IS rightly treated as such, and it’s about time!
jazmine Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Ha ha ha ha , I think that may be the problem, John. We are a sick nation because we gorge ourselves with things that resemble food. And who’s fault if that?
October 25th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
We’re about to make an important discovery.
What we’re about to find is the answer to a question. “Do our elected representatives in Washington ever work for the benefit of the general welfare of Americans or are they only tools of the bankers, insurers, military-industrial complex, corporations and other various special interests who can afford to purchase political influence in DC”.
If this fails, maybe Americans should finally band together and hire a lobbyist to make a place at the Washington feeding trough for us too.
I see a common conservative argument against this on display here. Essentially, your argument comes down to “the only way to escape this liberal serfdom is to accept my conservative serfdom instead”.
I like Nancy Pelosi.
anonymouse Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Russ Feingold was on that CBS news show this morning. Just when you think Washington is only a cesspool filled with self-serving nincompoops, a politician raises up to prove himself otherwise.
I like Nancy, and I also like Russ Feingold. I wish we could trade either one for Mr. Bond or Mr. Blunt.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I’m going to tune it to Rush, so I can get the “real” truth..Like Death Panels and Oaths of Office being taken on the Korran
October 27th, 2009 at 9:17 am
“How does forced health care…make us a safer nation? …a better nation?”
It makes us healthier. Debate concluded.
But let’s look at the probabilities of you dying:
Heart Disease 1-in-5
Cancer 1-in-7
Stroke 1-in-23
Air Travel Accident 1-in-20,000
Flood 1-in-30,000
Tornado 1-in-60,000
And terrorism?
“…if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000…”
October 27th, 2009 at 9:52 am