That's not what I said, I never said throw out The Constitution at all and I should shut my mouth because a government agent is going to shut it for me. What kind of an intelligent discussion is this? I thought a civilized intelligent society discusses important issues both pro and con so we all can make good decisions and see what other peoples opinions are and the whys on an intelligent level.

I hate to tell you this but this isn't a one state issue, this is a national issue, 52 states in the union that are involved, whether you like it or not.

As far as the pilot's license and drivers license you completely missed the point, you just didn't get it!

Originally Posted by Giselle

...but due to advances in medical and the population explosion compared to 1788, we need some kind of help in Health Care.

Not really. Most of the population doesn't have health care, because they don't want it. Hospital rates without any insurance are fairly cheap enough that you can easily get a loan to cover them, or if you saved your money you could pay it off with the money you saved up.

I hope you guys will read this article. It's thought to be written by Col. David Crockett. http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

It's pretty long but worth reading. It explains the problem with the bailouts (which are a completely different discussion), but you can also relate the current house bill to it.

The house bill states that the government will have direct access to your bank account information, allowing them to wire transfer funds for health care related charges. The majority of Americans will not be able to keep their current insurance, and government employees and other minor groups are void from this health care plan (meaning government will probably have a better plan than you will).

This is extremely dangerous if it passes. I suggest you read the copy of the bill

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

I'm happy when someone thinks I'm wrong. So if you find what I'm saying misleading in your opinion feel free to reply. i'd love to show you the truth behind this bill that the gov't is trying to cover

Originally Posted by Giselle

That's not what I said, I never said throw out The Constitution at all

Well you said it was 200 years old, I was making the point it has been amended over the years. What is outdated in it? If something is outdated then we should get rid of that part...and since everything in it is a government power, I am generally all for removing parts of it. :P

Originally Posted by Giselle

and I should shut my mouth because a government agent is going to shut it for me. What kind of an intelligent discussion is this? I thought a civilized intelligent society discusses important issues both pro and con so we all can make good decisions and see what other peoples opinions are and the whys on an intelligent level.

I apologize. I didn't mean that as you should actually shut your mouth. I was making a joke based on you assessment that the Constitution was outdated...ie: Freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. I thought it was obvious what I was doing given all the oppressive governments throughout history that have not allowed dissent.

Originally Posted by Giselle

I hate to tell you this but this isn't a one state issue,

But it is, because it isn't in the Constitution. See the 10th Amendment, that makes it a State issue. However, I realize many people see humanitarian issues as global, so that might be what you mean. But still, we haven't given the Feds the power.

Originally Posted by Giselle

this is a national issue, 52 states in the union that are involved, whether you like it or not.

I assume you misspoke or this conversation is over due to unmentionable reasons.

Originally Posted by Giselle

As far as the pilot's license and drivers license you completely missed the point, you just didn't get it!

Then please explain. They didn't have a cars back then, so they obviously didn't have a drivers license. But for the record, you have a right to drive even today without a drivers license, you just cannot do so on a public road way, because states have a right to regulate that, based on the 10th Amendment.
The Federal Government doesn't have that right, and that is one of MANY reason I do not agree with the Real ID.

Very simple, "We The People" spoke in last November's election. Before the election during the campaigning, President Obama mentioned his plans, policies and one of them was health care reform. The people were well aware before the election, they exercised their right to vote, they voted for Obama to be President, but also voted for the Congress and Senate in their state to represent them on a Federal level, which made Congress and the Senate more Democrats then Republicans. "We The People" spoke, everything is legal and above board, nobody's rights have been violated or infringed upon.

Originally Posted by Giselle

Very simple, "We The People" spoke in last November's election. Before the election during the campaigning, President Obama mentioned his plans, policies and one of them was health care reform. The people were well aware before the election, they exercised their right to vote, they voted for Obama to be President, but also voted for the Congress and Senate in their state to represent them on a Federal level, which made Congress and the Senate more Democrats then Republicans. "We The People" spoke, everything is legal and above board, nobody's rights have been violated or infringed upon.

"We the people" voteed, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. if you research the whole concept of Constitutionality, you have rights that a simple majority cannot deny. The is the WHOLE POINT.

Originally Posted by Outlaws

"We the people" voteed, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. if you research the whole concept of Constitutionality, you have rights that a simple majority cannot deny. The is the WHOLE POINT.

"We the people" voteed, but if you research the whole concept of Constitutionality, you have rights that a simple majority cannot deny. Those rights are, the government doesn't have the authority on health care, because it is not listed.

The second paragraph is the unedited edition of your post. When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, health care was not going to be on the list, along with ocean exploration, space exploration, nuclear energy, air travel, electronic communication, world economy, and many many more that won't be on the list from 1788. Each person when running for the presidency has their own agenda, that's when "We The People" speak and pick who best suits their needs for the time. Senator McCain also had a health care reform plan, but "We The People" chose President Obama plus they chose their Congressional and Senatorial Representatives to match President Obama agenda, which would include health care reform.

Originally Posted by Giselle

"We the people" voteed, but if you research the whole concept of Constitutionality, you have rights that a simple majority cannot deny. Those rights are, the government doesn't have the authority on health care, because it is not listed.

The second paragraph is the unedited edition of your post. When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, health care was not going to be on the list, along with ocean exploration, space exploration, nuclear energy, air travel, electronic communication, world economy, and many many more that won't be on the list from 1788. Each person when running for the presidency has their own agenda, that's when "We The People" speak and pick who best suits their needs for the time. Senator McCain also had a health care reform plan, but "We The People" chose President Obama plus they chose their Congressional and Senatorial Representatives to match President Obama agenda, which would include health care reform.

So then Amend the Constitution! How hard is that to grasp?! But you can't, because you don't actually have that much support, so the left cries like a baby. The election was no validation to Obamas platform, but a repudiation of a scumbag known as Bush.

The left was crying over every single thing Bush did and how he wouldn't work with them, and everything was a violation of our rights. Well now that the left appears to be in charge, you seem to feel no need care about the same sentiments.

The left and right are both the same... Selfish greed.

And one more thing.... just remember what I said about the government shutting your mouth for you. If you want an election to validate all your opinions, just wait until the next "terrorist" attack. I don't care if its Obama, or Bush the 3rd.... They will use it as an excuse to do whatever they want, again. But you will support that I guess. You obviously are happy with everything Bush did, as he was elected...twice. Its what "we" wanted after all...and who could have foreseen this level of terrorism in 1788.

The discussion here is moving to what the constitution does and does not say. Let's take a look at some things it does say:

Originally Posted by United States Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Originally Posted by United States Constitution

ARTICLE I. 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The general welfare. Not only is that one of the whole purposes of forming the United States of America, the government is Constitutionally-authorized to impose taxes for such benefit.

I found it interesting that Stephen Hawking had the nerve to accuse the national healthcare system of the UK of giving him a longer life (which I think we all, as a planet, benefitted from).

It is also interesting that many who argue against health care have thrown out their attacks for funding abortions. Those very same people who defend an embryo are also vehemently arguing to allow those who cannot afford to live to die -- they're even opposed to end-of-life counseling (what about counseling to not have an abortion??) -- and are unable to see the conflict in their views.

Think of it this way: that "embryo" could grow up to be another "Stephen Hawking". Which would you want to have die?

Personally, I'd prefer neither.

No one here, though, who is anti-health care is stepping forward to justify their viewpoint. They are throwing out red herrings (where is it in the constitution and socialism) and committing the fallacy of attacking the speaker, but aren't providing any thoughtful counter arguments... I'd be happy to entertain them (and, I must keep in mind that I could be wrong), but when the "other side" (of the issue) is walking on the crutch of fallacial logic, it makes it rather hard to see any true foundation to their argument.

I simply cannot resist the temptation: So many of those who are opposed to health care (where you can choose to be in a national program or not) are very Christian in their beliefs: What ever happened to considering their neighbor? WWJCD? That is, what would the dude who said "to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" do? (Paraphrasing his words from memory.) Or, in this millenium, why do they answer, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

...(where you can choose to be in a national program or not) ...

No you can't. If you have read the bill you would understand that. I'm almost positive you haven't read the bill yet you are defending it. Why, because you still have a blind faith in the government that can't run social security, medicare, and tries to find a way to regulate every possible area of peoples lives?

ROFL, Alex. You clearly don't know me.

House Bill: Section 102 "PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE"
Senate Bill: Part III Section 131 "NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COVERAGE."

And, yes, I've read them. The House version is 1018 pages and the Senate version is 615 pages.

Now that I've demonstrated evidence of reading those documents, let's turn the table: You oppose them, so have you read them?

If so, do you think that they'll ensure coverage for otherwise uncovered conditions? Namely,

1) Pre-Existing Conditions,
2) Lifetime or annual benefits exceeded, or
3) Benefit denials based on health status

If those people aren't being covered now through insurance, then they're being covered through (generally speaking) ER visits or not at all which raises the overall cost to the taxpayer an average of $1000 per year (see factcheck.org for details).

Do you really favor suffering for those who aren't as fortunate to obtain health care that you're willing to defend your views with deception?

I hope it was just blind ignorance on your part that you even began to suppose that I wasn't informed on the issue and threw out a Republican talking point instead of a logical counter argument.

Sorry to be a johnny-foreigner butt-in to your domestic dispute, I just find the whole shebang pretty interesting. I have a question: what is so bad about providing healthcare for all? For such a Christian nation, I wonder how the US can be so against helping those in need. It's pretty confusing...

Jeremy this is a question for you seeing as you have read over all the documents on the Health Care Reform. Will this National Health Care Reform be similar to the Massachusetts Health Care Reform? And my husband wants to know especially about the penalty clause which to him seems awfully harsh.

I have links on the information I have been reading yesterday, if you want me to supply them let me know.

Originally Posted by Giselle

Jeremy this is a question for you seeing as you have read over all the documents on the Health Care Reform. Will this National Health Care Reform be similar to the Massachusetts Health Care Reform? And my husband wants to know especially about the penalty clause which to him seems awfully harsh.

I can't comment on the Mass. plan as I'm not aware of it and by "penalty", I'm not 100% sure of what you're talking about. I'm going to assume that you're talking about a penalty for not being insured. If that's the case, then here are the applicable sections of the bills:

Originally Posted by HOUSE VERSION

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Originally Posted by SENATE VERSION

SEC. 59B. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS.
(a) PAYMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any individual who did not have in effect qualifying coverage (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health Service Act) for any month during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed for the taxable year, in addition to any other amount imposed by this subtitle, an amount equal to the amount established under paragraph (2).
(2) AMOUNT ESTABLISHED.—
(A) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH.—Not later than June 30 of each calendar year, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and with the States, shall establish an amount for purposes of paragraph (1).
(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amount established under subparagraph (A) shall be effective with respect to the taxable year following the date on which the amount under subparagraph (A) is established.
(C) REQUIRED CONSIDERATION.—In establishing the amount under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall seek to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).

NOTE: There is more to each section, mainly modifying those terms and clarifying them.

COMMENT: This is one thing in the bill which I oppose.

As a side comment since there has been so much dicussion regarding the constitution and rights, is that the federal govt is clearly given the power to tax. This power facilitated what is known as "carrots and sticks". The federal govt imposing fines or punishments is the "stick" whereas offering money for abiding by rules is the "carrots". Both bills contain provisions allowing federal funding for health care only if the states adopt the provisions of the bill. This is an equivalent method as that which was used for the "federally-mandated" 50mph speed limit -- abide or no federal funding for roads.

Yes I am talking about the penalties of not belonging to a health care insurance plan. We have tried to listen to the national news and figure out why the people are so angry over this new health care reform, with absolutely no conclusions. What we are looking are for are figures, how much is this going to cost everyone? That's what prompted me to look and see what Massachusetts had. I am going to supply two links if you or anyone else cares to read them.

Needless to say I was depressed over what I was reading, my husband was upset. The only conclusion maybe, seeing as this will be collective (52 states involved) the insurance premiums and deductibles won't be so high.

As for us, we are expecting the Medicare premium to go up, it goes up every year anyhow but we are expecting it to go up much higher with some cutting, maybe it won't but we are expecting the worse, we can live with that and accept that. Our concern is for the people who are working at the Quick Stops or maybe have a job elsewhere where they only work 30-35 hours a week, just barely surviving. And some with no jobs at all.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/au...pers-a14.shtml

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...ing_insurance/

Originally Posted by edgray

Sorry to be a johnny-foreigner butt-in to your domestic dispute, I just find the whole shebang pretty interesting. I have a question: what is so bad about providing healthcare for all? For such a Christian nation, I wonder how the US can be so against helping those in need. It's pretty confusing...

This country used to be predominantly Christian Ed, I am not sure anymore I would have to get the statistics, but we are made up of various religious organizations and some who don't belong to any religious organizations and that would be me. As a group of people we do all come together with concerns on human and animal rights, environment, global, etc. The people are angry over this health care reform, but I really can't tell you the whys because I am not sure either. The people wanted this and not now, I watched "Meet The Press" earlier which the topic was health care reform, still not really catching the gist of it yet, except perhaps the financial end of it.

Giselle, I don't believe "the people" are really angry over this. That, I believe, is what we're told and demonstrations were setup to "prove" a point through artificial means. Republicans aren't really interested in what "the people" want, but how to get power and have said as much (Jim DeMint ... "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo, it will break him..."). They also claim to speak on behalf f the American people, even though they were stripped of the white house and congress (that's the gist of the rest of DeMint's quote). If that were the case, then why would they redirect Americans angry over their opposition to the DNC? They want everyone to listen to them, but will be damned if they'll listen to any other view.

Support for health care has declined as the number of lies about health care have increased. The RNC wants to "win" this issue by lies for the sole purpose of trying to regain power -- it has nothing to do with any of the actual issues they're bringing up. They truly do want America to be scared without reason (just as the OP re-iterated).

As for religion, this country still has the "Bible belt" and laws which were put in place by religious zealots hell-bent on overthrowing the Constitution to replace it with the bible... "separation of church and state" is just a few words, not an important priniciple in their eyes. The abortion issue has nothing to do with a right to life by the non-living, but everything to do with religious decrees. Those who fight for such things -- NOT ALL CHRISTIANS, I MIGHT ADD -- are as bad as the Muslim's who wish to force their religion on others -- through force and through the law (here, again, NOT ALL MUSLIMS).

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am non-religious myself.

I'll have to get back to your other post (with the links) later this week as I have a hard deadline on Tuesday and will be working the next 72 hours to get that completed.

EDIT: I just wanted to quickly add that I like the co-op idea being thrown around now too. Haven't seen any formal legislation, however.

I think one of the reasons people do not want to pay for other peoples problems is because there are a lot of dirt poor people with 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 kids who do not deserve one cent of my money, and I say my because they will absolutely not be paying their "fair" share.

Then there is Barney Frank, and a few others, who have stated this plan will be a good step towards single provider health care. ...which is exactly what the President is saying he isn't doing...but that is typical double talk because even if it is not in this bill, then it is still just a future bill away from striking the clause that allows you to keep your private plan. And they could slip that into any legislation they want. Remember, 2 years ago the word was UNIVERSAL health care. But that was not going to fly. So you play word games and sneak in the back door.

Originally Posted by Outlaws

I think one of the reasons people do not want to pay for other peoples problems is because there are a lot of dirt poor people with 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 kids who do not deserve one cent of my money, and I say my because they will absolutely not be paying their "fair" share.

So let them go to the ER instead, have worse health problems, and cost everyone more money. Much more logical of a plan and that requires changing nothing.

Personally, I have a much harsher view of those who reproduce without thinking of the consequences: Take their children away from them. Clearly they're more interested in unprotected sex than they are in providing for their children which betrays other areas where they will fail as parents.

Originally Posted by Outlaws

Then there is Barney Frank, and a few others, who have stated this plan will be a good step towards single provider health care. ...which is exactly what the President is saying he isn't doing...but that is typical double talk because even if it is not in this bill, then it is still just a future bill away from striking the clause that allows you to keep your private plan. And they could slip that into any legislation they want. Remember, 2 years ago the word was UNIVERSAL health care. But that was not going to fly. So you play word games and sneak in the back door.

Oh yes, I forgot... I'm supposed to be afraid of UNIVERSAL (i.e. everyone) receiving health care. Sorry, but fear mongering falls on deaf ears behind this keyboard.

Go ask Stephen Hawking what his view on UNIVERSAL health care is.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

So let them go to the ER instead, have worse health problems, and cost everyone more money. Much more logical of a plan and that requires changing nothing.

Personally, I have a much harsher view of those who reproduce without thinking of the consequences: Take their children away from them. Clearly they're more interested in unprotected sex than they are in providing for their children which betrays other areas where they will fail as parents.



Oh yes, I forgot... I'm supposed to be afraid of UNIVERSAL (i.e. everyone) receiving health care. Sorry, but fear mongering falls on deaf ears behind this keyboard.

Go ask Stephen Hawking what his view on UNIVERSAL health care is.

I am not saying you don't want universal health care, or single provider, but I am saying we need to call a spade a spade. This reform they are trying to accomplish is not supposed to stop at whatever they end up doing. It is a stepping stone and they all know it, but since the end goal it isn't technically included, they say it isn't that. Which is just as dishonest of those who are promoting the reform as those who are lying to get it stopped.

So lets quit with the fear mongering statements that are all over the news, as there is plenty of lying to go around.