There was a time in the USA not that long ago when people paid for their own medical care. If they couldn't pay for a doctor, they either went into debt or they had to rely on the generosity of the medical professionals.

Over time, some bright person came up with the idea of medical insurance: I'll collect a few dollars from lot's of different people and put it into a pool, to be used to cover the medical costs of people in the pool as it is needed. Since statistically speaking not everyone gets sick all at the same time, the funds collected from a bunch of people can be used to pay for the expenses of a few. For managing this service, I will collect a fee, and I will invest the money that is in the pool so as to maximize both my profitability and the amount of money available in the pool. And since I represent a lot of patients, I will also have the ability to negotiate for better prices of medical care for my clients. Patients lay out small amounts of money to cover their very large medical expenses. Doctors get guaranteed business fed to them by the insurance company. The insurance company gets a cut of whatever they collect from patients.

Good idea.

Then someone got a bright idea to start offering to pay for a portion of the cost of medical insurance as an emplyment benefit. Especially in industries where compensation was either very competitive or highly regulated, it made sense for companies to offer medical coverage (or a portion thereof) as a relatively low-cost benefit, a perk for employment.

Note that word... "BENEFIT". As in "a luxury item", something offered to sweeten a deal.

As time went on, more and more people asked for this particular benefit until most companies were offering it as a matter of course. Anyone employed by a company of 10 people or more just naturally came to expect this benefit as part of their employment package. If you worked, you expected to get medical benefits.

This continued until now... until suddenly this benefit, this perk, this luxury item, is suddenly being seen as a RIGHT that everyone should have as a matter of law.

When did something that started as a luxury item, a benefit, become a right that the government has to guarantee us under the law?

Elliot

Yeah, I was wondering that same thing myself, Wolverine. But there is a downside now to all this "freebie crap" that employers have to dangle in front of employees to keep them employed. Now companies are not offering such cheap health insurance premiums that the employees have to pay. The last employer I worked for that offered health insurance benefits to their employees had to jack up their portion of what the employee contributed monthly three times in one year! The rates of the insurance companies are disgraceful and usury. "Oh the costs are skyrocketing at the doctor's offices and hospitals" is their excuse. No, it's the pure greed of the health insurance companies that is driving the premiums sky high. No other reason to raise the rates three times in one year.

Also, why are the people who do have the health insurance offered by their companies (even if they don't have to pay the full premium but just part of it) constantly going to the doctor's? My fellow employees thought nothing of going to their doctor for a cold and getting antibiotics for a cold! That's another reason why costs are too high. Employee abuse pure and simple. Not preventative medicine, but seeing the doctor for stupid stuff and then happily getting prescriptions for "depression" while they are there and getting hooked on those pills as the doctor thought they were depressed since they had a cold. The doctors are really willing accomplices as well in this web of deceit. They are nothing more than pill pushers getting kickbacks from Big Pharma for pushing certain drugs and getting more people hooked on them.

Companies are now not offering health insurance as "perks, benefits, whatever" as they cannot frankly afford to do so. Some companies have drastically cut back any benefits to their employees as the company cannot afford to keep outlaying perks or benefits any longer.

And this is why I seldom go to the doctor, and I would NEVER WILLINGLY or KNOWLINGLY take any type of medication that messes with my head. Such as for depression. I see people all over the place, who "have a bad life" (or so they say), they go to the doctor, and get hooked on these pills that are supposed to put you in a good mood. Suddenly, they have prescription bills several hundred dollars per month.

People need to learn how to manage their problems without the aid of mind altering drugs, including alcohol.

No mother's little helper for me, no thank you!

Then someone got a bright idea to start offering to pay for a portion of the cost of medical insurance as an emplyment benefit. Especially in industries where compensation was either very competitive or highly regulated, it made sense for companies to offer medical coverage (or a portion thereof) as a relatively low-cost benefit, a perk for employment.




When FDR instituted mandatory wage and price controls ,that meant the employer's only ability to compete for employees was by creating non-controlled benefits .
That is how the current system was born .October 26, 1943, the IRS ruled that employers could continue to pay health insurance premiums in pre-tax dollars. That ruling legitimized and encouraged the practice.


Give me and all my American coworkers the cash equivalent to the benefit and open up the options of choices like I have in auto-insurance ,homeowner's insurance,life insurance .

That will in turn create more competition in the health insurance market place and prices are sure to drop.

I don't need the full menu that includes coverage for a massage or infirtility treatment but perhaps I'd prefer preventive supplements or holistic medicine covered instead.I don't need to be covered for nicotine dependency. That should be my choice .An ala-carte selection of benefits would better suit everyone's needs instead of 'universal coverage ' .I think insurance should be portable no matter who I worked for. If I can make a better deal in another State then why can't I have access to the plan the insurance company provides to employers and employess from that State ?

Yeah, I was wondering that same thing myself, Wolverine. But there is a downside now to all this "freebie crap" that employers have to dangle in front of employees to keep them employed. Now companies are not offering such cheap health insurance premiums that the employees have to pay. The last employer I worked for that offered health insurance benefits to their employees had to jack up their portion of what the employee contributed monthly three times in one year! The rates of the insurance companies are disgraceful and usury. "Oh the costs are skyrocketing at the doctor's offices and hospitals" is their excuse. No, it's the pure greed of the health insurance companies that is driving the premiums sky high. No other reason to raise the rates three times in one year.

Well, there is some legitimacy to the claims made by the insurance companies about increased costs. Costs actually have gone up, due in part to covering the uninsured and in part to the effects of frivolous lawsuits (both in terms of malpractice premiums and the unnecessary tests doctors do to cover their butts). Costs have gone up something like 56% in the past 10 years.

On the other hand, there is indeed a greed factor. Insurance companies will get away with charging as much as the market will bear. Why not? That's how capitalism works. But they can only get away with it for as long as we let them. The response to high prices is no create a new private insurance company that will charge less, thus creating price competition. Competition lowers prices. Competition is the answer to high prices and poor service. Government run options DECREASE competition, and are counterproductive to lowering prices and increasing services.


Also, why are the people who do have the health insurance offered by their companies (even if they don't have to pay the full premium but just part of it) constantly going to the doctor's? My fellow employees thought nothing of going to their doctor for a cold and getting antibiotics for a cold! That's another reason why costs are too high. Employee abuse pure and simple. Not preventative medicine, but seeing the doctor for stupid stuff and then happily getting prescriptions for "depression" while they are there and getting hooked on those pills as the doctor thought they were depressed since they had a cold. The doctors are really willing accomplices as well in this web of deceit. They are nothing more than pill pushers getting kickbacks from Big Pharma for pushing certain drugs and getting more people hooked on them.

Here we disagree completely. If I am paying for medical insurance, then I demand medical coverage. If I work for my insurance coverage (even if my employer pays the entire amount, it is still being paid for by labor) then I demand to be covered for anything... even if it's just the sniffles.

Let's also not lose site of the fact that preventive care is usually more cost effective than care after the fact. Getting taken care of for the sniffles and a sore throat today may very well prevent bronchitis tomorrow, which would be more costly to cure.

And as a sufferer of climical depression and consumer of Zoloft and Wellbutrin, I can tell from your post that you clearly have no idea what depression is, what it does to the human body and mind and how debilitating the illness is. It isn't "stupid stuff" and nobody suffering from depression WANTS to be suffering from it. I can assure you of that. Anti-depressants are a very important tool of the medical industry. That's not to say that they aren't abused by some... but then again, cough medicine can be abused. So can Ibuprofen. That doesn't mean that they aren't effective when used appropriately. In my particular case, I can tell you that without the anti-depressant meds I take, I would have died, pure and simple. Your statement on this point is rather simplistic and lacks an understanding of how the chemistry of the human body works.


Companies are now not offering health insurance as "perks, benefits, whatever" as they cannot frankly afford to do so. Some companies have drastically cut back any benefits to their employees as the company cannot afford to keep outlaying perks or benefits any longer.

True. Which again brings me back to my original question. The employees of those companies seem to be saying that having those benefits is a right, and if their companies won't give them what is rightfully theirs, then they should be getting it from the government. When did benefits offered as perks become a right to be guaranteed by the government?

And this is why I seldom go to the doctor, and I would NEVER WILLINGLY or KNOWLINGLY take any type of medication that messes with my head. Such as for depression. I see people all over the place, who "have a bad life" (or so they say), they go to the doctor, and get hooked on these pills that are supposed to put you in a good mood. Suddenly, they have prescription bills several hundred dollars per month.

People need to learn how to manage their problems without the aid of mind altering drugs, including alchohol.

No mother's little helper for me, no thank you!

Again this shows a simplistic understanding of clinical depression and how it effects the human body. You seem to think that those suffering from depression should "just snap out of it" as if there were nothing wrong with them in the first place. You clearly have never suffered from the effects of clinical depression, and don't know anything about it. Yet you speak with such authority on a subject you know nothing about.

Elliot

When FDR instituted mandatory wage and price controls ,that meant the employer's only ability to compete for employees was by creating non-controlled benefits .
That is how the current system was born .October 26, 1943, the IRS ruled that employers could continue to pay health insurance premiums in pre-tax dollars. That ruling legitimized and encouraged the practice.


give me and all my American coworkers the cash equivalent to the benefit and open up the options of choices like I have in auto-insurance ,homeowner's insurance,life insurance .

That will in turn create more competition in the health insurance market place and prices are sure to drop.

I don't need the full menu that includes coverage for a massage or infirtility treatment but perhaps I'd prefer preventive supplements or holistic medicine covered instead.I don't need to be covered for nicotine dependency. That should be my choice .An ala-carte selection of benefits would better suit everyone's needs instead of 'universal coverage ' .I think insurance should be portable no matter who I worked for. If I can make a better deal in another State then why can't I have access to the plan the insurance company provides to employers and employess from that State ?

Geico auto insurance (and I presume others as well) is now offering a "name your own price" deal, wherein you tell them what your budget is and they build you a policy that fits the budget by eliminating anything that isn't absolutely necessary to your needs.

Why can't insurance companies do the same thing? Want basic care for a family of 4 that includes well visits to pediatricians, pharmaceutical coverage, and catastrophic care? Your kids are under 3 and don't need dental yet, but you and your wife do? Don't care about the fertility coverage or the massage therapy but you need mental health coverage (after all, you're married with two kids... who wouldn't need mental health coverage)? We'll build you a policy that gives you what you need, and nothing more. If you want more, we can add stuff later, but for now, you pay for what you need and nothing else.

Let the companies pay the employees HALF of what they are paying for my health care, plus my contribution, directly to me, and let me buy my own health care on an as-needed basis, just like auto insurance or homeowners insurance.

The idea is sound, Tom.

Elliot

Well, Elliot, that's a strong statement to make considering you know absolutley nothing about me, you know not what I have been through, and my trials in life, and how I have dealt with them.

Am I depressed or not? I don't know, I refuse to go to a doctor to find out, or he/she would only shove pills down my throat. I do know I have had many of the textbook symptoms many times in my life due to various life expirences I have had.

I've pretty much had people kick the crap out of me my entire life. And I'm not here playing the violin, I'm making a point. I've had my share of days standing over bridge contemplating a jump, along with other such thoughts. Those who know me say I have a lot of undiagnosed medical issues, I just feel in some cases, the cure is worse than the disease.

Everybody handles problems a different way. As I've grown older though, Im learning to respect myself. Very few people see things my way, but the bible says that's the way it will be. I'm a firm believer in Gods plan for me. I don't know what that plan is, but if he wanted me to die that day, he would have had a gust of wind come and blow me over the ledge. Instead, at that very moment, he instilled a peace in me that no pill could ever do.

In fact, I see a lot of pill commercials where suicidal thoughts are a possible side effect.

Anyway, not going to go any further with that. I call a truce here. I respectfully ask that you not claim to know me or what I've been through, or what I know. I did marry a clinically depressed woman, and together, the two of us are working through it. She has been off her medication for 3 years now...

You know what's funny... she hasn't had a suicidal thought in... 3 years...
All the doctors and shrinks meant nothing, until we opened the bible and started living for God.

Food for thought...

And you can look through my archives and see the post where I blow off steam now and then regarding my wife. I won't say it's easy living with someone in this condition. But we are still married.

But I've been married to her for six years, 3 of which she was medicated, three of which she was not. The first year off her medication was rough, but the last two were better then the first three.

I thank God for that.

I do know depression is a complicated matter, but I don't believe the answer is in a pill, or drug. I don't know where the answer is. But I believe it has a lot to do with hard love and solid friends.

I've always found it a little strange that in the US an employer is 'expected' to contribute to an employees health insurance... I'm sure this must have paid a leading role in your suggestion that it is now a right.

I've always found it a little strange that in the US an employer is 'expected' to contribute to an employees health insurance... I'm sure this must have paid a leading role in your suggestion that it is now a right.


That's another point I forgot to make. It seem to me that real health insurance is really no longer a benefit anymore.

Lets face it, all the major employers that had the great health plans have moved overseas. All that's left are the small to medium sized employers, and they don't offer great plans if any at all. Some do, but most don't. And those who do offer such at a very high premium. I have to pay $600 per month out of my own pocket to cover my family.
I hear the new administration wants to tax that too.

In today's economy, an employer doesn't really have to offer any perks at all. Even unions have no leverage anymore. All a factory has to do is just say "see ya, we'll just go to China!".

And that's that.

I've always found it a little strange that in the US an employer is 'expected' to contribute to an employees health insurance... I'm sure this must have paid a leading role in your suggestion that it is now a right.

Absolutely true. But again, it started as a BENEFIT and somehow it became "the norm" in employee/employer relations, which in turn some people translated into "a right". But that was never the intent, nor is it the law. Yet people are demanding the "right" to health insurance, as if there was some legal basis for it. As if the fact that one person has it and someone else might not have it is a cause for government intervention to make everything "fair".

Elliot

That's another point I forgot to make. It seem to me that real health insurance is really no longer a benefit anymore.

Lets face it, all the major employers that had the great health plans have moved overseas. All that's left are the small to medium sized employers, and they don't offer great plans if any at all. Some do, but most don't. And those who do offer such at a very high premium. I have to pay $600 per month out of my own pocket to cover my family.
I hear the new administration wants to tax that too.

In today's economy, an employer doesn't really have to offer any perks at all. Even unions have no leverage anymore. All a factory has to do is just say "see ya, we'll just go to China!".

And that's that.

Yes. That is indeed all an employer has to do. They don't HAVE to offer medical insurance if they don't want to. The only reason to offer health insurance is to keep the best employees.

Medical insurance is not a right. Companies do not have to offer it. Neither does the government. That is exactly the point I'm making.

And as Tom pointed out, if employers were taken out of the equation, people would be free to negotiate with insurance companies for themselves, and insurance companies who are no longer getting business from large companies and who want to stay in business, will agree to what the people negotiate for. There is no need for employer-based health insurance. People would be free to build their own insurance policies or take packaged deals as they desire. And prices would be lower as companies competed for the business of individuals instead of the business of large companies.

You made a comment here that I would like to ask you about. You said that "all the major employers with great health plans" have gone overseas. Which companies are you speaking of? How many have gone overseas? How large are they? From my perspective, there have been companies that have outsourced quite a bit of their operations. But I have not seen any companies that have completely exited the American market. Even companies that outsource much of their operations have lots of American employees.

Furthermore, small and mid-sized companies employ more Americans than large companies ever did, and most of them offer some pretty good medical benefits. Companies of 10-500 employees employ MANY more people than Fortune 500 companies do because there are so many more of them.

So I question the basis for your statement that "all the major employers" have gone overseas.

Elliot

Well, Elliot, that's a strong statement to make considering you know absolutley nothing about me, you know not what I have been through, and my trials in life, and how I have dealt with them.

Am I depressed or not? I don't know, I refuse to go to a doctor to find out, or he/she would only shove pills down my throat. I do know I have had many of the textbook symptoms many times in my life due to various life expirences I have had.

I've pretty much had people kick the crap out of me my entire life. And I'm not here playing the violin, I'm making a point. I've had my share of days standing over bridge contemplating a jump, along with other such thoughts. Those who know me say I have a lot of undiagnosed medical issues, I just feel in some cases, the cure is worse than the desease.

Everybody handles problems a different way. As I've grown older though, Im learning to respect myself. Very few people see things my way, but the bible says that's the way it will be. I'm a firm believer in Gods plan for me. I don't know what that plan is, but if he wanted me to die that day, he would have had a gust of wind come and blow me over the ledge. Instead, at that very moment, he instilled a peace in me that no pill could ever do.

In fact, I see a lot of pill commercials where suicidal thoughts are a possible side effect.

Anyway, not going to go any further with that. I call a truce here. I respectfully ask that you not claim to know me or what I've been through, or what I know. I did marry a clinically depressed woman, and together, the two of us are working through it. She has been off her medication for 3 years now.....

You know what's funny... she hasn't had a suicidal thought in.... 3 years....
All the doctors and shrinks meant nothing, until we opened the bible and started living for God.

food for thought....

I'm going to get on my soapbox here for a moment. I hope you will indulge me for a little while.

Your post is interesting. However in the 4 years that I've been on Zoloft, I haven't had a suicidal thought, have been able to get up off my sofa and actually go to work and be a parent for my kids and do all the things that normal people do.

And I have been a religious person since I was born. "Finding G-d" was easy for me, but it didn't keep me from being depressed for the first 36 years of my life.

I wonder whether your wife has been suffering from clinical depression or dystymia. The symptoms are similar, though differing in degree. But the medicines that work to fix depression can often cause a negatie effect in those suffering from distymia. Regulating seratonin in a depressive or manic-depressive is a good thing. Regulating seratonin in a distymic may cause increased distymia.

Could your wife have been misdiagnosed?

In any case, if your experience has left you with a dislike for any medications whatsoever, you have taken away from your experiences the wrong lesson.

There is a prayer called the "Serenity Prayer" that is often used in 12-step programs. It goes like this:

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

You cannot change your wife's condition. Taking the proper medications to mitigate that condition is one of the things you CAN change. So is getting the correct diagnosis and figuring out which medications are correct for her. You seem to have mislaid the wisdom to know the difference, because you have placed the idea of medications and doctors into the category of things over which you have no control. You do have control over these things. If the meds she was taking before were the wrong meds, then find a new doctor who can proscribe the correct meds based on a correct diagnosis.

Finding G-d is important. My connection to G-d has been a HUGE part of my recovery from depression. But that connection alone is NOT enough. I can guarantee that your wife is still suffering from her emotional difficulties. Telling her to find G-d and just snap out of it without medical aid is foolish, and there might come a time when the depression is too strong for her to just find G-d and snap out of it.

I am living a happier, fuller life today with the proper medications than I ever did without them. I am also slowly tapering off the meds. I am taking 1/2 the dose today that I was taking a year ago, and hope to be off the meds completely within the next year or so. But I am doing it under medical supervision, and with the proper medications.

There's an old Hebrew saying: "Ein Somchim Al HaNess" "Don't rely on miracles." G-d will help you if you take the proper actions for yourself. But you should not just sit back and rely on him doing miracles for you if you aren't willing to do your part. Rejecting medical science completely and relying on your connection with G-d to do all the work is a case of relying on miracles. That's bad juju where I come from. You and your wife need to do your parts.

End of soapbox speech.

Elliot

Again this shows a simplistic understanding of clinical depression and how it effects the human body. You seem to think that those suffering from depression should "just snap out of it" as if there were nothing wrong with them in the first place. You clearly have never suffered from the effects of clinical depression, and don't know anything about it. Yet you speak with such authority on a subject you know nothing about.

Elliot

Exactly what I was going to say.

Elliot, that was a very well thought out and professional response. Thank you.
I won't claim to know everything about eveyone, different things work for different people. I'd agree that it is entirly possible that my wife has been misdiagnosed.

Part of this misdiagnosis could have been due to our lack of insurance at the time, where as, we would just go to who ever we could find to work with us.

Mental issues seem to be harder to get help for (financially speaking) then more main stream physical issues.

She was diagnosed thourgh an agency that dealt in uninsured/lower income people. When the medication she was prescribed had a bad side effect, she tried killing herself, and was sent down to the mental facility 2 hours away for a few weeks.

The whole ordeal was quite trying.

Right now, she seems okay, she has her days once in a while, it's mostly bitterness towards people who have wrong'ed her. She has had a rough upbringing, and a very disfuctional family.

Right now, I'm leaving it up to her. We talk about it once in a while. As a matter of fact, when I finally got her on my employers plan a few years back, we discussed going to see a different professional, and possibly trying some other medications. She decided that should would hold off. She's scared to death of having another pill mix up and winding up back at that horrid state funded facility.

Time will tell what feelings she is harboring. And we work through them as we come to them.

ZoeMarie: Please quote where I stated anywhere in this thread or others that any patient of any disease mental or physical should "just snap out of it". That's putting an unnecessary twist on what I stated.

There are some people who treat all diseases completley naturally (using herbal remedies and such). All though I do not practice this, I also don't condemn it either.

I'm not trying to be insensitive to anyone's condition. I believe I stated that it is my personal choice to avoid mind altering drugs. Just taking an excedrin, what with the caffene in it makes my hands jittery, and that's already more than I want to live with.

In closing, I have lived with my wife for 8 years, and married to her for 6, I know all to well you don't just "snap out of it".

And I've had a doctor pretty much screw up on a perscription with my step daughter once. Gave her two things that shouldn't be taken together, the pharmicist didn't catch it either, well, when she started screaming that the coffee table was coming out after her and sponge bob was trying to eat her one night, we found out the hard way what happens when medications are mis-dispensed.

You just have to be careful, and not so quick to take everything that someone offers you.

Just want to throw in a thought about depression, although it's off topic.

I began feeling depressed several years ago, nothing was right, no energy and no drive.

I am a Christian so I did not understand what was going on, UNTIL--

I was diagnosed with LOW THRYOID function. Once that was cleared up, all the symptoms left.

So I know that at least some of the time, there is an underlying defecincy of something.

Getting back on subject:

I've had many-a-year being uninsured. During these times, I always just figured that's just the way it is. Being an ordinary American male- you pretty much have to take care of yourself.

In order for private health care reform to really have an effect, major changes in policies must be enacted.

As it stands now, the government rewards you for having an employer based policy.

For instance:

(mind you as far as I know, these may vary state to state)

1) Only with an employer plan may you switch providers and not fall subject to pre-exsisting conditions.
For instance, if I change jobs but keep my insurance, my pre-exsisting conditoins remained covered. However if I am changing providers in a non employer plan, I may have to wait up to 12 months.

2) Employer based plans can be withdrawn for your paycheck pretax, where as other off the shelf plans you pay taxes on. (I understand this is slated to change soon, where as you will pay taxes irrigardless)

3) Health insurance companies tend to make plans cheaper for employers, even if they do not cover any portion of the premium. Also, employer based plans will stay lower if you file a claim. Where as an off the shelf plan, file a single claim and the premium may go up. God forbid you get cancer, and you are uninsurable.

Going to an off the shelf plan would not be wise for me or my wife because she has pre-exsisting conditions, we would be stuck with that plan forever.

Just want to throw in a thought about depression, although it's off topic.

I began feeling depressed several years ago, nothing was right, no energy and no drive.

I am a Christian so I did not understand what was going on, UNTIL--

I was diagnosed with LOW THRYOID function. Once that was cleared up, all the symptoms left.

So I know that at least some of the time, there is an underlying defecincy of something.

That's an excellent point, and that was one of the first things she was tested for.

Good thought- excellent catch..

galveston has a point that sometimes there is a lack of something in the body that can be naturally addressed.
My wife was on antidepressants(covered under my insurance ) and they made the situation worse . She is now combating it through nutrition and supplementation and the careful monitoring of her nutrition levels by a doctor that knows what he is doing .(none of it covered in our plan ;but still the right treatment for her. )

Elliot, that was a very well thought out and professional responce. Thank you.
I won't claim to know everything about eveyone, different things work for different people. I'd agree that it is entirly possible that my wife has been misdiagnosed.

Part of this misdiagnosis could have been due to our lack of insurance at the time, where as, we would just go to who ever we could find to work with us.

Mental issues seem to be harder to get help for (financially speaking) then more main stream physical issues.

She was diagnosed thourgh an agency that dealt in uninsured/lower income people. When the medication she was prescribed had a bad side effect, she tried killing herself, and was sent down to the mental facility 2 hours away for a few weeks.

The whole ordeal was quite trying.

Right now, she seems okay, she has her days once in a while, it's mostly bitterness towards people who have wrong'ed her. She has had a rough upbringing, and a very disfuctional family.

Right now, I'm leaving it up to her. We talk about it once in a while. As a matter of fact, when I finally got her on my employers plan a few years back, we discussed going to see a different professional, and possibly trying some other medications. She decided that should would hold off. She's scared to death of having another pill mix up and winding up back at that horrid state funded facility.

Time will tell what feelings she is harboring. And we work through them as we come to them.

ZoeMarie: Please quote where I stated anywhere in this thread or others that any patient of any disease mental or physical should "just snap out of it". That's putting an unnecessary twist on what I stated.

There are some people who treat all diseases completley naturally (using herbal remedies and such). All though I do not practice this, I also don't condemn it either.

I'm not trying to be insensitive to anyone's condition. I beleive I stated that it is my personal choice to avoid mind altering drugs. Just taking an excedrin, what with the caffene in it makes my hands jittery, and that's already more than I want to live with.

In closing, I have lived with my wife for 8 years, and married to her for 6, I know all to well you don't just "snap out of it".

And I've had a doctor pretty much screw up on a perscription with my step daughter once. Gave her two things that shouldn't be taken together, the pharmicist didn't catch it either, well, when she started screaming that the coffee table was coming out after her and sponge bob was trying to eat her one night, we found out the hard way what happens when medications are mis-dispensed.

You just have to be carefull, and not so quick to take everything that someone offers you.

I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting someone else. I know you didn't say that.

galveston has a point that sometimes there is a lack of something in the body that can be naturally addressed.
My wife was on antidepressants(covered under my insurance ) and they made the situation worse . She is now combating it through nutrition and supplementation and the careful monitoring of her nutrition levels by a doctor that knows what he is doing .(none of it covered in our plan ;but still the right treatment for her. )


Yup- everyone's different. Mind altering drugs must be used with care. Some people may have a valid use/need for them. But I do believe than can be over prescribed.

I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting someone else. I know you didn't say that.


I know, I just wanted to address that misconception before it got out of hand.

Sorry, you were the last to mention it, so I just landed on you.

I know, I just wanted to address that misconception before it got out of hand.

Sorry, you were the last to mention it, so I just landed on you.

Lol. Quite all right.

Elliot, that was a very well thought out and professional responce. Thank you.
I won't claim to know everything about eveyone, different things work for different people. I'd agree that it is entirly possible that my wife has been misdiagnosed.

Part of this misdiagnosis could have been due to our lack of insurance at the time, where as, we would just go to who ever we could find to work with us.

Mental issues seem to be harder to get help for (financially speaking) then more main stream physical issues.

She was diagnosed thourgh an agency that dealt in uninsured/lower income people. When the medication she was prescribed had a bad side effect, she tried killing herself, and was sent down to the mental facility 2 hours away for a few weeks.

The whole ordeal was quite trying.

Right now, she seems okay, she has her days once in a while, it's mostly bitterness towards people who have wrong'ed her. She has had a rough upbringing, and a very disfuctional family.

Right now, I'm leaving it up to her. We talk about it once in a while. As a matter of fact, when I finally got her on my employers plan a few years back, we discussed going to see a different professional, and possibly trying some other medications. She decided that should would hold off. She's scared to death of having another pill mix up and winding up back at that horrid state funded facility.

Time will tell what feelings she is harboring. And we work through them as we come to them.

ZoeMarie: Please quote where I stated anywhere in this thread or others that any patient of any disease mental or physical should "just snap out of it". That's putting an unnecessary twist on what I stated.

There are some people who treat all diseases completley naturally (using herbal remedies and such). All though I do not practice this, I also don't condemn it either.

I'm not trying to be insensitive to anyone's condition. I beleive I stated that it is my personal choice to avoid mind altering drugs. Just taking an excedrin, what with the caffene in it makes my hands jittery, and that's already more than I want to live with.

In closing, I have lived with my wife for 8 years, and married to her for 6, I know all to well you don't just "snap out of it".

And I've had a doctor pretty much screw up on a perscription with my step daughter once. Gave her two things that shouldn't be taken together, the pharmicist didn't catch it either, well, when she started screaming that the coffee table was coming out after her and sponge bob was trying to eat her one night, we found out the hard way what happens when medications are mis-dispensed.

You just have to be carefull, and not so quick to take everything that someone offers you.

I agree with what you have said here. I think that the best patient for any kind of medicine, mental or physical, is the skeptical patient. That's why 2nd opinions were created. I always bounce why my psychiatrist (MD) says off my therapist (PhD) and vice versa. I also have them talk to each other so that all areas of my treatment are on the same page. I question any new recommendations and try to understand WHY the clinician is making the recommendation. If I feel changes in my body or my mind, I immediately call my health care professional and ask about it.

(Case in point: about a year ago, I noticed that my hands were having tremors. I pointed it out to my therapist during my weekly session, and she suggested that I might be on too high a dose of Zoloft. My Psychiatrist agreed and lowered my dose by 1/3. I was skeptical and inquisitive about something I was noticing about myself, and a correction was made.

Another time, about a month ago, I noticed that I was becoming more anxious and snappy in my dealings with others. It just so happens that the snappiness coincided with a downgrade in the dosage of one of my meds. I brought it to my therapist, and she told me that such effects were to be expected after a decrease in dosage, and that I should wait it out for a couple of weeks to see what happened next before requesting a change in meds. After another week or so, my mood normalized... I had been suffering a low-grade form of withdrawal that I just needed to wait out until my body adjusted to the new level of meds. Again, I was skeptical about what I noticed for myself and asked about it. And it worked out well.)

Bottom line, NEVER just take your professional's word for it. Always double check them and KEEP double checking them. There is no reason not to, and every chance that you will catch something that they miss because they aren't with you 24-7.

So I don't think that we are disagreeing in philosophy here. We both seem to agree that being a skeptic is a good way to deal with any form of health care. But skepticism, in my opinion, should not include ignoring medicine completely. It should mean asking the right questions until such time as you have the answers that work for you and make your life more manageble.

One other point: the thing you mentioned about excedrin and caffine... that's a physical alteration to the body, not a mental alteration. What you are describing is not a MENTAL reaction but a physical reaction. A mental reaction might be not being able to sleep with that combination of drugs, nervousness, anxiety, anger, depressive feelings, inability to concentrate, etc. Getting the shakes is a PHYSICAL reaction similar to what I was experiencing with too high a dose of Zoloft.

Mind you, in my case, the Zoloft was doing what it was supposed to for me MENTALLY. It was the physical reaction that I questioned. There is a link between the mental and the physical. But you have to be careful not to confuse the two. In SOME cases, a physical reaction to a drug may be preferable to the mental effect of not having the drug if that drug really is necessary.

Just something to keep in mind.

Elliot

Very good then, we are in agreement.

I'm not scared of modern medicine. I'd much rather treat an infection with antibiotics than leeches! LOL I get a flu shot every year.

I think we all can agree than there are a lot or drugs out there on the pharmacies shelf that have to be respected. Drugs that alter the state of mind are at the top of the "respect" list.

Just as many physical drugs can cause mental side effects, and vice versa. All drugs are toxins, a bottle of asprins can kill you if taken all at once. Just a couple can cure a headache.

Perhaps my first comment in this thread was a bit to broad and abrupt.
I hope that those who have read the thread in it's entirety understand the point I was getting to.

When did something that started out as a luxury item, a benefit, become a right that the government has to guarantee us under the law?Hello El:

I don't know WHEN, but here's how: the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.

excon

Hello El:

I dunno WHEN, but here's how: the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.

excon

Here's the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ok... the fact that the Constitution doesn't list certain rights doesn't mean that the people don't have them.

But how do you construe that to mean that medical benefits offered by employers as an employment perk are a right?

People have a RIGHT TO PURCHASE MEDICAL INSURANCE if they so desire. The Ninth Amendment would seem to protect that right, along with the rest of the Constitution.

But that is different from saying that medical insurance is itself a right. You have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to purchase it the same way you have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to purchase a car and a boat and a home. But you are not guaranteed a car and a boat and a home by the Constitution. Nor are not guaranteed medical insurance by the Constitution. If you are lucky enough to have an employer who provides it, fine. If you can afford it on your own, fine. But you are not guaranteed it by the Constitution.

You find the silliest ways to misinterpret the Constitution to fit your political agenda. This one, though, is just pure horse-hockey, and you know it. It isn't even a GOOD misrepresentation of the Constitution.

Elliot

You find the silliest ways to misinterpret the Constitution to fit your political agenda. This one, though, is just pure horse-hockey, and you know it. It isn't even a GOOD misrepresentation of the Constitution.Hello again, El:

Look, there's plenty to argue about with me, without misquoting me. I didn't say health insurance is a right. I said health CARE is a right. It's right there, in the Ninth Amendment.

excon

Hello again, El:

Look, there's plenty to argue about with me, without misquoting me. I didn't say health insurance is a right. I said health CARE is a right. It's right there, in the Ninth Amendment.

excon

That's not what this post is about. We're talking about health insurance... the benefit given by some employers to their employees, and that Americans all over are demanding as their right from the government.

The government health plan isn't going to give health care, it's going to giver healt insurance. DOCTORS give health care. The government just gives health insurance.

So... even if we assume that you are correct, that health CARE is a right (which is actually something very much up for debate), your point about the Constitution is very much OFF TOPIC and doesn't answer my question.

Elliot

What I want to know is how those who argue health care is a right can ration that right.

Hello again, Steve:

That's a darn good question...

But, upon some circumspection, lots of our rights are rationed... There's only so much room in the courts, so court rooms are "rationed" by the strength of one's case. The cases that aren't strong, might get dismissed. That's "rationing".

We have limited prison space, so somebody's rights are being rationed there. Guns are finite in supply, even though you have the right to one. We have limited airways, so access to the air is "rationed".

I actually don't think ANY right should be rationed, but in reality, some are. Look, if it were me, I'd give everybody the health care that they need. I wouldn't say no to anybody, so you couldn't afford to have me as the guy.

excon

That's a darn good question....

But, upon some circumspection, lots of our rights are rationed...

So what the advocates should be saying is everyone deserves health care, but only so much.

So what the advocates should be saying is everyone deserves health care, but only so much.Hello again, Steve:

Close. Insert the words "there is" after but, and before only. That'll accurately describe it.

But, what you wrote, could easily have come out of the mouth of a health insurance dude. They're only going to give you "so much", too... Unless, you'd have us believe that once you buy health insurance, EVERY health service you ever wanted is there for the asking.

Nahhh. You wouldn't want us to believe that...

excon

I mentioned VA hospitals before, and now realize that there is also the health care delivered to Indian reservations.

Both are government run, and both are sub standard, if reports are to be believed.

Do any of us really want to have access to only VA hospital quality?

That's what we will get if this goes through. And it will cost taxpayers a BUNDLE.

Hello again, Steve:

Close. Insert the words "there is" after but, and before only. That'll accurately describe it.

But, what you wrote, could easily have come out of the mouth of a health insurance dude. They're only going to give you "so much", too.... Unless, you'd have us believe that once you buy health insurance, EVERY health service you ever wanted is there for the asking.

Nahhh. You wouldn't want us to believe that....

Nope, just like with climate change I want HONESTY. Saying "there is" sounds honest to me. Saying there won't be rationing is dishonest. The president urging governors not to use the term "rationing" is dishonest. Telling us our taxes won't go up is dishonest. Not reading the bill is dishonest. Telling us we can keep our insurance if we like it is dishonest. Trying to rush this through before the details emerge is dishonest. I'm already as tired of this administration and this congress trying to pull the wool over our eyes as you were after 8 years of Bush... and trust me, what Obama and this congress are doing to this country is going to be far more disastrous.

Hello gal:

Even with the Democrats plan, which I'm not thrilled about, won't nationalize health care. There will still be your private doctor, your private hospital, your private drug store, and your private pharmaceutical manufacturer.

MY single payer plan, which is even more radical than the democrats, would STILL leave all those things private. The only industry MY plan would nationalize would be the health insurance industry.

So, I wouldn't be believing those emails you're getting.

Don't get me wrong. I liked the system the way it used to be - when EVERYBODY could afford it. That's when doctors made house calls too, and we ain't going to go back to that.

Nope. Somebody got greedy. Doctors, lawyers, health insurance CEO's. I don't know who. But, it wasn't YOU & ME. Frankly, I don't mind cutting 'em out of the equation.

excon

An unintended consequence of national health care will probably a shortage of doctors.

How many young people will spend the money and years required to become doctors if their ability to earn big money is removed and also they can't really practice medicine because some bureaucrat will be telling them what medicines and procedures they will be permitted to use?

I mentioned VA hospitals before, and now realize that there is also the health care delivered to Indian reservations.

Glad you mentioned that. I posted on that article (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/rationing-health-care-372866-5.html#post1855220) and it seems to have been completely ignored. The government hasn't gotten that right for over 200 years and now we want to subject everyone to some marvelous government health care plan?

[QUOTE]And as a sufferer of climical depression and consumer of Zoloft and Wellbutrin, I can tell from your post that you clearly have no idea what depression is, what it does to the human body and mind and how debilitating the illness is. It isn't "stupid stuff" and nobody suffering from depression WANTS to be suffering from it. I can assure you of that. Anti-depressants are a very important tool of the medical industry. That's not to say that they aren't abused by some... but then again, cough medicine can be abused. So can Ibuprofen. That doesn't mean that they aren't effective when used appropriately. In my particular case, I can tell you that without the anti-depressant meds I take, I would have died, pure and simple. Your statement on this point is rather simplistic and lacks an understanding of how the chemistry of the human body works.

I have to agree with you 100% here. I've been on zoloft for a few years now. Dysthymia was my diagnosis. Up until then, I suffered depression and anxiety about 90% of the time. It runs in my family actually and my sister put it perfectly one time. She said, " With zoloft, I still sometimes get blue, but I don't get black anymore." I would feel like the world was closing in on me. Like everything was dark except this tiny circle of light that I was seeing through. It's like having no peripheral vision and a HEAVY heart.

I agree that there are cases of abuse, but I also believe that they can be real life savers to people with serotonin problems. Brain chemistry is a real thing.

excon,

Regarding your idea of just nationalizing the insurance but leaving the doctors and hospitals private...

... wouldn't that accurately describe the health care system on Native American reservations? The doctors are all in private practice and work for themnselves, but all medical care is paid for by the US Government. At least that is how I understand the system.

I will admit that I am not an expert on health care in the Native American community. I have one friend who is a doctor on the Rez in Mn, and I have heard his stories about how things work there, but I am not an expert in it. I just haven't done the research.

So, assuming that health care on the Reservations is as described above, what we need to figure out is whether health care among the Native American population is satisfactory or not. That would be a good indicator of whether your plan would work or not.

Here is a report on Native AMerican health care from Sept. 2004. I have NOT read it yet, but I think that the two of us should do so.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nahealth/nabroken.pdf

From what I have scanned on just the first couple of pages, though, I think that such a system leaves a bit to be desired from the consumer's standpoint.

Hello El:

Nahhh. We been sh1tting on the Indians for more than 300 years.

Comparing a system we built for people whom we've shat upon for a long period, probably isn't too comparable, doncha think?

Look. There are horror stories about state homes for disabled children going on right now... Why don't you bring THAT up as an example of what we're in for?? That'll sure scare some people, if that's what you want to do. And, that IS what you want to do, isn't it?

excon

We been sh1tting on the Indians for more than 300 years.

And now we'll all be included.

excon, no matter what anyone else says, no matter what evidence they present, you are just going to give reasons that their evidence is wrong or not applicable.

So why bother posting at all. You've made your point, you know you're right. Nobody can ever tell you otherwise, no matter how strong their evidence is. (And the stuff about Native American health care is pretty compelling.) So why bother with follow up posts? What's the point?

Yes, we've been sh1tting on them for 300 years. Probably longer.

So what? The Native American health care system was supposed to FIX all that. Just as your plan is supposed to FIX the problems of our health system.

What makes you think that the government that you believe cares so little for Indians is going to care so much more for a Jew from Seattle that they will get it right for YOU but not for the Indians?

A government that screws up health care for Native Americans, for military veterans, for old people and for poor people is NOT going to do any better a job for YOU or ME. You know that.

So why are you arguing to put the same government that cares nothing for Indians, screws up for vets, and bankrupts the health system for the poor, the old and the crippled, in charge for us?

Elliot

that you believe cares so little for Indians is going to care so much more for a Jew from Seattle.

no matter what anyone else says, no matter what evidence they present, you are just going to give reasons that their evidence is wrong or not applicable. So why bother posting at all. You've made your point, you know you're right. Nobody can ever tell you otherwise, no matter how strong their evidence is.Hello again, El:

Couple things.

Two Jews named Emanuel and Axelrod.

Next: YOU are as intractable as I am on these issues. However, me being the better person than you, would NEVER suggest that you don't post. In fact, I LOVE it when you post, so I can make a mockery of it.

excon

Hello again, El:

Couple things.

Two Jews named Emanuel and Axelrod.

Next: YOU are as intractable as I am on these issues. However, me being the better person than you, would NEVER suggest that you don't post. In fact, I LOVE it when you post, so I can make a mockery of it.

excon

First, I'm not suggesting that you don't post. I'm asking what the point is.

Second, the presence of Axelrod and Emanuel isn't doing anything for Obama's positions on Israel except to have Obama screw Israel all the more. Do you really think these guys are going to be any better for us on health care?

Elliot

And now we'll all be included.

You said it, bro.

As my father likes to say, "Don't let 'em sh1t on your head. Open your mouth."

Elliot

In fact, I LOVE it when you post, so I can make a mockery of it.

excon

I know that you enjoy rare things. So let me know when that happens.

Elliot

Let's take this to the limit of possibilities.

Gov says you need 3 flu shots. You object, but since your health is now the responsibility of some bureaucrat, you are forced to take the shots.

Red meat is not good for your health, so if you have any problems, such as high blood pressure, no more red meat for you.

High blood pressure is a common health problem, so you have to get a prescription to buy salt.

Diabetes is rampant. so sugar is placed on a restricted list.

I know that's pushing the envelope, but anything is possible when you give government liberty to meddle in your life.

If you think I don't trust our government, YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!

Let's take this to the limit of possibilities.I know that's pushing the envelope, but anything is possible when you give government liberty to meddle in your life.Hello again, gal:

I don't think you're pushing the envelope. But, aren't you the guys worried about how much all this health care is going to cost?

I would BET that cigarettes are going to be made illegal... And, rightly so. Unlike pot, cigarettes actually DO kill. About 300,000 die from lung disease, and about 150,000 die from heart attacks, every single year right here in this country. And, those deaths are directly attributed to cigarettes.

Hmmm. I wonder how much that costs us? I'll bet it's billions, wouldn't you? Do I think people should be able to smoke? I actually do. Should I pay for it? Nope, and of course WE ARE, and have been.

Do you want to keep paying for that? I don't. Don't you think, if the government is going to regulate drugs, that it should regulate the DEADLIEST DRUG OF ALL?

Are trans fats and sugar soon to follow? I don't know. How much does THAT cost us?

excon

Hello again, gal:

I don't think you're pushing the envelope. But, aren't you the guys worried about how much all this health care is gonna cost?

I would BET that cigarettes are gonna be made illegal... Instead of pot, cigarettes actually DO kill. About 300,000 die from lung disease, and about 150,000 die from heart attack, every single year right here in this country.

Those deaths are directly attributed to cigarettes. Hmmm. I wonder how much that costs us? I'll bet it's billions, wouldn't you? Do I think people should be able to smoke? I actually do. Should I pay for it? Nope, and of course WE ARE.

Do you wanna keep paying for that? Don't you think, if the government is going to regulate drugs, that it should regulate the DEADLIEST DRUG OF ALL?

Are trans fats and sugar to follow? How much does THAT cost us?

excon

Yep. And red meat. That's probably costing us a forture.

White bread is full of carbs. Got to get rid of that.

Corn is starchy, and becomes fat in the body. Can't have any of that.

Beer is a killer. People drive drunk all the time, and beer is full of fat.

Wait... while we're at it, cars are dangerous too. Driving is the number one cause of motor vehicle accidents. Got to ban cars.

Kids fall out of tree houses and break their arms and legs all the time. And they burn which causes forest fires. Got to ban trees.

People who read books, watch TV or work on computers have problems with their eyes. The cost of glasses and eye care is staggering. Got to get rid of books, TV and computers.

Cell phones have been linked to cancer. Got to get rid of cell phones. So we don't have to spend money on cancer meds.

Texting causes crackberry thumb. Can't have people texting.

If the government is going to save us money by nationalizing health care, we'd better be ready to allow them to control over ANYTHING that they can possibly say causes medical problems.

They're not going to stop with cigarrets, sugar and trans fats. They won't stop with red meat and donuts. Once the govvernment has the authority and ability to decide what you can consume, they will exercize that authority, and they won't STOP. And if you try to fight it, they throw you in jail or deny you your rights by denying you health coverage.

THAT is how soft tyrannies turn into hard tyrannies.

Just out of curiosity, excon, if the government decides to ban trans fats and you eat a trans fat, or decides that you shouldn't have climbed that tree and therefore they aren't covering you, would you be covered under the government health plan? Or would you be just as much without coverage as if you were uninsured?

The difference would be that in our current system even if you aren't covered by insurance, you can still buy health care. Under a government controlled system, if they decide you shouldn't be covered because you are persona non grata, there's no place to go to buy health care.

Elliot

Just out of curiosity, excon, if the government decides to ban trans fats and you eat a trans fatHello again, El:

I smoke my trans fats thank you very much, and the government don't know nothing about it, see?

Now, I'm no fan of the government doing any of the above... Ceptin, I DO like the cigarette ban? Don't you?

Can you imagine it? As you pass by a dark alley, you hear a hoarse whisper "Nickel bags of Baccy here?

excon

I smoke my trans fats thank you very much, and the government don't know nothing about it, see?

And soon we'll have black market health care, see?

Hello El:

I dunno WHEN, but here's how: the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.

excon

US Constitution Amendment IX.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Boy, Ex, you are really good! No one challenged you on this one!

Please explain how this relates to health care? Or any other entitlement for that matter.

Hello gal:

Well, I already explained how it had to do with gay marriage. So, you're probably not going to let me have more than one right out of that amendment...

But, the truth is, the Ninth Amendment simply says that there are other rights besides the ten listed. This, or frankly any other right that may become apparent in the future, can be found here. Are there right's that we haven't even discussed yet?? I don't know. We'll see. But, if we do, the Ninth Amendment is where it is.

excon

Hello again gal:

I indulged you. Why don't you indulge me on the cigarettes?

excon

Ok of topic sort of, but didn't the military recently say there were going to implement no-smoking into the armed forces? Wouldn't that be almost the same thing you are talking about ex?

Hello Chey:

Ahhhh, no. A smoking ban is a loooooong way from putting people in jail for smoking.

excon

Hello Chey:

Ahhhh, no. A smoking ban is a loooooong way from putting people in jail for smoking.

excon

Well dangit I was hoping you'd know more about that than me without my having to Google it. You are the worst anti-google search engine ever. *chuckles*


As for health care, oddly enough, my husband and I qualified for government health care because we are low enough income, he got a 50 dollar raise last Friday and it bumped us out of being qualified. Now to put me on his insurance it's 87.00 a week, and they only pay 80% instead of the 100% the government paid. And we were simply not expecting it. So now, financially, we're 37 dollars more in the hole every month. Not only that but because I am on his health care and it's pre-tax we qualify not only for health care for food stamps as well and HUD. It seems completely illogical to me, privatized health care eased nothing for us, and we're certainly not going to go get a bunch of other things we don't necessarily need.

I get tired of the corporate medium making choices like this for me, my husband likes his insurance, and for HIM it's awesome, but I HATE it. If I have to pay for it I feel as though I should have the right to choose my own insurance at least, and not be limited to the one option they provide, until march this year he had 5 options for insurers. I personally find it all confusing, and I am far too ignorant to make informed decisions about what is best at the moment. I don't want to be an average American who falls through the cracks. I want my MTV!

Hello again, El:

I smoke my trans fats thank you very much, and the government don't know nothing about it, see?

Now, I'm no fan of the government doing any of the above... Ceptin, I DO like the cigarette ban? Don't you?

Can you imagine it? As you pass by a dark alley, you hear a hoarse whisper "Nickel bags of Baccy here?

excon

Actually, in a few years we'll be passing a dark alley, and hear a hoarse whisper, "Nickel bags of bevacizumab, sorafenib and temsirolimus here."

Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1174592/Kidney-cancer-patients-denied-life-saving-drugs-NHS-rationing-body-NICE.html)

Or, "Get your hear surgery done here."

Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6147701.ece)

"Baccy" is going to be the least of our problems.

Elliot

Hello gal:

Well, I already explained how it had to do with gay marriage. So, you're probably not gonna let me have more than one right outta that amendment....

But, the truth is, the Ninth Amendment simply says that there are other rights besides the ten listed. This, or frankly any other right that may become apparent in the future, can be found here. Are there right's that we haven't even discussed yet??? I dunno. We'll see. But, if we do, the Ninth Amendment is where it is.

excon

If that is your evidence, then we have a problem. Because in that case, ANYTHING can be considered a right. I have the right to punch you in the face if I want. I have the right to steal your car or burn your house down. Just because that "right" isn't enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I say it does, therefore it does.

That's the logic you are using. ANYTHING I WANT is a right because of the 9th Amendment. I want health care, therefore it is a right. And there is no proof that it isn't a right because the 9th Amendment says that even if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution it is still a right.

Sorry, but even if it is true that there are other rights than those enumerated by the Constitution, you have to PROVE that a right to health insurance or a right to health care exists and is one of those rights not enumerated by the Constitution.

And you can't prove that. Because they aren't. Much as people would like them to be rights, there is no legal or historical evidence that that is the case.

Elliot

Ok of topic sort of, but didn't the military recently say there were going to implement no-smoking into the armed forces? Wouldn't that be almost the same thing you are talkin about ex?

I heard yesterday that the military nixed that idea, said with everything they do for us and all they go through they're not going to tell them they can't smoke.

Actually, in a few years we'll be passing a dark alley, and hear a hoarse whisper, "Nickel bags of bevacizumab, sorafenib and temsirolimus here."

Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1174592/Kidney-cancer-patients-denied-life-saving-drugs-NHS-rationing-body-NICE.html)

Or, "Get your hear surgery done here."

Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6147701.ece)

"Baccy" is going to be the least of our problems.

Elliot

Yep, instead of "back alley abortions" it'll be back alley Aricept (http://www.rxlist.com/aricept-drug.htm).

Hello gal:

Well, I already explained how it had to do with gay marriage. So, you're probably not gonna let me have more than one right outta that amendment....

But, the truth is, the Ninth Amendment simply says that there are other rights besides the ten listed. This, or frankly any other right that may become apparent in the future, can be found here. Are there right's that we haven't even discussed yet??? I dunno. We'll see. But, if we do, the Ninth Amendment is where it is.

excon

No Sir. That amendment plainly says that any power or right not EXPRESSLY given to the federal government remains with the STATES.

Now if a STATE wants to provide universal health care for its citizens, that is its right, but it does not belong to the Federal government.

Of course, that amendment, along with much of the Constitution has been ignored for generations, but don't try to claim that it gives citizens the RIGHT to health care. It doesn't give citizens the right to anything. It gives the STATES all rights not reserved to the fed.

I don't know what you are getting at on the cigarette comment.

Kudos for your understanding of the 9th amendment gal.

No Sir. That amendment plainly says that any power or right not EXPRESSLY given to the federal government remains with the STATES.
kudos for your understanding of the 9th amendment gal.Hello again:

Sorry guys. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain, rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the "PEOPLE".

excon

Oops mixed the 9th and 10th up

One question .How can we know which rights are retained by "the people " when the people so often disagree on what is a legitimate right ?

Hello again:

Sorry guys. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain, rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the "PEOPLE".

excon

The lowest level that the PEOPLE are represented at is the COUNTY, and that still comes under STATE jurisdiction, not FEDERAL which remains the idea of Amendment IX.

It is a STATE RIGHTS amendment placed by people who feared exactly what we now see coming out of Washington.

So contrary to what you say, the 9th Amendment tells us that the Federal government has no right to step in and order universal health care along with its confiscatory taxes and Orwellian controls.

One question .How can we know which rights are retained by "the people " when the people so often disagree on what is a legitimate right ?Hello again, tom:

I don't know. I suppose like we do now - SCOTUS.

Look. I don't know what rights are in this grab bag. But, I KNOW there are rights in there, because the amendment says so.

I think a right for gays to marry can be found there, as well as a right to health care. You can't tell me they're NOT there, unless you can tell me which ones ARE there. Because sure as shooting, there ARE some. I don't believe the founders just wanted to hear themselves talk.

What I believe to be the case, and I've argued it before, is that by LISTING certain rights, as the first eight amendments do, the founders wanted make sure that those rights, which MAY not be listed, are STILL rights retained by the people. Maybe they anticipated this exact scenario. They were pretty smart, you know.

excon

And that's why they wrote an amendment process into the constitution to resolve such disputes. Otherwise ;as gal says ,the local gvt makes the call. It is not the role of SCOTUS to decide what is and isn't a right. That is too much power for an unelected lifetime appointment .

I believe they refer to that as consensus decision-making. The rights retained by the people are defined by the people themselves. Or more suitably put, a group of people elected by the people to speak for the people in matters discussing the people. (I hate political terms) Democracy at work. Then they go fight with each other about it for years and years. We hold these truths to be self evident?

The lowest level that the PEOPLE are represented at is the COUNTY, and that still comes under STATE jurisdiction, not FEDERAL which remains the idea of Amendment IX.

It is a STATE RIGHTS amendment placed by people who feared exactly what we now see coming out of Washington.Hello again, gal:

Nahhhh. If the states have rights outlined in the Constitution, they certainly wouldn't be spelled out in the BILL OF RIGHTS... Nope, the intention of the Bill of Rights is clear, and it AIN'T to GIVE power to the government - state or otherwise... It's exactly the opposite. The Bill of Rights expressly tells the government what it CAN'T do.


excon

Again excon, in order for the 9th Amendment to apply, you would have to be able to prove that such a right actually does exist. There is no historical or legal precedent that proves that medical care or medical insurance are personal rights. IF such a right existed, then yes, they would be guaranteed by the 9th Amendment. But there is no evidence that such a right does or ever has existed.

Again, it would be the same as me saying that I have a right to punch you in the nose, and that such a right is guaranteed to me by the 9th Amendment. It isn't enumerated in the Constitution as a right, but the 9th Amendment says that it's a right anyway.

Your argument leaves out the part about proving the existence of that right in the first place... which you cannot do because such a right doesn't really exist.

Mmmm, I take issue with the term medical care.

Oh, and BOOSH 992 F2d 1223 Parnisi v. Colorado State Hospital Z | Open Jurist (http://openjurist.org/992/f2d/1223/parnisi-v-colorado-state-hospital-z)

Technically that is the 8th amendment... but it took me about 4 seconds to find that on Google. I am a Google master. I don't even have to agree. Bring it on nancy boy. ;)

Again, it would be the same as me saying that I have a right to punch you in the nose, and that such a right is guaranteed to me by the 9th Amendment.

Your argument leaves out the part about proving the existence of that right in the first place... Hello again, El:

Your first comment is just too stupid for me to respond to it... You second comment is pretty stupid too, but I'll address it.

You say that I have to PROVE that rights exist... Where does it say that in the Constitution? You're making it up as you go along.

Look, the Ninth Amendment says there are other rights. I happen to believe it. I don't think the framers were just filling up space when they wrote it. I say again, if you can't tell me WHAT those OTHER rights ARE, then you certainly can't tell me what they AREN'T..

excon

excon,

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated as follows in Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991):

[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.




Justice Arthur Goldberg joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government...



Justice Antonin Scalia in Troxel v. Granville (2000):

The Declaration of Independence... is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people.


Nowhere will you find anyone who says that the 9th Amendment creates or confers rights. You cannot "find" a right within the 9th Amendment. You cannot find a right to health care or health insurance in the 9th Amendment. You cannot find ANY rights in the 9th Amendment. All that the 9th Amendment says is that IF THERE IS A RIGHT that is not enumerated in the Constitution, that right cannot be taken away by the government. The 14th Amendment affirms that this rule applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

Your interpretation of the 9th Amendment as granting us a right to health care (or any other right) is incorrect.

Elliot

10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.Hello again, El:

Bingo!

excon

So we see that Amendments IX and X are similar in that they LIMIT the powers of the federal government, but DO NOT limit what the several states may allow.

In short, the federal government has overstepped its Constitutional authority for a LONG time on a LOT of policies.

Show me any right to abortion, health care, or guaranteed wage in the US Constituton. Show me me where the US Constitution gives the federal government liberty to run the educational system, or banks, or manufacturing.

Show me where the federal government has the Constitutional right to turn the issuing of money over to a private corporation.

I could go on.

In short, the federal government has overstepped its Constitutional authority for a LONG time on a LOT of policies.

Show me any right to abortion, health care, or guaranteed wage in the US Constitution.


I'd have liked it if you had thrown in assisted suicide or cloning as well. I believe those were both not covered in the Constitution, and are considered illegal. Why is abortion legal and not assisted suicide? Don't we get the right to refuse medical care as well?

In terms of volume, the Constitution with all the amendments, is minuscule compared with what comes out of Washington today.

It is written in shirt-sleeve English, which anyone with reasonableto comprehension should understand.

I believe the reason it has been violated is deliberate. The same forces that have brought about Communist tyrannies in other parts of the world have been at work here, and if our Constitution were not as good as it is, we would already be living under a tolalitarian regime.

Hello again, El:

Bingo!

excon

But you still have not shown me where such a right IS enumerated. If it isn't listed in the Constitution, where is it listed.

And did you read the rest of my post about interpreting the 9th Amendment? I'll bet you did and are just ignoring it because you have no response. As usual. If you can't respond, just ignore it and change the conversation...

I'll take this one as another win...

Elliot

I'll take this one as another win...Congratulations on your win (http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.phpi/463c5922/arguing.jpg?cb=1115204527)!

I'm at my office and can't access your link, NK. What does it say?

As for my "win"... if the other guy REPEATEDLY doesn't answer the points you have made in a debate, ignores the salient points, and tries to change the topic, what do you call that?

In speech class in both high school and college, where I learned debate, they called that a "win".

Elliot

I'm at my office ...Well then congrats on your new job!

Sounds to me like the rich people in the U.S. are a little upset that the middle and lower classes will be getting the same benefits as they receive now. What a shame? Get OVER IT! A lot of people really are sick and do not just have the sniffles or a cough and need medical attention but they can't afford it and do not have medical insurance.

Just last week as a matter of fact, my aunt had a possible stroke! She did not want to go to the hospital because she doesn't have the money. She has two kids and school will be starting back before you turn around and she has school clothes and supplies to buy. So she is one example of why we all should have right to medical insurance.

People like this make me sick, all for Obama when he first got in office and now that he wants to help the poorer people in America they are saying Hell no with Obama. Only the people who live in mansions and have cars that just sit outside for looks are the ones who should be getting medical. We pay for our medical why should the poor people get the rights to receive medical? Because it's fair for once, for once Obama isn't for all the rich celebrity people, he wants to help everyone. Why does it bother you anyway? It's not like you tried to be president and won, now is it? Thank God for that!!

But you still have not shown me where such a right IS enumerated. If it isn't listed in the Constitution, where is it listed.Hello El:

This is NOT rocket science. In terms of rights, the Ninth Amendment says there are "others retained by the people", that AREN'T enumerated. You keep looking around for where the ARE enumerated (listed) but you ain't going to find 'em, because the amendment itself says THEY AREN'T there. I believe the amendment. Then you say, "I can't find 'em, so they must not be there." Duhhh!

If what you say is true, that because you don't find ANY other right's listed (even though the amendment says you won't), that there just AREN'T any, because you can't find 'em. Furthermore, you apparently think the Ninth Amendment means NOTHING.

And, I think it means exactly what it says.

What happened to the strict constructionist rightwing "do what the Constitution says - not what you THINK it says"?? Do you think the framers got bored and just wanted to fill in some space. What do you think the Ninth Amendment means. Oh, I know what you think it means. You said so.

I guess you agree with that idiot, Scalia when he spewed the following drek:

"the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be"

Let me see if I can dissect that crap. Even though the Ninth Amendment SAYS there "other rights", it really doesn't mean it. He's a fool.

excon

Well then congrats on your new job!

Thank you.

Sounds to me like the rich people in the U.S. are a little upset that the middle and lower classes will be getting the same benefits as they receive now. What a shame? Get OVER IT!

No. We're not upset that other people will be getting the same benefits as us. We're just POed that WE would be the ones paying for it. What have I done that I should be penalized and be forced to pay for the insurance of others? What crime have I committed that a percentage of my income is going to be confiscated to pay for the insurance of those who have no income and aren't contributing themselves?

NOR IS THAT EVEN WHAT OBAMA HAS PLANNED!! I would have less of a problem if this were what was happening. The problem is not that Obama is proposing that we pay for those who are uninsured to get the same care as we do. What he's planning is to make sure that everyone else has crappy insurance too. He's not proposing that everyone have their private health insurance covered. He proposing that everyone should have the same health insurance that Native Americans get and the same that Vets get in the VA system.

In other words, it's not enough that he wants me to pay for YOUR insurance... he want me to also give up MY insurance and take crappy health care instead.


A lot of people really are sick and do not just have the sniffles or a cough and need medical attention but they can't afford it and do not have medical insurance.

First of all, why is that something that I should be penalized for? Why should I have to pay for the poverty of others? If someone gets fired and has no health insurance (or worse, if he never had a job to begin with, which is all too common), what makes it MY responsibility to pay for his insurance? When did I become indebted to him?

Second of all, there are plenty of sources for FREE medical care, including ERs and free clinics throughout the USA, for them to get medical care. Every pharmaceutical company operating in the USA has programs to help poor people get drugs they need. There are plenty of free sources for medical care. There is also MEDICARE which covers anyone who is infirm and unable to work, and MEDICAID, which covers anyone with income levels up to 150% of the poverty line. There is no reason that anyone in the USA shouldn't be able to get medical care. ANyone who claims not to be able to get medical care when they need it is either LYING or hasn't looked into the matter and doesn't know what they are entitled to. In either case, it ain't my problem, and I shouldn't be paying for it.


Just last week as a matter of fact, my aunt had a possible stroke! She did not want to go to the hospital because she doesn't have the money. She has two kids and school will be starting back before you turn around and she has school clothes and supplies to buy. So she is one example of why we all should have right to medical insurance.

I'm sorry for your aunt's possible stroke. But she's an idiot.

There is no hospital in the USA that wouldn't take her in, care for her, give her the meds she needs, and then write off the bill if she couldn't pay for it. Especially for an emergency like a stroke.

So if your aunt decided not to go to the hospital, it wasn't because the system is broken. It's because she stupid. She had options and didn't take them. That's stupidity. And you are just as stupid for encouraging her stupid behavior. And I see no reason for me to be penalized for someone else's stupidity.


People like this make me sick, all for Obama when he first got in office and now that he wants to help the poorer people in America they are saying Hell no with Obama. Only the people who live in mansions and have cars that just sit outside for looks are the ones who should be getting medical. We pay for our medical why should the poor people get the rights to receive medical? Because it's fair for once, for once Obama isn't for all the rich celebrity people, he wants to help everyone. Why does it bother you anyway? It's not like you tried to be president and won, now is it? Thank God for that!!

Gee... I never knew that the job of the President of the United States was to help the poor people. I thought it was to run the country.

From the Constitution of the United States:


Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


I see nothing in this that says that the job of the President is to help poor people.

BTW, if Obama is so in favor of the "poor people", why isn't he helping his brother in Kenya? His brother earns about $12 per month, lives in a box, and is TRULY in poverty. Obama could give him a couple of thousand dollars out of his own pocket without breaking a sweat to make his brother's life better. But he doesn't. That's because helping the poor isn't his real goal. His real goal is to screw over the rich and to remake the country in his father's socialist mold.

And what's your beef with rich people anyway? What do you have against people who earned their money instead of having it given to them by the government? What do you have against people who's PARENTS or GRANDPARENTS earned their money and gave it to their kids? Here's a little tip for you: RICH PEOPLE do more to help the poor than the government ever did. They employ millions of poor people. They give massive amounts of charity. They create charitable funds that keep hospitals, schools and charities operating.

What has the government ever done for poor people. What has Obama ever done for poor people?

Zilch, zip, nada.

I think you need to get over your sanctimonious anti-rich garbage and learn a little bit about how the real world works. Nobody gets anything for nothing, and nobody gives anything for nothing. If Obama creates a situation in which what I earn is taken away from me and I cannot get ahead because I'm being taxed into poverty, then I will have no incentive to continue working. Neither will any of the other "rich" people in this country. And THEN where will Obama get the money to fund his Marxist nationalized health care scheme? If I'm not making money to be taxed, who's going to pay for YOUR health care (or your aunt's)?

Elliot

Hello El:

This is NOT rocket science. In terms of rights, the Ninth Amendment says there are "others retained by the people", that AREN'T enumerated. You keep looking around for where the ARE enumerated (listed) but you ain't gonna find 'em, because the the amendment itself says THEY AREN'T there. I believe the amendment. Then you say, "I can't find 'em, so they must not be there." Duhhh!

If what you say is true, that because you don't find ANY other right's listed (even though the amendment says you won't), that there just AREN'T any, because you can't find 'em. Furthermore, you apparently think the Ninth Amendment means NOTHING.

And, I think it means exactly what it says.

What happened to the strict constructionist rightwing "do what the Constitution says - not what you THINK it says"????? Do you think the framers got bored and just wanted to fill in some space. What do you think the Ninth Amendment means. Oh, I know what you think it means. You said so.

I guess you agree with that idiot, Scalia when he spewed the following drek:

"the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be"

Lemme see if I can dissect that crap. Even though the Ninth Amendment SAYS there "other rights", it really doesn't mean it. He's a fool.

excon

Here's where I disagree with you on this.

Those non-listed rights are RETAINED by the people, and in the understanding of the framers of the Constitution, that meant the STATES, not the federal government.

So if there is to be any "right" to medical care or insurance coverage, it must be passed by the STATE legislatures and administered from there.

ONLY what is spelled out in the Constitution is the prerogrative of the federal government.

We have strayed far, no?

Hello El:

This is NOT rocket science. In terms of rights, the Ninth Amendment says there are "others retained by the people", that AREN'T enumerated. You keep looking around for where the ARE enumerated (listed) but you ain't going to find 'em, because the amendment itself says THEY AREN'T there. I believe the amendment. Then you say, "I can't find 'em, so they must not be there." Duhhh!

It says they aren't in the CONSTITUTION. But they have to exist SOMEWHERE. Even if it's just in past history. Otherwise it isn't a right. It's just made up.

I think that all Americans should have the RIGHT to free maid service and free laundry service. After all, them rich folks have it, why shouldn't I? And the 9th Amendment says that just because it isn't written in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Therefore it must exist. So... when is the government going to start paying for my maid and my laundry?


If what you say is true, that because you don't find ANY other right's listed (even though the amendment says you won't), that there just AREN'T any, because you can't find 'em. Furthermore, you apparently think the Ninth Amendment means NOTHING.

The 9th says that not all rights are listed in the CONSTITUTION. It's doesn't say they aren't written ANYWHERE. Only YOU say that.


And, I think it means exactly what it says.

So do I. I think that just because it isn't written in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. But I also think that it must be listed SOMEPLACE for it to be a right. Again, even if it's just in past history.


What happened to the strict constructionist rightwing "do what the Constitution says - not what you THINK it says"?? Do you think the framers got bored and just wanted to fill in some space. What do you think the Ninth Amendment means. Oh, I know what you think it means. You said so.

I guess you agree with that idiot, Scalia when he spewed the following drek:

"the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be"

Yep. I agree with that 100%. In fact, I'm the one who quoted it to you.


Let me see if I can dissect that crap. Even though the Ninth Amendment SAYS there "other rights", it really doesn't mean it. He's a fool.

Excon

Apparently you are having trouble disecting it.

What he is saying is this: Just because the 9th Amendment says that there are other rights than those listed in the Constitution, it takes something other than the 9th Amendment do determine what those rights are. You can't just claim a right exists when you feel like it and point to the 9th Amendment as your proof.

So again... show me another source for a "right" to health insurance or health care.

You can try to spin this however you want, excon. But precedent in the interpretation of the 9th Amendment is clear. The 9th doesn't create rights. It simply says that other rights exist. It takes some other source (besides the Constitution) to determine what they are. Historical precedent, legal writings, new legislation, etc. Rights don't come into existence in a vacuum, much as you would wish they did.

Elliot

No. We're not upset that other people will be getting the same benefits as us. We're just POed that WE would be the ones paying for it. Hello again, El:

The rich stay rich because they have poor people like you carrying their water. I don't know why you do that.

If you're so rich, why didn't you take me to a better place for lunch?

excon

Hello again, El:

The rich stay rich because they have poor people like you carrying their water. I dunno why you do that.

If you're soo rich, why didn't you take me to a better place for lunch?

excon

Distance from my office. Come again and I'll take you to Abigaile's. Higher-end kosher steak house and neuvelle tex mex place. Or we can go to Prime Grill... another high end kosher steak house. On me.

And I'm NOT so rich. Problem is that Obama defines me as "rich", and is going to tax me for it so that folks like you can have their imaginary rights granted.

Elliot

One more point regarding ORIGINALISM and the 9th Amendment:

When Madison first presented the 9th Amendment to the Framers, he said the following:

''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''

It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.

From Findlaw at
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/)

In other words, MADISON'S OWN WORDS make it clear what the original intent of the 9th Amendment was. It was there to state that other rights besides those listed exist and are protected from the federal government, but IT DOES NOT DEFINE THOSE RIGHTS. There must be some other source for those rights to exist than the 9th Amendment.

THAT is the originalist view. Scalia was right in his originalist view, and you are CLEARLY wrong on this one.

Elliot

The 9th says that not all rights are listed in the CONSTITUTION. It's doesn't say they aren't written ANYWHERE. Only YOU say that.Hello again, El:

No, it doesn't say that at all.

That's the cool thing about the framers. They wrote in simple easy to understand English. They made their intention perfectly clear - that would be to anyone who SPEAKS English...

It says, and I quote, "The enumeration IN the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

That's 21 words. They're clear as a bell. It doesn't say ANYTHING about NOT all rights are in the Constitution. It doesn't say anything CLOSE to that at all. It's ALL made up in your right wing head. You add words that aren't there to make it mean what you want it to mean. I don't know what happens to the strict constructionist over there in rightwingland...

It says, that the rights we've listed HERE, IN the Constitution doesn't mean that aren't others, that AREN'T listed here IN the Constitution.

You just don't LIKE what it says, or you aren't capable of reading ENGLISH.

See, here's the REAL problem. I've discussed it with you before. It's about LISTS. You can't seem to get along without lists. You have lists of people who don't qualify for rights... You LOVE lists. You bring up people on your lists all the time. Gay people comes to mind... However, I digress.

But, the framers KNEW that rightwingers like you would make hay of the LIST of rights the framers felt COMPELLED to specify, because of the rights NOT on the list...

That's WHY they wrote the Ninth Amendment. So that it is perfectly clear that our rights are NOT limited to the ones LISTED. There are OTHERS. Apparently the framers were smarter than we even give them credit for. They KNEW that circumstances would arise wherein those UNLISTED rights would become apparent.

That is exactly what is happening...

excon

Hello again, El:

Let's take it to the next level.

Of course, the framers could NEVER conceive of the air being fowled so badly that clean air becomes a commodity.

But, they provided for us.. Certainly, one of those UNLISTED rights, is the right to clean air. You, of course, wouldn't think we have a right to that because you can't find it in the Constitution.

You'd of course, be wrong, because it's right there, in the Ninth Amendment.

excon

Sorry, Ex. but you are wrong on this one.

All of this is coming from Washington. Don't you get it yet? The SOURCE of all these new found "rights" CANNOT Constitutionally be found in Washington. They must come from the states, because ANYTHING not listed is prohibited to the federal government.

I too understand simple English.

Hello again, gal:

We're close. As discussed before, the Ninth Amendment says the RIGHTS not listed belong to the people. The TENTH Amendment, though, says that POWERS not given to the federal government shall remain with the states..

One deals with right's. The other deals with power. They ain't the same thing. In fact, they are polar opposites.

excon

Hello again, El:

Let's take it to the next level.

We're not done with this level yet.

You can't seem to explain how MADISON, who wrote the 9th Amendment, AND explained it's purpose as a matter of formal record at the Constitutional Convention, seems to disagree with your position. He himself said that the 9th was never intended to CONFER rights. He said that it was there to create a method of construction. But you still need that other source in order to "construct" a right.

I'm not taking it any further until you can explain this. Because until that is explained, there is no "next step". The argument ends here.


Of course, the framers could NEVER conceive of the air being fowled so badly that clean air becomes a commodity.

But, they provided for us.. Certainly, one of those UNLISTED rights, is the right to clean air. You, of course, wouldn't think we have a right to that because you can't find it in the Constitution.

You'd of course, be wrong, because it's right there, in the Ninth Amendment.

Excon

Yes, yes. Just like they never "conceived of any type of firearm with greater capacity for damage than a muzzle loader". So what? Is that a reason to give up the 2nd Amendment?

The framers DID create a method by which to fix any oversights, or to repair anything they could not conceive of.

It's called THE AMENDMENTS.

You don't just get to create rights or abrogate rights on a whim. There is a method by which it is done. Till then, you either have to find it in legal precedent, which doesn't exist, or in historical precendent, which also doesn't exist.

One more point, excon.

If the 9th Amendment means that the rights might not be listed ANYWHERE, including outside the Constitution, why did it specifically limit itself to lists within the Constitution?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because certain rights aren't listed IN THE CONSTITUTION doesn't mean that they don't exist. But they still have to be listed SOMEWHERE.

Enough is enough, excon. You are wrong. EVERY LEGAL expert agrees with me. LEGAL PRECEDENT agrees with me. MADISON, who wrote the Amendment agrees with me. The 9th doesn't confer rights. It only protects ones that already exist in law and precedent, but are not specifically listed in the Constitution. Just admit it and move on.

Elliot

Yes, yes. Just like they never "conceived of any type of firearm with greater capacity for damage than a muzzle loader". So what? Is that a reason to give up the 2nd Amendment?ConstitutionHello again, El:

Nahhh, you got me mixed up with YOU. I don't want to take rights away. I want everybody to have 'em. Look, I think you should be able to own a bazooka, because the Second Amendment says to.

Unlike YOU, I don't pick which Amendment I support.

excon

Neither do I. I fully support the 9th Amendment... as it was intended by Madison and the other Framers. I just don't support what YOU THINK it says, and actually doesn't.

Hello again, gal:

We're close. As discussed before, the Ninth Amendment says the RIGHTS not listed belong to the people. The TENTH Amendment, though, says that POWERS not given to the federal government shall remain with the states..

One deals with right's. The other deals with power. They ain't the same thing. In fact, they are polar opposites.

excon

Same argument as about 9. If the power is not spelled out in the Constitution, then Washington doesn't legally have the power. Whatever is not spelled out belongs to the states.

Simple, no?

The bill of rights says that I have a right to worship as I please. The bill of rights does not mandate the gvt, must build me a church . The bill of rights says I can own weapons . The bill of rights does not say the gvt. Has to provide them to me.

If anything ;the health care bill being debated in the House would restrict my options regarding health care . It has already been demonstrated that private insurance will be on the fast track to oblivion and all Americans like it or not will be forced to participate in a gvt provider plan .
Also it has been revealed ,as Steve documented on another posting that Seniors will be obliged to regularly attend counceling to discuss 'end of life ' options. By definition this would appear to be a restricting of any right to health care the individual can make a claim to. Wouldn't a denial of treatment be the equivalent of an infringement of a right ?

Wouldn't a denial of treatment be the equivalent of an infringement of a right ?Hello tom:

IF we deemed health care a RIGHT, then it would... But, don't confuse ME with the congress. They ain't about to declare health care a right, even though that's absolutely what it is. Maybe in time...

But, I'm willing to have a REAL conversation about health care with you guys... But, you can't be doing any of this winking stuff. We got to start on a equal playing field... It starts with TRUTH.

So, until you admit that your health care IS being rationed by the health insurance industry, we can't have any discussion about government rationing... Cause you can't argue with people who are pretending.

excon

I don't buy the premise because of the rest of what I stated before the last line . Even if health care is a 'right' ,that does not mean the government must provide it .

Or perhaps you are a person ,like the President ,who bemoaned that the Constitution is a document of 'negative liberties' describing what the government is prohibitted from doing to the people ;and is lacking in what the government should be doing for the people .
YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)

I don't buy the premise because of the rest of what I stated before the last line . Even if health care is a 'right' ,that does not mean the goverment must provide it .Hello again, tom:

We're getting closer... It's just semantics now...

I don't know. Do you think the government provides you with nice roads, or is it the paving contractor? Me?? I think the contractor "provides" you with nice roads and the government "pays" for it. Then it collects from you.

excon

But I don't think it is my right to drive on roads at all. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate post roads and claims some power under the commerce clause.Art 1 sec 8

Other than that there were clear questions of federalism associated with the construction of roads . More often than not they are property of local authority and yes to ride on them I have to pay for that service . I also would have to pay for the service of driving on someone's private road .

Other than that I don't see a connection . My "right " to travel on either public or private roads are contingent on many restrictive rules ;among them my ability to pay . That sounds more like a privilege than a right to me.

Ok ex, the truth is insurance companies do engage in rationing what they will PAY for. Pharmaceutical companies influence doctors to prescribe expensive new medicines when old ones may be just fine or even better and safer. Some things are broken, but the TRUTH is it doesn't require government bureaucrats reinventing the wheel to fix things (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.html).

The TRUTH is the cost of Obamacare is unsustainable.

The TRUTH is government will ration health care far more than insurance companies.

The TRUTH is Obama doesn't even know what's in this monstrous, unsustainable, spooky bill (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/rationing-health-care-372866-9.html#post1873240) that not even he and Congres will commit to using themselves.

The TRUTH is Obama wants this bill passed NOW, before the bad news of his now delayed July budget bad news is released, even though he admits it needs work (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/21/obama-says-talking-time-over-but-has-no-clue-whats-in-obamacare/).

The TRUTH is Obama is too busy pushing this unsustainable bill he isn't familiar with that needs work, and punishing dissenters in his own party to actually lead on the issue (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/22/senator-democrats-baffled-by-presidents-health-care-stance-2/).

The TRUTH is when Obama says it's not about him you can bet that it's ALL about him.


"Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hca_20090722_6620.php).' "

Not "you need to fix health care in America," but "You're going to destroy my presidency." Yeah, it's all about him... at all cost.

So I googled "You're going to destroy my presidency" and guess what I found? Hearsay. Never does the name of that congressman EVER show up. In fact it's the same text that shows up everywhere... on neocon blogs everywhere. They even cal it a talking point (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/07/22/open-thread). And some of the terms they use are the same as you just used here.

Nice try... again.

So I googled "You're going to destroy my presidency" and guess what I found? Hearsay. Never does the name of that congressman EVER show up. In fact it's the exact same text that shows up everywhere...on neocon blogs everywhere. They even cal it a talking point (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/07/22/open-thread). And some of the terms they use are the same as you just used here.

Nice try...again.

I suppose the rest of what I said is just hearsay as well? Wackos on the left built a whole Bush theocracy conspiracy on hearsay. Did you fall for that?

There are wackos everywhere. Just ignore them.

Mocking them is so much more fun.

If one has nothing better to do.

Excon,

You can't ration something you don't have 100% control of. If one health insurance company tries to "ration" care (or deny a service), there are options outside that health insurance company. I can pay out of pocket or go to another insurance company that does cover that service.

No single company can cut off a service to the entire public or any individual in a free market economy. Therefore, insurance companies can deny a service, but they cannot RATION that service, because I can still get that service through other means.

But the government CAN ration a service in a single payer system. In single-payer nationalized health care, if they say someone doesn't get a service, they have effectively cut that service off from that person. Period. There are no other options. THAT is the definition of rationing a service... the ability to cut the person off from the service in order to limit the use of that service overall.

This is where you get mixed up. You seem to feel that "refusing to pay for a service" is the same as "rationing a service". They are NOT the same at all. If I have the option to get the service through other means, EVEN IF IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE OR MORE DIFFICULT, it is not rationing. But if I have no options whatsoever, THEN it is rationing.

So, no winking, no untruths. You're just wrong.

Elliot

It's funny ET, you spout off the neocon "rationing service" talking point ad nauseum but yet I live in a single payer system and have never been denied a service, nor has anyone in my family, or their extended family, or my friends, or co-workers.

No. We're not upset that other people will be getting the same benefits as us. We're just POed that WE would be the ones paying for it. What have I done that I should be penalized and be forced to pay for the insurance of others? What crime have I committed that a percentage of my income is going to be confiscated to pay for the insurance of those who have no income and aren't contributing themselves?

NOR IS THAT EVEN WHAT OBAMA HAS PLANNED!!! I would have less of a problem if this were what was happening. The problem is not that Obama is proposing that we pay for those who are uninsured to get the same care as we do. What he's planning is to make sure that everyone else has crappy insurance too. He's not proposing that everyone have their private health insurance covered. He proposing that everyone should have the same health insurance that Native Americans get and the same that Vets get in the VA system.

In other words, it's not enough that he wants me to pay for YOUR insurance... he want me to also give up MY insurance and take crappy health care instead.



First of all, why is that something that I should be penalized for? Why should I have to pay for the poverty of others? If someone gets fired and has no health insurance (or worse, if he never had a job to begin with, which is all too common), what makes it MY responsibility to pay for his insurance? When did I become indebted to him?

Second of all, there are plenty of sources for FREE medical care, including ERs and free clinics throughout the USA, for them to get medical care. Every pharmaceutical company operating in the USA has programs to help poor people get drugs they need. There are plenty of free sources for medical care. There is also MEDICARE which covers anyone who is infirm and unable to work, and MEDICAID, which covers anyone with income levels up to 150% of the poverty line. There is no reason that anyone in the USA shouldn't be able to get medical care. ANyone who claims not to be able to get medical care when they need it is either LYING or hasn't looked into the matter and doesn't know what they are entitled to. In either case, it ain't my problem, and I shouldn't be paying for it.



I'm sorry for your aunt's possible stroke. But she's an idiot.

There is no hospital in the USA that wouldn't take her in, care for her, give her the meds she needs, and then write off the bill if she couldn't pay for it. Especially for an emergency like a stroke.

So if your aunt decided not to go to the hospital, it wasn't because the system is broken. It's because she stupid. She had options and didn't take them. That's stupidity. And you are just as stupid for encouraging her stupid behavior. And I see no reason for me to be penalized for someone else's stupidity.



Gee... I never knew that the job of the President of the United States was to help the poor people. I thought it was to run the country.

From the Constitution of the United States:


Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


I see nothing in this that says that the job of the President is to help poor people.

BTW, if Obama is so in favor of the "poor people", why isn't he helping his brother in Kenya? His brother earns about $12 per month, lives in a box, and is TRULY in poverty. Obama could give him a couple of thousand dollars out of his own pocket without breaking a sweat to make his brother's life better. But he doesn't. That's because helping the poor isn;t his real goal. His real goal is to screw over the rich and to remake the country in his father's socialist mold.

And what's your beef with rich people anyway? What do you have against people who earned their money instead of having it given to them by the government? What do you have against people who's PARENTS or GRANDPARENTS earned their money and gave it to their kids? Here's a little tip for you: RICH PEOPLE do more to help the poor than the government ever did. They employ millions of poor people. They give massive amounts of charity. They create charitable funds that keep hospitals, schools and charities operating.

What has the government ever done for poor people. What has Obama ever done for poor people?

Zilch, zip, nada.

I think you need to get over your sanctimonious anti-rich garbage and learn a little bit about how the real world works. Nobody gets anything for nothing, and nobody gives anything for nothing. If Obama creates a situation in which what I earn is taken away from me and I cannot get ahead because I'm being taxed into poverty, then I will have no incentive to continue working. Neither will any of the other "rich" people in this country. And THEN where will Obama get the money to fund his Marxist nationalized health care scheme? If I'm not making money to be taxed, who's going to pay for YOUR health care (or your aunt's)?

Elliot

Wow! All of this really hurts my feelings... NOT! I would laugh in the face of the "rich" people who have to have a little money taken out of their paychecks, and them not be able to buy a million dollar dress for one night out, and have cars that costs who knows how much just sitting around rusting, something for show and they don't even ride the stupid thing. Yes it will most definitely kill you to give up your pocket change to help someone who is possibly dying.

What exactly is Obama trying to do? You seem to know what the man thinks on everything, and how do you know he hasn't gave his brother in a box any money? If it's Obama's real goal to "screw over the rich people" as you say, then I am 100% Obama. I think that would be the best thing for this country anyway. Take some of that beloved money that Great Grandmother Givesalottacash gave you and help someone with cancer or any other kind of sickness. At least it would be well spent and not wasted on some of the stupid things that rich people buy just to show it off and show how much money they have!

You have no right calling me or my aunt stupid. You are the stupid one if you ask me. Sitting pretty on your million dollar balcony and thinking that equal medical help for everyone is a luxury. What world do you live in? Medical attention is a luxury only for those people who go get their face lifted every week, their breasts redone over and over, their butt enhanced, or getting their lips injected so that they are "more full'. That is the luxury with it that you are talking about. Real medical help that people actually need is not a luxury at all, it's letting them live a little longer, so that they can get precious time with their loved ones.

Another thing you mentioned is people getting out and working for their money to let me and my aunt have medical. News Flash! Everyone I know does work, unless they are unable to, and I'm talking about labor not sitting in your pretty air conditioned office answering the phone all day and gossiping about the latest million dollar coat you are going to buy for Mr. Fluffles the CAT!! You need to look at it from another view, get off your high horse and look around, people need help, and If God was here right now, could you seriously tell him why that there is no way you could take some money and help people. He gave his own son to help people on earth, and you can't give a few dollars. So you tell me, I'm stupid. Go figure!!

It's funny ET, you spout off the neocon "rationing service" talking point ad nauseum but yet I live in a single payer system and have never been denied a service, nor has anyone in my family, or their extended family, or my friends, or co-workers.

Not yet anyway. Nk, you can praise your system all you want and that's fine, but there are problems (http://www.cha.ca/documents/pa/2007_hcic.pdf). Only 57% of the Canadian public says they are receiving quality health care services. Less than half of the public believe that will improve over the next five years. Only 37% of doctors, 46% of pharmacists, and just 33% of nurses believe the same.

Of those who say timely access has worsened over the past 2 years:

Public: 49%
Doctors: 81%
Pharmacists: 78%
Nurses: 81%
Managers: 71%

And this one is interesting...

In your opinion, if Canadians were allowed to purchase private insurance for health
Services already covered under medicare, do you [agree] that this would:
public, agree or strongly agree:

Result in shorter waiting times: 63% (32% strongly)

Lead to a shortage of doctors and nurses in the public system, as they leave to
work in a new private system: 62% (36% strongly)

Create a two-tier system where those who can afford to pay will get better
Treatment than those who can’t: 59% (41% strongly)

Improve access to health care services for everyone: 57% (33% strongly)

Result in increasing costs of health care: 56% (26% strongly)

Lead to improved quality in health care services: 55% (26% strongly)

Add the boom in private practice and the scenario in Canada isn't as rosy as you want us to believe.

It's funny ET, you spout off the neocon "rationing service" talking point ad nauseum but yet I live in a single payer system and have never been denied a service, nor has anyone in my family, or their extended family, or my friends, or co-workers.

But you ignore the MILLIONS of other people in your system who HAVE been denied care, or had to wait for very long periods to get it. Your own Supreme Court acknowledged this as a problem when they ruled that "access to the queue is not access to health care". If it wasn't a problem, they wouldn't have had to address it. The fact that you PERSONALLY haven't experienced the problem doesn't mean that millions of others haven't.

And I would check again with your friends and co-workers before speaking so freely about their experiences. You don't know what their experiences have been.

I gave you a list of websites that show just how bad your system is. But you ignore those stories and those statistics, and instead you talk about YOUR experiences in Canadian health care. No, your system isn't bad 100% of the time. But is sure isn't good 100% of the time. Or even 80% of the time.

"Well, it works for me" is a pretty stupid response when faced with statistical data that says that it doesn't work for MOST Canadians. But that's all you've got. Because you can't deny the overwhelming number of cases where it doesn't work.

So I'm glad that the Canadian health care system works for you. But it doesn't work to well for Canada. And it won't work very well for America either.

Wow! All of this really hurts my feelings...NOT! I would laugh in the face of the "rich" people who have to have a little money taken out of their paychecks, and them not be able to buy a million dollar dress for one night out, and have cars that costs who knows how much just sitting around rusting, something for show and they don't even ride the stupid thing. Yes it will most definitely kill you to give up your pocket change to help someone who is possibly dieing.

What exactly is Obama trying to do? You seem to know what the man thinks on everything, and how do you know he hasn't gave his brother in a box any money?? If it's Obama's real goal to "screw over the rich people" as you say, then I am 100% Obama. I think that would be the best thing for this country anyway. Take some of that beloved money that Great Grandmother Givesalottacash gave you and help someone with cancer or any other kind of sickness. At least it would be well spent and not wasted on some of the stupid things that rich people buy just to show it off and show how much money they have!

You have no right calling me or my aunt stupid. You are the stupid one if you ask me. Sitting pretty on your million dollar balcony and thinking that equal medical help for everyone is a luxury. What world do you live in? Medical attention is a luxury only for those people who go get their face lifted every week, their breasts redone over and over, their butt enhanced, or getting their lips injected so that they are "more full'. That is the luxury with it that you are talking about. Real medical help that people actually need is not a luxury at all, it's letting them live a little longer, so that they can get precious time with their loved ones.

Another thing you mentioned is people getting out and working for their money to let me and my aunt have medical. News Flash! Everyone I know does work, unless they are unable to, and I'm talking about labor not sitting in your pretty air conditioned office answering the phone all day and gossiping about the latest million dollar coat you are going to buy for Mr. Fluffles the CAT!!! You need to look at it from another view, get off of your high horse and look around, people need help, and If God was here right now, could you seriously tell him why that there is no way you could take some money and help people. He gave his own son to help people on earth, and you can't give a few dollars. So you tell me, I'm stupid. Go figure!!!


Hey, dummy, here's a clue.

When Obama talks about "the rich", he doesn't mean Bill Gates. He means people who work. He means taking money from the MIDDLE CLASS to give to the poor.

As for your idea of soaking the rich to help the poor... without the rich the economy breaks down. Jobs are lost. EVERYONE becomes poor. NOBODY ends up better off.

You are a childish, jealous little twerp who thinks that everything bad that ever happened to you is someone else's fault. And you're going to get your revenge, by hook or by crook, no matter what it costs. Even if YOU get hurt in the process. And trust me, if Obama gets his way, you'll have your revenge against the rich, but you will be hurt.

You are a fool who has yet to grow up and live in the real world for any period, earn your money and have it taken away from you by a government that thinks that those who work should be supporting those who don't. You clearly have no idea what it feels like to have half (or more) of everything you earn taken away from you and given to others.

But under Obama you will. Especially if you live in a large city. Between Obama's tax hikes and the state and local taxes, you will be paying over 50% in taxes.

THEN you will know what Obama means by "taxing the rich". He's not referring to the RICH. He's referring to anyone that earns money.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Or don't. I really don't care.

You'll get screwed over either way.

Oh... BTW, I'm not rich. I own a one family 4-bedroom house in a nice residential area of New Jersey, and my total family income is under $100,000. (My father is wealthy, but not me.)

However, for all the fact that I'm definitely "middle class", Obama defines me and people like me as "rich" and is going to tax me as if I was rich. That 50% tax rate I was mentioning above applies to me. My federal tax rate is going to jump to 38% and my state and local taxes are over 10%.

THAT is why I'm so pissed off that some twerp like you thinks that it's OK to soak the rich to give to the poor. I'm the one who's going to pay for it, and I see no reason to be paying for your lazy @$$ to have what I earned. Every dollar I pay in taxes for you to have health insurance is a dollar that isn't used to pay my kids' tuition, make the mortgage payments, put food on the table, or save for retirement.

What exactly did you do with your life that I owe you something? What exactly did I do to put myself in your debt? Why should my money, the money that I earn working my @$$ off all day, be going to support YOU or YOUR AUNT.

Your aunt has Medicare and Medicaid to take care of her if she's too poor to aford medical insurance. We already pay billions into these systems. What right does she have to more of MY MONEY?? She's already getting money that doesn't belong to her to cover her medical needs. If she's too stupid to know that, it ain't my fault, and I shouldn't have to pay for her stupidity.

Elliot

I'm not sure if my opinion was already stated... I didn't read through all of this...


But in my own opinion (I know many will not share my veiws)

I believe that getting HEALTHCARE when ill or in need of healthcare is a RIGHT as an american.

I don't believe that insurance is a RIGHT.

However, hospitals and doctors make it difficult to get any healthcare WITHOUT insurance (make it extreamly expensive, won't accept a payment plan, turn you away completely if you don't have insurance)

Unless its an emergency room where they can't turn you away for no insurance. And even then you are billed an absurd amount of money for that emergency room visit, even if all you do is go in, sit in the waiting room, and then have the doctor tell you 'you have the flu, take tyenol and go home'


So... yeah... I don't believe it should have to be a right... but unfortunately the way the system is set up, I believe it needs to be. At least at the moment.

im not sure if my opinion was already stated...i didnt read thru all of this...


but in my own opinion (i know many will not share my veiws)

i believe that getting HEALTHCARE when ill or in need of healthcare is a RIGHT as an american.

i dont believe that insurance is a RIGHT.

however, hospitals and doctors make it difficult to get any healthcare WITHOUT insurance (make it extreamly expensive, wont accept a payment plan, turn you away completely if you dont have insurance)

unless its an emergency room where they can't turn you away for no insurance. and even then you are billed an absurd ammount of money for that emergency room visit, even if all you do is go in, sit in the waiting room, and then have the doctor tell you 'you have the flu, take tyenol and go home'


so...yeah...i dont believe it should have to be a right...but unfortunately the way the system is set up, i believe it needs to be. at least at the moment.

Are you aware, Jennie, that there are some doctors out there who don't take insurance at all? They only accept out of pocket payments.

So there are certainly places to go if you don't have insurance.

Also, you are completely ignoring free clinics as a good source of medical care for the uninsured.

Pharmaceutical companies give some of their drugs away free to those who need it.

So there are places to go that won't give you a hassle even if you don't have insurance. Yes, there are practitioners who do give a hassle and make things difficult. But there are plenty of places to go where they don't.

I happen to disagree with the idea that health care is a right. The government disagrees with me, however, and there are already laws on the books regarding providing medical care to those in need who cannot pay. That right is already covered in existing law.

But the question here, as you pointed out, is with regard to HEALTH INSURANCE, not care. And health insurance is definitely NOT a right. Nor should it be. Or rather, there should be a right to purchase it if you want to and have the ability to pay for it. But it should not be something that everyone should be FORCED to take if they don't want it, nor should it be something supplied even if you can't afford it.

Elliot

Yes but I feel that it would be cheaper and more convientent for our country as a WHOLE, to simply provide insurance for everyone, rather than the government forking out more money they can't afford at the moment for the free clinics and free services.

yes but i feel that it would be cheaper and more convientent for our country as a WHOLE, to simply provide insurance for everyone, rather than the government forking out more money they can't afford at the moment for the free clinics and free services.

The average cost of private insurance (without the assistance of an employer) for a family of 4 is about $1500 per month. Assuming 300 million people in the USA, that means that the cost of private insurance for one year (each family of 4 paying for themselves) is $1.35 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10-year cost of Obama's nationalized health plan at $23 trillion over the next 10 years. That's $2.3 trillion per year. (There are those who say that's an underestimate of the actual cost, but let's use that number for the heck of it.)

In other words, it is going to cost one trillion per year MORE to insure everyone through nationalized health care than it would cost to simply allow people to buy their own health care. The government would get off cheaper by simply giving each family of 4 $1500 to pay for the insurance of their choice than to create a single-payor nationalized health care system. (And if we only did it for those who are uninsured, instead of for everyone, it would be even cheaper. A few million dollars, instead of $1.35 trillion.)

THAT is what we ought to be working on... helping those who are uninsured become insured. Not creating a whole new system that will be MORE COSTLY and will also provide less service.

Elliot

Ahh I understand what your saying. Thanks elliot :)

So I'm glad that the Canadian health care system works for you...it won't work very well for America either.I've already admitted that our system won't work well for you. Your government serves the interests of corporate america not the people. You view yourselves as "I got mine, screw the others" whereas we view ourselves as part of a larger society.

Can I move to canada? How hard would it be to get citizen ship to canada?

The average cost of private insurance (without the assistance of an employer) for a family of 4 is about $1500 per month. Assuming 300 million people in the USA, that means that the cost of private insurance for one year (each family of 4 paying for themselves) is $1.35 trillion.

Elliot

Really? That is how much Private Health Insurance costs? That's crazy. I didn't realise that private insurance was so expensive in the US.

It costs about one third of that here for a family of 4. And that's the top end of the market.

When I was paying for my insurance it was maybe 400 for my family of 3.

when i was paying for my insurance it was maybe 400 for my family of 3.

What percentage of your insurance was covered by your employer?

Generally speaking, when I have employer-provided health insurance, my out of pocket cost was about $300-400 per month too. But I was talking about the cost of the insurance if we had to pay for all of it ourselves, without any employer assistance. That averages about $1500/month or so.



Really?? That is how much Private Health Insurance costs?? That's crazy. I didn't realise that private insurance was so expensive in the US.

It costs about one third of that here for a family of 4. And thats the top end of the market.


Is that with or without an employer contribution.

Also, I don't know what everage salaries are in the various parts of Australia. Nor do I know the current currency conversion rate between the US$ and the AU$. So I don't know how something that costs two thirds less in Canada actually compares in relatavistic terms. I also don't know what services your high-end insurance covers and how it compares to ours.

So a cost comparison between the USA and Australia is a bit premature. I'm not saying your insurance isn't cheaper than ours. I'm saying I don't have enough facts to compare.

But my point to Jennie was that nationalized health insurace is actually more expensive than private health insurance by nearly 2-1. And that assumes that the CBO wasn't underestimating the costs of the program, which is something they have done in the past. It could be more like 3.5- or 4-1, if the Heritage Foundation numbers are accurate.

Elliot

It wasn't employer insurance. It was american family insurance.

I understand what your saying.


The problem is I'm sort of a socialist. Lol. I wish we could forget about money, work for what we need, barter and trade. Like waaaay back a lOOOOOOOONG time ago!!

it wasnt employer insurance. it was american family insurance.

i understand what your saying.


the problem is im sort of a socialist. lol. i wish we could forget about money, work for what we need, barter and trade. like waaaay back a lOOOOOOOONG time ago!!!

I'd love to give you a lesson about "the good old times" of socialism when people died in the fields trying to pay off their debts to the lords of the manor (feudalism is a form of socialism, in case you didn't know). Or the "good old times" when people starved to death waiting on food lines. Or the "good old times" when people died in hospitals waiting for doctors who had already finished their daily quota and were satisfied to slack off for the rest of the day (or year). Or the "good old times" when families living a subsistance lifestyle ("work for what you need, barter and trade") died off because they had a bad crop one year and didn't have enough to survive on or trade with.

But this isn't the thread for a full economics-of-agronomy or economics-of-feudalism class. I leave it to your imagination.

Elliot

Yes I understand. I didn't say it was possible :P I just WISH the world could be perfect :P feudalism/socialisim, no disease, no problems, no worries. Just a nice fancy fairy tale.

Yes I know it can't happen :) but you know. Dreams and all ;)

private insurance[/B] for health
services already covered under medicare, do you [agree] that this would:
public, agree or strongly agree:

Result in shorter waiting times: 63% (32% strongly)

Lead to a shortage of doctors and nurses in the public system, as they leave to
work in a new private system: 62% (36% strongly)

Create a two-tier system where those who can afford to pay will get better
treatment than those who can’t: 59% (41% strongly)

Improve access to health care services for everyone: 57% (33% strongly)

Result in increasing costs of health care: 56% (26% strongly)

Lead to improved quality in health care services: 55% (26% strongly)

Add the boom in private practice and the scenario in Canada isn't as rosy as you want us to believe.Hello NK:

I don't know. I looks like the survey is designed to come up with answers the surveyor wants. That's why I don't believe it.

excon

In Texas we have workers comp insurance. It's about dead though. Most doctors will not accept it and have posted signs in their front offices saying so.

That is what will happen when government limits the pay of doctors. You may have the coverage, and it may not be worth the paper it's printed on.

In Texas we have workers comp insurance. It's about dead though. Most doctors will not accept it and have posted signs in their front offices saying so.

That is what will happen when government limits the pay of doctors. You may have the coverage, and it may not be worth the paper it's printed on.

On this point I disagree with you, Gal.

If we go to a single-payor system, the government's "coverage" is the only thing they will be sure to take.

If we go to a multi-payor system, the government can just simply say that all doctors MUST take government health insurance.

People will be covered for their health care costs all right. That's not the issue.

The issue is the availability of service. If there SERVICE isn't available, then the insurance isn't worth the paper it's written on, even if it's backed by the "full faith" of the government.

Elliot

Hello again, gal:

Here's another scare tactic that I can debunk right now too. You know the one. About all the doctors and nurses quitting because they can't make as much money as they hopped??

Nahhhh. They ain't going anywhere. Where are they going to go? Canada?

excon

Hello again, gal:

Here's another scare tactic that I can debunk right now too. You know the one. About all the doctors and nurses quitting because they can't make as much money as they hopped???

Nahhhh. They ain't going anywhere. Where are they gonna go? Canada?

excon

They'll just exit medicine and become lawyers. That way they can make money comensurate with their training. Which they can't if the government is capping pay for services.

It's not that doctors will leave here and go elsewhere. It's just that they won't become doctors in the first place, 'cause there's nothing in it for them.

I don't think that Obama knows how to explain to the people what this health care plan really is. When asked about who will pay for it, he simply babbles on and on and you never get a straight answer.
I was watching one of his news conferences last night and he said that 2/3 of it would be paid for by this or that, can't really figure out what he was talking about; and then the other 1/3 would be coming from the deductions of the people who are making over 100,000 a year? Quote me if I'm wrong, I don't have the best of memories.
He also said that if congress proposed that the money be taken from deductions of the middle class people that he would be opposed to that. Because he thinks there is a better way of doing than taking from the middle class families that are already struggling in the economy today.
He also said that this healthcare plan would be able to let doctors take care of the patient for the real cause of their sickness. He used the example of someone coming in with a sore throat and knowing that they could get more money if they had them come back in to get their tonsils removed that they would do that instead of running some tests to see if the patient just had allergies.
After awhile of babbling, he mentioned something about people could still have the choice of different insurance companies if that's what they wanted. That insurance premiums kept rising and blah blah blah and that in the end people would end up having the money taken out of their own pockets.
Could someone please explain to me what this healthcare thing really is about because I'm still not sure if I understand it...

Lets face it, Congress does not want REAL health care reform. It is not in their best interest. Now, if those dolts in Congress were forced onto the same system that they are trying to shove down out throats it would for sure never happen. They as the elite few get exceptional and free to them coverage for life.
There is only one real way to reform health care. Enact tort reform laws that will hamper the lawyers. When a doctor has to pay over $100K a year for malpractice insurance there is something drastically wrong with the system. Start with the lawyers and the crooks and health costs would come down drastically.

I don't think that Obama knows how to explain to the people what this health care plan really is. When asked about who will pay for it, he simply babbles on and on and you never get a straight answer.
I was watching one of his news conferences last night and he said that 2/3 of it would be paid for by this or that, can't really figure out what he was talkin about; and then the other 1/3 would be coming from the deductions of the people who are making over 100,000 a year? Quote me if I'm wrong, I don't have the best of memories.
He also said that if congress proposed that the money be taken from deductions of the middle class people that he would be opposed to that. Because he thinks there is a better way of doing than taking from the middle class families that are already struggling in the economy today.
He also said that this healthcare plan would be able to let doctors take care of the patient for the real cause of their sickness. He used the example of someone coming in with a sore throat and knowing that they could get more money if they had them come back in to get their tonsils removed that they would do that instead of running some tests to see if the patient just had allergies.
After awhile of babbling, he mentioned something about people could still have the choice of different insurance companies if that's what they wanted. That insurance premiums kept rising and blah blah blah and that in the end people would end up having the money taken out of their own pockets.
Could someone please explain to me what this healthcare thing really is about because I'm still not sure if I understand it...

You hit on an interesting point here, Sweet.

Obama said he was going to tax the "rich" to pay for this stuff.

But he is now defining "rich" as anyone making $100K. Which means most 2-income middle class families.

Before he was elected, Obama said that he was only going to raise taxes on anyone or any business earning $250K or more... which would mean most small businesses, which is bad enough.

Then he changed that to anyone earning $180K ore more. Then it became $150K.

Now it's $100K.

This is the point I was making to you the other day when you ripped into me. Obama SAYS he's going to tax the rich to pay for it. But his intent is to tax US, you and me. Middle Class people. Because those in the middle class have more than the poor, and therefore are defined as "rich".

Why should I, a middle class guy, pay for other people to have health care, just because Obama says that I should be defined as "rich"?

You have awakened yourself to the truth at last.

Elliot

Lets face it, Congress does not want REAL health care reform. It is not in their best interest. Now, if those dolts in Congress were forced onto the same system that they are trying to shove down out throats it would for sure never happen. They as the elite few get exceptional and free to them coverage for life.
There is only one real way to reform health care. Enact tort reform laws that will hamper the lawyers. When a doctor has to pay over $100K a year for malpractice insurance there is something drastically wrong with the system. Start with the lawyers and the crooks and health costs would come down drastically.

Um... Congress pays for it's healthcare. They just have a stellar package. Comes out of their paycheck just like everyone else. :rolleyes:

What percentage of your insurance was covered by your employer?

Generally speaking, when I have employer-provided health insurance, my out of pocket cost was about $300-400 per month too. But I was talking about the cost of the insurance if we had to pay for all of it ourselves, without any employer assistance. That averages about $1500/month or so.



Is that with or without an employer contribution.

Also, I don't know what everage salaries are in the various parts of Australia. Nor do I know the current currency conversion rate between the US$ and the AU$. So I don't know how something that costs two thirds less in Canada actually compares in relatavistic terms. I also don't know what services your high-end insurance covers and how it compares to ours.

So a cost comparison between the USA and Australia is a bit premature. I'm not saying your insurance isn't cheaper than ours. I'm saying I don't have enough facts to compare.

But my point to Jennie was that nationalized health insurace is actually more expensive than private health insurance by nearly 2-1. And that assumes that the CBO wasn't underestimating the costs of the program, which is something they have done in the past. It could be more like 3.5- or 4-1, if the Heritage Foundation numbers are accurate.

Elliot

We don't have employer contribution.

Your other questions are valid. I would think average salaries would be similar, but can check.

1.00 USD = 1.22848 AUD

1.00 AUD = 0.814014 USD

On the face of it, it appears that US Private health cover is indeed expensive in comparison to ours. Which I must say is how it is perceived down here. It is a common political line and the general consensus that 'we do not want to go down the path of US health care, where predominantly it can only be afforded by the wealthy'. Im not saying this is true, but it is the perception none the less.

Australia's understanding of your health system is that unless one is insured it is extremely expensive. However, insurance is expensive to obtain anyway.

Which on the face of it seems true.

The question would be is do you get more (i.e. better care) for your dollar? Considering we generally live longer and are healthier I think the answer could conceivably be no! But I'm sure it is open to debate.

We don't have employer contribution.

Your other questions are valid. I would think average salaries would be similar, but can check.

1.00 USD = 1.22848 AUD

1.00 AUD = 0.814014 USD

Well the exchange rate accounts for PART of the difference in cost, but certainly not all of it. But I also don't know the differences in services rendered, so I can't really comment on how they compare.


On the face of it, it appears that US Private health cover is indeed expensive in comparison to ours. Which I must say is how it is perceived down here. It is a common political line and the general consensus that 'we do not want to go down the path of US health care, where predominantly it can only be afforded by the wealthy'. Im not saying this is true, but it is the perception none the less.

Interestingly, 85% of Americans are insured. So it is certainly not "just for the rich". 85% of Americans cannot all be considered "rich". So even under a quick review, without even getting into the deeper numbers, I'd say that the perception is a bit off.

Looked at from another angle, however, health INSURANCE may be for those who can afford it (again, that's 85% of us... closer to 90% of you eliminate uninsured illegal aliens), but health CARE is available to everyone who needs it. As has been mentioned before, hospitals are not allowed to turn any patient away, regardless of inability to pay. Free clinics are available. Pharmaceutical companies give away drugs for free to those in need. The care is there and is accessible to everyone.

So on that basis, the statement that in the USA health care can only be afforded by the wealthy is untrue as well.


Australia's understanding of your health system is that unless one is insured it is extremely expensive. However, insurance is expensive to obtain anyway.

Which on the face of it seems true.

Yes, care is expensive. It is also available regardless of insurance coverage, as I have pointed out.


The question would be is do you get more (i.e. better care) for your dollar? Considering we generally live longer and are healthier I think the answer could conceivably be no! But I'm sure it is open to debate.

With respect, I would debate that strongly.

First of all, there is quite a bit of evidence that our lifespans are actually longer than yours, despite the 2000 census data on which your numbers are based. But I don't have that data available right now, so I can't really make a cogent argument that will stand up under scrutiny. But I would argue that that is a difference in LIFESTYLE not medical care. You guys just eat better than we do and you live generally more physical lifestyles and thus get more excersize.

Second, for the chronically ill, medical outcomes in the USA are better than for any other country in the world. Cancer is a perfect example. Cancer survival rates at 5 years in the USA are 66% for males and 63% for females. Whereas only three European countries (Sweden Belgium and Switzerland) have cancer survival rates that reach 60% for females and only one country (Sweden) reaches 60% for males. This data comes from a Lancet Oncology study from 2007 data.

That's just one study dealing with cancer survival rates. There have been similar studies done with lots of other maladies... heart care outcomes, for instance... that also put the USA ahead of its counterparts in other countries.

So I would argue that in terms of HEALTH CARE, defined as medical outcomes for patients (as opposed to lifestyle, where you guys have us beat hands down), we are actually well ahead of the rest of the world.

By the way, I think that the lifestyle issue is important. But the truth is I love my greasy burgers and fries. Even if I lived in Australia, I'd likely keep my American eating habbits. (I kept them while I was in Israel for a year 20 years ago.)

Now... imagine this... what if the medical outcomes of the USA could be duplicated in Australia, where the lifestyle is generally healthier to begin with.

I predict one of two things... or possibly both at once.

1) A massive jump in both population and lifespan,

2) Massive famine due to the production of food not keeping up with the increase in population.

Perhaps the tradeoff is a necessary one... you have longer lifespans, but we have the better medical outcomes, and that way neither of us grows our population too quickly.

Just a thought.

Elliot

We dont have employer contribution.

Your other questions are valid. I would think average salaries would be similar, but can check.

1.00 USD = 1.22848 AUD

1.00 AUD = 0.814014 USD

On the face of it, it appears that US Private health cover is indeed expensive in comparison to ours. Which I must say is how it is perceived down here. It is a common political line and the general consensus that 'we do not want to go down the path of US health care, where predominantly it can only be afforded by the wealthy'. Im not saying this is true, but it is the perception none the less.

Australia's understanding of your health system is that unless one is insured it is extremely expensive. However, insurance is expensive to obtain anyway.

Which on the face of it seems true.

The question would be is do you get more (i.e. better care) for your dollar? Considering we generally live longer and are healthier I think the answer could conceivably be no! But im sure it is open to debate.

Your perception is absolutely correct. I've said it before, why can't we look at all the systems around the world, see what works, what doesn't, and devise a system based on that. Seems so obvious and logical to me.:rolleyes:

I've said it before, why can't we look at all the systems around the world, see what works, what doesn't, and devise a system based on that. Seems so obvious and logical to me.:rolleyes:Hello c:

If you're interest IS in getting the best health care system we possibly can, then you WOULD do that... But, if you're HEAVILY invested in the status quo, you're going to look out for YOUR interests and not the country's...

Here's an example... The righty's have been quoting the Lewin Group.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

The problem is, the Lewin Group is OWNED by United Health Care - the BIGGEST of the health insurance companies...

excon

Correct excon.


More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care.

In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York attorney general and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994.

More here: washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202216.html)

You hit on an interesting point here, Sweet.

Obama said he was going to tax the "rich" to pay for this stuff.

But he is now defining "rich" as anyone making $100K. Which means most 2-income middle class families.

Before he was elected, Obama said that he was only going to raise taxes on anyone or any business earning $250K or more... which would mean most small businesses, which is bad enough.

Then he changed that to anyone earning $180K ore more. Then it became $150K.

Now it's $100K.

This is the point I was making to you the other day when you ripped into me. Obama SAYS he's going to tax the rich to pay for it. But his intent is to tax US, you and me. Middle Class people. Because those in the middle class have more than the poor, and therefore are defined as "rich".

Why should I, a middle class guy, pay for other people to have health care, just because Obama says that I should be defined as "rich"?

You have awakened yourself to the truth at last.

Elliot

Yes I've finally realized that Obama wasn't really talking about the millionaires and I'm sorry for being so out there in that post the last time.

It seems like Obama is trying to get this through by lying as much as possible. He babbles on and on covering up the real question that was asked and people are still trying to figure out what this plan is really going to do to the future of the U.S.

Another thing, Obama was asked during the news conference if him as well as congress would be willing to have the same health care plan as everyone else. From what I understood of it, he said that congress would be happy to go with the plan. The guy asking the question said yes but would you be willing to. He said well as being the president I have a doctor following me around all the time and I have the best health care in the world as I am president.

If you will watch some of his news conferences the questions he gets asked has a lot of 'uhms' 'uhs' and breaks in his answer. I think he is trying to come up with as much bull as he can to make the answer sound convincing. I'm not really sure what the future will hold with this president in office.

Did Obama really say that? Hahahahaha if he did. I was heavily a McCain supporter during the election, but I have to say, of every person who ran Hilary Clinton seemed to have the best ideas for health care reform. I'm not a big fan of the lady, but when it comes to health care, and what will and will not be acceptable to the american people in the long run, she actually seemed to know. Heck, her health care plan was mainly to open the plan congress had to the american public and let that be an option. This administration saddens me, but I look for some kind of silver lining.

Did Obama really say that? hahahahaha if he did. I was heavily a McCain supporter during the election, but i have to say, of every person who ran Hilary Clinton seemed to have the best ideas for health care reform. I'm not a big fan of the lady, but when it comes to health care, and what will and will not be acceptable to the american people in the long run, she actually seemed to know. heck, her health care plan was mainly to open the plan congress had to the american public and let that be an option. This administration saddens me, but I look for some kind of silver lining.


Hillary Clinton has a long history dealing with health care issues. She introduced what became known as "Hillarycare" during her Husband's aministration, and it bombed, nearly derailing his entire Presidency. She knows it's a hot-button topic, so she peddaled softly on the issue during her campaign. She was definitely smart in how she handled the issue. Whether her policies are the same as they were back in 1993, I don't know. She kept her stance very neutral on this issue during her campaign.

Elliot

I went to a couple of her speeches she gave in Texas when I lived there and she hit on it pretty clearly. She's also one of those nice fluid politicians who change their policy if it doesn't fit into what will work. (That was a dig just as much as a compliment.) She learned a lot from that "bomb." I do thin it was a good idea though, if they want health care so badly, let us have the option of purchasing the same health care congress has available, and at a cost people can actually afford.

I went to a couple of her speeches she gave in Texas when I lived there and she hit on it pretty clearly.

My wife's a Houston girl. Where were you in TX?



I do thin it was a good idea though, if they want health care so badly, let us have the option of purchasing the same health care congress has available, and at a cost people can actually afford.

The idea is fine until you take cost into consideration. That level of care (and it is a VERY high level of care) costs a lot of money. It can't be done "cheaply". The members of Congress pay a portion of their health care, but the US Treasury covers the rest of it. Who is going to cover that portion for us? How much would your taxes go up in order to cover it?

Also, the administration of a health care system for 535 members of Congress and their families is very different from the administration of 300,000,000 people. Leaving aside the costs, the issues involved in the administration of that many patients is a HUGE undertaking. Who is going to manage it? The body that manages the system for Congress doesn't have the manpower for something that big.

So yes, for 535 people, the system is great. For 300 million people, the system begins to break down quickly.

Elliot

Since this has become a health care discussion, I want to weigh in again.

It has been pointed out that we ALREADY have govt. run health care in the form of the VA and Native American care, neither of which is satisfactory.

There is another govt run program, and it is MediCADE. I may not have all the details exact, but there are clinics that the poor can go to. (Actually, you don't have to be on Medicade to go there) But (from first hand reports that I have heard) the way these clinics work is you walk in and sign the register.

Then you wait.

If you have a job, you will certainly lose a day. And if you are a little late, or the minority person behind the glass runs someone elese in before you, you may have to come back the next day and start all over.

In short, it stinks.

If we are serious about improving our health care, here are some suggestions.

Find some Constitutional method of stopping the price gouging. You know, 1,000% mark ups at the pharmacy, $10 per pill asptin in the hospital, etc.

Reign in out of control lawyers. Not sure how, but how about this? A three strikes you're out law for lawyers? The third time a lawyer has a case dismissed as frivilous, he loses his license to practice law.

I'm sure if we put our heads together, we can come up with some real solutions.

But will anyone listen?

I am fairly close to agreeing with you Elliot. Good points. Especially if you look at the disbursement of funds for the bail out package(s). It's one of the reasons I fault Obama for wanting to push this reform for health care faster. He already walked into one major screw up and got worse because no one had enough time, now he's purposefully taking time away because," I get letters every day on my desk" and he wants to give the American people what they want. I WANT to have a responsible government who will give me some bang for my buck, not a hastily written and approved reform that leaves our nation in a worse off place. These things are supposed to be written to last for decades, why can't he be a little patient. Believe me, I have a baby coming in November, I could use the extra health care so we don't have to go so deeply into debt, but I am an American who is willing to wait so that it's done right. *fumes*

Obama can't wait, Chey. The longer he waits, the more time people have to read and understand the bill. And he knows that once the people understand what he's proposing, support for the bill will drop. Even the politicians who want to support the bill won't be able to because the folks back home won't let them. If they vote for it and the public doesn't agree with them, they'll be voted out of office. So Obama needed this to be passed NOW before anyone had a chance to formulate an opinion.

That's how he passed the stimulus bill, which is pretty much universally accepted to be a failure in actually stimulating the economy. That's how he passed the Omnibus Spending Bill. That's how he ALMOST passed the Cap & Trade bill. And that was the tactic he tried to use here. (BTW, Bush was just as guilty. He passed TARP by claiming it was an emergency and had to be passed "right now!!!" He's just as guilty... and I think Obama learned the technique from Bush.)

But the American people know better now than to accept Obama's "rush, rush, rush" anymore. They're learning that sometimes what Obama says is an "emergency" isn't necessarily such an emergency after all. Sometimes you just need to slow down and take a breath before just reacting. Especially if it's the wrong reaction.

Elliot

On that note I COMPLETELY agree! But then again, he is from Chicago. (That was a joke har har) Oh by the way, I lived all over DFW for about 5-6 years.

There are days when I am proud to be an American. When I used to go greet soldiers coming home form Iraq, when I see the quality of my health care. Things like that. But then I have days when I wish I lived in France. I'd like more vacation time if I worked a high stress job, like most Americans. And I feel that much of the way we do things is based on fear rather than decisions based on need or even want. But I am thankful for those politicians who actually fight for a bill to be looked at more carefully, or veto the hell out of it before it gets further than it needs to. Go team America... ;)

A good WSJ journal that asks a lot of the same questions that I did in the original post. Where did this mythical "right" to health care come from?

Dalrymple: There Is No ‘Right’ to Health Care - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306170677645070.html)



Is There a ‘Right’ to Health Care?

In Britain, its recognition has led to substandard care.

By THEODORE DALRYMPLE

If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.

People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.

Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to every American.

Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C. or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?

If, on the other hand, the right to health care did not exist in those benighted days, how did it come into existence, and how did we come to recognize it once it did?

When the supposed right to health care is widely recognized, as in the United Kingdom, it tends to reduce moral imagination. Whenever I deny the existence of a right to health care to a Briton who asserts it, he replies, “So you think it is all right for people to be left to die in the street?”

When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.

Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things.

The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.

Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.

The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given.

Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. (Not coincidentally, British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries, where patients need to make at least some payment for their care.)

In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.

There is no right to health care—any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month.

Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of Anthony Daniels, a British physician. He is a contributing editor to the City Journal.


So... can anybody tell me where the "right" to health care comes from, and why nobody who ever lived before the 20th century was able to notice it, much less recognize this right and fight for it?

Elliot

So... can anybody tell me where the "right" to health care comes from, and why nobody who ever lived before the 20th century was able to notice it, much less recognize this right and fight for it?Hello again, El:

Sure. It's in the Ninth Amendment. That's where all the rights that weren't enumerated in the previous eight amendments can be found. In fact, the Ninth Amendment says that exact thing. Doesn't it?? What do you think Jefferson meant when he said in the Declaration, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness... "

It says that we have a RIGHT to life. That's a term you should be familiar with. If we have a right to life, and you're sick, seems to me you have a right to get better. If it takes a doctor to make that happen, so be it. What do YOU think it means?

Why didn't anybody notice it before now?? Well, it's like the right for gays to get married. Nobody asked about it before.

excon

Another tragic example of the quality care provided by government run health care.

The case of the young man who went into the VA hospital for removal of his gall bladder.

He lost both his legs, but still has his gall bladder.

Does that bother any of you who argue for the government to control the how, when, where, and who of our health care?

Hello again, El:

Sure. It's in the Ninth Amendment. That's where all the rights that weren't enumerated in the previous eight amendments can be found. In fact, the Ninth Amendment says that exact thing. Doesn't it??? What do you think Jefferson meant when he said in the Declaration, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

It says that we have a RIGHT to life. That's a term you should be familiar with. If we have a right to life, and you're sick, seems to me you have a right to get better. If it takes a doctor to make that happen, so be it. What do YOU think it means?

Why didn't anybody notice it before now??? Well, it's like the right for gays to get married. Nobody asked about it before.

excon

What I can't see is why you think that those non-enumerated rights RETAINED by the people (States) should be transferred to federal government administration. If the people of a state decide that there is something they think should be a right, then they should appeal to the state government, not Washington.

The case of the young man who went into the VA hospital for removal of his gall bladder.

He lost both his legs, but still has his gall bladder.

Does that bother any of you who argue for the government to control the how, when, where, and who of our health care?Hello gal:

Sure, I'm bothered for the kid. You're not suggesting, though, that these catastrophic events only happen in GOVERNMENT hospitals, are you?? Nahhh, you're not.

Here's what bothers me MORE. It's that you righty's want to take away these peoples right to sue, and sue BIG - SO BIG, so as to insure that the offending doctor NEVER practices again.

Do YOU want to send your family to a doctor who did stuff like that, and only got slapped on the wrist? With tort reform, you could.

Besides, if YOUR kid got maimed, you wouldn't be so supportive of caps on the award, would you? Nahhh, I don't think you would...

excon

Hello again, El:

Sure. It's in the Ninth Amendment. That's where all the rights that weren't enumerated in the previous eight amendments can be found. In fact, the Ninth Amendment says that exact thing. Doesn't it??? What do you think Jefferson meant when he said in the Declaration, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

It says that we have a RIGHT to life. That's a term you should be familiar with. If we have a right to life, and you're sick, seems to me you have a right to get better. If it takes a doctor to make that happen, so be it. What do YOU think it means?

Why didn't anybody notice it before now??? Well, it's like the right for gays to get married. Nobody asked about it before.

excon

As the article I posted points out, there are many things that are MORE IMPORTANT to the existence of life than health care. Food, clothing and shelter are the three big ones.

Does anyone have a "right" to food?

Does anyone have a "right" to clothing?

Does anyone have a "right" to shelter?

Nope.

And as we have discussed before, the 9th Amendment doesn't create rights. Never has and never will. Your interpretation of the 9th Amendment is wrong and has been proven so time and again.

Again, if this right to health care exists, how come it was never talked about, fought for, given, taken away, or otherwise mentioned at any time in history?

How can a right that has never existed suddenly be made to exist?

Elliot

How can a right that has never existed suddenly be made to exist?Hello again, El:

I agree with you. Rights cannot be created. They can only be recognized. What?? You think the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment DIDN'T exist before we wrote about it?? Of course it existed.

excon

Right is not the proper word . There is no Right to health care .There may be a need for health care .But that doesn't make it a right .

What is clear in the Constitution is that the Federal Government delineates few and limited powers to the central government .
People can claim the right to health care all day long and there still would be no constitutional mandate for the Federal Government to provide it. If there is then please show me where it says the government has the authority to pick our pockets to provide health care to anyone else.

if there is then please show me where it says the government has the authority to pick our pockets to provide health care to anyone else.Hello again, tom:

I don't know. Where does it say that the government can take your money to provide police protection for others, or fire protection, or roads, or land fills, or water treatment centers?? When you find that stuff, health care is included.

excon

It doesn't .Most of those services you mention are provided by local governments... not the national government .

Hello again, El:

I agree with you. Rights cannot be created. They can only be recognized. What???? You think the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment DIDN'T exist before we wrote about it???? Of course it existed.

excon

Yep. The right to be free of cruel and inhuman punishment did exist before it was written about in the Constitution.

Remember that whole thing about Moses taking the Jews out of slavery in Egypt... that was an excersize in being free from cruel and unusual punishment. That was one of the earliest examples recorded of the exercize of that right.

The right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment has an historical basis. Wars have been fought because of it. Nations have been built in its defense. Sparta (and by extension all of Greece) came into existence as a defense against cruel and unusual punishment. It exists and was fought for long before the USA ever came along. It didn't just pop into existence. It is, in fact, one of the founding principals that created most of the nations in history... whether they continued to practice that right or not, they were often founded to escape cruel and unhuman punishment of some sort.

Now... can you show me an historical or even a legal basis for a right to health care?

Elliot

Man I'd love to live in a country where basic healthcare was a right for all citizens.

Man I'd love to live in a country where basic healthcare was a right for all citizens.

Yes... it would be nice. But such a place doesn't exist.

IF it was a right, you wouldn't have to pay for it. It would just be there.

Do you pay for your right to free speech? Or your right to free worship?


Elliot

Nah I don't pay for those rights. But I have no problem contributed to a right to universal healthcare for all. And that place does exist - in pretty much all modern societies except the US.

Nah I don't pay for those rights. But I have no problem contributed to a right to universal healthcare for all. And that place does exist - in pretty much all modern societies except the US.

How much do you pay in taxes again?

Countries with nationalized health care have tax rates that start in the 60% range (including national and local taxes), and go as high as 80% in some places.

TANSTAAFL

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Nothing's free.

IF it was a right, you wouldn't have to pay for it. It would just be there. Do you pay for your right to free speech? Or your right to free worship?Hello again, El:

Do you pay for your guns?

excon

More than you. Did you not know that that how is is funded? However I still still seem to make a good living, take vacations and save for my retirement.
How much do you pay a month for medical insurance for a family of four? Whatever that amount is I don't pay.

Hello again, El:

Do you pay for your guns?

excon

I don't pay for the RIGHT to own a gun. I pay for the hardware. The right's free.

Unlike health care... you have to pay for that. It ain't a right.

More than you. Did you not know that that how is is funded? However I still still seem to make a good living, take vacations and save for my retirement.
How much do you pay a month for medical insurance for a family of four? Whatever that amount is I don't pay.

$1500/month while on COBRA. Less when an employer is paying part of it. That's why I know it's not a right.

Give it up Elliot, NK's got you there. There's no sense in arguing about any of it anyway because we dumb Americans (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25594.html) are too stupid to understand (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913410-4,00.html) anyway.

We're the problem (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25385.html), if it weren't for us (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25494.html) bitter, clingy simpletons we could be living in a modern paradise like NK. So we should just shut up and let them do their job (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610).

And wouldn't you know it, as soon as I post about we dumb Americans that don't understand it all up pops a video (http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GduzkUqG8z) where Andrea Mitchell tells us that people who have insurance and oppose Obamacare “may not know what’s good for them.”

I am so thankful we have liberal Democrats in charge to dictate what's best for the unwashed, peasant masses, aren't you?

More than you. Did you not know that that how is is funded? However I still still seem to make a good living, take vacations and save for my retirement.
How much do you pay a month for medical insurance for a family of four? Whatever that amount is I don't pay.

Might that be because you are not taxed to support a military establishment? If you had to pay for your health care AND your military, would you be doing well financially?

Hello gal:

Sure, I'm bothered for the kid. You're not suggesting, though, that these catastrophic events only happen in GOVERNMENT hospitals, are you??? Nahhh, you're not.

Here's what bothers me MORE. It's that you righty's want to take away these peoples right to sue, and sue BIG - SO BIG, so as to insure that the offending doctor NEVER practices again.

Do YOU want to send your family to a doctor who did stuff like that, and only got slapped on the wrist? With tort reform, you could.

Besides, if YOUR kid got maimed, you wouldn't be so supportive of caps on the award, would you? Nahhh, I don't think you would....

excon

You defeat your own argument here.

You can't sue a VA hospital, that would be suing the government, and that AIN'T going to happen.

You knew that, though.

Yep... NK's got me there. His health care is free. He's giving most of what he earns to the government in taxes, he gets to wait on line for just about everything medical, but his health care's free.

Canada's a utopia, doncha know. No guns, no crime, free health care for everyone, and they've got that nifty national anthem. Not to mention the Mounties in those really cool uniforms.

I wish I was NK...

Elliot

Yep... NK's got me there. His health care is free. He's giving most of what he earns to the government in taxesWrong. I keep most of what I earn. Did you not read my post?


he gets to wait on line for just about everything medicalAbsolutely not, another one of your lies.
Read up on American wait times (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burger/ugly-health-care-waiting-_b_55749.html) though.

but his health care's free. I just explained it to you above, are you dim? You are the only one who repeats that it's free. We pay for it from our taxes.

My opposition to the health care being proposed here is that it puts virtually everything evern remotely related to my health and existence in the hands of government bureaucrats.

That is NOT freedom.

And it has nothing to do with Canada, the UK, Australia, etc.

My opposition to the health care being proposed here is that it puts virtually everything evern remotely related to my health and existence in the hands of government bureaucrats.Another one of the neocon FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) tactics being repeated. Is your insurance rep making all the decisions concerning your health or is it your doctor?

Another one of the neocon FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) tactics being repeated. Is your insurance rep making all the desicions concerning your health or is it your doctor?

At 71, I have very few health issues, but as far as I can tell, the decisions are being made by me and my doctor. I've never been turned down for a test that we felt I needed, and I can say the same for my wife, who has more problems than I do.

If you look at everything that the present bill calls for, it goes FAR beyond mere health care and moves into the realm of HEALTH CONTROL.

That is NOT freedom.

And it's WAY too expensive.

PS: Why should you as a Canadian care one way or the other what kind of health care we have down here?

At 71, I have very few health issues, but as far as I can tell, the decisions are being made by me and my doctor. I've never been turned down for a test that we felt I needed, and I can say the same for my wife, who has more problems than I do.

If you look at everthing that the present bill calls for, it goes FAR beyond mere health care and moves into the realm of HEALTH CONTROL.

That is NOT freedom.

And it's WAY too expensive.

PS: Why should you as a Canadian care one way or the other what kind of health care we have down here?

Just as an observer, I think NK cares because many of you are bashing the Canadian Health Care system and he/she is defending it based on his/her own personal experience. It's like you don't believe him/her or something? I don't know if a one payer system is the correct answer or not. Mainly because we haven't been informed of the particulars. What I do know for sure though is that the present US system sucks big time. And that is about as eloquently as I can put it. Sad really. So full of gaps, way over inflated cost for services and insurance, limited to those that can afford it or who just happen to have a job where the employer pays part. Lose that job, lose your health ins. Cobra, also too expensive. It's a pathetic joke.

Hello again:

I just wish the Democrats would tell us what they're going to do, and I wish the Republicans would stop lying about it.

excon

Hello again:

I just wish the Democrats would tell us what they're gonna do, and I wish the Republicans would stop lying about it.

excon

The Dems put it into those 1100 pages.

I haven't read the full text, but from the excerpts I've seen, it's downright scary. Couple that with the Democrat penchant of growing government and deficits, I fully TRUST them to do what they do best.

And that scares me.

Hello again:

I just wish the Democrats would tell us what they're gonna do, and I wish the Republicans would stop lying about it.

excon

They HAVE told us what they're going to do. They just don't want to give you the time to read it. They want this 1000+ page monstrosity to be passed before you get the time to find out what's in it.

The bottom line is that Reps aren't lying about what's in the bill, and Dems HAVE told us what's in it. That's why we're so strongly against it... cause we know what it says.

Elliot

Wrong. I keep most of what I earn. Did you not read my post?

Absolutely not, another one of your lies.
Read up on American wait times (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burger/ugly-health-care-waiting-_b_55749.html) though.
I just explained it to you above, are you dim? You are the only one who repeats that it's free. We pay for it from our taxes.

Regarding American wait times...

Yeah, I definitely think that waiting 4 weeks for a surgical procedure or a theraputic treatment is too long.

But then, what do you call waiting 18.3 weeks for the same treatments?

Or 38.1 weeks for orthopedic surgery?

Or 27.2 weeks for neurosurgery?

These were the averages in Canada in 2007 (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html).

I'm not lying, NK. I have sources for every factual statement I make.

And if my statements spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, perhaps that is what the public should be experiencing before they decide to go along with this insanity. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are good tools to keep you from doing something stupid. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are what are going to make sure we look before we leap.

As if "fear, uncertainty and doubt" aren't what the libs were spreading with regard to Bush for 8 years, and with regard to Palin now. At least we have factual information back up our positions... like the wait times in Canada and the UK for one.

Elliot

At least we have factual information back up our positions... like the wait times in Canada and the UK for one.Hello again, El:

The problem with your "facts", is that you got 'em off that repudiated flow chart. So, your facts, AIN'T facts - they're PROPAGANDA.

excon

Ex, we don't need Republicans to lie about it, the Dems are lying about it enough themselves, they've perfected the art of the Trojan Horse. That's how they won Congress in 2006 and they haven't changed their ways since.

Here's Obama in his own words on what his plan is...

p-bY92mcOdk

Here's Barney Frank and Harry Reid (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/30/barney-frank-yes-a-public-plan-will-lead-to-a-government-takeover-of-health-care/) on the goal in mind.

Hello again, El:

The problem with your "facts", is that you got 'em off that repudiated flow chart. So, your facts, AIN'T facts - they're PROPAGANDA.

excon

No, I get them from the bill itself.

The chart is simply a flow chart of where the money will go, who will provide services to whom, and who is in charge of which agencies. It is a confusing mess, which is my point, but it doesn't give any information about how the plan would operate or how much it would cost.

For that information, you would need to go to the bill itself... which you are afraid to do, because you're afraid of finding out that we're right and your wrong. Though you really should be used to it by now.

As for my facts... like I say, I've always got a source for my factual statements. You tried to call me on not having a source last week, and you got your head handed to you. Haven't you learned your lesson yet?

Elliot

ex, we don't need Republicans to lie about it, the Dems are lying about it enough themselves,Hello again, Steve:

I agree. You don't NEED to lie about it, so I don't know why you DO. But, you absolutely DO.

I went to the link you posted: HOT AIR where it says "Barney Frank: Yes, a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care". But, THAT ISN'T what Barney Frank said. That's the HOT AIR people twisting it to say what THEY want it to say.

The fact is, single payer isn't a "government takeover of health care", any more than medicare was. That is propaganda, pure and simple.

It's a GREAT political phrase, though, and I think it's working. But, it AIN'T true.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I agree. You don't NEED to lie about it, so I don't know why you DO. But, you absolutely DO.

I'd challenge you to list the lies I've spread about Obamacare but I don't think you can name even one.


I went to the link you posted: HOT AIR where it says "Barney Frank: Yes, a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care". But, THAT ISN'T what Barney Frank said. That's the HOT AIR people twisting it to say what THEY want it to say.


Let me put it in context for you. He's being questioned by someone from Single Payer Action (http://www.singlepayeraction.org/), advocates for "single payer" health care, on why he won't just come right and push for it. His answer is to tell them he supports it but doesn't have the votes, "I'm all for it, I'm a big sponsor" are his words. He then says, "I think if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that's the best way to reach single payer. Saying you'll do nothing until you get single payer is a sure way never to get it."

He is flat out saying this is the first step to single payer health care. Where's the lie?


The fact is, single payer isn't a "government takeover of health care", any more than medicare was. That is propaganda, pure and simple.

No? This is coming from the guy who insists government being in the room with you and your doctor is no different than what we have now with insurance? You're slipping ex.

Hello again, Steve:

I agree. You don't NEED to lie about it, so I dunno why you DO. But, you absolutely DO.

I went to the link you posted: HOT AIR where it says "Barney Frank: Yes, a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care". But, THAT ISN'T what Barney Frank said. That's the HOT AIR people twisting it to say what THEY want it to say.

The fact is, single payer isn't a "government takeover of health care", any more than medicare was. That is propaganda, pure and simple.

It's a GREAT political phrase, though, and I think it's working. But, it AIN'T true.

excon

Yes, Medicare. I'm on it and it is working. But for how long?

Isn't that the one that is so badly broken that Washington doesn't know how to fix it?

There are already some doctors that will not accept medicare, I think.