patrick.net

AdHominem says

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Are you saying we are better off today than we were 8, 10, 20, 50 years ago?

We didn’t have “sound money” 8, 10, or 20 years ago. We also didn’t have two nations of a billion+ people to compete with.

50 years ago we were absolutely worse off.

Again, I ask you to prove that things were “better”. Running around claiming that anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom is not a way to win an argument.

Straw man. Premise is health care reform will result in higher deficits etc… as posted earlier.
Start a new thread if you want to argue about “better off”

You're the one who turned this conversation into "sound money" and how we were being "robbed", because you didn't really have any sound arguments about health care reform other than "the government is out to get you".

AdHominem says

By the way you never answered how you could claim to NOT be advocating tax increases and yet two sentences later claimed it was necessary. Not interested in explaining yourself, but rather attacking your own ranks?

Poorly worded is all. Should have said I am NOT an advocate of tax increases BUT they will be necessary. Hardly an earthshattering inconsistency.

AdHominem says

But then again you could just be another Bush, posing as a conservative but really a big government collectivist.

What the heck is a big government collectivist? I am willing to put up with a level of government to achieve a level of public services. What we had in about 1956 is within my comfort zone. The great society isn't. Quick quiz, where on a scale between total lack of government Somalia and total control by government in communist Russia do you see as the correct level of government? Are you one of those people who rants and raves there should be no government while using lots of government services (internet, highways, air traffic control, children in public schools, parks, safety from police/fire), etc., etc., etc.? Your positions seem to sway in the wind.

The biggest enemies of freedom in the US in the last 50 years were named George Bush and Dick Cheney.

AdHominem says

Straw man. Premise is health care reform will result in higher deficits etc… as posted earlier.

Straw man also. The only real question would be if the cost of health care would be reduced or not. It doesn't matter what pocket the money comes out of. If you company is holding down you salary to pay for health care or there is a higher tax to pay for health care or you are paying for health care out of pocket it doesn't matter at all. You pay in all cases. So the bottom line is how do we reduce the $5,000+ per year per person cost of health care, which is about double the rest of the first world.

Your suggestions are to let people write off medical on their taxes (very good for the 20% that itemize, useless for everyone else) and eliminate all government involvement in health care. You don' explain how this will reduce the costs.

Oh yes I forgot, we will eliminate fraud and waste in medicare. Just out of curiosity do you know the administrative cost of medicare? Surprise, it's 3%. Do you know the administrative costs of the medical system overall? With over 1,500 different companies, each offering multiple plans, each with its own marketing program and enrollment procedures, its own paperwork and policies, its CEO salaries, sales commissions, political lobbying costs, advertising, and other non-clinical costs -- and, of course, if it is a for-profit company, its profits, the cost of billing and administration for doctors offices and hospitals? Surprise it's 25%. One dollar out of 4 gets eaten up in the billing process with medicare's really low costs included in the number. Take out medicare and the cost is even higher. WOW, that's really great how private industry is keeping our costs down.

Oh my that terrible medicare. It costs $8500 per person per year. That's outrageous. Obviously a horrible government program that wastes tons of money. Oh wait, it's for people over 65, many that are way over 65. Maybe they are sicker than other people. DUH! What about the part of medicare that covers low income households that are under 65 (mostly children) one might ask if one were interested in a truly fair evaluation instead of demagogary. Hmmm, that only costs $1500 per person per year. WHAT? How can that be with all the fraud and waste??

NO I am not a "big government collectivist". I am a pragmatist. Whatever works. The current system of paying for medical care doesn't work very well at all. I used to write software for medical billing and medical office management so I really do know how bad it is. I have lived and worked in France, Canada, and currently New Zealand. People there are very satisfied with their medical care (and their death panels) at half the cost of the US despite the horror stories people manage to dredge up. There are, of course, no horror stories about medical care in the US. Anyway, it can be done. My solution, which Obama has not solicited, would be to study what works best, and conversely what works poorly, from each system around the world and implement it. We should be cribbing what works rather than reinventing the wheel. It worked great for Microsoft.

elvis says

Americans are becoming more and more dependant upon government (dependency is not a good thing). Dependency breeds bondage (bondage is not a good thing). Bondage is slavery (slavery is not a good thing). Any questions?

Juts one.

Where do you get the good weed that makes you think that health care is slavery? Because I'd like to smoke some of that.

Me paying for YOUR health care is slavery if I have no choice but to pay or be fined or imprisoned.

AdHominem says

Me paying for YOUR health care is slavery if I have no choice but to pay or be fined or imprisoned.

Me paying for YOUR roads is slavery!

AdHominem says

Me paying for YOUR health care is slavery if I have no choice but to pay or be fined or imprisoned.

There's good, free healthcare in prison. Just sayin'

elliemae says

AdHominem says

Me paying for YOUR health care is slavery if I have no choice but to pay or be fined or imprisoned.

There’s good, free healthcare in prison. Just sayin’

Not what I hear. But feel free to check it out if you feel so inclined.

I guess is it benefits AH it's a government investment in infrastructure, if not it's wasteful government spending. If you want to be totally free of the yoke of government then move to Somalia or Zaire. Lovely places.

Nobody wants that. Just to be free of violence coercion by anyone. INCLUDING "government."

elvis says

Kevin, with the proposed HC costs, the legacy to our children will be a lifetime of involuntary financial servitude to our country’s creditors. Wouldn’t that be a type of slavery? A debt slave?

Why do people keep dishonestly pretending that any government portion of health care payments will be in addition to the costs we already have? Any government health care plan, if it comes, won't double down. The costs will be reduced somewhere else. The trick would be reducing the total costs while shifting the payer. Obama's plan is going to manage that or even come close, but it would be possible to do.

Why are people so adamant that the status quo is so great? I think it sucks. Cost are huge, inefficiencies are unbelievable, and lots of people don't get any kind of health care at all.

I know, I know. All we need to do is get government out of health care and let the health care companies experience the joys of pure capitalism. Like Bear Stearns, Aig, and Lehman Brothers perhaps? Maybe we should have an adult in the room just in case.

bob2356 says

Obama’s plan is going to manage that or even come close, but it would be possible to do.

I have to point this out here:

There is no such thing as "Obama's plan". If any single person can be said to own any of the plans currently being debated, it's Harry Reid.

Although with the Republicans trying their hardest to defend the broken financing system that makes up Medicare, the CBO's projections that the plan will save us money are probably doomed.

Obama will get "credit" for all of these "reforms". He made them all possible.
Yes WE CAN!

Kevin says

bob2356 says

Obama’s plan is going to manage that or even come close, but it would be possible to do.

I have to point this out here:
There is no such thing as “Obama’s plan”. If any single person can be said to own any of the plans currently being debated, it’s Harry Reid.
Although with the Republicans trying their hardest to defend the broken financing system that makes up Medicare, the CBO’s projections that the plan will save us money are probably doomed.

I made a typo. I meant to say that the current proposed health plans ARE NOT going to manage to reduce costs enough in other areas to balance things out. They aren't even trying to reduce costs very much. The thrust of the plan is to get everyone covered by some type of insurance. A laudable goal but without meaningful legislation on things like malpractice (it will never happen as long as the trial lawyers own the democratic party) or requiring negotiation on drug prices we are just moving around the deck chairs on the titanic.

What part of government run health care is authorized by our constitution?

in your opinion.
in mine, secured boders and a fair trail followed by hanging for capital punishment are important components of society.

Honest Abe says

What part of government run health care is authorized by our constitution?

The constitution authorizes very little -- it's not supposed to. *laws* do that.

The constitution:

1. Outlines the basic structure of government.
2. Enumerates rights that lawmakers may not infringe upon.

There's a LOT of stuff that isn't in the constitution. Most countries (at least democracies) have them, and they all generally work this way (hell, most democracies have far more rights in their constitution than we do -- the right to privacy in particular).

Do you really want the constitution to contain every law? California essentially does that. How's that working out?

bob2356 says

Obama’s plan is going to manage that or even come close, but it would be possible to do.
I have to point this out here:
There is no such thing as “Obama’s plan”. If any single person can be said to own any of the plans currently being debated, it’s Harry Reid.
Although with the Republicans trying their hardest to defend the broken financing system that makes up Medicare, the CBO’s projections that the plan will save us money are probably doomed.
I made a typo. I meant to say that the current proposed health plans ARE NOT going to manage to reduce costs enough in other areas to balance things out. They aren’t even trying to reduce costs very much. The thrust of the plan is to get everyone covered by some type of insurance. A laudable goal but without meaningful legislation on things like malpractice (it will never happen as long as the trial lawyers own the democratic party) or requiring negotiation on drug prices we are just moving around the deck chairs on the titanic.

He has to own these policies as the leader of our nation, just as Reagan, Clinton and Bush did with policies that passed while they were in office. If he doesnt want to own it, then he has the right to veto otherwise his approval is implied

....plus he has to follow through on campaign promises.

Kevin says

The constitution authorizes very little — it’s not supposed to. *laws* do that.

Exactly! STATE laws. 10th Amendment.

Nomograph says

No offense, but your arguments are quite juvenile and you have absolutely no idea what slavery is. You enjoy more freedom and access to prosperity than 99.99999% of all humans who have ever walked the face of this earth, yet you squander these freedoms by wallowing in a victim mentality. What a waste. It’s like taking a child to an ice cream store with 31 flavors and watching him throw a tantrum because his rights and freedoms are violated by not having that 32nd flavor. Grow up.

Ad Hominem is your style. How many hours a day do I have to work to pay for someone elses, health care, mortgage, bankrupt business, abortion? Please explain why this is not slavery? We are not talking about ice cream. We are talking about the right to my own labor and property.

How many hours a day do I have to work for your highways, air traffic control, internet, military protection, etc., etc., etc.. Please explain why this is not about slavery for me for your benefit. If you accept government services for yourself then don't complain about others doing the same. It's all about balance. There are some things that can be done better through government and many things that can't.

If and only IF government healthcare reduced the total cost of healthcare substantially I would be in favor of it. The proposed plans don't do that so I don't agree with them.

Abortion???? What the f are you talking about? As far as I know, it's been a long time since any government agency has paid for an abortion.

right on mr presley

AdHominem says

Kevin says

The constitution authorizes very little — it’s not supposed to. *laws* do that.

Exactly! STATE laws. 10th Amendment.

The 10th amendment simply says that state laws overrule federal laws on all matters not explicitly granted to the federal government (hint: this is the reason for the "opt out" part of the public option).

bob2356 says

Abortion???? What the f are you talking about? As far as I know, it’s been a long time since any government agency has paid for an abortion.

You don't know very far, obviously. Tax-payer's pay for the murder of innocent babies daily through forced wealth transfers.

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Kevin says

The constitution authorizes very little — it’s not supposed to. *laws* do that.

Exactly! STATE laws. 10th Amendment.

The 10th amendment simply says that state laws overrule federal laws on all matters not explicitly granted to the federal government (hint: this is the reason for the “opt out” part of the public option).

So if my state does not want to "benefit" from a government program we can "opt out" as long as we continue paying for it? Funny.

And what powers are explicitly granted to the federal government? Wiretapping? Water boarding? Bail outs? Abortion on demand? GovmintCare?

Let me guess these are all for our "general welfare." Funny.

Bap33 says

Tax-payer’s pay for the murder of innocent babies daily through forced wealth transfers.

What does that even mean? "forced wealth transfers?" Like when the capital gains tax was cut under Bush? That transfered my wealth to top 1%. Republicans are the redistributors of wealth--they take it from the poor and give it to the rich. Look at any chart showing the distribution of American wealth and it will be painfully obvious...

Looks like all one must do is throw out some big words and a couple of inflammatory ones, sound passionate, and you're right.

Unfortunately, it's 7am in my neck of the woods, too early to play. I'm famished. I intend to masticate a counter-located mechanically heated frozen pastry which I decorate myself, as well as to consume a hot beverage.

I'm doing it for all of the innocent dead babies.

Foreced wealth tranfers ... the law demands we hand over our taxes to the Gov who then hands our wealth to non-producers inorder to create consumers and competition and obedient Obama-etts. lol

Taxes from individual productive worker "A", used by the Gov to increase the buying power of individual non-productive, non-worker "B", by rule of law, without any means to "oped out" for worker "A", is a "forced wealth transfer". So, when a (hypothetical) non-worker, non-tax-payer, goes and gets an abortion it is paid for by tax payers through forced wealth transfers. Right? ANd you are right, it ends up in the rich doctors and lawyers pockets, but it is at the expense of working folks.

Nomo ... sticks and stones, may break my bones, but you're still an idiot. I'm not on housing welfare yet.

Ellie, not trying to be rude or mean. I know so few big words, I just jump at the chance! lol

Nomograph says

It’s bad for the soul and breeds dependence.

so, you are saying welfare is a bad thing? Dependence on Barry and Co is bad too? lol

Bap33 says

Nomo … sticks and stones, may break my bones, but you’re still an idiot

Not polite. He's not an idiot (although I don't personally know him, so I'm making a huge assumption here), he's just someone who disagrees with your point of view and yanks your chain in the process.

Not polite .. true, but done mostly in-jest, I assure you. My chain is yankable. lol (sorry - that was bad)

I don't see the difference between calling nomo an "idiot" and the shitstorm that was created by the guy who brags about ripping off credit card companies and "laughing all the way to the bank." I guess that some of those comments were so bad that Patrick deleted them.

I disagree with many people here - especially those who continually blame everything on the president, as if he is out to get them personally. I also disagree with people who think he's our savior. I have my own beliefs and value system, as do many of the readers and posters here.

I have no problem with people stating their opinion - I would prefer that it's theirs and not the message that comes through the cracks in their tin foil hats, but that's just my own bias. I'm thinking that everyone here has the ability to think for themselves, even though they often don't exercise it.

People have the right to regurgitate what they've heard from the pundits, without spell check, and that's cool. They can expect a comment of mine from time to time about their inability to formulate a coherent sentence or use a spell check. IMHO, posters who don't take the time to ensure their message or "rant" is easily understood is writing to see their message online and not really contributing to discourse.

But calling names? It's childish and detracts from your message. Hopefully we're all adults here and have learned that somewhere along the way.

Just sayin...

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled one single piece of passed legislation on the federal level "unconstitutional" since FDR. What ever happened to checks & balances?

Forcing American citizens to purchase health care insurance under penalty of law is obviously unconstitutional. The question is: will the Supreme Court do its job and rule accordingly?

"without spell checks" ...... Ouch Ellie, got me!!. See there, that is friggin funny. lmao.

You know I only called Doc an idiot for pounding the welfare drum when I am only accessing a program that I am forced to support ... but, name calling in such an open air fashion is bad form, and I do most honestly appoligize. Half the fun is in finding a better way to say what you are really wanting to say, right? lol

Like, instead of saying, "he's a son of a bitch," one might say, "I hope that when he gets home from work his mother crawls out from under the porch and bites him..."

Yea - I don't know any of you, but I respect your right to your opinions. I can disagree, but there's a difference between "you're an idiot" and "you're so far off base the ump would toss you off the field."

I'm not specifically referring to you, BAP, when I make a comment about spelling. There have been much worse. A few misspellings are cool, as are typos. But unintelligible, long-ass paragraphs are hard to read and detract from the message. If you want to be taken seriously, write an easily understood message. If you want to be the object of ridicule, g'head. mak mi day.

RayAmerica says

Forcing American citizens to purchase health care insurance under penalty of law is obviously unconstitutional. The question is: will the Supreme Court do its job and rule accordingly?

Nope. Just try to refuse to pay into the Medicare system. Don't pay your taxes (which many people continue to assert are illegal). People don't want to pay for healthcare coverage - but once they get really sick & can't afford to pay for it (like a $750k transplant operation), they place coffee cans at the quickie mart and solicit donations.

ellie ... where in the Constitution is it that I might find the government's power to create Medicare, Social Security, et all? Federal income tax power comes from a Constitutional amendment. Our founding fathers wouldn't recognize this monstrosity that has been construted by our politicians called the Federal Government. And yet, all of these polticians have all taken an oath to obey and defend the Constitution, and yet igore it. I challenge anyone to provide where it is in the Constitution that warrants the power to force, under penalty of law, government mandated health insurance.

Bap33 says

Foreced wealth tranfers … the law demands we hand over our taxes to the Gov who then hands our wealth to non-producers inorder to create consumers and competition and obedient Obama-etts. lol
Taxes from individual productive worker “A”, used by the Gov to increase the buying power of individual non-productive, non-worker “B”, by rule of law, without any means to “oped out” for worker “A”, is a “forced wealth transfer”. So, when a (hypothetical) non-worker, non-tax-payer, goes and gets an abortion it is paid for by tax payers through forced wealth transfers. Right? ANd you are right, it ends up in the rich doctors and lawyers pockets, but it is at the expense of working folks.
Nomo … sticks and stones, may break my bones, but you’re still an idiot. I’m not on housing welfare yet.
Ellie, not trying to be rude or mean. I know so few big words, I just jump at the chance! lol

I love this rant, considering that you're one of many people who pays far less in taxes than you consume in services.

RayAmerica says

Our founding fathers wouldn’t recognize this monstrosity that has been construted by our politicians called the Federal Government.

They also wouldn't recognize the motorized carraiges or flying machines or little plastic toys that play music that we enjoy today.... What's your point? I would hope that things have changed in 200+ years. That's why they wrote a framework not a restrictive document. It is allowed to evolve with the times.

elliemae says

Like, instead of saying, “he’s a son of a bitch,” one might say, “I hope that when he gets home from work his mother crawls out from under the porch and bites him…”
Yea - I don’t know any of you, but I respect your right to your opinions. I can disagree, but there’s a difference between “you’re an idiot” and “you’re so far off base the ump would toss you off the field.”
I’m not specifically referring to you, BAP, when I make a comment about spelling. There have been much worse. A few misspellings are cool, as are typos. But unintelligible, long-ass paragraphs are hard to read and detract from the message. If you want to be taken seriously, write an easily understood message. If you want to be the object of ridicule, g’head. mak mi day.

I agree Ellie, but it is very difficult to sit back and listen to the 4 Muskateers (Arch-Conservatives) attack, attack, attack everything from socialism to the presidents birth certificate. They create an environment whereby one must defend the policies we support. BAP, Staynums, Trout and one other unnamed character constantly berate, indignify, trounce upon every policy this nation has set forth since 1776. Maybe they would have been better suited if they were born in the 1750's whereby they could have their "FREE MARKETS" without any "WELFARE" or "SOCIALISM".

Mexico is right next door, has none of these programs and might be a better fit for arch-conservatives that hate our nations direction.