Third Party & Independents Archives

This summit was not meant to accomplish anything.

Essentially, the Democrats said, “This is our plan. You people should get on board and like it.”

Republican countered, “You have not let us in negotiations since last year. We think that a negotiation means something could change as a result of discussions. Play by yourselves.”

President Obama set this up like a Kabuki play, with set roles assigned to all. It gives permissoin to Democratic leaders to try to pass their bill w/o Republicans. IMO, they will NOT be able to get enough votes to get to 51. Enough Democrats in the House and the Senate will not vote for it when the showdown comes.

It was fun to blame Republicans, but now the Dems got what they said they need.

YES IT WAS A CIRCUS.

The REAL reason this Summit occurred was because the Reps were basically left out of the critical behind-the-scenes dialogue that is needed to debate a bill that is 17% of our economy.

In other words, during the last 12 months, the Reps were not welcome. Sure, a few of their ideas were added to the bill (and yes, I did review the WH’s Web site outline of how ‘their’ bill has plenty of Rebublican ideas in it). However, nobody would’ve cared if a Democratic led WH and Congress would’ve passed a small, insignificant bill on pure party lines (say - creating a new National Park in Delaware - btw, there is no NP in DE - the only state not to have one). But, this is not a small, insignificant bill. It is massive, and it could negatively affect millions of people - people who vote.

The fundamental question is this: Do you believe health care is a Right or a Privilege? Generally speaking, Dems believe it is a Right; whereas, Reps believe it is a privilege. That is not to say some Reps don’t think HC is not important - far from it. No person could argue that the ‘system’ isn’t fundamentally broken. We all heard some of the horror stories told by the Summit attendees.

The Reps think more uninsured people or underinsured people would ultimately receive health care if the excess costs (fraud, inefficiency and loopholes) were taken out. The Dems, like the Reps, cite cost as the major problem with the current HC system. That the current ‘system’ is a financial anchor across society is not in dispute. Yet the Dems say that deficits, cost and other factors are the main problem, but those same Dems are seeking to add 30 - 36 million people otherwise not covered by medical coverage to the rolls of insured. Again, this is a great thing, a noble thing. But it isn’t the root reason of Obama’s main objective. Lest we have read his 100-plus speeches on HC refore incorrectly the last 12 months.

The question is: Which is the BEST plan to achieve maximum coverage for all Americans, and how to do it with the least cost. Thus far, it seems to me that no person, group or party has this answer. And this is our fundamental dilemma.

That is why I subscribe to the ‘incrementalist’ approach to HC reform. As Senator Lamar Alexander said, “we can’t recall a defective vehicle after it has left the factory.” (paraphrase here)In other words, let’s not reinvent the wheel. Let’s move forward with what we ALL know to be the practical and prudent thing to do. The majority of Americans reject the current plan as it stands. Va, NJ and Massachusetts were more than harbingers - they spoke volumes to where the ‘people’ stand right now.

Btw, I believe HC should be a Right. Indeed, I’m a free-market believer; however, there is a cavernous difference between a human being and a product or service.

I think we should all celebrate. This is the one moment when our country is again united. We havent’ been this united since 9/11.

All the news networks pulled away out of boredom. It was predictable, scripted etc.

Obama gets the award for talking the most while he was listening. What was it a third of the time Obama was talking? (typical president).

Kevin L. Lagola-
Left out? How do you think all those Republican measures got into the bill? You folks were in on the negotiations. Unfortunately, the truth doesn’t justify an eighty percent blockage on Democratic legislation, so your side lies.

Lies. As in purposefully doesn’t tell the truth. So you’ll vote against your own ideas, calling them socialism, against a bill where people have to pay premiums as an entitlement. We’re essentially offering the legislation of your party a decade and a half ago, but you act like we’re trying to push hard-left socialism.

Incremental approaches will not work here. guarantee universal coverage for those who want it, and nobody will be discouraged from waiting until they’re sick to get it. The Mandate takes care of that, but if you don’t include subsidies and waivers for those who can’t afford it, it just punishes the uninsured.

This has to be an overhaul of the complete system, or we’ll face unintended consequences.

Why do this, and take such drastic efforts? I think it comes down to the fact that healthcare is more than just a privilege, more than even a right, it’s a requirement for survival, for sustainment of our population.

We can sustain the populations in our cities in no small part because of sanitation and healthcare. We figured out how to defeat most of the epidemic diseases that once ravaged urban populations like wildfire.

Now, though, we’re trying to sustain a population that’s now living to old age. Where once the forties or fifties were a typical person’s last decade, the average person nowadays stands a good chance of living into their seventies.

The real question here, if we look over the course of people’s lives, is what sort of several decades that we’re talking here. In the old days, shorter lifespan and worse medicine meant that a person would not linger as they now do.

We’re not so callous of a country to deny people emergency care, so there really isn’t a cost savings from letting this need go unmet. In fact, it’s a liability on the system.

So are the long declines that our current system allows in the name of short term cost savings. Instead of getting long, productive lifetimes out of workers, we’re getting two or three decades fewer. We are working people longer and harder, at higher performance levels than people of previous times have. To not offer comprehensive healthcare is like failing to maintain a high performance race car: things are going to break down, and soon all the money spent to educate, to feed and clothe that person are going to bring less benefit.

If you want the most out of people, we as a society have to get the most out of healthcare. There’s no two ways about it. Healthcare is maintenance for humans, and without it, we cannot expect sustained performance.

Of course, the left was excluded which means there were no serious health care reformers present.

The Parties could turn this into a daytime soap opera and call it:

CORPOCRACY, THE PARTNERSHIP…….hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to insurance companies.

OR

The New America, corporate solutions with taxpayer dollars.

I still have some questions relative to HC. If we are free traders and globalized why can I not purchase my HC, auto, homeowner insurance and drugs from overseas? Why would we consider expanding a 17% of GDP entitlement program in the middle of a Great Recession? Why should we participate in the Progressive goal of utopian socialist world diversity? Is $112 trillion nation wide debt not sufficient for them to realize we are pretty much broke? Why are we carrying millions of illegals through the Great Recession? Who believes that illegals won’t be covered through Progressive incrementalism? Why does HC in the EU cost about half what we pay now? I would like to buy some of their HC insurance. Please? According to the Constitution HC is not a right. Why is the government involved in HC, even standing up the President as ‘moderator’? Why add more to the debt during a ‘jobless recovery’? Why not create an environment whereby the private sector can create jobs so that each person can buy the amount of HC they would like and keep the government out of our private lives? Let the ‘free markets’ set the price. Whoops, since HC is monopolized strike that last one. Why not create ‘fair markets’ and let the producer set the price as was done successfully in this country until ‘slick willie’ came along. More questions if interested.

In other words, once you take a wrong turn any turns you make thereafter are highly likely to be wrong as well. Did Einstein say that? Wow!

Otherwise - - -

“Acording to the Constitution HC is not a right.” “Why is the government involved in HC,”

“Why does HC in the EU cost about half of what we pay now?

“I would like to buy some of their HC insurance. Please?”

Roy, perhaps it is because the people of the EU do consider HC a right. Perhaps it is because their government HAS created a “SOCIALIST” HC system. Perhaps it is because the “MARKET”, “FREE” or “FAIR” can’t beat their price nor achieve their results.

“If we are free traders and globalized why can I not purchase my HC, auto, home insurance and drugs from overseas?”

Perhaps it is because our government is a partner in the Corpocracy and they are mandating that you make your purchases from the Corpocracy. If the government did not mandate participation and prevent the people from having those kinds of choices the Corpocracy would not be as profitable.

Our corporate controlled government is slowly but surely mandating that all solutions to our problems, like HC and jobs must be solved using corpocracy rules. Taxpayer dollars in return for Corpocracy solutions.

jlw and Roy,

The European model is impossible in our American culture and political environment. However, moving to a non-profit structure for health care delivery in America holds the key for American survival of its projected health care deficits.

The President’s plan makes a substantial down payment on moving toward a non-profit health care system which drives down the cost of the system for both consumers and the government. It remains to be seen, however, if even a down payment in that direction is politically possible. We should have an answer on that however, before Congress leaves for Spring Break.

“Why should we participate in the Progressive goal of utopian socialist world diversity?”

Where do you get this stuff from Roy? Why would you think progressives are wanting this HC reform as it stands?

“Is $112 trillion nation wide debt not sufficient for them to realize we are pretty much broke?”

Roy isn’t the national debt $12 trillion not $112 trillion?

“According to the Constitution HC is not a right.”

Based upon what part of the constitution Roy?

Jlw and j2t2, here are some url’s that agree with me on the Constitutionality of HC. I’m sure you can find a hunert that disagree. Comes down to whose interpretation of the Const do you believe.

http://www.mathies.com/weblog/?p=518

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/no_health_care_in_the_constitu.html

Here is a url and excerpt from within re progressives, Obama, Pelosi and others for HC. What I’m attempting to say is that whatever HC bill gets passed the Progressive element will immediately set about to ‘incrementally’ change it to their liking. Foot in the door and the sky’s the limit. I suggest the public option isn’t dead re the minds of the Progressives.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=progressives+for+health+care&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=kGSIS7DrHqrg8Aazq-C7Dw&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQsQQwAA

Those of you frustrated with progressive holdouts will no doubt be relieved to see them preparing for a final push towards passage. But analytically, we all may also breathe that familiar sigh we give when we see the largest voting bloc in the House broker those votes so predictably.
Is it all for the best? Many think so. The observation here is just this: both progressives and the bill came out right where everybody thought they would, even though the members of the caucus were pushed aggressively to play hardball and change the calculus and the outcome. It lasted a lot longer than usual, though. If you’re into recognizing incremental progress on health care, maybe you’ll find room for recognizing incremental progress in keeping progressive ideas alive in the discussion.
Another URL on Progressives and HC:
http://talkradionews.com/2010/02/americans-hate-senate-health-care-bill-want-public-option-says-progressive-activist/
I believe the nationwide debt is around $80T and the national debt at $12T. Don’t know what happened there, but both are extremely far to high. l

Roy, the objective of the U.S. Constitution is:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

10’s of millions of Americans and growing, without affordable access to health care, WILL UNDERMINE the general welfare, and Domestic tranquility, and is inherently unjust when the wealthiest nation on earth places the health and welfare of its own citizens at such a lower priority to say foreign aid or space exploration, for example.

David, you are quoting from the preamble of the Const. The can and cant’s are found in the articles. Yet, man folks will stand on what you are alluding to; that the Constitution is a living document with good objectives.
Our Constitution has been horrendously trashed down through history. Why can’t we agree to do the right thing. Have government create and environment for ‘commerce’ where they have jurisdiction, where lotsa jobs can be created and let folks purchase the dollar amount of insurance they would like, according to their needs and keep the government from dragging us further toward socialism?

A url followed by an excerpt from within:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/no_health_care_in_the_constitu.html

The words “general Welfare” show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States … [Emphasis added.]

Notice that the Constitution doesn’t say the “general welfare of the citizens of the United States.” It says “general Welfare of the United States.” This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project — including health care. Read the rest of Article I, Section 8 below. The exact powers of the Congress are listed there.

That’s it. That is all the constitutional power that Nancy and Steny have. I know this because the people who wrote the Constitution stuck on two pesky amendments. I like to call them the “And we really mean it!” amendments. Here they are:

Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 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 exact wording of the 10th Amendment is important. Here, the “United States” clearly means the federal government. The powers of the United States (according to the Constitution) are not the same as the powers of its citizens (“the people”), nor are they the same as the powers of the individual states.

So the phrase, in Article I, Section 8, “general Welfare of the United States” only applies to the inner workings of the federal government. The Framers could not have made the point any clearer. Pelosi and Hoyer have no power over the citizens’ health care because they are given that power nowhere in the Constitution.

The words “health” or “health care” appear nowhere in the Constitution[ii].

So according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the “right” of health care must be guaranteed and paid for by each individual state. For example, Massachusetts has made access to health care a “right.” According to the Constitution, the citizens of a particular state can do that. Massachusetts can make government-mandated health care a “right.”

Whether or not the citizens of Massachusetts can afford to pay for that “right” is turning out to be quite a problem. But that is a dilemma for the people of the state of Massachusetts to work out. If the folks in Massachusetts don’t want to pay for the “right” to government-mandated health care, then they can elect some different politicians and repeal the law — or they can move to a state the does not guarantee a “right” to government-mandated health care.

If a particular state does not provide a government-mandated “right” to health care, the choice to provide (or not to provide) for our own health care is up to each of us. Health care is our choice, but it is not a “right” if it has not been made a right by an individual state.

At least that’s what the Constitution says. Seriously.

Again, its’ whose interpretation one chooses to believe.

Roy,

I’ll sell you a HC plan for cheaper than any insurance company around. Of course, my plan does not meet any state or federal regulation, and I am not licensed to sell it. So long as you understand that I think what I am selling is legal. Do you want to buy? Oh, and if you have any friends you can bring on board, I can offer you a discount.

With a smidgen of accumen, you might be able to grasp why you cannot buy HC plans over seas, and why that idea won’t work.

Roy said: “Notice that the Constitution doesn’t say the “general welfare of the citizens of the United States.” It says “general Welfare of the United States.”

That is an illogical argument. It is NOT referring to the general welfare of rocks, grasses, or sky. It is referring to the only thing that makes a nation, a nation. Its people.

The United States is just land, without the people. The people, are the United States. The intent is quite clear, Roy. Your attempts to make it say what it DOES NOT MEAN, is the answer to your question: “Why can’t we agree to do the right thing.”

People will pervert the intent of the Constitution to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Founding Fathers knew that would happen, which is why they created a final arbiter of just what the Constitution does mean. The Supreme Court.

So, tell me, Roy? Has the Supreme Court ruled Medicare and Medicaid Unconstitutional? NO, because government providing health care is NOT unconstitutional, by definition of the Founding Fathers, who established the Supreme Court as the definer.

There is no way you can make a logical argument otherwise, Roy, try as you might. It is what it is. You obviously don’t like the Constitution the way it is. The Constitution gives you an option to address that too. It is called the Amendment process. Go for it.

David
You and BHO have something in common, your play on words. Who controls medicare and medicade, The States do, the states give that right to the people the feds only subsidize it. The Supreme Court can pervert the constitution, There was just resently a blog on just that thing when the court ruled on campaign contributions. NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION WILL YOU FIND ANYTHING GIVING ANYONE THE RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE. Your health is your CHOICE, you control it NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

Gergle, apparently somebody is buying healthcare overseas. And, like the article excerpt implies; each state can set up HC as a right if the people want it that way. Several states now treat HC as a right. Why do we need to trash our Constitution for such a small perceived gain as HC being a right? The Constitution is about daid from all this chipping away. Down with Corporate Personhood and down with Money is Free Speech. Leave my Constitution alone. Just because some influential entities or some corrupt govt official wants to abuse our COnstitution is no reason to permit it. We should be men and not mice in that regard, IMO.

Violating the Constitution with flagrant laws and then passing more laws in relating to the original law just compounds the problem, a la Corporate Personhood. Now commie officials in China can legally post ads for/against US political candidates. Is that in the Constitution? It’s way more easier to just do the right thing, IMO.l

David, Article one clearly states the “united states”. The Constitution covers the “united states”, “we the people” and the individual “states”.
“” The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …””

Not talking about ‘we the people’ here. Talking about the United States - common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Otherwise - - -

KAP made the following sophomoric comment: “NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION WILL YOU FIND ANYTHING GIVING ANYONE THE RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE.”

KAP, the Constitution also does not prohibit such rights unto the people as they may assume for themselves, either. By your logic, the only rights any one has are those set down in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Not at all true. Other rights also exist, such as the right to drink non-toxic water and breathe non-lethal air, though these rights are not either specified in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not limit Rights, KAP. It simply guarantees certain rights which may not be abridged, most especially, by the awesome power of government and its agents.

Your comment carries a considerable lack of education in the history and understanding of our Constitution.

Roy said: “Why do we need to trash our Constitution for such a small perceived gain as HC being a right?”

Was Universal Suffrage a trashing of our Constitution, Roy? By your logic it was. The Constitution grants the Congress and President the authority to legislate on behalf of the American people, and contains ABSOLUTELY no provision denying the Congress the power to insure all Americans for health care. The Constitution also provides for amending the original Constitution as providence dictates by the people of the several states.

The Constitution, Roy, sets out the minimum requirements for government, not the maximum. Nowhere does it prohibit the American people by a majority electing to insure humane health care for all. In fact, insuring humane health care for all meets several of the objectives of the U.S. Constitution as set down in the Preamble.

Our Declaration of Independence also speaks directly to rights which are not enumerated but which may be asserted by the people as their human right.

David

The Constitution sets the rules for the government. The first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) sets limits on it.

Many of the founders believed that powers not specifically granted to the government were not authorized. The tenth amendment makes that explicit. “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.”

DR
Did you notice just how many times the Reps complainned about just how complicated the proposal was,just how many pages blah..blah. Of course every one of them knows what is in the bill. They have staffs,hopefully smarter than they are, that prepare synpsis etc. That was just another political ploy and a virtual admission, that their base is none to bright. Of course the bill is complicated. Its a complex issue. Of course the bill is written in legalese. It legal proposal,but never mind all that. “Its soooo complicated…it might give you a headache trying to figure it out so it must be bad,bad,bad”. What hogwash. These people would rather let Americans suffer and die needlessly,go bankrupt personally and nationally then give up their power base. They are evil. There is no other word for . If there is a hell they just bought tickets.

KL

The question is: Which is the BEST plan to achieve maximum coverage for all Americans, and how to do it with the least cost. Thus far, it seems to me that no person, group or party has this answer. And this is our fundamental dilemma.

No,there is no question which is the best plan. Single payer is the best plan. Its not even on the table. The fundemental dilemma is not that we do know how to do,we do. The fundemental problem is that we cannot overcome the special interest power to impliment it.
Incremental approaches? Lets say we just forbid insurrers from discriminating against people that are sick. There is general agreement this should be done. Fine, so all of a sudden carriers cannot make any money and withdraw from the market. No one bothers to buy insurrance UNLESS they are sick. Medical payouts skyrocket. How to stop that? Community pricing. Carriers are allowed to set rates according to the average cost for care in a given region. How to keep those rates from skyrocketing for the same reason,only sick people need buy coverage? Mandates. Get everyone in the pool, besides sooner or later they will need health services. With me so far? So what to do with those that simply cannot afford to buy into the pool. Subsidies,obviously,like for entry level workers etc. Remember the poor already get coverage. Bingo,all of a sudden you are looking at a complex plan,that is far from incremental.
Are we rushing into it.Only if you call 60 years of effort rushing.

David
I never said the constitution limits our rights but it does limit government itself. I’ve read the constitution and I have yet to find where the government has the right to make decissions about my health. Yes it gurantees our rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS without GOVERNMENT INTRUSION within the laws of this land. WHAT YOU DO WITH THOSE RIGHTS IS YOUR BUSINESS, not BHO’s, Pelosi’s, or Harry’s. As you said to Roy The constitution gives government the right to legislate on behalf of the AMERICAN PEOPLE that is to say WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT NOT WHAT PELOSI AND HARRY AND BHO WANT US TO HAVE.

Roy you are making this progressive thing sound like a bad thing with all this conspiracy nonsense. Do you really believe it is only progressives that gain an inch at a time? Look at the change in this country since the conservatives regained power in the ‘80’s. It didn’t happen overnight, they destroyed the country a bit at a time.

Amendment 9 says any right not specifically mentioned in the constitution remains that of the people so wouldn’t that mean the people have a right to health care as it wasn’t mentioned in the constitution? In fact the federal government has an obligation to protect these rights as they have no power to curtail the right to health care by the people of this country. Therefore any action the federal government takes to enforce the right to health care for the people would be within the provisions of the constitution right?

Roy sez “I believe the nationwide debt is around $80T and the national debt at $12T. Don’t know what happened there, but both are extremely far to high.”

So by nationwide debt you mean the accumulated debt of each and every individual or entity that owes a debt to any other individual or entity I assume. While that may sound like an impressive amount of debt any thinking person has to wonder what is the income of each of these individual and or entities that owes this money for the duration they have agreed to pay off this debt. So I guess if the income is say $1 trillion or so it is a big problem however if the income is $600 trillion then it is not so bad. What am I missing here Roy?

Christine, thank you for agreeing with me.

In setting limits on the government, it guaranteed certain liberties from infringement by that government. We are in total agreement. The Constitution also provides for a legislature whose deliberations and consents can provide for the people of the nation, provided such provisions do not infringe upon the guaranteed rights of the people as set down in the Constitution, its amendments, and the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Yes, that too is in the Constitution.

KAP said: “I’ve read the constitution and I have yet to find where the government has the right to make decisions about my health.”

The government is not making decisions about your health with this health care reform. You can choose to go to a doctor or not go to a doctor, as you choose. The HC reform bill, is in no way, making any decisions about your health.

The Constitution DOES HOWEVER, create and grant the Congress the authority to legislate measures which meet the needs of the nation’s people. 10’s of millions of Americans cannot meet the need for affordable health care. It is ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL for the Congress to legislate provisions to provide these individuals with health care as needed. Just as it is Constitutional for the Congress to elect to send tax dollars to Haiti to provide for the medical care of Haitians in need.

KAP said: “NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION WILL YOU FIND ANYTHING GIVING ANYONE THE RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE.”

I repeat, KAP, the Constitution also contains no language denying anyone the right to health care. In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld lower court rulings in which causing bodily harm to another individual, and failing to stop and acquire medical help for that injured person, is a crime. Ergo, the Constitution obligates in some circumstances, a person to provide for the health care needs of another, under penalty of law.

Sounding out the syllables contained in the U.S. Constitution constitutes reading it. Reading the Constitution however, does not at all mean, one understands it. In fact, one cannot possibly understand the U.S. Constitution from a simple reading of it, alone. Its concepts and structures come from a host of other defining documents and doctrines in history, without knowledge of which, one could possibly understand the import of the U.S. Constitution.

There is a reason we appoint or elect college graduates in Law who have dedicated years to studying the Constitution, to deal with its contents, interpretations, and meanings. To say, you have read it, is fine. But, your comments regarding it, seem to lack something in understanding.

bills, politics as usual. The art of sophistry often makes a popular politician these days. Popular for awhile, that is. You can’t fool all the people all of the time.

Christine
Did you look at the link DR so kindly provided,list the Republican sponsered inputs into the proposal? The only reason not to support it at this point is pure partisanship and destructive partisanship at that. Please do not tell about how complicted it is. We have corresponed enough that we both know you understand the main thrust.

DR
You are blessed with much more patience than I, respondng to irrational balderdash regarding the constitution.

bills, our Constitution is one of the most complex documents ever written when taking in its full scope, which includes not only the original ratified document, but, all subsequent amendments, and federal court rulings over the last 230 years interpreting it.

I am patient with others on the Constitution because I remain a student of it myself, and know how much I don’t know about it. Which prompts me to continue to research and learn more as I get older and write about subjects pertaining to it.

Others have been patient with my tutelage. I am obligated to show the same with others. Civics by osmosis from our culture is a very, very common practice and experience, full of misunderstandings, and misconceptions.

It is not a student’s fault they are not well instructed in the topic. That is the fault of our politicians, from the local level up. Too much civics education leads to questioning authority, and that constitutes a threat to the election and reelection of politicians.

The only fault that can be laid at a student’s feet, is resistance to learning what they don’t know, when it is made available.

Just one more example of the distortions of facts the Reps brought with them. Alexander stated that millions of people will be paying higher premiems. He was right. They will do so because to will be able to afford better coverage. The price of a given unit will be lower.(CBO) Not quite a lie.,just another mis-direction. Its like when Bush said the average tax cut for American families would be a thousand dollars. Of course most people would not see a thousand dollars,the higher brackets would see much more but he did not lie,but he sure as hell did not tell the truth.
Another ploy. At first I thought that allowing insurers to compete across state lines was a good idea.Unfortunately by doing that absent the other reform measures it means that the states with the weakest insurance regulations would set the standards. There are states that even allow insurance carriers to refuse coverage for victums of domestic violence! Following that plan is in reality, another back door gift to corporations, dressed up as reform.Slimey bastards,aren’t they?

DR
I suspect that most of those quibbling about government interference with health care are recieving Medicare. Thats different though,right?
Heres a deal. we will dump Medicare and anyone that does not buy their own coverage must agree to euthanisa if they get sicker than they can afford. That should save us the embarrasment of stepping over bodies. Of course it will be tough with the children but thats the price of freedom.
What are these people thinking?

David and bills
Which would be the better fixing what we have or doing what congress is doing on HC? IMO fixing and expanding what we have would be easier. Bills I’m not recieving either medicare or medicade. As far as the Constitution we can argue that all day long and neither would agree with the other.

I like the Judge, Napolitano’s rendition on the Constitution and SC. He speaks with great confidence, giving me a warm fuzzy.

KAP
Fixing and expanding what we have is exactly what congress IS doing.There is no attempt being made to federalize facilities or providers like in a socialist sytem. They are not even trying to remove insurance companies from the picture even though insurers do not perform any actual health care. They are trying to stop insurance cherrypicking,get many more people covered to help reduce rate increases and improve health access. Its a moderate plan very similar to what Mitt Rohmney put together. It also inculdes several methods to improve cost effectiveness including a crackdown on fraud. The opposition has relied on distortions,fear and outright lies.

bills
BULLS__T

KAP: Bills is right on. How about going point by point and showing how he is wrong? That would be so much more valuable to the discussion.

Womanmarine
BULLS__T

womanmarine and bills
It is sad when your own party can’t get it together on this bill and you have to resort to blaming someone else for your own failings. The main point is the cost and the behind closed door dealings and a majority of the people in this country don’t want what your party is pushing. As I said fix what we have before trying to ram some other BULLS__T bill down our throats.

KAP, it’s not sad. It is politics in a big tent party. If at first you don’t succeed…

We will get health care reform. We cannot afford to not get it. Which means, Democrats cannot afford to not pass reform. Which pretty much makes the GOP irrelevant, which is an excellent place for the GOP considering the catastrophic damage they did to this nation and economy.

Republicans wouldn’t touch health care reform except to expand Medicare and dump the cost entirely onto the national debt.

Democrats had the courage to actually address the need for reform and bending the cost curve downward for all Americans, and to craft it so as not to add the cost of reform to the national debt.

Them’s the facts. I simply don’t see how Democrats come out the loser on this, unless, they fail to pass reform before January 2011, after which time, the task only becomes much more difficult due to their having less of a majority in the Congress.

David
It’s going to be difficult now with the dems having the majority. To much infighting. It’s a sad state of affairs when the dems have to blame someone else for their own failings. With a majority of people opposed to this plan if they do pass it God help the democrats.

KAP, you and Republican Talkers in Congress keep saying the majority of people oppose this plan.

I know you are referring to a poll that indicates that based on the way the question was phrased. However, other polls demonstrate that the majority of all Democrats and Independents prefer the Public Option plan, and still other polls demonstrate that the majority of Americans haven’t a clue what is in “this plan” which you refer to, which is confusing, because there are THREE of them now.

The likelihood is, if Democrats pass any one of these plans with a couple tweaks, the American people, will, as they learn what it does, become a majority in favor of it.

People won’t hold a favorable view of something they don’t understand. They will hold a favorable view of something they do understand, which meets their demand for a Public Option, or, the equivalent, thereof.

So, for Democrats, it is not the public opinion they need be concerned about, as you and Republicans like to assert. It is the voting opinion of a simple majority of their own Congressional Democrats, and whether Parliamentarians will permit Reconciliation to proceed in the way Democrats hope for.

David,
Why we wait to hear what President Obama says about Americas’ Healthcare Reform, I wonder what Americas’ Community Emergency and Health Services can do to met the current problems. For knowing President Obama has a background in Community Orgs. and amazed that no Republican picked up on how fast the President silenced a fellow Democrat for bringing up the subject in conversation. Is there a way Congress can do an end around run the State under National Security to upgrade the Systems used by Americas’ First Respomders?

Read my blog article on Biden and reconciliation:

http://tinyurl.com/yb6dalv