patrick.net

zetabeos1 says

we find realtors still silent on allowing transparency in the bidding process.

Was there any serious proposal for transparency in real estate bidding? Maybe I should try to push for it if no one else is really doing it. How about these as basic rules: 1. Sellers must accept their asking price. 2. Bids must be public: amount of bid, name of bidder, date and time of bid. 3. Actual sale price must be recorded and made easily searchable online. Currently none of that is true.

The Democrates don't need the Republican votes to pass any HealthCare bill. The Dems have the majority, this is a fruitless effort on there part to have townhalls. They can do it all, without much of a legislative battle. Call it what it is, a powergrab. Plain and simple.

Police and firemen and elementary school teachers are all “socialized” but they also all work reasonably well. And you still have the private option if you want extra. Even the military is “socialist” isn’t it? Involuntary taxes pay for it. I like free markets in general, but you have to admit some socialized things work well enough via involuntary taxes, and would be only for the rich in a totally market-oriented system.

Fire, police, and the military don't make money. Health care makes money. If the police department had $30,000,000 CEOs and stock prices and you could raise your "coverage" rates to the breaking point to whatever the market would bear, then we'd have people in town halls worried about the horrible hoards of "evil doers" who would rush in to rape my dog if we were to consider eliminating 25% of profit taking. The fire department is a relic of independent PROPERTY PROTECTION companies, a sterling example of how the rich get us ALL to pay for services that doesn't pay to privatize. The military protects industry's access to resources, sadly that access is being whored out to other countries. Iraq oil for Europe. The police will keep order if the serfs get uppity, and that would be a lot easier if we all voted to get rid of each other's guns. Look at how the push to privatize revenue streams (Jersey Turnpike anyone?) and socialize burdens (employer health care) has the two-fold benefit of taking the chains off corporations/very rich and squishing the remaining jelly out of the middle class.

I'm old enough to remember my parents fussing about "socialized medicine" during the 1965 Medicare debates. Turns out the system served my mother quite well for almost 20 years. The old folks on Medicare (and I am soon to be one) should realize that they are on a single payer system now, and that most of them have paid nowhere near enough throughout their lives to provide the kind of services and proceedures that are available today, and that some degree of "rationing" as distasteful as it sounds is inevitable. Too many people believe that they can spend thier lives eating & drinking to excess, avoiding any form of exercise and smoking and still have society spend unlimited amounts of money prolonging the inevitable in the last few years of thier lives. It is a model that just cannot continue.

Gee, this is all so Sudan.
Is Nomo a giraffe dodger? A paper tiger? A horn dog? Did he earn his stripes in Tarzana? And why does he visit Chad rooms?
Rhino these are tough questions but I guess it's irrelevant and irrelevant never forgets. Tusk tusk.
But does he still work for Stanley Tools to make a Livingston? Or is he feeding us a lion? Well, what's good for your goose is good for Uganda.
Mercy, I Congo any more since I feel endangered so I don't Rwanda continue. Actually. I just want to gorilla steak, then monkey around for a while. Maybe even have a Reese's.
Let's face it. It's a jungle out there and things aren't exactly divine. Or maybe I'm out of my tree acting like a sap.

Okay, while I agree with your arguement, please don't use such language as 'You pricks!'. It makes those who do use it appear ignorant. Leave that to the opposition. As for the concern about poor lifestyles, it's a valid issue, but the Obama plan works on it, by keeping health insurance private, yet creating a public option to prevent health insurance companies from colluding in the market place as an 'industry'. If these companies know that they can't discriminate anymore against the unhealthy, they will look for every way possible to cut expenses. The public option will prevent those methods from including watering down policies, and will steer the insurance companies towards preventative care. Imagine if each major health insurance provider had its own little league team in nearly every American community, to encourage children to exercise and play team sports, as those that do are less likely to become obese both as kids and adults and have the expensive health problems that go with obesity and lack of physical activity. They could set up the teams as non-profits, and schedule games against other healthcare companies teams, so they might even write off the expenses as charitable donations, and kids across the country, including the inner cities, would finally get to play outdoors again. Anti-smoking, anti-drinking, and drug prevention groups would likely get assistance from health insurance companies, in the short term for the tax write offs, but the end result would be less health care used by smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts. This would also pit the health insurance lobby against the agribusiness and food manufacturing lobbies, so that healthier foods get the subsidies, not processed garbage, as it stands now. When healthy foods get cheaper than fattening foods, the poor and middle class will choose them over the unhealthy products, and eat better, saving insurance companies money. This could also extend to any lobby whose product or service causes significant levels of ill health in the peope the health insurance industry would be covering in a nondisciminatory system. Obama's plan uses the strenths of the capitolist system to tackle the health ills of our country. This plan is very free market. Republicans are just mad a Democrat is the one proposing it, and has a shot at getting it implimented, winning the glory for his party. Demint said it best, if Obama's plan fails, it will be his Waterloo. If Obama wins, it's the Rebublican party that will be sent off into obscurity for 30-40 years. That is why they are so desperate and pulling out all the stops. Tenpoundbass says

To hear you guys tell it, everyone in the hospital are Booze swigging, pot toking, junk shooting, bacon eating gluttons. What about people that are health conscious but they have defective organs, no matter what they eat, they need major medical care. Where does the Emperors thumb fall for those folks. Do you guys give a thumbs up or down. … You Pricks!

>>So by nature I will be all over the map, I lean one way or another depending on where the issue pendulum swings, not the party axe. But the problem is that your leanings often are mutually inconsistent, in the sense that you want to have it both ways, although that just is not possible. What I'm trying to tell you is that you need to look into the logic and consistency of your statements. If there is a lot of inconsistency, how do you write laws to cover all the special inconsistent cases that you want? If the law is not or cannot be made detailed enough, then which of the two mutually exclusive principles should apply? There just does not appear to be any logic to many of your positions. I'm not saying this as a put-down, I just wonder how this is supposed to work and how you reconcile it all.

"Asshole republicans don’t even know what they’re protesting against" I'd say the Democrats don't even know what they're rallying FOR. Obama does even seem to know whats in the plan. I know this: the goverment makes an inefficient mess out of everything it touches. While our heath care system may need some reform, it doesn't need to be run by the government.

Take a break and listen to Obama's Town Hall meeting on Health Care Reform.

Police and firemen and elementary school teachers are all “socialized” but they also all work reasonably well. And you still have the private option if you want extra. Even the military is “socialist” isn’t it? Involuntary taxes pay for it. I like free markets in general, but you have to admit some socialized things work well enough via involuntary taxes, and would be only for the rich in a totally market-oriented system.

Those are all public goods though. They can't be provided by markets. Health care can be provided by markets as long as it's not distorted by certain regulations and tax advantages. http://www.reason.com/news/show/132018.html

I was just trying to show the potential societal benefits of the Obama healthcare plan that might come from incentivizing health insurance companies to do things that will make Americans healthier, not personally attack you or your family. However, since you brought it up, I have a serious caffine addiction, and do like sweets and fast food on occasion. I still believe in taxing vices that have economic costs for society, even if it means I'll be paying a dollar or two extra for an order of Dominos pizza or a can of Chock Full of Nuts at the supermarket. I believe in freedom to put whatever you enjoy into your body, so long as nobody else gets hurt, but nothing comes for free. Too often, the producers of unhealthy products reap the financial rewards while the government picks up the cost in the emergency room. That's socialism for the corporation. Tenpoundbass says

futuresmc says

Imagine if each major health insurance provider had its own little league team in nearly every American community, to encourage children to exercise and play team sports, as those that do are less likely to become obese both as kids and adults and have the expensive health problems that go with obesity and lack of physical activity. They could set up the teams as non-profits, and schedule games against other healthcare companies teams, so they might even write off the expenses as charitable donations, and kids across the country, including the inner cities, would finally get to play outdoors again. Anti-smoking, anti-drinking, and drug prevention groups would likely get assistance from health insurance companies, in the short term for the tax write offs, but the end result would be less health care used by smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts.

Sounds like I hit home. Where’s the list of shit’s that’s bad for you. Do you itemize, I bet you scratch off the items you enjoy. What about folks that over do it when they exercise, do you have a mechanism to tell those folks how their overly active life style is a detriment to the economy. Or do they get a pass be cause at least rolls of fat doesn’t protrude from the back of their Hospital gown and they aren’t coughing and hacking up chunks of Lungs? My dad drank a bottle of V.O. daily, on top of the Schlitz malt liquor he kept in the fridge smoked 2 packs of cigs a day. And died of Alzheimer at the ripe age of 72. Alzheimer he probably got from years of my mom cooking in cheap aluminum pots. Other than that he was fit as a fiddle up to the very end. My Grandmom died at 62 of cancer and heart disease and didn’t drink a drop or smoke a puff in her life. She was T-Totaller. To anyone proposing a “HAPPYNESS” tax I say unleash a Tampa Rally rabble mob down on you like a rat running from an angry nest of African Honey bees. That or… There’s not a lot to be happy about these days, and I suspect it will get worse, despite what the Media would have you believe. Vices will always be in greater demand when times are the hardest. Tax those items and you’ll just hurt the economy worse, because we’ll just black market those goods and cut business and the taxation of it. Black Market bacon, smokes and cookies and soda, it’s not that hard to imagine. But none the less we don’t need some Snot nosed Liberal prick Permission to consumer vices. Even if that Prick thinks he knows what’s best.

It is amusing to watch this debate as someone with actual experience of different systems. I have had the best health insurance possible in the US and also experienced both the private and public options in New Zealand and Australia. The public systems in New Zealand and Australia are excellent. The only complete breakdown in medical care I have ever received was at one of the best hospitals in the US with great insurance. The doctors were pleasant and the hospital was nice but the medical staff didn't have the very basic knowledge required to fix a simple problem. People screaming against public health care tend to be poor and uneducated - in other words the same people who will pay almost nothing into a public option and receive all the benefits. The evidence for this is the semi-literate rants on this and many other sites. I am aggressively pro free market but I'm sorry to tell you health care in the US is not good. The poor in the rest of the first world are healthier than the richest Americans. That should be some kind of clue that not everything is OK.

Don't have a birth certificate? no problem!
http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/

I can see it now 911: what's your emergency? me: my house is on fire 911: we take VISA and MC only -- and what kind of insurance do you have? me: @@##$$%^&*

m1ckey6, Right on. I also have extensive personal exposure to national healthcare, and it is nothing like what the US wingnuts describe it to be.

I'd rather be raped by Insurance companies than gang banged by the government! I can choose which company to get raped by, but with the government I get raped by tenpoundbass, some guy, futuremc, and joe taxpayer. I even will have to get in line if I end up having to fork out my hard earned money to pay for your health care; we will all be raping each other over and over. I'll be taking from you, you'll be taking from me, think about it. Also, We (those of us who work or are not a part of the welfare program) will be paying for all the wellfare health care, plus the illigals (if Pelosi has her way) To be frank, I don't want to be compelled to be responsible for ingrates. With insurance companies I have the freedom to choose, with the government that right is taken away. By the pictures and the names of the bloggers here I would judge they are less then professional, but can afford a computer. They probably are writing from a coffee shop in Portland because they can't afford their own internet. I'm sorry, am I being judgemental? Get a job!

iownitnow says

With insurance companies I have the freedom to choose, with the government that right is taken away.

You're wrong about that. Insurance companies already tell you what care you are going to get. And the more you need it, the more likely they are to cancel your policy. You may not even apply to more than one at a time, and if one rejects you, you have to report it to the next one. If you don't report your rejection, they retroactively cancel your policy when they find out, and you are bankrupted, and you die.

I'm not wrong, Patrick, but neither are you. Yes their are hassles with the insurance companies and people get kicked off, but I have governnent health care through the military and you would not believe the wait sometimes to get the treatment I need. I could be dead... they wouldn't care just like the insurance companies. I don't want to bore you with the VA, check it out for yourself... youtube "david crowder," very interesting.

So, IMO, the elephant in the room is: where does this presumed right to health care come from? Last I checked, "health care" is merely a phrase describing the services provided by one segment of trained professionals ...just like nearly every other service offered in (the remaining shreds of) our free market economy. Yet we aren't having town halls to discuss free "automobile care". It seems that because "health care" services deal with, you know, health, there is a widespread assumption that those who provide those services are under some sort of special obligation to make said services available to everyone, everywhere, regardless of cost, because everyone everywhere is entitled to the same health care services. I find this point of view to be repugnant, despicable, and breathtakingly short-sighted. Having said that: if the goal of the whole "health insurance reform" (as team Obama has shrewdly rebranded it) discussion is to try and make health care services more affordable, then I'm all for it. What most disturbs me about virtually every single instance of the "health care" reform discussion that I've come across, either in person or in the news/blogs/etc, is that an analysis of the root problems seems to have been glossed completely over. If prices are high, why? If eeeevil insurance companies are keeping prices high (good heavens, a private company trying to maximize profit!), how are they doing it? Etc. To that end, one of the most straightforward proposals I've yet seen has been made by Karl Denninger; you can read his post on the matter here: Fixing Health Care: A Real Solution A summary of his five points; see his post for further exposition of each item: (1) If you sell "insurance" to anyone in a given state, you must accept all persons in that state on the same terms and at the same price. (2) All "insurance" companies must offer a true insurance policy covering only unlikely-but-catastrophic events on the same terms as their "full service" policies. (3) All health providers must publish a price list and may not bill or accept payment at anything other than that price; doing so becomes a violation of Robinson-Patman and exposes the provider to civil suit for treble damages. (4) No event caused by the provision of your treatment may be billed to you. (5) If you show up without insurance or ability to pay with a life-threatening condition, you will be treated, but the hospital cannot cost-shift the bill - it instead bills The Federal Government.

WillyWanker, Your constant references to our president using his middle name HUSSEIN is getting very old.. What's so wrong about voting against a party that did NOTHING worthwhile in 8 years in office.... Give the ball to the other team for 4 years and see if they can score... The fact that we got a intellectual, well-spoken, compassionate president into office for a change is just a bonus! Seems fair to me!

A different angle: Even the most sound, healthy body is a finite thing. The cells gradually break down -- unless you are employed in some kind of physically taxing labor, in which case it may be less gradual. The fact is, we are all slowly biodegrading at this moment - we can all agree on that much. With that said, why should any productive citizen of a nation, who contributes in either small or large part to the overall GDP of their country, be expected to take it up the backside with progressive insurance premiums/coverage fiascos/health care/big pharma costs, when it is no one's fault (with some exceptions - eating disorders, smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism), that falling apart is simply the order of the design? You take issue with the notion that health care should be an obligatory social service provided with equality for all peoples. But really, how is it not absurd that a whole industry is built around maximizing profits from someone's inevitable decline in health? Why is that a product in the first place? It's pretty crass when you think about it. Even more so than you comparing people to machines as with your automobile care analogy But while we're on that subject... Let's look at oil. It's a similar situation. We are something of a captive audience when it comes to oil. The modern day city is a sprawling mass connected by highways and interstates, which require most of us to use some sort of mechanized means of conveyance for commuting and conducting business. We are dependent upon oil because there are few realistic alternatives for mass transportation and our civilization is designed around this dependency -- some would say designed specifically to ensure this dependency. Why then should we be screwed at the pump when we are simply purchasing a commodity which is all but a built-in fundamental element of survival in the modern world, and not a discretionary luxury? Again, there are exceptions, like recreational vehicles, Hummers, self immolation, etc., but at its core, the general idea is still absurd.

http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/930f7aafff6fd009c8210f29403ce205

That was fun!

"Patrick.... August 10th, 2009 at 5:20 pm | top | quote | email this Police and firemen and elementary school teachers are all “socialized” but they also all work reasonably well. And you still have the private option if you want extra. Even the military is “socialist” isn’t it? Involuntary taxes pay for it. I like free markets in general, but you have to admit some socialized things work well enough via involuntary taxes, and would be only for the rich in a totally market-oriented system." -------------------- yes, the mil ins program works well. there is no reason to not make it work for all.

I want the same insurance coverage that state senators enjoy.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

Obama rocks !! ...When was the last time when an American President actually thought of poor, sick and downtrodden.

interpretame says

Looks like my (extensive) response (with multiple links) will be “awaiting moderation” FOREVER.

Wordpress has very weird (and dumb) sense of logic what constitutes spam/bad post. For example, if certain posts contains more than certain number of links, it tags for "moderation". Does not make too much sense to me.

How can the Gov't afford "affordable" or "free" health ins for the XX million uninsured and underinsured with a multi trillion annual deficit? This is the heart of the issue. It can't be sustainable long term w/o serious consequences. Like rationing, doctor shortages, hospital shortages, delays, higher taxes, more debt, threat of hyperinflation, etc. Some solutions I see are: 1) eliminate licensing requirements for med schools, hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, etc. 2) eliminate gov't restrictions on production and sale of drugs and med devices - no FDA 3) deregulate health ins industry 4) eliminate subsidies to the sick and unhealthy These will go a long ways to improving the health care mess.

My mother applied for mine & my sister's Social Security cards at the same time; we were issued cards 30 numbers apart. My theory is that my mother has hidden my 29 brothers & sisters from me in an attempt to cast doubt on my inheritance.

And President Obama's grandmother & mother colluded to make it appear that he was born in the United States because they were aware that he would be President some day. It all make sense to me now!

I'm off to the garage now, thanks for listening and please pass the skull on the way out.

wcalleallegre says

How can the Gov’t afford “affordable” or “free” health ins for the XX million uninsured and underinsured with a multi trillion annual deficit? This is the heart of the issue. It can’t be sustainable long term w/o serious consequences. Like rationing, doctor shortages, hospital shortages, delays, higher taxes, more debt, threat of hyperinflation, etc.

How can every other wealthy country on the planet provide universal coverage? What a stupid argument. And, yes, I know that there are funding problems in some countries medical systems. There are many more that are perfectly sound. We *ALREADY* pay for the uninsured, buddy, we just do so in a horribly inefficient manner. If you don't believe that we foot the bill for the uninsured, spend some time in an emergency room one Friday night and then try to say with a straight face that all the people being treated are insured.

elliemae says

My mother applied for mine & my sister’s Social Security cards at the same time; we were issued cards 30 numbers apart. My theory is that my mother has hidden my 29 brothers & sisters from me in an attempt to cast doubt on my inheritance.
And President Obama’s grandmother & mother colluded to make it appear that he was born in the United States because they were aware that he would be President some day. It all make sense to me now!
I’m off to the garage now, thanks for listening and please pass the skull on the way out.

1. Do you have a twin sister? If this is the case, could you share with us whether the birth certificate registration numbers are consecutive or not? These numbers are not reused, so I would expect that those numbers would be consecutive.

It is my understanding that social security numbers are reused. Could it be that the first two available social security numbers for you and your sister were not consecutive but apart?

2. I never claimed that Obama's grandmother and mother knew that he would run for presidency. This is a product of your imagination with the intent to ridicule my questioning of Obama's eligibility.
If I had a grandchild born in a third-world country, I would have tried to register his birth in the USA because it would be easier for him to go through life as a US citizen. As simple as that.

There would be no need for us to speculate about any of these things if Obama would do the same as McCain did last year when people challenged his eligibility to run. He produced the birth certificate with the name of the hospital and the attending physician. There was even debate in Congress about it.

Why is Obama so reluctant to do the same? If he was indeed born in the USA it would be trivial to produce the long form birth certificate.

He thought that it was important for him to answer the eligibility question, that is why the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) document was posted on a friendly web site. However, that document is not a birth certificate and says nothing about the hospital where he was born.

My sister & I are not twins. The application was sent at the same time. Our numbers are exactly 30 apart; Social Security numbers are not reused because they are designed to be specific to a person as an identifier.

I work with people every day who have no original birth certificate; they apply for a copy and receive anything from a certificate to a certification of live birth to a letter stating that the courthouse burned down, records were destroyed in a flood or something else catasrophic, and they no longer exist. Yet the person sits in front of me and therefore exists and I accept the info provided to me at face value.

I didn't say that you knew they'd run for presidency. You're reading WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much into my post. As you are reading wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much into the whole birth certificate thing. Besides, if McCain had won, I don't believe they had yet invented the pencil or ink so he would have to provide the stone tablet of his birth. Hope it didn't rain & wash the record away...

This entire issue is the reason for god fearing productions, blacklisted news, and fox news...

elliemae says

My sister & I are not twins. The application was sent at the same time. Our numbers are exactly 30 apart; Social Security numbers are not reused because they are designed to be specific to a person as an identifier.
I work with people every day who have no original birth certificate; they apply for a copy and receive anything from a certificate to a certification of live birth to a letter stating that the courthouse burned down, records were destroyed in a flood or something else catasrophic, and they no longer exist. Yet the person sits in front of me and therefore exists and I accept the info provided to me at face value.
I didn’t say that you knew they’d run for presidency. You’re reading WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much into my post. As you are reading wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much into the whole birth certificate thing. Besides, if McCain had won, I don’t believe they had yet invented the pencil or ink so he would have to provide the stone tablet of his birth. Hope it didn’t rain & wash the record away…
This entire issue is the reason for god fearing productions, blacklisted news, and fox news…

I thought that government reuses the numbers of deceised people. It is a side point in this discussion. I am not familiar with the process used to generate social security numbers.

Obama's birth ceritifacte did not burn down nor it was destroyed. In his book "Dreams of..." he claimed to have the birth certificate in his possesion. Yet this is not the document that was posted on his web site.
Neither you nor any of the Obama suporters have provided a logical explanation on why is it such a problem for Obama to prove his birthplace. It is a Constitutional requirement that president must be a natural-born citizien.
We know that his father was a foreigner.
In addition, Obama lived in Indonesia and school records there indicated that he was an Indonesian citizen.

The following link contains a snapshot of Obama's (Barry Soetoro) school registration document from Fransiscus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaEducation.htm

nosf41,

You are asking the wrong way. You are supposed to say "Do you have a seeeeeester?"

(no mind if it makes no sense, it's an old joke, possibly usenet origin).

Why is it that birthers all seem to believe that documents verified by the state of Hawaii are fradulent but unconfirmed documents from a school registration in Jakarta are 100% legitimate?

I'd expect at least a little consistency in their idiotic argument.

I don't even know what these people expect to happen. Lets say that, for the sake of argument, that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The question of his eligibility to be President would then be contingent on the supreme court ruling officially on the natural born issue (I'm assuming here that previous precedent on citizenship issues would be deemed insufficient).

The most likely outcome is that the SCOTUS would just rule that since his mother was a U.S. citizen, so is he.

Then what? Absolutely nothing. Life would go on, and he'll probably get re-elected in 2012 because the GOP can't produce a competent candidate to stand against him even if they wanted to.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time? If you're really this interested in arcane interpretations of the constitution, perhaps you should become a constitutional lawyer. There's way more money in that then there is in trolling on internet forums.

Kevin - "How can every other wealthy country on the planet provide universal coverage?" Clearly you haven't heard, they employ death camps and kill off everyone who costs too much. It's the pussy liberal way. Oh, and they also massively redistribute wealth. I guess in order to pay for all those death camps. I'm unclear on the precise details. ;)

By the way, while Canda does have a longer life expactancy the we do and while they have improved wait times since the '90s, the cancer treatment wait times there ARE too long (20-40 days on average for many surgeries and 7 weeks for radiation). They post all the wait times online and are very open about it. But there are other countries with better models. I just believe it is telling that we spend twice as much of our GDP per person on healthcare as Canada does and we STILL have a shorter life expectancy. If we diverted just the money we spent already to an equally efficient if better designed system than theirs, just imagine the quality of care we would have for every single citizen. Too bad we can't have an open dialogue on all the options rather than a screaming match whose tenor is set by a slew of misinformation rather than sober facts.

In 1945 if you got sick you died, period. Medical care was inexpensive because it was primitive. Cancer? You die. Organ failure? Die. Diabetes? Die. I'm absolutely certain that we could provide 1945-quality medical care for about the same price (adjusted for inflation) today. Now, I do tend to agree that for non-emergency services, direct payer is best. But what about all those poor people would would have to choose between preventative care ("doctor's visits") and food/shelter/utilities? They're going to choose the more pressing need, which creates a problem further down the road. The system has to be optimized for what is best for the society as a whole. Letting the underclass go without any care at all (because they can't afford to pay anything at all) doesn't work. All it does is breed anger in those poor people, and that anger contributes to crime and violence. This is the basic reason for all social safety nets. You can spend some money now providing health care, food stamps, education, and housing assistance, or you can spend a lot of money later on prisons, arson damage, riot control, and treating the gunshot wounds inflicted by angry poor people. I won't claim that a single payer system is the best option there is, but I think it's far better than any pipe dream of all people being able to pay for medical bills out of pocket as well. And, yes, the wealthier members of society do have a duty to take care of the poor members. If they do not do this out of a moral obligation, they should do it out of self preservation. Just ask various European monarchies how ignoring the poor worked out for them.

Kevin says

Why is it that birthers all seem to believe that documents verified by the state of Hawaii are fradulent but unconfirmed documents from a school registration in Jakarta are 100% legitimate?
I’d expect at least a little consistency in their idiotic argument.
I don’t even know what these people expect to happen. Lets say that, for the sake of argument, that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The question of his eligibility to be President would then be contingent on the supreme court ruling officially on the natural born issue (I’m assuming here that previous precedent on citizenship issues would be deemed insufficient).
The most likely outcome is that the SCOTUS would just rule that since his mother was a U.S. citizen, so is he.
Then what? Absolutely nothing. Life would go on, and he’ll probably get re-elected in 2012 because the GOP can’t produce a competent candidate to stand against him even if they wanted to.
Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? If you’re really this interested in arcane interpretations of the constitution, perhaps you should become a constitutional lawyer. There’s way more money in that then there is in trolling on internet forums.

As expected, you did not provide an explanation on what could be Obama's motivation for hiding his past.

State of Hawaii did not show any document publicly. Initially, several very ambigous statements were released (In October 2008). Only very recently one official mentioned that Obama is a natural-born citizen. However, I do not trust her word. I have seen to many political operatives lying to the public, to just blindly accept this statement without any proof. There is so much circumstential evidence pointing to the contrary to her claim.

According to the US law in effect in 1961, children born abroad in relationships where one parent was a US citizen were not automatically US citizens. Obama’s American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. She did not meet that requirement (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

If Obama was born abroad - he is not eligible to be US president.

The elibility issue is not a trivial one. If we had an illegitimate president, he would be susceptible to blackmail from those who knew his secret. Obama promised transparency - what did we get in return - an unprecedented secrecy.
This is similar to Clinton's election campaign promise to have the most ethical government and Bush's election promise to be a fiscal conservative and not to engage in foreign nation building.

What parts of US constitution or existing laws do you want to ignore? Can all of us start behaving according to our own whims? If we let Obama get away with violating the Constitution on eligibility issue, he will be emboldened to change the society according to his own ideas regardless of our Constitutional rights.

Could dictatorship be coming our way, with dear leader in charge for life? Obama has already proposed the establishment of "civilian national security force" that should be as powerful, strong and funded as US military: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=related

What I do with my spare time is my problem. If you think that I am trolling on this forum, just ignore my posts.

And, yes, the wealthier members of society do have a duty to take care of the poor members. If they do not do this out of a moral obligation, they should do it out of self preservation. Just ask various European monarchies how ignoring the poor worked out for them.

They might also take an interest since it's the lowly proles who are the biggest contributors to the GDP anymore with consumer spending.