[QUOTE=ETWolverine;1837400]

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Just out of curiosity, excon, if the government decides to ban trans fats and you eat a trans fat

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Or, "Get your hear surgery done here."

Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage - Times Online

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

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chey5782

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Or, "Get your hear surgery done here."

Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage - Times Online

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

Elliot

---

Yep, instead of "back alley abortions" it'll be back alley Aricept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.