Protester holds up a copy of the ‘U.S.S. Constitution’ to prove that Congress can’t regulate health care.
Protester holds up a copy of the ‘U.S.S. Constitution’ to prove that Congress can’t regulate health care.
One of the newest right-wing memes is that federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to enact health care reform. At a town hall protest in San Diego on Saturday, one attendee tried to make one of these “tenther” arguments by holding up a copy of the “U.S.S. Constitution’:
Right here. I got a book here called the U.S.S. Constitution. I’m sure everybody’s seen this before. And you know what? I’ve this book three times now, and I’ve referenced it dozens of times and I can’t find one little paragraph in here that says the government has the right to take over our health care.
Watch it:
TP’s Ian Millhiser — who has also read and referenced the Constitution a few times — notes that the Constitution gives Congress the power “‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ thus empowering the federal government to levy taxes and leverage these revenues to benefit the American people.” (HT: TP reader Kevin)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Mouthbreathers. It’s amazing they can walk and talk at the same time…
September 1st, 2009 at 1:58 pmRepublicans like Sean these people will do and say anything to kill health care. Watch this video of Hannity and guest claiming that Democrats care more about Kennedy’s vote than they do about Kennedy himself.
Just vulgar!
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2764
September 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pmUSS Constitution? Dang, that certainly floats my boat. Old Ironsides, back in the fray o’ the day….
September 1st, 2009 at 2:02 pmWe really need to invest in our education system. This is sad!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:02 pmGeneral welfare….. sounds like health care fits here just fine.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm“Right here. I got a book here called the U.S.S. Constitution. I’m sure everybody’s seen this before.”
Some people assume far to much.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm…just enough brains to be dangerous, but not enough to tell ass from hole in ground.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pmdarnay says:
“We really need to invest in our education system.”
Well, Jesus said, once: “The poor will be with us always.”
I think the same goes for the stupid, too.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pmArgh, ready with a broadside, gunner, and tell the Captain of Marines to prepare the boarding party…
September 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm.
I’m proud to live in a Country that allows it’s citizens the ablility to freely express their…
… ignorance.
.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm“Protester holds up a copy of the ‘U.S.S. Constitution’ to prove that Congress can’t regulate health care.”
lol Interezting vocabulary. I thought the wingnut that held the sign “keep guvmit out of my medicare” would win the prize.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pmWell, here’s the problem! This guy’s looking at the wrong document! I don’t know what this “U.S.S. Constitution” he’s talking about says, but he needs to get himself a copy of the U.S. Constitution and give it a read.
I’ve seen the U.S. Constitution, and I distinctly recall several paragraphs which indicate that the federal government does, indeed, have the right to, to quote said document itself, “promote the general welfare,” and several examples of how they may do just that.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pmWhy, kevster, didn’t you know? Hannity is a mind-reader. He divines the unknowable. That’s why he has his own tee vee show.
He KNOWS what we Democrats/liberals/progressives are thinking in our wee little brains. We’re just lucky that he chooses to share his infinite wisdom with the rest of us Little People…
ha ha
September 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pmI was really hoping that he was holding up a model of the USS Constitution – THAT would have been funny. Instead we get another lame snark from an illiterate spoilous ignoramous (see the Uurban Dictionary for definition)
September 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pmPeople like that are why I don’t go outside I-285 (Atlanta perimeter), except to carve up the mountain roads on my motorcycle.
Suburban and rural Georgia are full of idiots like this.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pmJesus, how do these people function without keepers.
The ignorance of simple civics…it boggles.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
U.S.S. Constitution. NCC-1700. So, he’s claiming he has a Constitutition Class starship? :-D (Yes, folks, that is the first thing I thought when I read that…)
September 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pmI’ve this book three times now, and I’ve referenced it dozens of times and I can’t find one little paragraph in here that says the government has the right to take over our health care.
Well, I don’t know about the U.S.S. Constitution (is that a ship?) But the U.S. Constitution has the following paragraph:
Bold added to assist the terminally stupid.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:09 pmAw crap, VirtualPebble and Jeremy in Denver beat me to the comic retort…
September 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pmThe Constitution does not limit the scope of gov’t. It is designed to protect the citizenry. NASA, Dept of Ag, EPA, on and on are not in the Constitution. You could write a book on what the gov’t does that isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pmGee, what a specious argument, It’s not mentioned..! In fact as pointed out H.C. may be implied. A good Constitutional question.
I’ll bet that booklet he is holding was printed by the “U.S.S.” government and I don’t recall anything in the Constitution specifically authorizing government printing operations. Other non-authorized government entities include the navy, the marines, NASA, Veterans Administration hospitals, federal prisons, …
September 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pmsmidget sed:
“… the federal government does, indeed, have the right to, to quote said document itself, “promote the general welfare,” and several examples of how they may do just that.”
Oh, look! The Founding Fathers gave themselves permission to LAY AND COLLECT TAXES!
Omigod. They really MUST have been a bunch of socialist commies! It’s a good thing we know better today, and that we also know we don’t NEED taxes. Governments are ALWAYS evil. That’s why every good conservative needs to collect his family and bullet-making machines and head straight out to Wyoming and Utah…
September 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pmTundra, when I read SOME of your posts, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. But not #17…
It was so full of outright lies, it wasn’t funny. Lies that people like this idiot actually believe.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pmI’m proud that the man owns this pamphlet. I think we all should have a copy of the version sold by Oak Hill Publishing. In fact, I would rather have people read it instead of the Bible.
However, yes, there is nothing in the U.S.S. Constitution that says that the government has to take over our health care. No matter how many times you read Ol’ Ironsides.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pmGood lord the stupid really hurts.Not one of those red faced mouthbreating freaks could make a single coherent sentence.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pmWHERE WERE THESE FREAKS DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
This ignorant shit pisses me off.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pmI watched this entire clip on Brad Blog just about 10 minutes ago and was stunned at the stupidity and incoherence of the people in it. I blame Fox and our education system. Both are deadly.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I had to memeorize that in school. Everyone should have to memorize it. Maybe then they would realize that “promote the general welfare” is part of what this country was founded on.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pmMelMat says:
“I was really hoping that he was holding up a model of the USS Constitution…”
Don’t worry. We’ll see that one on Stewart or Colbert, unless their writing team deems it a bit TOO obvious…
September 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pmI still say that most of the people who attend these ‘teabagbirthtenther’ rallies are eighth-grade dropouts or were just not paying attention in school if they did manage to graduate.
Incredible amounts of stupidity compounded by incredible amounts of tee-vee overload.
That 60 cycle hum addiction is hard to break. I know, I’m on the patch…
September 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pmIt was so full of outright lies, it wasn’t funny. Lies that people like this idiot actually believe.
I was agreeing that they have the right to tax for general welfare. In any way they see fit. They can move taxes up to 70% of your income if they want to and there is nothing we can do about it on a legal stance but vote them out.
This guy was wrong, it says they have the LEGAL right to do it. Just like they have the Legal right to do anything I listed.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pmDaddy-O says:
I think Tundra was being snarky Daddy-O. I sesnsed a bit of humor there in his post.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pmTundra,
September 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pmI’d float you an extra 10% for that “mental health counseling” if I though it would help.
Tundra says:
Yuppers, they can take…
Well they could, but that would be going too far. It looks to me that you’re trying to construct a “slippery slope” argument here. Slippery slope arguments are fallacious:
You should stop trying to argue using fallacies, at least if you expect to ever score a good point.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pmI’d float you an extra 10% for that “mental health counseling” if I though it would help.
Sure at least one of my Ex-Wives would pony up some too…..
September 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pmIt isn’t about health care, it is about the rich and powerful manipulating the stupid and gullible to maintain profits for the highly overpaid corporate executives who fund Republican politicians to deny the people what they need. The corporate executives are laughing all the way to the bank at this guy holding up the constitution, as they put their $200 dinner on their corporate credit card.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pmThe U.S.S. Constitution is a storied warship. Is this joker reading a book about Old Ironsides and claiming there is no language in there about Health Insurance. LOL.
I hope this is not a typo because otherwise this is just too funny for words.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:18 pmTentherers….go figure. I bet he has forty bucks in bar vouchers from K street in his pocket..
/snark
September 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm“it’s just a g-damned piece of paper!”
I doubt the Founding Fathers appreciate the rather cavalier way the right wing treats the Constitution
September 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pmAll those health care reform protestors should be wearing tin foil hats. Their minds have been abducted!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pmTundra says:
Sure at least one of my Ex-Wives would pony up some too…..
September 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
How many do you have? :D
September 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm“U.S.S. Constitution”. LOL! “Get a brain morans! LOL! My sides ache from laughing so hard.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pmWhere in the Constitution does it say our military can be used in foreign territories? I can’t find that anywhere.
Where does it say we can use our treasury for ‘nation building’? I can’t find that either.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:21 pmIt also makes NO MENTION of:
Prohibiting smoking on airplanes
Communication standards (FCC)
Speed limits on highways
How much of a subsidy to pay to oil companies
How can these idiots be so stupid? EASY, they tune in to fox news!!!!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pmIt’s an awesome spectacle to see how some people use the Constitution as a means bully and bludgeon others with…and then alternately hide behind its skirts.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pmSave the rednecks….herd lobbers to the abyss.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pmU.S.S. Constitution? That ship sailed during the Bush administration.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:24 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
How many do you have? :D
2, but always looking for a new Ex Mrs Tundra….Interested in an application?
:P
September 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pmThe USS Constitution looks so much bigger in those WWII movies. Those damn librul movie types.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pmI don’t this ol’ boy is up for the U.S.S. Constitution. More of an S.S. Minnow type. Go home and watch your Gilligan’s Island reruns gomer.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pmThat whole speed limit thing gets me. I’m supposed to have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Can I help it if my happiness runs about 120-130 mph?
Besides, why should a highly trained driver in a sports car or on a motorcycle be restricted to the same speed as an ignorant redneck in an SUV or pickup truck?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pmWhat a moran!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pmYall made a type, this was in Texas. Right?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pmBesides, why should a highly trained driver in a sports car or on a motorcycle
Because any dolt that took drivers training believes that they are “Highly Trained” and shouldn’t be held to the same standards as everyone else.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:28 pmEven if he was correct…no one is proposing taking over his health care.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pmThe big sad part about this is, that there was no one around who would correct this mistake or at lease question it.
Shaking my head have we been this dumb down that ignorants is not bliss
September 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pmI’d like to ask the protester if torture is mentioned in that little booklet of his. Or wire-tapping. Or detaining a person without filing criminal charges and allowing a defense.
Does the protester worry about the government doing something to enhance, protect, or add quality to people’s lives but think that the government diminishing, harming, or destroying lives is OK?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pmHe should be asked what Jesus and his bible say about providing health care for all.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm***
“Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!”
:|
September 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pmlol, tundra is one of those that can’t drive well and assumes everyone else is at bad at it as he is
poor little guy, always getting passed
September 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pmCredit for his activism, credit taken away for his ignorance.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pmFor some reason, I can’t see the response I’ve been trying to post.
Oh, well.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pmhellinabucket says:
The USS Constitution looks so much bigger in those WWII movies. Those damn librul movie types.
yes you do know that its a sailing ship?
of course I being a ex Army personal i am sure the our navy friends can come up with the real term.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pmThe Springer audience has dwindled, apparently.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pmThe USS Constitution had 100 tons of hemp in her sails, sheets, bibles, and even the uniforms of the sailors.
Somewhere the US govt decided that protecting textile profits from hemp was more important than following the US Constitution and now that incredible natural resource is made unavailable.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pmpoor little guy, always getting passed
Yeah, My Wrangler with the mudders barely does 65 and is far from comfortable at that speed. I get passed often cause I sort of coast along no doors/top down Stevie Ray Vaughn blasting. But if you want to speed along, hey go for it, Wranglers have built in rollcages :)
September 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pmlol, your jeep needs a built in roll cage because it is so poorly designed that it is likely to roll over
especially when driven by an ignorant hick
September 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Dayum dirty hippy playing that pot smoking lone star beer swilling junk. Roll up your windows I donr wanna hear your stereo and for GODs sake get some AC going yah sweaty long hair.
[keedn]
September 1st, 2009 at 2:37 pmWell, approximately $4.89 TRILLION of the total US national debt was added by the noted fiscal conservative and high functioning moron, G. W. Bush. He almost doubled the national debt in eight short years!!!
Where were your complaints then?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pmUSS Constitution is a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy. Named after the Constitution of the United States of America by President George Washington, she is the oldest commissioned naval vessel afloat in the world. Launched in 1797, Constitution was one of the six original frigates authorized for construction by the Naval Act of 1794.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution
September 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pmAnd just what kind of person needs a car with a built in jungle gym?
Is this Jeep one of those scopes monkey models?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pmTundra says:
2, but always looking for a new Ex Mrs Tundra….Interested in an application?
:P
September 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I’ll have to get over my first love, Squeegy…
September 1st, 2009 at 2:42 pmThe Constitution doesn’t say a lot about a lot of things: handguns, abortion, birth control, consensual sex, capital punishment etc., but all those things have a least partial constitutional protections, according to the Supreme Court.
One of the biggest debates in the 1790s was the formation of a national bank. Jefferson and Madison opposed it because they questioned its constitutionality, but Washington and Hamilton supported its formation as necessary to build the nation’s infrastructure; does that make those two un-American socialists?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:42 pmkwsventures says:
Does that $11.8 trillion in national debt and growing fall under “general welfare”, too?
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif
What do you notice about this chart, kwsventures?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pmTundra says:
Based on your definition (or where ever you gathered it).
Dude, did you not see the hyperlink?
.
Tundra says:
I would assume that you think my 79% reference was the bottom. I will put my current over 40% as where we are today (All taxes, income, state, sales, communication, gas, cigarette, alcohol, registration etc). Based on your statement, the “middle ground” would be taxing someone at 60% of what they make as “fair”?
Nah, 60% sounds kinda high to me, but I’d need to see a total budget. Also I’m not even going to entertain any estimate made by a wingnut for the purpose of a political argument. Basic rule of arguing with a wingnut: never believe a single word they say, no matter how innocuous. Definitely don’t let them start making up magic numbers.
.
kwsventures says:
Does that $11.8 trillion in national debt and growing fall under “general welfare”, too?
Some, but most of it was built up by the cost of the Iraq war, which Cheny/Bush laughably claimed to fall under “common defence.” It also built up due to decline in tax revenue brought about by the massive 2008 collapse of the U.S. economy caused by right-wing domestic policies.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm***
#70,
which one of those guys was you?
i’m betting it was the bible nut with
the hat and mustache, am i right?
:)
“their sandals didn’t wear out!”
:) :) :)
September 1st, 2009 at 2:45 pmThe guy probably does not understand this part or it`s left out of his copy, “the Constitution gives Congress the power “‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ thus empowering the federal government to levy taxes and leverage these revenues to benefit the American people”.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:45 pmAstronomers have just located the Black Hole of Stupid!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:46 pm***
#65,
stevie ray vaughn is dead.
:|
September 1st, 2009 at 2:46 pmTundra is correct, though. They COULD do that, if there was public support for it. The problem with the assumption that they really could do that, though, is that this government is designed and constructed to act at the whim of the populace. If they were suggesting something as radical as Tundra illustrated, they would be out of a job in favor of those that opposed such moves. Either that or the people would agree and democracy would win out again.
What we have realized in recent years is that not everything in America needs to be for-profit, and not everything is properly handled by the private market. I am rather radical, and would accept, for example, a socialized food industry, as food is a basic requirement of life and the more you live the more you realize that healthy food is far more expensive than unhealthy food, which seems as though people are being rewarded for having money by being allowed health. This does not mean that one could not go and purchase foods that were not provided by the government if they had the money and the desire to do so, but charging people more than they can afford for healthy food is immoral, in my opinion.
The same sickness is rampant in the health insurance industry – good plans that will actually keep you well are very expensive, and even crappy plans are quite expensive, so again, wealthy people are rewarded by being allowed to survive, whereas less-wealthy people are punished by not being allowed to.
These basic needs of life are not comparable to a pair of sneakers, or a nice couch. They are what everyone needs. Whether you have money or not shouldn’t determine whether you get to feed your child a cookie out of a box or an apple, anymore than it should determine if you can take your child to a doctor or not.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pmTown hall moron: “Obama is doing is the exact same thing as Hitler did. Just do some studying and look into it and you can see for yourselves its facts. Health-care its the stepping stone to communism, just like Hitler did in Germany.”
I guess by “studying and look into it” he means listen to Rush Limbaugh
September 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm#65,
stevie ray vaughn is dead.
:|
:(
September 1st, 2009 at 2:51 pmTown Hall lady at the end of clip: “Yes I do believe in Rick Roberts, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. They educated me. I was very ignorant.”
September 1st, 2009 at 2:51 pmYes, and so what if it does – you think you’re going to be handed the entire bill??
Your “big scary number” argument, which you seem to think is some kind of political Swiss Army Knife, is tedious beyond description.
You should do yourself a favor, and realize that the only Administration to effectively rein in and reduce the deficit was the Clinton Administration (Clinton was a Democrat). (or were you on your long, long turnip truck ride at that time?)
September 1st, 2009 at 2:51 pmlol, your jeep needs a built in roll cage because it is so poorly designed that it is likely to roll over
especially when driven by an ignorant hick
Yeah, hence why they put on on it. But don’t you worry about little old me, you just keep your attention on the road while your “Highly Trained” self does 120 on your motorcycle in and out of traffic.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pmNo, actually that falls under the section that ElBruce cited earlier:
Of course, as belaccifer lacca pointed out, it’s really been Republican presidents of late that have taken most advantage of this provision.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pmHitler established communism in Germany?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:53 pmZooey:
I’ll have to get over my first love, Squeegy…
Ah Tundra and Squeegy – the Lenny and Squiggy of Think Progress.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:53 pmAnd just what kind of person needs a car with a built in jungle gym?
Seriously, I can’t get the neighborhood off of it.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:54 pmThese people who talk about the Constitution are not worthy of media attention. They are clueless protesters who have no idea what they are talking about. Their protests sound hollow since they were mute during Bush’s administration.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:54 pmYou are correct, it certainly doesn’t. For years the government has claimed this duty to be a part of the “general defense” of our nation, but I am certainly not buying it. As most of you know, I am conservative on many issues, but I am curious to hear how the more liberal minded people feel about the above?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pm@90 – Y, Ralph – The Russians fought against Nazi Germany out of jealousy, not those other reasons…Stalin just couldn’t hack having someone else getting ahead of him.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian says:
I’d like to ask the protester if torture is mentioned in that little booklet of his. Or wire-tapping. Or detaining a person without filing criminal charges and allowing a defense.
Does the protester worry about the government doing something to enhance, protect, or add quality to people’s lives but think that the government diminishing, harming, or destroying lives is OK?
That’s the exasperating thing about this sudden ‘it ain’t in the Constitution’. Those things you listed are much more specifically forbidden, and yet ‘health care’ is what gets Constitution study time?
Some old fck who’s been wrong about everything says its criminal to investigate his wrongdoings, but you’re throwing a fit because ‘health’ is not in the Constitution? That’s FCKED UP!
Show me where the Constitution says its ok to torture as long as it works, then we’ll talk about ‘health care’ not equating to ‘general welfare’.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pmRalph there they go again rewriting history……
September 1st, 2009 at 2:58 pmSeriously, I can’t get the neighborhood off of it.
Should Read,
September 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pmSeriously, I can’t get the neighborhood “Kids” off of it.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Bob they are rwriting history and the Constitution we just need time to Digest it….SNARK
September 1st, 2009 at 3:01 pmYou are correct, it certainly doesn’t. For years the government has claimed this duty to be a part of the “general defense” of our nation, but I am certainly not buying it. As most of you know, I am conservative on many issues, but I am curious to hear how the more liberal minded people feel about the above?
The ‘founders’ certainly saw and recognized the need to intervene in failed states…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
September 1st, 2009 at 3:01 pmHow much power will the federal government have to force Americans to participate in the program at what level for the benefit of all in the program to hold down costs???????
What part of “voluntary” is so confusing to you?
September 1st, 2009 at 3:01 pmHow much power will the federal government have to force Americans to participate in the program at what level for the benefit of all in the program to hold down costs???????
You have so many questions, slappy.
Would you like to learn?
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHCQc-wwzDQ
September 1st, 2009 at 3:03 pmWhat part of “voluntary” is so confusing to you?
I think the point was that if someone is “voluntarily” part of the program. They choose to eat Dolly Madison cakes only and are an extreme drain on the system. What recourse does the government have with said individual (if any)
September 1st, 2009 at 3:04 pmSlappity-doo,
Why are you so concerned about how much money insurance companies make?
Are you a big fan of insurance companies? Do you wear a CIGNA hat because you’re so stoked about how awesome they are?
September 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pmThank you, Slappy, for debunking the “government controlling your life” element of the tenthers’ argument.
The idea is not to force anyone to do anything. The idea is to provide access to everyone who needs health care.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pmSo… are you advocating the kind of government control over people’s lives that conservatives generally decry?
Or are you trying to make the point that without such control, the system is doomed to failure?
Either way, it seems a silly kind of argument to mount.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:08 pmHere’s something no one’s ever said:
“I always try to get sick, so I can use my insurance.”
September 1st, 2009 at 3:09 pmTombaker,Come Jan 1,2010 my cowrkers and I at Northwest airlines will be absorbed into Delta airlines United Health care plan which used to be run by the current Ceo of Delta and not to mention the former CEO of Northwest airlines and then I get to subsidize United Health care CEO salary of $750 million,I can hardly wait.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:12 pmI recall that Hitler was an authoritatian and quashed labor unions…who knew that was communism?
September 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pmMillions of people who refuse to participate in the program of preventive care and at the end of life cost the system millions and millions that could have been prevented with minimal participation on their part for the few years prior.
You seem to seriously misunderstand what is being proposed. You do not have to get involved in any kind of public option (hence the word “option”). You seem to think that what is being proposed is a tax-payer funded option with no premiums, which is not true. You will have to pay premiums to enroll, but premiums will be subsidized based on what you can afford. You also seem to be intentionally ignoring the fact that millions of those who are causing “end of life cost” will be on the public dole already because of Medicare. Your example of the pregnant hick who refuses prenatal care? She will have Medicaid through the state, because it covers pregnant women and children. These things will occur with or without a public option.
Although, you are bringing up good points about what to do with those that refuse to take care of themselves. I have said for sometime now that one should be rewarded for healthy lifestyle choices (such as not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, having proof of a gym membership, buying whole foods, refraining from eating meat, etc) with lower premiums or tax credits, and punished for doing the opposite with higher premiums or additional taxes. Then they can subsidize their own bad health.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm***
#99,
do you type with
your elbows?
:|
September 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pmReally bad an*logy there slappy. They keep them healthy so they can fatten and eat them.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pmWE need to get rid of the word option and call it CHOICE,if you want to keep your private for profit,die or pay insurance do so, it`s your choice.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pmSO Slappy’s antidote to “government control of healthcare” is to have someone else control all the personal decisions that everyone makes.
There’s an err on the side of personal freedom, if ever there was one…
September 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I don’t know, christopher. If they can’t figure out that “option” means the same thing as “choice”, I don’t think a simple word change is gonna get the message across.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pmOf course a book on the USS Constitution would not have a word about health care, the USS Constitution is our oldest naval ship.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pmSlappy, there have been some stupid arguments made against a government option for health care reform, and I won’t pretend that yours is the stupidest, but it’s certainly earned a spot on the medal stand.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pmtom, the final bill will come as close to your personal freedom as it possibly can….
September 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pmNONE of you seem to understand that a final bill has not been written yet…
Nope. I think most of us understand that. We just think there are things that are ‘likely’ to make it into the final bill and things that are ‘not likely’ to make it… as NONE of the bills I’ve read and NOTHING I’ve heard from the people actually writing them suggests that there will be ‘death panels’ making cost/benefit decisions on elderly patients I wonder why you assume that:
a) this is a risk.
b) we should look to livestock management to study healthcare reform.
You seem a little too Slap-Happy there, slappy.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:27 pmHard to believe, after the bailouts, politicians want to create more too big to fail entities.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:30 pmralph……watch and see…llamas have some of the best health care in the world………and for the most part they don’t get to make the decision as to when or how much….
September 1st, 2009 at 3:30 pmnd for the most part they don’t get to make the decision as to when or how much….
The dont get EOL counseling either.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:31 pmWoah, there Slappy.
In one post you claim that since the final bill is not available that making claims on what it will contain is conjecture (it’s not, btw – all one has to do is be familiar with the bills currently available and understand that the final bill will be a hybrid of those…..of course that would mean understanding the legislative process is a meaningful way), and then you claim that the final bill will impede on freedoms.
So, it’s conjecture when we make comments on the bill and gospel when you do?
Nice hypocrisy. Whoa! Did you see that? That thing flying off that -> direction? That was your credibility.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pmHere Slappy read this about the pig crap getting into water supplies with all those healthy anti-biotics
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters
And chicken crap choking chesepeake bay
September 1st, 2009 at 3:36 pmhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/themes/chicken.html
***
#123,
if i own you
do i own your hat?
:|
(see video for answer)
:)
September 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pmSlappyBastinado #116,
You are blathering complete utter 100% nonsense. Take a breath, calm down, relax, take a chill pill. Universal coverage was never ever even on the table. Unfortunately. If the public option does happen, it will be an O-P-T-I-O-N. It is freedom. No option is a lack of freedom. Only for-profit monopolies is not freedom. It is “pay whatever they say” and “take what they give you”.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:40 pmSo… are you advocating the kind of government control over people’s lives that conservatives generally decry?
Or are you trying to make the point that without such control, the system is doomed to failure?
No, I am not advocating any side of the argument. I am not for or against a public option until the facts are out. The question was, since “we the people are paying for your healthcare, are we allowed to force a certain standard of living”?
The answer can certinaly be no, won’t break my heart. Your answer can be, yes even if someone smokes 4 packs a day, eats ramen noodles and beer for every meal while spending spare money on prostitutes and shoot fighting, the government option will still take the best possible care of them every time they come in.
You can pretend I am against a public option all you want. I just have questions. Questions you don’t have the answer to (the stuff isn’t in the bill). The current answer with private insurance is simple, they drop you under the “preexisting” conditions clauses to keep costs down for the others. Is that right? No, didn’t say it was. I’m just trying to find out what some of the loopholes are.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:41 pmIn Slappy’s world:
Paying more and getting less = freedom
September 1st, 2009 at 3:45 pmSticking up for ceo’s and profiteers = patriotism.
Tundra,
Quit worrying over what someone might or might not do to receive more healthcare than you. The public option will keep costs down, be a hell of a lot more efficient, and give people healthcare. No other developed country in the world has a problem with having better and cheaper healthcare.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:48 pmtombaker says:
What are the things that U.S Citizens are entitled to? What items are people guaranteed to have just for being a citizen of this country? While we all realize that someone “Should” work and try to be a productive member of society, what things will be given to them if they do nothing but sit in a chair? What is it that as a member of this country you are responsible for providing to everyone else, regardless if they lift a finger or not?
September 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pmYou do try to have a conversation, Tundra. I will grant you that.
it’s just that your questions are so absurd that they don’t really have anything to do with a reasonable discussion of a complex issue.
The idea, as I said before, is not so much to maximize the potential health of the citizenry of the nation but some sort of federal fiat, as you seem to suggest.
The idea is to get beyond the conditions we have now, where the costs of health care form an insurmountable barrier to far too many Americans.
Yes, more uniform adherence to good health guidelines would maximize efficiency, but that would be kind of like making sure all your pennies were heads-up after you’d collected and counted them all. It’s the collection and the counting that really accomplishes the bulk of the task. That is providing access. That is controlling costs through meaningful competition with a true non-profit entity in the marketplace.
Do you really think that people eating crap food and smoking cigarettes is a major cause of 50 million Americans being unable to afford health insurance?
September 1st, 2009 at 3:52 pmTundra’s got a bit of that manger dog syndrome too,
(y’know, the dog from Aesop’s “Dog in the Manger” fable)
being preoccupied with the idea that someone else is going to get away with something, or that some do-badder will receive something that only do-gooders should.
That’s got a strong psychological appeal with a lot of people. It’s the operating kernel of the Conservative Movement, wherein “big labor”,”welfare queens”, and “illegal immigrants” are the great forces keeping the hardworking, law-abiding everyday Righty from becoming the autonomous economic overlord they yearn to be. (which is a bigger fable than old Aesop could’ve dreamt up)
Too bad the same folks who gravitate to that idea can’t apply it to anyone further up the food-chain, where the ill-effects really become significant.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pmTundra queries:
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
(all of which are kinda tough if you’re dead from a staph infection)
How could you not know that?
September 1st, 2009 at 3:57 pmBasically, it’s up to us and our representatives to determine.
Those of us who support universal coverage believe that every American is entitled to access health care services because it is a basic need that serves the common good, and it is responds poorly to the free-market model of delivery.
The entire nation — the economy, the broad community, the body politic — work better and more efficiently when people are healthy and not burdened by either inability to access needed treatment or risk of bankruptcy for accessing it.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:57 pmI’m late to the discussion but, I can’t quite figure out why a national insurance plan would “impose a certain lifestyle”. There’s certainly nothing I’ve seen in summaries of the various bills that would suggest any such power.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pmI think that’s a critical difference between the psychology of liberals and of conservatives, tombaker.
Liberals would rather set free a hundred criminals than imprison one innocent man.
Conservatives would rather punish a hundred innocents rather than let a single criminal go free.
We see the world in terms of positive inducements to accomplish goals, they see it in terms of punishment.
It’s a fundamental difference, in my view.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:00 pmTundra says:
No, I am not advocating any side of the argument. I am not for or against a public option until the facts are out. The question was, since “we the people are paying for your healthcare, are we allowed to force a certain standard of living”?
The public option will allow people to have preventative care. Their doctors can help them with food, tobacco, etc., by monitoring their health and getting them to take action earlier. There are many people who have no preventative care and these are the people who show up at the emergency rooms. The point of public option and single payer is that doctors are rewarded for getting patients to improve their health rather than by the procedures. It has some success in the UK and other countries.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pmThe idea, as I said before, is not so much to maximize the potential health of the citizenry of the nation but some sort of federal fiat, as you seem to suggest.
Ok outside the box option. What if the government paid for medical school, nursing programs and provided small business loans for specialists to open their own practices? Lets say we increased the medical staff by 20%, would that bring the cost of health care down?
September 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pmWhat if the government paid for medical school, nursing programs and provided small business loans for specialists to open their own practices?
Loan forgiveness is part of HR 3200…
September 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pmAll these “Constitutional scholars” utterly miss the last bit of the 10th Amendment where it says “…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
We the People are demanding our government act on health care. That’s all the Constitutional justification needed.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm***
#140,
how long do you stare at
a goat before it dies?
?
September 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pmT @ 140 – It probably would, some, but not as much as taking insurance company profits out of the equation would.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pmI don’t think I have ever seen this level of stupid in this country.
I honestly don’t know how to move this debate forward when the Repubs have taken a permanent vacation to crazy town. How can there be an honest debate about policy when they are screaming Nazis and Socialists are creating death panels to gas your grandma and take away your house while doing Satanic pirouettes on the grave of Jesus.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pmWhy do you include “increased the medical staff by 20%” with “government paid for medical school”?
How about if the government just paid for medical school and asked for a certain term of service in needed areas in return, just like the military academies?
Our medical education process plays a part in our dysfunctional system, to be sure. The expense of a medical degree serves to direct most of the interested talent toward specialty areas that pay far better than general practice and allow their loans to be paid off in about half the time. This leaves us with a glut of specialists and a dearth of GPs. It doesn’t serve the needs of the nation very efficiently.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:11 pmTundra,
If you REALLY want to bring the cost of healthcare down, have universal single-payer. That saves $350 billion every year in paperwork alone. Aren’t we stupid NOT to do that?
September 1st, 2009 at 4:11 pmListen, if this guy is strong enough to hold up the USS Constitution, he makes Superman look like a wuss.
We need to send him to Afghanistan, pronto ! He’d have it cleaned up in no time flat.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pmJoe C – Thanks for the heads-up on the Goats!!!!
Can’t wait to see that.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pmThe funny thing is, ralph… I have a sneaking suspicion that if ANY of the bills actually paid for medical school outright (something I would COMPLETELY support) the tea-baggers would be pointing to THAT as the evidence of why this should fail and is SOCIALISM!
But Tundra doesn’t even realize that most of what he’s proposing is in the current draft of HR 3200…
September 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pmI could only watch 2 min of that… wow.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:15 pmI share your frustration, mikeypaw. The sad fact is that one can’t win an argument logically when one’s opponents views have not been arrived at logically. I’m afraid we have to outnumber them because there’s no way to stop their bleating.
On an encouraging note, their numbers aren’t really going up to match their volume. Despite the vocal nuts in the front row we are still talking about the stupidest fifth of the electorate.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pmIt’s a fundamental difference, in my view.
Ralph,
I see the fundamental difference being who people expect to do things.
I believe in people choosing what they want to support. If you want to give money to cancer research then by all means do it. Start an organization and try and raise money allowing people to decide. If you think there should be a fund for school supplies for students, you are free to start an organization and raise funds and distribute them to students in need.
I work full time, volunteer at the local ambulance base and have started an organization to provide computers to non-profit organizations (mainly childrens organizations). Listening to people say “The government needs to do that”. “They need to tax people making more than me and help others” is quite frankly like Robin Hood without actually doing the work yourself but having him do it. I haven’t heard one person who is for universal care, discuss starting chapters in different areas, getting non-profit cooperatives going. Fighting so they can have them across state lines and starting any movement. The only movement out there honestly is “Tax those who have more so we can give to all”.
Fundamentally I think that people in general are better suited (when having honest means) at solving problems than the government with it’s lobbyists and corporate interests involved.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:21 pmSo Tundra,
would you rather have Bernie Madoff, Alan Stanford, or a randomly-selected IRS employee handle your money?
September 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pmYes I agree with you Pete. But stupid has a way of seeping into the collective consciousness. Hell the Senators took out the part of the bill that refers to end of life decisions for God’s sakes. I mean good grief. Now we have to defend against that as it now becomes proof that the death panels actually existed before they had them taken out. Sheer lunacy.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:24 pmRalph,
Saturating the system with qualified professionals would allow capitolism to take it’s toll on the market. I would be happy for ways of making healthcare more affordable without giving the government control over it. Helping others to help themselves (Trained professionals to make a good living helping others) would be an option I personally like a whole lot better.
Bela,
September 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pmSure it’s in there. But to have that you need the whole thing.
This is the generation that grew up breathing the fumes of leaded gasoline.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pmwould you rather have Bernie Madoff, Alan Stanford, or a randomly-selected IRS employee handle your money?
Well at least I get to choose if I give it to the first two or not.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pmI haven’t heard one person who is for universal care, discuss starting chapters in different areas, getting non-profit cooperatives going.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/stories/DN-collinhealth_14met.ART0.Central.Edition1.50c952b.html
You haven’t heard about the non-profit clinics who are desperate for more support from the Government?
I have.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pmBela,
Sure it’s in there. But to have that you need the whole thing.
But it’s hardly ‘outside’ the box if it’s in the bill, is it?
September 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pmYou haven’t heard about the non-profit clinics who are desperate for more support from the Government?
Not more support from the community they serve, not from the people they help, not asking for donations from people that are somehow effected. They want help from someone 10 states away who can barely pay his own electric bill.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pmTundra, why do you think that the predatory health insurance execs are so interested in you? All they care about is the premium you pay, and god help you if you ever really need to use your insurance. I cannot understand your defense of people who want you to die suddenly and cheaply so they can garner huge wages. Stupid cannot be fixed.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:33 pmThey want help from someone 10 states away who can barely pay his own electric bill.
Bull. They want people to recognize that this is a service that benefits ALL of us and the best and most efficient way to fund it is through the Government… you want these doctors to be fundraisers or doctors?
September 1st, 2009 at 4:34 pm“…while the state [Texas] says counties can decline to treat those who make more than $2,274 a year.”
Man we are a generous bunch
September 1st, 2009 at 4:35 pmThey choose to eat Dolly Madison cakes only and are an extreme drain on the system. What recourse does the government have with said individual (if any)
They can choose a private provider, in that case. Still “voluntary.”
September 1st, 2009 at 4:35 pmI don’t worry much about the “gang of six” and their current proposal. It really just strikes me as a debate tool while the “real” bills are still in recessed committees. Heck! Even the 50/50 mix is unrepresentative of the Senate as a whole.
We’ll see what happens when the House gets back to earnest action. Despite the squawking there’s still strong public support and, for the moment, I’m going to assume they will serve faithfully. I haven’t yet seen any evidence they won’t.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pmThey want help from someone 10 states away who can barely pay his own electric bill.
It’s called shared sacrifice for the common good – a strange, liberal concept, quite foreign to conservative mindsets, with their “I got mine” worldview.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pmOops! #166 was addressed to you, mikeypaw.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:39 pm@27 – Zooey says: WHERE WERE THESE FREAKS DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
Same place they’ve always been – but this time the PREZ is BLACK! YIKES!!
September 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pmbarfly says:
It’s called shared sacrifice for the common good – a strange, liberal concept, quite foreign to conservative mindsets, with their “I got mine” worldview.
What’s more, barfly, we want to help that person who can barely pay his own electric bill do better too…
September 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pmIt’s called shared sacrifice for the common good – a strange, liberal concept, quite foreign to conservative mindsets, with their “I got mine” worldview.
I would disagree. I believe that individual places need to take care of themselves more. It’s like building that bridge to 10 families at some stupid cost using federal funds. The liberal mindset (according to you) is “Those 10 families need this 315 Million dollar bridge, it helps them”. My view is “Looks like they can go around till they can afford to build their own bridge”
September 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pmThe free market system does not work properly with respect to health care.
There is no downward pressure on costs.
In a standard capitalistic model, a product is priced according to the balance point where demand meets supply.
When supply is greater than demand, the price for the product drops. When the price gets too high for most to recognize it as a value, they decide against purchasing it, and demand drops.
Health care is not a discretionary purchase of that type. People who need health care, need health care. They don’t need it less when it costs too much, and they don’t indulge themselves when the cost drops. There is no balancing consumer behavior to counterweight the producer’s relentless drive to grow profits.
On top of that, the producer’s drive to provide the service promised is reduced because of the time lapse between purchase and delivery. The consumer can pay premiums for years before needing the service. At that point, the provider faces a disincentive to provide the service, since the company will make more money when it denies more claims. The damage to its reputation is minimal, and the ability of the customer to choose another vendor is severely restricted because of pre-existing conditions clauses, contractual waiting periods and industry reluctance to take on clients who need care immediately.
The right wing’s obsessive focus on capitalistic principles to control costs are utterly useless in this situation. That is why we face runaway costs and millions are priced out of the market.
The market CANNOT solve this problem.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:46 pmYeah Pete I think there is something to that. I am hoping that it was all one big head fake and that our elected officials can find a collective sense of chutzpah.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:46 pmThe whole damn thing is frustrating on so many levels though. For instance, why do our Senators keep negotiating with people who are negotiating in bad faith. Just forget them already and move on. Like someone in this thread said so aptly “you can’t fix stupid”
I would disagree. I believe that individual places need to take care of themselves more. It’s like building that bridge to 10 families at some stupid cost using federal funds. The liberal mindset (according to you) is “Those 10 families need this 315 Million dollar bridge, it helps them”. My view is “Looks like they can go around till they can afford to build their own bridge”
First of all, that bridge was a CONSERVATIVE Republican earmark…
Second of all, we’re not talking about a bridge… we’re talking about health care. And those ten families deserve the best that we can reasonably provide. Will we build a new Mayo clinic for ten families? No. Will we send a willing GP who needs to pay off his or her student loan to help out a group of villages? Yes.
Watch ‘Northern Exposure’ to see how it works.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:48 pmJust wow! Faux has created a monster. An overweight elderly grey haired caucasian ignorant monster.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:48 pmTundra–
Your bridge analogy falls completely apart. The bridge, you see, was proposed by a Conservative that would benefit only a few people unequally and with no real benefit to the common good. The proposal that is being set forth by liberals helps everyone equally should they choose to partake and helps the common good. Big difference.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:50 pmThe market CANNOT solve this problem.
Deserves to be repeated. If I could rec’ #172 10 times I would.
READ it, Tundra!
It’s worth it!
September 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pmAmen to that
September 1st, 2009 at 4:53 pmOf course, in an extreme example like you present (a standard right-wing tactic, I might add) the benefit to 10 families does not necessarily equate to a benefit for the whole.
The idea that “shared sacrifice for the common good” is incompatible with people taking care of themselves is an example of the dualistic “black or white” mindset also common to conservative thinking. It’s not the zero-sum game that some folks like to present.
Shared sacrifice for the common good does not of necessity diminish an individual’s capacity to take care of his own needs. In some cases it can actually enhance that capacity.
Road construction and traffic laws represent a shared sacrifice (funding by taxes and social contract to abide by safety rules) but actually enhances one’s ability to travel safely, efficiently and with relatively predictable results. The ability to transport goods enhances commercial opportunities, which is why Jefferson gave approval for the Cumberland Road into the Ohio Territory.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pmThe proposal that is being set forth by liberals helps everyone equally should they choose to partake
As the bridge helps everyone equally should they choose to cross.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pmTundra says:
Saturating the system with qualified professionals would allow capitolism to take it’s toll on the market. I would be happy for ways of making healthcare more affordable without giving the government control over it.
Saturating the market with professionals in the medical field will not do much to bring down costs. The costs are going up because the insurance companies are covering less and charging more for premiums. This will continue until the middle class and employers are unable to afford the premiums. It has already started and will not get better with the status quo.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pmThe ability to transport goods enhances commercial opportunities, which is why Jefferson gave approval for the Cumberland Road into the Ohio Territory.
It also enhances the ‘common defense,’ which is why we built the Alaskan highway during WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Highway
September 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pmTundra says:
The proposal that is being set forth by liberals helps everyone equally should they choose to partake
As the bridge helps everyone equally should they choose to cross.
Your bridge nonsense has been refuted… it doesn’t work, Tundra. No one is talking about building a Mayo Clinic for every ten families that live in rural Alaska… sorry.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:59 pmI wonder if his daughter wore her new HMS pinafore to the opening day of school?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:06 pmThe thing that really ticks me off is that these idiots have the nerve to claim that the younger generation is ignorant…
September 1st, 2009 at 5:07 pmHas anyone noticed that this incident occurred not in Georgia, but in San Diego, California! Is the national malaise contagious?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:08 pmOr is there a San Diego, Georgia (Either the former SSR or the US state.)?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pmBut which would you choose?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:11 pmIt occurs to me that all of the “arguments” from the Reichwhiners are strawmen. They could make rational objections to cost. That’s a fair consideration but, they don’t choose to do so. That compels me to think that they have reached the same conclusion I have. Namely that we can afford the proposed plans and, barring unforeseen complications, they should work.
So? They bleat about “death panels” and “government takeovers” and “pulling the plug on Grandma”. They fail to produce logical arguments because the logical arguments are already addressed in the legislation.
September 1st, 2009 at 5:12 pmdbadass,
September 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pmI’m 68 and I agree that the world is in a process of dumbing down. ;)
pags2 says: The costs are going up because the insurance companies are covering less and charging more for premiums. This will continue until the middle class and employers are unable to afford the premiums. It has already started and will not get better with the status quo.
Right. “Free markets” does not explain private health insurers approving 95% of claims in 1993 and 80% of claims today. How is that reasonably justified in the view of public option opponents?
How is a 428% increase in profits from 2000 to 2007 reasonably justified?
How is an increase of Americans without healthcare in the same period from 38 million to 46 million reasonably justified?
How is United Healthcare Group CEO Stephen Hemsley gettting $747 million in 2008 reasonably justified?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:15 pmKeith,
September 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pmHow could United Healthcare Group CEO Stephen Hemsley pay his medical bills without that $747 million per annum? You do know about those preexisting conditions! Would you believe breathing and paying premiums?
WaltTheMan:
September 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pmI am not so sure. Younger folks place less value on holding specific contentknowledge and more on the application of that content. Afterall they have never lived in a world where content details were more than a click away. It may just be the result of a shift in priority…
Young minds are more fertile, adaptable, and agile than older minds. The problem is when a generation of idiots fill young minds with horse manure. They don’t always have the filters needed to protect themselves.
September 1st, 2009 at 5:30 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
WaltTheMan, Surely Hemsley can get a discount on his insurance? :)
September 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pmWalt – that 747 mil is in unexercised stock options(still wrong as the day is long) but his salary is something “very reasonable” – only 15-17 million, which proves that he works tens of thousands of times more, and harder, than the rest of us.
just ask a righty – they’ve got the whole thing down pat.
September 1st, 2009 at 5:33 pmconservative guy says:
General welfare, sounds like a free ride at taxpayers expense.
Why do you hate the Constitution?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:33 pmCG – amen to that -and by the way, hey – where can I buy some Chinese girls (cheap) to make sandals in my back room?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:34 pmHi conservative guy:
September 1st, 2009 at 5:36 pmWhy is it that you think so poorly of people? Who is asking for a free ride? I’ll bet you believe in the mythical creature known as the welfare queen. She lives in an imaginary land full of magical creatures were ketchup is a vegetable and Spotted owls do manual labor thus depriving able bodied men…
conservative guy has only 2 pictures in his office:
Ebenezer Scrooge
and
Montgomery Burns
“because anything else would be profligate!!!”
September 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pmdbadass,
September 1st, 2009 at 6:06 pmEngineers have lost the ability to design a regenerative receiver or build the Apollo Moon Rocket. The transistor is about to pass into the dustbin of history. All of these technologies have a history of less than 100 years, but they rely on millenniums of observations.
What happens when mankind has to leave Earth for another solar system? We can not simply haul along the home planet for references which are the sole basis for all that has passed. A single missed observation could cost centuries of development.
WaltTheMan
September 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pmI didn’t say I disagreed, I simple said that I am not convinced. As an engineer and learned man I know you recognize the cutting edge work that is currently being conducted by a new generation of very capable young minds.
Keith says:
Right. “Free markets” does not explain private health insurers approving 95% of claims in 1993 and 80% of claims today. How is that reasonably justified in the view of public option opponents?
How is a 428% increase in profits from 2000 to 2007 reasonably justified?
How is an increase of Americans without healthcare in the same period from 38 million to 46 million reasonably justified?
How is United Healthcare Group CEO Stephen Hemsley gettting $747 million in 2008 reasonably justified?
Paying claims does not mean good policy or a free market working when these insurance policies exclude a lot of conditions and have large deductibles. There are three major health insurers, United, Aetna and Wellpoint that have a virtual monopoly on health care so they can dictate their terms which are all basically the same. The free market has failed.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pmThis idiot has no idea what he’s talking about, clearly not every power given to the federal government is outlined in the constitution. If he wants to go strictly by the orginal constitutionl then we have to become a country based on 13 States or Colonies. The rest of the Country can just turn into separate contries I guess.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:25 pm48. gummble-bee-itch says: U.S.S. Constitution? That ship sailed during the Bush administration
I think you got the wrong boat, Gummble. What sailed during Shrub’s term was the US Constitution, which was folded up into a paper airplane and zoomied off the roof of the White House into a dumpster.
The Navy, or whoever is responsible for the U.S.S. Constitution (Ol’ Ironsides) may have towed it out in Boston Harbor during Shrub’s term. They do that every now and then for maintenance purposes; they tow it out in order to turn it around at the pier where it’s tied up. Occasionally they do put the boat under sail.
There was going to be another U.S.S. Constitution, a battle cruiser, but the building project was abandoned in 1924.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pmconservative guy says:
General welfare, sounds like a free ride at taxpayers expense.
September 1st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Your wet dream…
September 1st, 2009 at 6:33 pmI don’t think there’s anything wrong with the minds of our students. And our cutting edge is still cutting edge. But, even while has been popularized and made accessible to more people than ever before, at the same time there’s been a deep-seated rebellion to modern learning in general and science in particular.
So many technical discussions become mired by the ignorant, the superstitious, and the most fearful among us. It’s nothing new and seems to be a natural cyclical component of advanced societies. All are plagued at times by primitives and xenophobes. They struggle between Belief and Reason. Dark Ages come and go. I think we are in a small one of our own but there are signs of improvement. The enemies of Reason may grow louder but there’s no sign their numbers are increasing.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:33 pmI jus can’t bring myself to be nice to these morons.
Moron
September 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pmnoun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
dbadass,
September 1st, 2009 at 6:40 pmBack in the 1970’s, I designed an edge trigger that relied on three inverters to create a delay line that should have worked for all time if circuit delays increased in a linear manner. In the early 80’s, I had to add a variable that was based on the square root divided by 2 of years since 1982, rounding up to the next odd integer, in order to compensate for Moore’s law of area. If three dimensional designs are achieved, the divisor would be eliminated. That old design law is still there, but to my knowledge is still not documented.
Zooey, you better not go out and shoot any defenseless wolves today. I love wolves. :)
September 1st, 2009 at 6:46 pmIn that they’re buk ya might wanna look up the ee-lastic claus, what the libruls put in there bak in 17 and 87.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:49 pm“increased” s/b “decreased” in my post #210. Sorry folks.
September 1st, 2009 at 7:16 pmSaturating the system with qualified professionals would allow capitolism to take it’s toll on the market.
Try again, since it’s not doctors and nurses you have to saturate the market with. It’s the medicines and equipment. Cost will always be too high when it takes millions and millions and millions of dollars to get a single pill out on the market, or create a super-high-tech machine that can be used in emergency situations.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:01 pmPrecisely. This is akin to fire departments, police departments, military services, and the like. They are necessary, and essential services whose costs need to be deferred amongst all citizens, but utilized on a needed basis.
Can you imagine a fire department that functioned on a profit motive? Or if your only option in aid from police was through private, for-profit police departments? Of if a given town/state/country’s only recourse for military action was to hire a private, for-profit military outfit until the mission is completed, or they run out of money to pay said outfit?
The best part, to me, is the totally fallacious idea that socialism and capitalism cannot mix. Pure false dichotomy.
On the contrary. Socialism works great whenever essential services are required, and a profit-motive is detrimental to the actual SERVICES required.
However, that does not preclude private, for-profit companies from continuing to innovate in terms of the actual goods utilized by said services. For example, when a company designs a new fire truck, and it is proven to be reliable, have features that will save more lives, et al, said company has a HUGE buyer for their product, that has a certain budget, and can begin the process of improving the fleet on a local, state, or national level.
The same holds true for medical innovation. When new pharmaceuticals are developed, tested, and approved, a robust public medical sector would have the ability to purchase positively enormous amounts of the pharmaceutical in question. That, in turn, gives the for-profit company more capital, to pay for the cost of goods sold, and to invest the profits in growth, in R&D on new products, and so on.
On the other hand, when it comes to administrative structures…that is to say, structures that are PURELY administrative in nature, such as insurance companies, whose only job is to redirect collective funds from one area to another, a profit motive is actually dangerous and detrimental. The only means of securing more profits for the investors is to deny funds to those in said structure who have paid into it, and expect in turn to take back often MORE than they put in when the time comes. Thus, such organizations should not have a profit motive. Insurance, savings and loans banks (as opposed to INVESTMENT banks, which SHOULD retain a profit motive), et al, better serve the general welfare, are more efficient, and render services better than the same type of organization with a profit motive, and fiduciary responsibility to increase those
profits wherever, whenever, and however possible.
Socialism is not a bad word. It is a valuable tool.
Capitalism is not a bad word. It is a valuable tool.
Each, when taken to their extreme, are very dangerous indeed.
Together, when controlling that for which they are more suited than the other, both becomes stronger.
The endless conflation of socialism with mere extreme subsets of socialism (communism, Marxism, et al) by those on the far right is disingenuous at best, and incredibly dangerous and divisive at worst. It needs to stop.
The endless conflation of capitalism with mere extreme subsets of capitalism (fascism, corporatism, et al) by those on the left is disingenuous at best, and incredibly dangerous and divisive at worst. It, too, needs to stop.
There is a middle ground, and it works brilliantly compared to any of the extreme ideologies.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm***
#207,
more than likely a dry, powdery dream.
. . .
September 1st, 2009 at 9:14 pmThe U.S.S. Constitution? Sorry pal, that ship has sailed…
September 1st, 2009 at 9:37 pmThe American people are the fattest people in the world (on the average). The American people also seem to be the most stupid people in the world, too (on the average). Is there are correlation here someplace? Which came first, obesity or stupidity? Or did they evolve together or were as the creationists might say, were they created together?
It would seem that many Americans have had things too soft for too long… Too much TV, too much Internet, too many computer video games, too many cell phones and much too much junk food.
Solutions anyone?
September 1st, 2009 at 11:25 pmTundra says:
Actually yes they COULD do that you ignorant troll but since no one anywhere is advocating that they do your stupid strawman argument is just that STUPID
September 1st, 2009 at 11:40 pmRe: Oval @ 218:
A _lot_ of the obesity is caused by the fact that 99% of the available food is loaded with High-Fructose Corn Syrup and other highly questionable additives, and you pay through the nose if you want healthy options.
If you live where there are local farmers’ markets, you can get wholesome food at reasonable prices.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:41 pmkwsventures says:
You are an ignorant punkass troll and a worthlesss moron. Keep up with your one trick pony stupidity. We have been down that road before. YOU are stupid so it wont do any good to explain anything to you AGAIN.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:43 pmaaronk says:
This liberal thinks that just like healthcare it is a DEMOCRATIC DECISION. The constitution was written in broad principles and NOT specifics in order to allow FOR those democratic decisions and NOT hamstring the government from doing the things the people would later decide is best for America
September 1st, 2009 at 11:47 pmSlappyMORON
Why are you still begging us to pity you when it has no hope of success. Even crackheads arent as stupid and pathetic as you. They learn. When they cant get anymore money from someone they STOP begging. You NEVER stop begging. You have no dignity no self respect beg, beg, beg its all you do no matter how pathetic it makes you look. You are the most pathetic creature on the face of the Earth
September 1st, 2009 at 11:49 pmconservaTROLL
And your most recent post like every post you make stinks of the stupidity that you imbue with everything that comes near you. You are disgustingly stupid. Everything you touch STINKS of your stupid like this post. Just kill yourself already. You are so stupid you will never be anything but a burden on decent human beings
September 1st, 2009 at 11:53 pmThis is simple. IF the government decided to nationalize the payment of health insurance and create a single payer system it WOULD be constitutional. This is absolutly obvious. Only the stupidest people imaginable are arguing otherwise
September 1st, 2009 at 11:55 pmThstoopid…
Thstoopid…
Thstoopid…
That guy probably eats his own boogers.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 am215. Moderation says:
ralph the wonder llama says: The free market system does not work properly with respect to health care.
There is no downward pressure on costs.
.
.
.
*snip*
Precisely. This is akin to fire departments, police departments, military services, … necessary, and essential services whose costs need to be deferred amongst all citizens, but utilized on a needed basis.
Can you imagine a fire department that functioned on a profit motive? … September 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Why, indeed, I can imagine a fire department that functioned on a profit motive. If you look into the early history of fire protection, the earlier organized fire “departments” were subsidized operations of insurance companies who only responded for “free” to people with insured structures. The general public was left to its own devices (’bucket brigades’).
Needless to say, that created some interesting moments before municipalities, etc, took on the subsidy and reorganized fire departments as public entities.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 amUnfortunately, your assertion regarding the Constitutionality of the proposed Health Care Reform has little to do with Congress’ right to levy taxes and more to do with the Commerce clause which has been clearly misinterpreted since the Warren Court, which gave Congress “carte blanche” to intrude in State activity. (see Obama, WBEZ, The Court and Civil Rights, January 18, 2001)
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 amI find it sad, yet quite typical that many are quick to call names before refuting a statement with fact. I guess it is much easier to discard an opinion by slandering the messenger, than it would be to discuss the issues. Despite your hyper-intellectualism, the enumeration of powers is a valid argument against federal intervention in health care.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 amDespite your hyper-intellectualism, the enumeration of powers is a valid argument against federal intervention in health care.
Then go ahead and make it… ’slandering the messenger?’
Like the town hall shouting matches?
Saying the commerce clause has been ‘clearly misinterpreted’ is a fairly bold statement.
What’s your argument?
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 am225. Moderation
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 amYour comparison of health care innovation to the innovation in fire trucks is flawed. When there is a Federal socialistic health care system, there is 1 buyer of services: the Federal Government. In the case of the fire trucks, there are many fire companies in many different municipalities competing for the fire truck, which is an example of Capitalism.
“Our modern regulatory and redistributive state–the state the Framers sought explicitly to prohibit–has arisen largely since 1937, and primarily through just two clauses in the Constitution, the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause respectively. It is striking that this is so, for if the Framers had meant forCongress to be able to do virtually anything it wanted through those two simple clauses, why would they have bothered to enumerate Congress’ other powers, much less defend the doctrine of enumerated powers throughout the Federalist Papers? That is the question that cries out for explanation.
The explanation, of course, is that the Framers intended no such thing. The modern state arose through judicial legerdemain, following Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious 1937 Court-packing scheme.”
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:33 amtoo bad he couldn’t be as bright as these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6VMmEqTKio
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:56 amRobertBeatty says:
I find it sad that we have to repeat the SAME refutations over and over and over and over and over and OVER because you brainwashed morons listen to some screechmonkey on the radio spewing the same stale long ago debunked talking point and are dumb enough and gullible enough to think you had an epiphany. This HAS been debunked at least a dozen times. After ten or twelve times refuting the same nonsense we get a little testy. If just ONE of you wingnuts ever had an original thought instead of regurgitating what Rush TOLD you to think maybe we could have an adult conversation and you are flat out WRONG. It has EVERYTHING to do with the article one that says directly that congress can levy taxes to provide for the general wellfare. Stop turning your brain over to the morons on the radio that pull your strings like a puppet program you like an Ipod.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:48 amRobertBeatty
That argument is ridiculous. If they meant for the enumeration of SOME powers to be all there were they would have said so. If this argument were valid then the highways, internet, rural electrification the Air Force, FBI, CDC, Social Security, Medicare, small business association and a host of other things would have been unconstitutional. NO ONE said they were until conservatives wanted to use this argument to fight healthcare. We would be a third world nation if we followed this frankly ignorant interpretation of the constitution. Clearly the constitution was written in broad principles instead of explicit details to the people would have the power to make EXACTLY these kind of democratic decisions.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 amAlso if they meant for ONLY the things enumerated to be constitutional then why did they SAY for the common defense and general wellfare why if they meant for ONLY the enumerated things to be constitution why wouldnt they have said ONLY THESE THINGS? Because they didnt and it is frankly ludicrous to think they were trying to put that kind of straitjacket ON the Federal government.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 amEugeneDebs.
Wow! Apparently you’ve done your homework. Unfortunately, your homework appears to be that of a 5th grader. You reference the Social Security and Medicare which are arguably unconstitutional. The FBI and Air Force fall within the power of providing for the common Defence, an enumerated power.
In fact,your reference to a “straitjacket on the federal government” is precisely what the enumerated powers were intended to do. An ever expanding and over powerful federal government was a major concern for the Founders. This concern is furthered by the establishment of 10th Amendment.
In order to have a real discussion about constitutional law, one would require a basic understanding of the founding principles as is evident in the writing of the founders, which you clearly lack.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 amEugeneDebs
Try reading Cicero, John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washinton…
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 am“General welfare” is every bit as prominent as “common defense”. And most Constitutional scholars are of the opinion that the 10th Amendment gives the people the ultimate responsibility for the delegation of powers.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 amI would agree that it is “possible” for the “people” to delegate power. However, the representation to delegate that power has been greatly diminished by the 17th Amendment. Our U.S. Senate no longer represents the interest of the States as originally intended.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that the original intention to have a form of governement that balances power between the States and the Federal government has been honored.
Not only has the State/Federal balance been destroyed, Bush, Cheyney, Yoo and Addington clearly usurped the authority of Congress and the American people through the use of Memorandum Opinions, which is clearly a violation of the constitutional intention of separation of powers.
Examine all of the crises we have had over the past century and the subsequent legislation enacted to “Save us and our country”.
For those of you who believe this is about partisan politics, you are mistaken. Educate yourself! Do not depend on the talking points from any party, demagogue, reporter, blogger, etc.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 amKKklannity did everything he could possibly do yesterday to get Rasmussen to say Obama has already lost the 2012 election. Rasmussen would not say it, he got close, but he would not say it. KKKlannity is one of the worst out there and he gets over-shadowed by Limpballs and Beckanoia.
More needs to be done to get someone on his show to call him the stupid racist and ignorant liar he really has shown himself to be since the election.
And they should do it “with great specificity” which is one of KKKlannity’s favorite sayings – he actually believes he is some great thinker and imparter of the Word.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 amThink big, and carry a pocket Constitution! Whereas: the enjoyment of family life sets people apart from lower life forms! Do not be afraid of cooperation between the federal government and your employer; do not ask any odd tree for health care advice, and since it is getting darker, leave that strange-enough tree, you will never understand that it responds!
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pmIs this video a collection of the least intelligent Faux News audience members? It literally pained me to watch this all the way though. My favorite quote: “The exact things Obama is doing is the exact things Hitler did. It’s all you have to do is study it and look into it.” The illiteracy of that statement aside…I have not studied the Hitler regime extensively but I’m pretty sure socialized medicine is not what he is most hated for. Someone socialize clue-giving so everyone can get one for free – Faux News and its audience are in desperate need!
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:18 pmThe website this article was submitted to has the words “think” and “progress” in its title. Criticizing someone who misspoke does not relate to progress. And not simply reading the title of the book he held up and realizing that he misspoke points to ignorance not thought.
Ya’ll need to get off of your butts, sign off the internet, and start workiing diligently on reforming the electorial system before you feel confident enough to add words to the sea of b.s. information you’re all living in. THINK. Then progress. Until then keep your opinions out of our democracy. Opinions mean nothing without a functional ‘we the people’ schema. Our democracy has been perverted by the vehicle of the federal government. That relates directly to the people that are being put in the decision making positions. That is put in place seemingly by ‘we the people’. But we don’t get a look at these bullshit politicians until they are groomed and approved by the underlying power hungry movement that is our polictical atmosphere amongst both parties. The simple notion of a label “Democrat” or “Republican” distracts from the power battle. As long as there are two labels trying to get their stamp at the top of the political heap, ‘we the people’ will continue to have no power. So none of you should be portraying yourselves as having anything relevant to contribute to a discussion about a subject you have no control over i.e. healthcare reform.
Again, the only subject worthy of exploring in our current ‘we the people’ situation is the subject of getting a recoginized and mass-media circulated independent party platform for a more commmon sense government. Until then stop quibbling over the trivial subjects that you do, you’re old enough to progress more practically.
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 pmRobertBeatty says:
Actually it is plain logic which YOU are obviously too stupid to even START to understand. I really love to laugh at people as stupid as you. Especially when you couple your obvious stupidity with silly attempts at condescension.
How in the WORLD could anyone with an IQ above that of tile grout argue that the general wellfare clause does NOT include anything you dont like because ONLY that which is enumberated applies but the provide for the common defense is open to provide things NOT enumerated. See the Navy and Army ARE specifically mentioned in the Constitution but the Air Force and FBI are not. You have got to be one of the stupidest people I have ever responded to. So you really mean that the general WELLFARE clause is limited to only those things specifically enumerated but the provide for defense clause is open ended for whatever they want. What kind of moron ARE you that you actually think that makes sense?
A straitjacket on what they can do to limit individual freedom is certainly what they wanted a straitjacket on what Americans can democratically decide we can do collectively is nowhere indicated. The preamble makes that perfectly clear.
In order to have a real discussion YOU would have to be smart enough to understand the points being made. Since you are obviously too stupid to even BEGIN to understand anything and just parrot the propaganda you were TOLD to think that probably is always going to be far beyond your meager capabilities
I love the way you condescendingly give me a reading list after showing how cripplingly stupid you are. I suggest you learn to UNDERSTAND what you read. Then, if you ever aquire the requisite intellectual capacity I suggest YOU read. Hume, Chomsky, Berkeley and Peter Singer. I wont hold my breath. Even if you manage to read them you are too stupid to ever understand them.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 pmRobertBeatty says:
I recognize the argument and have some sympathy for it that the gov has gotten too much power. However you ARE STUPID and need to tone down the condescension. How in the WORLD did making Senators popularly elected instead of appointed by the Gov sway the power to the Federal government away from the PEOPLE? Now I can see an elitist argument that it sways it from the STATE but it seem to me that it gave it to the people not the Federal Gov. You are a moron. YOU need to educate YOURSELF. I would suggest you do so by reading and not listening to the screechmonkeys who do your thinking FOR you
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:52 pmilovetheinternet says:
You dont know what we do other than this MORON. I SPOKE at an anti war rally. I belong to several grassroots organizations and subscribe to several political magazines and read political books all the time. You are stupid and you CANT READ MINDS. So why dont YOU follow your own advise and just STFU until you have some dim idea what you are talking about that doesnt involve those amazing mind reading powers of yours that DONT EXIST
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm@ ilovetheinternet
While I agree with some of your points pertaining to our flawed politics, your condescending tone while dismissing the thoughts and opinions of others isn’t conducive to progress either. I don’t see the logic in the opinions of others being “irrelevant” because our defective government makes it so nor do I agree with that assertion. The government I fear is the one that could not care less about opinion polls and ratings. You know, like the Bush administration. That is the government that will act upon its own agenda and not we the people’s.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pmfrom 1620 to 1933, all public welfare activity was at the state and local levels, primarily through churches, local charity groups, immigrant societies, and fraternal organizations like the Elks and Shriners. Those groups operated hospitals and schools for the disabled and the sick. For a few cents in weekly dues per household, they provided social insurance to support widows, orphans, and the disabled. Members in good standing with their fraternal and sisterly organizations would be cared for and supported by them in times of difficulty.
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal deliberately pushed this great network of mutual-help organizations into oblivion by more than tripling taxes and forcing everyone to join Social Security. In contrast, present-day private organizations like the Salvation Army are far more effective and much less costly than any governmental programs, Federal or local.
Killing the private mutual-support network was part of the plan, announced in Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, to implement Mussolini’s brand of socialism: Fascist state corporatism.
In order to do so, it was necessary to render nugatory the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Political power was stripped from the states and local governments and collectivized at the national level. In 1933, when FDR took office, more than 70% of all governmental taxation and spending were at state and local levels; the New Deal reversed that position
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:41 pmi ain’t you,
At the height of “roaring twenties” prosperity, the majority of Americans were below the poverty line. You’re not one of those “FDR caused the Great Depression” whackos, are you? You probably are one of those “Obama caused the mess we are in now” whackos!
Do you know who did and who did not go to Spain before WWII to fight fascism? Those left-of-center socialists went to fight fascism!
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:11 pmsmidget says:
I’ve seen the U.S. Constitution, and I distinctly recall several paragraphs which indicate that the federal government does, indeed, have the right to, to quote said document itself, “promote the general welfare,” and several examples of how they may do just that.
With that statement you have just proven that you haven’t read the U.S. Constitution. If you had then you would know that the phrase “promote the general welfare” is only in it twice.
And of those several examples non of them say anything about Health Care. And “promote the general welfare” isn’t a right to start Government Health Care.
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents.” – James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson
Not to mention you should look up Veto of federal public works bill March 3, 1817 and what James Madison said.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:17 pmhttp://www.ask.com/bar?q=Veto+of+federal+public+works+bill&page=1&qsrc=2106&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fjm%2F18170303_veto.htm
i aint you says:
Toostupidtobeus. You are an ignorant brainwashed moron. You are also a liar and a fool. So stupid I am shocked you remember to breathe. Roosevelt never said any such thing you lying piece of shit. Private charities were overwhelmed and the new deal and direct gov aid save America from widespread starvation
http://histclo.com/essay/war/dep/dep-nd.html
These measures revived confidence in the economy. Banks reopened and direct relief saved millions from starvation.
You just spew whatever you were told to believe no matter how stupid it is and how stupid you would have to be to believe it. Just STFU you lying pile of dogshit
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 pmOutlaw284 says:
As usual Outlaw you show how breathtakingly stupid you are. The phrase PROVIDE for the common defense AND general wellfare is right in article 1 about Congressional power. You are stupid. You are always going to BE stupid. The argument that if it isnt specified in the Constitution Congress cant do it would relegate us to third world status. We would have no Air Force, no sewer systems, no FBI, no highways no rural electrification no public education no CDC. You are just a brainwashed moron and were told to beleive this and are too stupid to recognize what a bone ignorant argument it is. The fact the government isnt meant to provide EVERYTHING is not an argument that it cannot provide ANYTHING except to the stupidest people on the planet like you CLEARLY are. It is a Democratic decision whether government should do this. Join the debate but saying there is no RIGHT to the debate because is is unconstitutional only shows how cripplingly ignorant you are.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 pmBy the way. James Madison was also the elitist who said
“the primary function of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority of the poor.” – James Madison
So yeah he was going to see some things like you selfish Ebenezer Scrooge worshipers. Doesnt mean that was the intent of the Constitution which COULD have easily said Congress can use money ONLY this way which is what YOU are saying and the constitution DOES NOT SAY
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:32 pmTundra says:
How many do you have? :D
2, but always looking for a new Ex Mrs Tundra….Interested in an application?
:P
September 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm Add Karma Vote Up | Subtract Karma Vote Down | (-8) | Report Abuse
Aw, c’mon, that didn’t deserve a -8, I thought it was pretty funny. :D
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 pmKeith
no i dont believe FDR caused the Great Depression, but after a good long talk with my grandfather i don’t think it would have lasted as long as it did if it had not been for FDR
EugeneDebs–
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 pmwhat i posted was from a 12 volume set of history books Authorized by the US Gov. copywright 1947 that covers from the begaining of WWI to the begaining of WWII. So i guess the Gov. lied.– what your telling me is to not beleive or trust any thing the gov. says or does? a simple yes or no will do for a answer
Yes if they said THIS
Killing the private mutual-support network was part of the plan, announced in Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, to implement Mussolini’s brand of socialism: Fascist state corporatism.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They lied. As to the rest read some history for goodness sake. That direct aid at the beggining of 1933 saved America from mass starvation. NO amount of private charity could have stopped it.
Stick your answer yes or no to your false dichotomies up your ass. I know you must think it clever when Hannity does it but its stupid. I will answer in the way that pleases me. Let me do you a favor. Look up logical fallacies. In this case the false dichotomy or missing middle. Then you can stop embarassing yourself
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 amso in short – no – i can’t trust our gov. gosh i have been saying that along, i feel so much better
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 ami aint you says:
Of COURSE you cant trust the Government at least to tell us the truth everytime. Our government has always lied to us. Which isnt the same as saying EVERYTHING they say is a lie. Anyone NOT a moron already understood this.
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 amvery thanks for article!
September 4th, 2009 at 10:40 amHas he even read it? Because if he did, he would hopefully know that under the “Commerce Clause”, Congress can make laws that benefit the “general welfare” of the public. Poor, uneducated hick!!
September 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pmCongress does have the power to reform healthcare. It’s called “the necessary and proper clause”, which gives them the power to do whatever it needs to do in order to do it’s jobs, like improving the economy (I only remember this because my us history professor from last semester spent part of a class talking about this section). Geez, if we didn’t have the federal government use this, we wouldn’t have public schools, roads (part of their job is to deliver mail), etc..
September 4th, 2009 at 4:48 pm