Obama Care summerised

[scootrd]

 Scooter;
      Puhleeze..your statement that This country started as "Commutarian" entity..
  Commutarian is a recent concoction..apparently by a bunch of history revisionists ! Read for yourself..  
  
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

         This isn't the ONLY explanation, just the most convenient. You can Google the word yourself. Nowhere does our Constitution guarantee all those fanciful ideas you have attributed to it !

    One thing the constitutional authors apparently understood very well;..... just leave the individual alone and stay out of his/her life as much as possible.
  The did admit there were certain tasks that only a federal govt. could handle well, national defense, tariffs, certain issues of commerce etc.; but they in no way visualized the overwhelming, smothering federal govt we now have (especially in the past few months)

  They were so concerned with personal freedom that they penned the Bill of Rights. You will note that the Bill of Rights enumerates NO rights granted to the federal gopvt, but rather enumerates rights that must be preserved to INDIVIDUALS...not communities, but INDIVIDUALS !
  Your concern about "community' is very elementary indeed..if individual rights are rigorously defended, the rights of the community will automatically be taken care of.  

I am not debating the "term"  Commutarian is new, I am merely putting forth for discussion that it appears our fore-fathers had a sense of cmmunitarianism when they crafted the document . I also don't believe it's revisionist to suggest there are definitive threads of communitarianism within the constitution . Hence -

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

The Pre-amble also states "promote the general Welfare"
It does not state promote the "individual" welfare .

Additionally ,
The same amendment Montana and Tennessee have cited to pass legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, and the same amendment Arizona has cited to propose a nullification of a national health care system operating in their state , can also be the same amendment other states cite in wanting to co-op their resources to leverage Universal HC . 

[ironglow]

  In simplest terms, I still reiterate; If INDIVIDUAL rights are jealously guarded..community rights are automatically taken care of..

[BBF]

DDZ:
 Perhaps Ted K. would have had to pay out of his own pocket for service in the EU. Now you know that would never even occur to a Politician to pay for anything he can tap taxpayers for it.

[Cabin4]

TM,

None of that over rides the constitution or any previous writing of Jeffferson or any of our other founding fathers. They were completly opposed to a large central government. Just becasue they were followers of Jesus is not licenece to suggest they would contridict those founding pricipals that all wrote about. Their writings and the constitution they formed are just way to clear for anyone to suggest other.

People just need to give up on trying to say that government run health care would have been supported by any of our founding fathers or the constituion. To suggest this is just pure rubbish and completly contridictory to the facts.

All the screw balls and twisting with the community gobbly goop is just another poor attempt to rewrite history and condridict facts. The point about the founding of the TJ U in 1824 is interesting. But since I cannot find anything from Jefferson reputiating his earlier writings or the constitution, we'll just have to stick with the facts.

[scootrd]

Cabin you wrote  -

None of that over rides the constitution or any previous writing of Jeffferson or any of our other founding fathers. They were completly opposed to a large central government.(I agree) Just becasue they were followers of Jesus is not licenece to suggest they would contridict those founding pricipals that all wrote about. Their writings and the constitution they formed are just way to clear for anyone to suggest other. (TM7's questions still stands - since you claim there is no evidence in the Constitution that we can establish a united HC system separate from excessive private or corporate influencial control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is the constitutional evidence that we can not..?


People just need to give up on trying to say that government run health care would have been supported by any of our founding fathers or the constituion. (you are miss quoting me I never said Gov't HC , I said they would most likely not be apposed to universal HC, how it's to be implemented is what is being debated To suggest this is just pure rubbish and completly contridictory to the facts.

Also, a vast majority on both sides of the isle agree for the need of universal HC .. The Republicans would just like the Private sector to control it all. The democrats see the need to give INDIVIDUALS additional more affordable choices. a number of republicans have also stated they blew it for not passing sweeping reform during the past 8 years whne they were the majority.

All the screw balls and twisting with the community gobbly goop is just another poor attempt to rewrite history and condridict facts. (I mearly state and stand by the statement our fore-fathers had a sense of communalism and to ensure securities of such communities ie:states rites they went to great length to protect them) The point about the founding of the TJ U in 1824 is interesting. But since I cannot find anything from Jefferson reputiating his earlier writings or the constitution, we'll just have to stick with the facts. (the statements made by TM7 regarding TJ and his lifes works are correct, well documented  and very accurate)
If you are interested in TJ next time I get to the Library I will post some book titles you may like to read. TJ is a very interesting individual to read about.

[Cabin4]

since you claim there is no evidence in the Constitution that we can establish a united HC system separate from excessive private or corporate influencial control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is the constitutional evidence that we can not..?

Both Section 8 and the 10th amendment of the constitution are all we need to refer to to answer this question. Section 8 defines the powers of congress. I see nothing in here about national health care nor anything that can be conscrewed as such. The 10th amendment defines pwers granted to the states & people. Again, a forced national government run health care system violates both section 8 & the 10th.

Section 8- Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

[billy_56081]

It must be SOP for the socialist liberals to rewrite history, pervert the constitution or straight out lie to promote their agenda 

Health care is not better in Europe, and the constitution has no right to health care in it. Please which ammendment gives you the right to health care.

[scootrd]

So Cabin,
What exactly does the 10th amendment mean to you in your own words?

To me it means if states want to come together and collectively leverage resources to implement anything to enable them to defray costs within the private sector to the betterment of their communities under the 10th amendment they have that rite to do so. HC Co-Op, teachers contracts, the dairy compact, an electric co-op is another .

The unique challenge for the states regarding universal HC are costs and providing a large enough pool of individuals. . Now if the states accept federal funding the Federal Gov't has the rite to determine how the monies are to be spent and how the programs are to be implemented. 

Just like the Auto manaufacturers who lobbied for bailout monies. Under the strict charter you subscribe too. 

 - To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

It was lent for the communal collective common good, and along with acceptance of the monies comes a contract that enforces how the monies may be spent. They didn't have to accept , they could have opted out. Just like the public option, you don't have to accept , you can choose to opt in or out.

TM7's questions still stands - since there is no evidence in the Constitution that the federal Gov't can establish a united HC system separate from excessive private or corporate influencial control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is it constitutionally mandated that the states cannot?

I adopt the position they can under the 10th amendment.
If you disagree then

- Montana and Tennessee don't have a leg to stand on exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations.
- Arizona doesn't have a leg to stand on proposing nullification of a national health care system operating in their state. 

[Dixie Dude]

No one is against universal health care.  Just the way it is implemented.  We don't want the Feds to control everything or to tell the insurance companies how to manage their business.  Insurance allows us to have universal health care.  Some people are too stupid with their money to buy it.  I see young blacks in my area, spend a fortune on big wheels and rims and fancy paint jobs on their cars.  I see their clubs packed out with cars.  They do not know how to manage money unless they get better educated.  They can't get better educated if they have a 50% drop out rate.  The Feds should only help with health care with those below the poverty level which is around the lowest 15%.  Some of my kids will not buy health care where it is provided at their work because they say they are very healthy, which they are, and can use the money elsewhere.  I have told them what about accidents.  They can afford it but won't.  There are a lot of young single people who can get and can afford it, but their priorities are not in order. 

[Cabin4]

So Cabin,
What exactly does the 10th amendment mean to you in your own words?

To me it means if states want to come together and collectively leverage resources to implement anything to enable them to defray costs within the private sector to the betterment of their communities under the 10th amendment they have that rite to do so. HC Co-Op, teachers contracts, the dairy compact, an electric co-op is another .

The unique challenge for the states regarding universal HC are costs and providing a large enough pool of individuals. . Now if the states accept federal funding the Federal Gov't has the rite to determine how the monies are to be spent and how the programs are to be implemented. 

Just like the Auto manaufacturers who lobbied for bailout monies. Under the strict charter you subscribe too. 

 - To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

It was lent for the communal collective common good, and along with acceptance of the monies comes a contract that enforces how the monies may be spent. They didn't have to accept , they could have opted out. Just like the public option, you don't have to accept , you can choose to opt in or out.

TM7's questions still stands - since there is no evidence in the Constitution that the federal Gov't can establish a united HC system separate from excessive private or corporate influencial control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is it constitutionally mandated that the states cannot?

I adopt the position they can under the 10th amendment.
If you disagree then

- Montana and Tennessee don't have a leg to stand on exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations.
- Arizona doesn't have a leg to stand on proposing nullification of a national health care system operating in their state. 

Jefferson warned us about people like you and TM7:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
Section 8 of the Constitution is crystal clear based on the list of areas congress can act on. The purpose of central government was never contemplated for social programs or government mandated health care. If it was, it would be listed there. Doctors and medicine were available at that time so if they wanted to include it, they could have. Since they did not, we must conclude it is NOT.

Your assertion that the 10Th amendments actually support a national health care system is ludicrous. There is NO 50 state consensus that we need a government run national health care system. So on this point alone, it fails the smell test. If there was, each state legislature should have passed a referendum supporting national government run health care. When that happens, you can hold the 10th amendment to test. Until then, it works directly against your assertion.

I completely disagree with respect to TN & MT state exemption. The federal law is in violation of our federal constitution! So TN, MT and any other state are well within the law to exempt federal restrictions if those federal restrictions violate the federal constitution. In any case, Sates have the overriding right to regulate, not the Feds. So your legally wrong here as well.

With respect to Arizona: Yes they can, the feds have no jurisdiction under our federal constitution to mandate health care to begin with. Your just wrong here as well.

[scootrd]

So Cabin,
What exactly does the 10th amendment mean to you in your own words?

To me it means if states want to come together and collectively leverage resources to implement anything to enable them to defray costs within the private sector to the betterment of their communities under the 10th amendment they have that rite to do so. HC Co-Op, teachers contracts, the dairy compact, an electric co-op is another .

The unique challenge for the states regarding universal HC are costs and providing a large enough pool of individuals. . Now if the states accept federal funding the Federal Gov't has the rite to determine how the monies are to be spent and how the programs are to be implemented. 

Just like the Auto manaufacturers who lobbied for bailout monies. Under the strict charter you subscribe too. 

 - To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

It was lent for the communal collective common good, and along with acceptance of the monies comes a contract that enforces how the monies may be spent. They didn't have to accept , they could have opted out. Just like the public option, you don't have to accept , you can choose to opt in or out.

TM7's questions still stands - since there is no evidence in the Constitution that the federal Gov't can establish a united HC system separate from excessive private or corporate influencial control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is it constitutionally mandated that the states cannot?

I adopt the position they can under the 10th amendment.
If you disagree then

- Montana and Tennessee don't have a leg to stand on exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations.
- Arizona doesn't have a leg to stand on proposing nullification of a national health care system operating in their state. 

Jefferson warned us about people like you and TM7:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
Section 8 of the Constitution is crystal clear based on the list of areas congress can act on. The purpose of central government was never contemplated for social programs or government mandated health care. If it was, it would be listed there. Doctors and medicine were available at that time so if they wanted to include it, they could have. Since they did not, we must conclude it is NOT.

Your assertion that the 10Th amendments actually support a national health care system is ludicrous. There is NO 50 state consensus that we need a government run national health care system. So on this point alone, it fails the smell test. If there was, each state legislature should have passed a referendum supporting national government run health care. When that happens, you can hold the 10th amendment to test. Until then, it works directly against your assertion.

I completely disagree with respect to TN & MT state exemption. The federal law is in violation of our federal constitution! So TN, MT and any other state are well within the law to exempt federal restrictions if those federal restrictions violate the federal constitution. In any case, Sates have the overriding right to regulate, not the Feds. So your legally wrong here as well.

With respect to Arizona: Yes they can, the feds have no jurisdiction under our federal constitution to mandate health care to begin with. Your just wrong here as well.

First you didn't answer my question - In your own words what does the 10th amendment mean to you. Your thoughts , not someone else s. I'm truly interested in your thoughts on what this mean to you. also you still haven't answered TM7's question (TM7's question  - since you claim there is no evidence in the Constitution that we can establish a united HC system separate from excessive private or corporate influential control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is the constitutional evidence that we can not..?

Second , it never ceases to astound me how individuals waive the constitution when they are using it for their own gain, or support a given position, yet when others cite it and it threatens your personal beliefs Hippocracy sets in. You cannot have it both ways.
So in your myopic vision and beliefs it's quite alright for AZ to use it to opt out, but not ok for other states to use it to opt in?

Third , you continue to miss-quote me. You have done this repeatedly throughout your postings. Is this your modis opperandi or do you believe if you continue to misquote people long enough you will eventually be able to bury my personal thoughts within your own sub texts. 

I never said the 10th amendment supports HC. I asserted the 10th amendment gives the states the rite and the latitude to  choose to decide for themselves, and if 8-10 states (and you don't need all 50 states, you just need a large enough pool) want to come together (much like a dairy compact) and decide -  yes they want to pool resources and negotiate collectively with Private INS Co's to get a better deal in their states for their communities, they have every rite to do so under the 10 amendment, outside of Federal intervention. Same holds true with Pharma. The states have every rite within the framework of our constitution to collectively bargin on behalf of the citizens they represent with Pharma Co's to do so. Which brings me full circle "The need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole". 

Additionally , extending the 10th amendment train of thought with ones rite to Choose ...
Lets look at the 10th amendment more closely ...

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

So if in your view our state legislators don't have the rite to bargain for us ,( though we elected them to represent us) -- do not the individuals have the rite to Choose? So why not be allowed to choose between a Public option or private INS? is that not a free society? ones rite to choose?.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the huge uptick in INS and HC commercials since the HC bill started being crafted.  I surmise they are feeling very threatened realizing the end to their abusive Imperialistic cash cow ways are numbered and will soon be at an end.

[Cabin4]

So Cabin,
What exactly does the 10th amendment mean to you in your own words?

To me it means if states want to come together and collectively leverage resources to implement anything to enable them to defray costs within the private sector to the betterment of their communities under the 10th amendment they have that rite to do so. HC Co-Op, teachers contracts, the dairy compact, an electric co-op is another .

The unique challenge for the states regarding universal HC are costs and providing a large enough pool of individuals. . Now if the states accept federal funding the Federal Gov't has the rite to determine how the monies are to be spent and how the programs are to be implemented. 

Just like the Auto manaufacturers who lobbied for bailout monies. Under the strict charter you subscribe too. 

 - To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

It was lent for the communal collective common good, and along with acceptance of the monies comes a contract that enforces how the monies may be spent. They didn't have to accept , they could have opted out. Just like the public option, you don't have to accept , you can choose to opt in or out.

TM7's questions still stands - since there is no evidence in the Constitution that the federal Gov't can establish a united HC system separate from excessive private or corporate influencial control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is it constitutionally mandated that the states cannot?

I adopt the position they can under the 10th amendment.
If you disagree then

- Montana and Tennessee don't have a leg to stand on exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations.
- Arizona doesn't have a leg to stand on proposing nullification of a national health care system operating in their state. 

Jefferson warned us about people like you and TM7:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
Section 8 of the Constitution is crystal clear based on the list of areas congress can act on. The purpose of central government was never contemplated for social programs or government mandated health care. If it was, it would be listed there. Doctors and medicine were available at that time so if they wanted to include it, they could have. Since they did not, we must conclude it is NOT.

Your assertion that the 10Th amendments actually support a national health care system is ludicrous. There is NO 50 state consensus that we need a government run national health care system. So on this point alone, it fails the smell test. If there was, each state legislature should have passed a referendum supporting national government run health care. When that happens, you can hold the 10th amendment to test. Until then, it works directly against your assertion.

I completely disagree with respect to TN & MT state exemption. The federal law is in violation of our federal constitution! So TN, MT and any other state are well within the law to exempt federal restrictions if those federal restrictions violate the federal constitution. In any case, Sates have the overriding right to regulate, not the Feds. So your legally wrong here as well.

With respect to Arizona: Yes they can, the feds have no jurisdiction under our federal constitution to mandate health care to begin with. Your just wrong here as well.

First you didn't answer my question - In your own words what does the 10th amendment mean to you. Your thoughts , not someone else s. I'm truly interested in your thoughts on what this mean to you. also you still haven't answered TM7's question (TM7's question  - since you claim there is no evidence in the Constitution that we can establish a united HC system separate from excessive private or corporate influential control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is the constitutional evidence that we can not..?

C4 Answer: The 10th confines the powers of congress. It has the framework and scope of application. If not listed, they cannot act on it. Health care not listed, they have no power to enact.

Second , it never ceases to astound me how individuals waive the constitution when they are using it for their own gain, or support a given position, yet when others cite it and it threatens your personal beliefs Hippocracy sets in. You cannot have it both ways.
So in your small world view it's ok for AZ to use it to opt out, but not ok for other states to use it to opt in?

C4 Answer: I'm citing the constituion correctly. You are twisting the meaning of the constituion. I'm simply pointing out your misrepresentaitons. I will continue to do this based on the answer I gave you above relative to the meaning of the 10th amendment.You cannot ignore this and just continue to try and apply constitutional application.

Third , you continue to miss-quote me. You have done this repeatedly throughout your postings. Is this your modis opperandi or do you believe if you continue to misquote people long enough you will eventually skew their thoughts or bury it within your own sub texts. 

C4 Response: Be more clear going forward with your posts and this is less likely to happen.

I never said the 10th amendment supports HC. I asserted the 10th amendment gives the states the rite and the latitude to decide for themselves, and if 8-10 states (and you don't need all 50 states, you just need a large enough pool) want to come together (much like a dairy compact) and decide yes they want to pool resources and negotiate collectively with Private INS Co's to get a better deal in their states for their communities, they have every rite to do so under the 10 amendment, outside of Federal intervention. Same holds true with Pharma. The states have every rite within the framework of our constitution to collectively bargin on behalf of the citizens they represent with Pharma Co's to do so. Which brings me full circle "The need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole". 

C4 Answer: If a state or states want to come together after state legislation in support of a pooled or cooperative health care option, so beit. As long as that legislation does not violate 1).the states constitution or 2) our federal constitutional, then let them go for it. However, making private insurance illegal is unconstitutional in any and all cases.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the huge uptick in INS and HC commercials since the HC bill started being crafted.  I surmise they are feeling very threatened realizing the end to their abusive Imperialistic cash cow ways are numbered and will soon be at an end.

C4 Response: I would rather have a competitve landscape of private providers maintained as an individual personal choice option then a government mandated non-optional system any day. The governemnt has no business in trying to take over private industry such as car companies or health care.[/color]

[scootrd]

C4 Answer: The 10th confines the powers of congress. It has the framework and scope of application. If not listed, they cannot act on it. Health care not listed, they have no power to enact. (I agree it does) that's the first part..

The second part... is it extends the rites of the states to act independently on all parameters not specifically addressed as those federally outlined  if they so choose.

[Cabin4]

C4 Answer: The 10th confines the powers of congress. It has the framework and scope of application. If not listed, they cannot act on it. Health care not listed, they have no power to enact. (I agree it does) that's the first part..

The second part... is it extends the rites of the states to act independently on all parameters not specifically addressed as those federally outlined  if they so choose.

So we appear to be getting close. Relative to the "second part", if you agree with my assesment on the states ability/scope as I outlined, then we appear to be in complete agreement.

I welcome your potential pending turnaround?

[scootrd]

C4 Answer: The 10th confines the powers of congress. It has the framework and scope of application. If not listed, they cannot act on it. Health care not listed, they have no power to enact. (I agree it does) that's the first part..

The second part... is it extends the rites of the states to act independently on all parameters not specifically addressed as those federally outlined  if they so choose.

So we appear to be getting close. Relative to the "second part", if you agree with my assesment on the states ability/scope as I outlined, then we appear to be in complete agreement.

I welcome your potential pending turnaround?

There is no turn around , I have been consistent from the start.
I stated at the very beginning of this post (go back and read) I was not a proponent of the Gov't HC bill the way it is crafted. Where we differ is I believe the states have the rite to choose any such means necessary (with or without Fed gov't) to provide universal HC  for their states communities.

Where we differ is I believe there should be a public choice. You do not even want to consider offering people the Public option choice.
Your viewpoint (if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me) is , I have mine and can afford it so to heck with everyone else who cannot.
Where my viewpoint is we need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole. And we need to help those who cannot.
I also personally believe the co-op option may be a viable public option that should be explored.
I also believe the 10th amendment provides an individual state or states the rite to enter into a co-op to help those in it's states communities afford.

similar to individuals who are members of a Credit Union vs a Bank.

Credit unions were founded on the idea of members pooling their money and lending to each other. A bank's  (or INS companies) top priority is making profits for stockholders.

[beerbelly]

Just when in the hell did health care get to be a right? You have a right to work and take care of your self.
                                     Beerbelly

[Cabin4]

C4 Answer: The 10th confines the powers of congress. It has the framework and scope of application. If not listed, they cannot act on it. Health care not listed, they have no power to enact. (I agree it does) that's the first part..

The second part... is it extends the rites of the states to act independently on all parameters not specifically addressed as those federally outlined  if they so choose.

So we appear to be getting close. Relative to the "second part", if you agree with my assesment on the states ability/scope as I outlined, then we appear to be in complete agreement.

I welcome your potential pending turnaround?

There is no turn around , I have been consistent from the start.
I stated at the very beginning of this post (go back and read) I was not a proponent of the Gov't HC bill the way it is crafted. Where we differ is I believe the states have the rite choose any such means to provide universal HC including the rite to choose a fed Gov't program if they so choose for their states communities.

Where we differ is I believe there should be a public choice. You do not even want to consider offering people the Public option choice.
Your viewpoint (if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me) is , I have mine so to heck with everyone else.
Where my viewpoint is we need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole.
I also personally believe the co-op option may be a viable public option that should be explored.
I also believe the 10th amendment allows for this rite.   

Lets try this:

Where we differ is I believe there should be a public choice. You do not even want to consider offering people the Public option choice.
C4 Answer: If what you are calling a public choice is via private insurance provider priced at the going rate, then I am okay with this.

Your viewpoint (if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me) is , I have mine so to heck with everyone else.
C4 Answer: My viewpoint is, I have insurance and I am perfectly fine with it. I'm not willing to pay more for it or have my taxes raised or give up my private choice or have my private choice made illegal so someone else can get health care subsidized or not.

Where my viewpoint is we need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole.
I also personally believe the co-op option may be a viable public option that should be explored.
I also believe the 10th amendment allows for this rite.   

C4 Answer: I'm oaky with this as long as my points listed in prior answers above are met.


Reforming health care from a regulatory standpoint to achieve wider coverage for Americans or at a lower cost for more Americans if fine with me. There are shortcomings in the current system that can be rectified to achieve the goals without Uncle Sam taking over. Uncle Sam will not reform anything. He will wreck it.

[DDZ]

DDZ...I believe Ted K is seeking cancer care from Germany, at least in part. The Mayo Clinic is a fine non-profit hospital and should serve as a model for other facilties thru-out the land.


....TM7

I have seen no proof of Teddy getting treatment from Germany. Why would he go there for treatment when thier cancer survuval rates are way lower then here? He had surgery at Duke University Medical Center, and treatment from Cleveland Clinic, and Massachusetts General Hospital.

[scootrd]

I don't know if he is getting treatment in Germany or not but they have had extensive research with the type of cancer he has and
Brain surgeons in Germany are using a technique that lights up tumor tissue with a fluorescent marker were about twice as successful at completely removing malignant glioma tumors compared to other surgeons using conventional surgery. Malignant gliomas are the most common primary brain tumor. Nearly all patients have surgery, where doctors try to determine the edges of the tumor in order to remove as much of it as safely possible. Regardless of the extent of surgery, some tumor cells remain within the brain adjacent to the area of primary tumor removal. Nonetheless, how long patients survive may depend in part on how completely their tumor is removed and thus how likely the cancer is to recur locally. Nearly twice as many patients (90 of 139, or 65 percent ) receiving fluorescence-guided surgery had their tumors completely removed as assessed by the post-operative MRI scan, compared to those who received conventional surgery using white light (47 of 131, or 36 percent). Six months after surgery, 41 percent of those in the fluorescence-guided surgery group had no progression of their tumor, compared to 21 percent of those receiving conventional surgery. The average time to recurrence was 5.1 months for the fluorescence-guided surgery group, compared to 3.6 months for the conventional surgery group.

[Dixie Dude]

From what I have read, Germany's health care system is very similar to ours, or the most close to ours of the Europeans, except they do cover the poor and unemployed until they get jobs, so they have basically universal health care.  They have also done extensive research into alternative medicines like our health food stores and with natural supplements.  They have tried to standardise supplements.  Britains is a joke like France.  Don't know about others. 

[DDZ]

The fluoresant whatever must not work to well because breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the US. If this procedure works as well as you say it does ole Teddy would have been there. He had his surgery done at Duke University Medical Center. If you don’t believe me look it up.
 Something some of you have a hard time believing is that Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all Health care innovations. Since the mid 70’s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most all of the IMPORTANT medical innovations were developed in the US not in Germany or Canada as some would like to believe.
It also seems that people in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. Sound familiar?
The liberal pukes in this country first screw something up, then claim its screwed up, because there is not enough government intervention, (It’s the free market run wild) and then step in and really screw it up in the name of reform.

[nomosendero]

The fluoresant whatever must not work to well because breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the US. If this procedure works as well as you say it does ole Teddy would have been there. He had his surgery done at Duke University Medical Center. If you don’t believe me look it up.
 Something some of you have a hard time believing is that Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all Health care innovations. Since the mid 70’s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most all of the IMPORTANT medical innovations were developed in the US not in Germany or Canada as some would like to believe.
It also seems that people in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. Sound familiar?
The liberal pukes in this country first screw something up, then claim its screwed up, because there is not enough government intervention, (It’s the free market run wild) and then step in and really screw it up in the name of reform.

Good point about the breast cancer in Ger, I know that's true.  I saw some top Canadian Med. gurus last nite admit their system sucks.

[billy_56081]

All, I mean ALL wealthy foreigners come to the Mayo clinic in Rochester MN for treatment. No matter what lies the HHHcare socialists tell you they know that this is true.

[scootrd]

The fluoresant whatever must not work to well because breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the US. If this procedure works as well as you say it does ole Teddy would have been there. He had his surgery done at Duke University Medical Center. If you don’t believe me look it up.
 Something some of you have a hard time believing is that Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all Health care innovations. Since the mid 70’s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most all of the IMPORTANT medical innovations were developed in the US not in Germany or Canada as some would like to believe.
It also seems that people in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. Sound familiar?
The liberal pukes in this country first screw something up, then claim its screwed up, because there is not enough government intervention, (It’s the free market run wild) and then step in and really screw it up in the name of reform.

Wow that flew in from out of left field. I don't believe anyone was puke-ing on anything , I said I didn't know , but with the particular cancer TK has Germany has made some advances and are using some alternative methods, apparently with better than average success. For all I know the Mayo clinic or any U.S hospital may be using the same technology they have been testing in Germany . Man some guys will twist anything to bring the term liberal into any conversation. No one said anything derogatory about the care TK is getting if he is being treated in the U.S. I don't know where he is getting his care and frankly don't care. I wish anyone with cancer success no matter where they are receiving their treatment. Kind of a strange comment to make.

[ironglow]

  TM;
  Your post #210..last paragraph....
     Our nation's founders were intelligent enough to place in the Constitution what was necessary and appropriate. They obviously saw no need to place in context any mention that stealing, murder, lying, torture, arson etc were wrong and they certainly were disinclined to list infanticide as murder, since all these thing are "natural law" and are quite obviously wrong and ugly, without even mentioning the fact.
 They were very wise men.

  Scooterd;
      Why are you driven to promote "communalism" ? Sure, most live in communities, most respect their neighbors' life, liberty, religion and privacy etc, but, to use an old Texas term , are you "eat up" with it. Communalism, commutarianism and so forth..you appear to be consumed by it; you sound like a little lost boy in search of a communal mother to take him in her arms and chase away the boogie man.

[DDZ]

Scootrd, It seems to me that you were indicating and insinuating that TK may have been treated in Germany. Also you went on a rant about how Germany has a better treatment for cancer then here.
What I was saying is that if the treatment worked better in Germany, someone with TK’s resources and money would have had it done there. All through this discussion you seem to say one thing then when you are confronted with what you seemed to say, you come back and say “oh I didn’t mean that” Maybe you need to make yourself a bit more understood in the first place. Case in point. Back on post 153 you said “this is my last post on this thread. Have at it. I will seek HC discussions else ware.” What did you mean by this statement?

It also seems that you took the liberal puke statement to be directed at you. It was not. It was just a statement how the liberals in general, and government screw something up, and blame it on something else so they can screw it up some more. Just like HC. Government has screwed our HC up, even though its still the best in the world. Now they want to ruin it.

A couple of questions for you scootrd, just to clear things up. Do you want government to reform our health care system? A simple yes or no will suffice. What I mean by reform is government doing anything at all, besides removing laws to let the free market work.
Also, who did you vote for in the presidential election? Please be truthful. I was just wondering because I saw that you gave Obama an undue pat on the back in your post #153.  

[billy_56081]

Well TM why I would imagine you would want to shut down the Mayo, after all you were telling everyone Europes medical care is better. It is scary how the liberal socialists will lie and talk out of both sides of their face to try to push their agenda.


So come on liberal socialist liars, whu do the weathiest people in the worl all come to the Mayo clinic in Rochester MN for healthcare? Are they coming because the healthcare is substandard to your claims of the European system? Well come on I want to hear why this is? Or are you just liars?

[DDZ]

  TM;
  Your post #210..last paragraph....
     Our nation's founders were intelligent enough to place in the Constitution what was necessary and appropriate. They obviously saw no need to place in context any mention that stealing, murder, lying, torture, arson etc were wrong and they certainly were disinclined to list infanticide as murder, since all these thing are "natural law" and are quite obviously wrong and ugly, without even mentioning the fact.
 They were very wise men.
 

Exactly IG.   When reading the constitution you kind of need to know what kind of character the formers had, and what kind of men they were.  Just as reading the Bible you need to know God's character to understand it.

[powderman]

tm. What kind of health care do you have in your country??? Govt subsidized, or private. POWDERMAN. 

[Cabin4]

BTW,,,where in the Constitution does it say that all Americans must be forced to support so-called private sector high costs 'intermediaries' when it comes to HC options..? 

..TM7

It does not say that and for good reason. The constitution defines the role of government and the rights for its citizens. The framers stayed out of the free markets and for good reason, they new government would ruin it.