Obama Care summerised

[ironglow]

IG...so from your point of view the Framers and Constitution allow for protection and care of the unborn, but the born, breathing, and walking around can all go to hell. OKay....interesting.

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..?  This means all state owned hospitals and non-profit HC institutions, like the vaunted and excellent Mayo Clinic, should be shut down. Unlikely, since the Framer's constructed the charters long before capitalism and socialism became commonly used opposing constructs....they perferred doing what worked best I reckon.

The Kennedy's have conferred around the world to try to save Uncle Teddy.

..TM7

  TM;
   In your first sentence, ""but the born, breathing and walking around can go to hell"..those are your words, not mine. I made no such suggestion,  obviously your imagination is in high gear. On the other hand, I don't think the govt should be involved in "babysitting" adults either.

   The most important things govt can be doing for the "born, breathing and walking around" are; to stay out of their lives and pockets.
 
   Your second paragraph;
   Nobody is "forced" to buy insurance..We who pay premiums for insurance are in a group where all pay premiums also. If this socialist govt's program goes into effect, we will not only be paying our opwn premiums but we all will be paying premiums for equally healthy persons who have been life-long freeloaders.

[billy_56081]

"I have always praised the performance and setup of the Mayo Clinic, which I posted  several months ago as exemplary, and which Ezkiel E. and Obama have also claimed in the famous New Yorker article that they gave Congress to read. So inspite of your self-appointed role as stink stirrer, I and just about everybody else like the Mayo very much"


But TM again you are talking out of both sides of your face. Before you were saying that Europe has better health care. How can they have anything better than the Mayo which is the best?

Obviously you are either just trying to be a contrairian to the majority in America. If everyone were for this your silly made up screen persona would be against it. Do you talk this ignorantly in person to others? I would imagine if you do you get alot of people giving  you the scoffing laugh. You know the one where the eyes roll when they laugh at you.



And no TM Cabin is not an antisemite like yourself. He has never been on here praising the attacks on Israel and the killing of Israelis, like you do constantly. TM you know you have became world famous for your catch phrase " the Jews did it".

[Cabin4]

  Cabin...So, the Constitution doesn't say we MUST do everything according to Cabin's concept of free enterprise or private sector designs,,,but you allude that this must be the case since they don't directly address this. But according to DDZ's incite into considering background, the FRamer's created the Charters within the colonial or communal period. Given the fact that we all know how they cleared land, built barns, harvested crops, created a militia, etc. it is hard to believe that they would despise co-operative or collective efforts as well. So does this mean we can consider all means of solving a problem, going weither way, or are we restricted..?


...TM7  

TM7,

Do you bielieve that we are designed to be a nation of laws and do you support this as the concept we should continue?

[jimster]

Since the main headlines in our paper today are saying our leaders underestimated the debt by two trillion,  I would not think at this point it matters what we think we should or should not do...there is no way to pay for anything anyway.  The only logical choice would be for government to not do anything at all unless it was strickly some kind of reform without any money being put anywhere at all.  They are not wise enough or smart enough to pass such legislation, nor are they to be trusted with legislation at this point either. 

Logically at this point...there is nothing the government should be doing at all with being so far into debt and nothing to show for any of it.  There is no money.  Their estimations on cost are not to be trusted anyways...two trilllion off in calculations shows us all they can't handle money or responsibility.

Jim

[Cabin4]

Since the main headlines in our paper today are saying our leaders underestimated the debt by two trillion,  I would not think at this point it matters what we think we should or should not do...there is no way to pay for anything anyway.  The only logical choice would be for government to not do anything at all unless it was strickly some kind of reform without any money being put anywhere at all.  They are not wise enough or smart enough to pass such legislation, nor are they to be trusted with legislation at this point either. 

Logically at this point...there is nothing the government should be doing at all with being so far into debt and nothing to show for any of it.  There is no money.  Their estimations on cost are not to be trusted anyways...two trilllion off in calculations shows us all they can't handle money or responsibility.

Jim

 So this will be a huge contradiction for the proponents of government run health care. They have claimed all along that the costs of care will decrease under a national public option. SO how can this be that a rising deficit is a barrier to national public health care? In fact, Obama’s plan for a national plan should lower costs and help lower the deficit, correct???

The fact is that Obama, his cronies and cover agents are a group of 100% pure purveyors of lies and deceit. That’s why they are not out promoting their health care plan as a combating action for the deficit. Because it will add to the deficit. This is a huge contradiction that the press will never point out.

Our taxes will rise, our quality of care will decrease and the deficit will rise under a national plan. The Axis of Evil could care less, because this is nothing about health care, it’s all about control and socialization.

[scootrd]

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.  

Hi DDZ, Here ya Go..

With Regards to previous posts
First, some clarification regarding your post: I didn't rant anything, I didn't say Germany was better, I said they have been concentrating on this one particular method for treating this one particular type of cancer , with better than average success rates. I'm sure there findings have been published and I'm sure if it advances treatment the U.S has probably adopted it. I don't think Medical advances are specific or proprietary to one country or another . It's not like if we develop treatment here we don't share our advances with the world at large and vice versa.

Second , If I said "I didn't mean that" in any one of my posts , it was in the context of correcting Cabin4. Time and time again  I have had to continually correct him as he consistently miss-quotes me over and over again in his responses. He reads what I write and then providing feedback would twist my words.

Third , Obama does deserve a pat on the back here, as well as everyone else who supports veterans , dem, rep, or anyone else ) , In context I was pointing out to Cabin4 Hypocrisy sits on both sides of the isle - John McCain continually cites his great record supporting veterans yet continuously votes against bills that would help veterans like the GI bill. Obama supported the GI bill. He deserves a pat and McCain should be ashamed.

With Regards to what I Believe
I prescribe to the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. 
Both staunch supporters of States Rights and the Social Compact.
Both believed in Promoting the General Welfare.

With regards to states rights:
"The federal Union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions"

"Every state has a natural right in cases not within the compact .to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits"

"That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracy, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

With regards to the Social Compact :
Jefferson and Madison believed we had moral obligations to others we are not at liberty to disregard. Madison expected the people to exert their rightful influence, but differing slightly from Jefferson, Madison wanted them to do so through their elected representatives, and in the last resort, through the amendment power set out in the Constitution.

"Although the purpose of legitimate Government  is to protect the rights of the individual, individuals by nature are social beings and not "unencumbered selves" As such they have no rights that conflict with social duties".

With Reference to interpreting the Constitution
Madison and Jefferson agreed that a narrow literalism would render the government inoperable. Jefferson even argued with Madison writing from Paris at the time. The  constitution should be ratified every 20 years. Madison corresponding back pushed for restraint. There were many writings and debates over whether the next generation should be even bound by a previous generations Constitution or should they write or ratify their own.

“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind, “As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstance, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Thomas Jefferson

IMO The Constitution wasn't meant to remain static. As strict constructionists Argue  -  and all persons rights are not listed in the constitution or the bill of rights as Madison notably acknowledged. That is why He crafted the 9th Amendment.

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

So what does this mean?

Some states objected to adopting the original 1787 constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. Supporters of the constitution pledged that a bill of rights would be added. Two years later congress met to deal with this matter. Debates ensued in which some people argued that a bill of rights would be unnecessary because the government was already limited by enumerated powers, which limits constituted a bill of rights, and that it would be dangerous because it could not possibly enumerate all of the rights that the people retained. Others argued that without it the powers delegated to the government would be expanded so as to reduce those rights. James Madison came up with additional language in an effort to keep the possible harm of trying to name all the specific rights from becoming a problem. He added the ninth and tenth amendments.

My point here is  -
In order for Liberty to remain vibrant , a nation must move ahead with the times on hand, and wrestle through each generations challenges.  Because as so noted By Madison The Father of our constitution and the bill of Rights, He knew they could not possibly list them all, nor did they believe the constitution should remain static from generation to generation. 

With regards to your specific questions
Do I want reform  -  Yes
Do I want Federal Gov't to reform our Health system ? No not necessarily
However,  I have been very consistent , I am saying a large scale, collective effort to reform health care is not wrong. At present what is being proposed places much control in the hands of our Federal Gov't and not enough control at state or individual level. A public option of some sort would provide individual choice, and therefore I am not opposed to it. I also feel a Public option would force INS Co's to start playing fair. If your counting on them to regulate themselves don't hold your breath. Their sole goal is to make money for their shareholders.

Now , Do I want states to collectively look into leveraging resources as alternative ways to provide Universal HC coverage - yes 100%  I believe HC Co-op's are the way to go. Join if you want , stay away if you want (just like a credit union vs a Bank)

TM7's question is a very valid one and 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 influential control (which was amply warned The Founders), where is it constitutionally mandated that the states cannot? I refer you back to the 9th and 10th Amendment.

Every Generation has their own unique set of challenges they must face as Jefferson was fully aware of  -  I suggest based on the writings of Madison and Jefferson regarding their position on states rights and specific rights, our founding fathers  Specifically Madison and Jefferson would not be apposed moving a HC debate forward and having our congressional representatives wrestle with it, as they are doing now.

I think if they were still alive today they would be kicking back over some beer having a big laugh right now saying  ' we were just a bunch of guys who did the best we could with what we had at the time trying to create a country and a Gov't at the same time. So let the  congressional leaders of the day wrestle with if HC is a right or not. That's their Job.

IMO ..That's what I believe Madison and Jefferson would want them to do.


 -  Does this provide the clarity you sought?

[ironglow]

  If the admin presently in DC (and previous admins) truly wanted to do some good things, they could save enough money to do many good things if they would :

 1) Institute tort reform across the board..a $4 million award for spilling coffee in one's own lap is out of line, as are many settlements in and out of the medical field.
 2) Quit spending billions to protect some strange pollywog in a remote stream somewhere, that is due to go extinct anyway.
 3) Save time, money, and expense by not falling for the "global warming" myth and it's costly measures. We have been in a global cooling cycle for some 11 years now, so perhaps we had best emit more CO2 rather trhan less..just to stabalize the weather.
 4) Save the millions they throw away on the "national endowment for the arts"  . As an artist, I can tell you it is a pure waste, just a subsidy for depravity and waste.
 5) Institute term limits..to avoid corruption in office.
 6) Ouytlaw lobbyists and political connections to lobbyists.
 7) Legislate that no relative of a politician can contract with the govt.
  No free foreign travel for politicians except on business, and then not with family or friends.
 9) Outlaw "earmarks".
 10) cut foreign aid to unfriendly nations.
 11) The US out of the UN..
 12) The UN out of the US.
13) Make the US energy independent..not dependent upon the unfriendly nations.
14) Cut taxes on the industrial base..bring industries back.
15) Cut taxes across the board..enliven our economy.
 16) Shun "pork barrel" spenders for the pigs they are..

  ..And that is only a 16 point starter...I know you can add to the list...

[nomosendero]

Ironglow, that would be a good start indeed.

[Cabin4]

Our government should just absolve itself. Lets start a new. What a nightmare.

[Cabin4]

Cabin...yes I believe in the rule of just law justly applied. I support review of Law, and writing and unwriting of Law insofar that it does not wonder from the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, Dec of Inp, or the New Covenant.

..TM7

Then show me were in the constitution you find that Health Care is the role of the federal government and within the powers of congress? Let me help you, you won’t find it. SO if you believe in the rule of law and that we are a nation of laws, you must conclude that a mandated government single payer run health care system is blatantly unconstitutional.

Section 10 set the barriers of Congress's Power. The framers set barriers with purposfull intenet. It was to directly limit & confine their power. This said, you cannot take the posistion that if its not listed as an excluision, then its fair game for congress to act. WRONG. If its not listed in the 1oth, they have no power to act and that power/discretion is reserved for each individual state. PERIOD.

[billy_56081]

So TM which is better, the health systen in Europe or the Mayo clinic in Rochester MN?

And TM how about you answer the question about where you live? Are you hiding something? I am not.

[scootrd]

TM7 you wrote
Scootrd.....so, I guess that means we citizens can do whatever it takes to make our citizen's lives better, freer, and healthier; without constraints of status quo dogma or dichotomous economic theories. And when we fail we can try again, and when programs stop working we can amend or create anew....and the Constitution says so; indeed mandates we repell tyranny from all quarters; just like Tom J said... Wink

My Reply: Yes.  Under amendment 9 I believe Madison and Jefferson provided the latitude for each generation has the right (actually the duty) to do just what our Country is doing now. Debate , discuss, decide.

Cabin

You wrote
Then show me were in the constitution you find that Health Care is role of the federal government and within the powers of congress? Let me help you, you won’t find it. SO if you believe in the rule of law and that we are a nation of laws, you must conclude that a mandated government single payer run health care system is blatantly unconstitutional.

Section 10 set the barriers of Congress's Power. The framers set barriers with purposfull intenet. It was to directly limit & confine their power. This said, you cannot take the posistion that if its not listed as an excluision, then its fair game for congress to act. WRONG. If its not listed in the 1oth, they have no power to act and that power/discretion is reserved for each individual state. PERIOD.

My reply:

Amendment 10 specifically Limited the role of Federal Gov't , It did not set the barriers of congressional debate to decide whether laws should be enacted or rights expanded or extended to the peoples.  Our fore fathers went a step further to state anything not stated is to be given to the states or the people. In other words they opted on the side of Liberty for each generation of the states and the peoples to decide for themselves) because they knew they could not capture all rights in a single document.

So state representatives and the people are deciding now exactly as intended, Additionally as I already pointed out Madison allowed for Just this type of discourse and debate with amendment 9 and 10. Jefferson and Madison believed we had moral obligations to others we are not at liberty to disregard. Madison expected the people to exert their rightful influence, but differing slightly from Jefferson, Madison wanted them to do so through their elected representatives, and in the last resort, through the amendment power set out in the Constitution.

"Although the purpose of legitimate Government  is to protect the rights of the individual, individuals by nature are social beings and not "unencumbered selves" As such they have no rights that conflict with social duties".


Strict constructionists somehow refuse to acknowledge Our fore-fathers viewed our constitution as a living document to be amended by each generation as society advanced and challenges arose. Again to quote Jefferson, (Jefferson was actually even more radical at the time and wanted the constitution reviewed and voted on every 20 years. Madison felt it was impraticle if they were ever going to get a new Gov't and country off the ground.  THat's why he pushed for the exercise to allow the Constitution to be amended rather than going through a whole new vote every 20 years.

“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind, “As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstance, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Thomas Jefferson

In other words the next generation should not be bound by the decisions of the previous generation. (god don't share this with the kids, I already get the you can't tell me what to do crap from time to time. sigh teenagers 

BTW - where in the constitution does it say you have Miranda rights? ,
I could go on Cabin ,  but you get my point. Societies advance , Laws are made.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[DDZ]

Our Constitution was written by men of Christian faith, who held dear God’s principles. Does anyone really think that they envisioned a Government that was the giver of everything? Even though most everything was meant to be left to the states and its people. State governments can be every bit as corrupt as the federal Government. No need to look any further then here in Pa., if you want to see a corrupt state Government.   

  Benjamin Rush who was seen as one of the three most notable men in America, along with Ben Franklin and George Washington, said “I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a divine providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testaments.” If this statement by Rush doesn’t show what kind of  character the framers had, then none will.   

How often do we hear from the Obama administration, and other supporters of the HC bill that it’s the insurance companies fault. Insurance companies are just doing what any business does, and that’s make money. If you want them to play fair, create competition. Insurance companies are a partial monopoly because they are protected by government regulation. One big company will control 80 percent of the market in some states. Most of the high cost for insurance could be fixed if the federal law was ended allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. This would give people a choice and end the partial monopolies, and create competition among insurance companies, which would reduce costs. Its about that simple thing called capitalism. But since we have a liberal sect that thinks capitalism is evil, we get government regulation too stop it. 

If you want your state to provide universal health care you are free to petition your congressmen in the state you live in, for free health care.

Scootrd, I don’t believe for one minute that the majority of the framers wanted a constitution that changed with the times. They meant it to be written in stone. If we had a living Constitution then a corrupt government like we have now would be able to amend it to their liking. It was written as is, so tyranny could not seep in, and I believe 100% that its to stay as is.  Saying that the Constitution should change with the times, would be like saying, God’s word should change with the times. 

[scootrd]

Scootrd, I don’t believe for one minute that the majority of the framers wanted a constitution that changed with the times. They meant it to be written in stone. If we had a living Constitution then a corrupt government like we have now would be able to amend it to their liking. It was written as is, so tyranny could not seep in, and I believe 100% that its to stay as is.  Saying that the Constitution should change with the times, would be like saying, God’s word should change with the times. 

Wanna Bet ? How much money ya got???

You need to go read the letters between Jefferson and Madison while Jefferson was in Paris.
There was a huge discussion about it. Jefferson wanted the People to vote every 20 years. Understand Madison felt the "common"
 man was best served by educated people in Government. Madison won out for practical purposes, instead pushing for Ratification of amendments through legislation.

[billy_56081]

Obviously we have 2 side here, one the parasites who want socialism and one the decent working people who want capitalism. I will take the capitalism as our country was meant to be. For those of you who want a poorer socalist system, leave. You are the constitutional traitors who hate and want to change America, hey no one is keeping you here. We decent constituton following people don't want you here. THere are plenty of socialist countrys out there pick one and go. I'm sick of the agruing with the lazy that want some of what I worked for and earned from me. You are nothing but parasites, the parasitic scum is killing the host as we speak.

[scootrd]

Obviously we have 2 side here, one the parasites who want socialism and one the decent working people who want capitalism. I will take the capitalism as our country was meant to be. For those of you who want a poorer socalist system, leave. You are the constitutional traitors who hate and want to change America, hey no one is keeping you here. We decent constituton following people don't want you here. THere are plenty of socialist countrys out there pick one and go. I'm sick of the agruing with the lazy that want some of what I worked for and earned from me. You are nothing but parasites, the parasitic scum is killing the host as we speak.

It's not socialist to state the Democratic - republican Party (of which Madison and Jefferson were a part of, Actually Madison started off as a Federalist, but jefferson helped him see the light  ) is working today exactly as it was intended to when the Constitution was first scribed pen to paper. Our Gov't is doing exactly as intended. Debate , discuss, and amend or grant if it is determined to be the direct course of action. My argument is , It is more a states rights issue and a peoples majority than a federal issue, (but that is why each state has elected officials to represent us common man (exactly what Madison intended) . Societies change and progress (Just as Jefferson states), I believe we do need some sort of reform, and my personal belief is CO-op is the way to go. Opt in if you want , stay out if you don't. Cost you nothing if your not a member. Which reminds me I need to go to my credit union today. you know the place where I am a member by choice. And they don't suck my money dry like the Capitalistic banks.

Just a bit of history , for those who like to read,
Before Our Constitution today there was the Articles of Confederation "The original Constitution"
The articles of confederation gave State Govt even more authorities than the at that time the "proposed" Constitution we have now have did. . Anti-federalists were up in Arms over the new constitution. because it presented the Federal Gov't with even more Authority than the states  -  (hence the reason "The bill of rights was written" ) to quell the concerns of the Anti-federalists.

[billy_56081]

TM as far as anyone knows you do not live here. I live in Southern MN, where do you live? Or do you have something to hide? What was your old screen name again?


I have what I have earned, I do not want to be a parasite like you guys do.

[Cabin4]

Scootrd,

I'm sorry but your just wrong in that assesment. If you agree that the powers not granted to congress are preserved for the states, then lets let the states decide. This is NOT what happening now as you explain. Congress is over reaching in direct violation of the constitution. If a state wants to propose a public option they can have that debate at the state level. In any case, any public option should not be funded or sunsidized with tax payer funds. Any program that is, will undercut the private options which is a role that government should never take.

[scootrd]

Scootrd,

I'm sorry but your just wrong in that assesment. If you agree that the powers not granted to congress are preserved for the states, then lets let the states decide. This is NOT what happening now as you explain. Congress is over reaching in direct violation of the constitution. If a state wants to propose a public option they can have that debate at the state level. In any case, any public option should not be funded or sunsidized with tax payer funds. Any program that is, will undercut the private options which is a role that government should never take.

It's not powers granted to Congress , It's powers granted to Federal Gov't ,
Congress is where this issue needs to be decided because they are the representatives of the states.
It;s our leguislative bodies that determine what is granted to Fed Gov't or not.
 
Now whether they(congress) determines The Fed Gov't should have a role in HC reform is really the first
debate that should have taken place,  prior to any Bill being even put forth for consideration. 

[scootrd]

What is your opinion of this?

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

    * The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
    * The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
    * The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
    * The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
    * The right of every family to a decent home;
    * The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
    * The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
    * The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

[Cabin4]

Scootrd,

I'm sorry but your just wrong in that assesment. If you agree that the powers not granted to congress are preserved for the states, then lets let the states decide. This is NOT what happening now as you explain. Congress is over reaching in direct violation of the constitution. If a state wants to propose a public option they can have that debate at the state level. In any case, any public option should not be funded or sunsidized with tax payer funds. Any program that is, will undercut the private options which is a role that government should never take.

It's not powers granted to Congress , It's powers granted to Federal Gov't ,
Congress is where this issue needs to be decided because they are the representatives of the states.
It;s our leguislative bodies that determine what is granted to Fed Gov't or not.
 
Now whether they(congress) determines The Fed Gov't should have a role in HC reform is really the first
debate that should have taken place,  prior to any Bill being even put forth for consideration. 

Scootrd,

Wrong again. Read the constitution. Section 8 is titled "Powers of Congress". Members of congress represent the states interest at the federal level for those powers afforded to them under section 8. Powers not afforded congress under section 8, are only afforded to the individual state legislatures. Our congress is clearly over stepping. This action to produce a national solution forced upon the states by congress is clearly unconstitutional.

A number of states if you remember used this totally valid argument to reject money from Obama's fake $850b stimulus plan. Their argument was that when the stimulus money runs out, the states would be forced to raise state taxes to continue the programs seed-funded by the federal stimulus plan. Again, this stimulus is clearly unconstitutional and the states have every right to reject the money due to the over-reaching strings attached.

Unconstitutional. Plain & Simple.




 

[scootrd]

Scootrd,

I'm sorry but your just wrong in that assesment. If you agree that the powers not granted to congress are preserved for the states, then lets let the states decide. This is NOT what happening now as you explain. Congress is over reaching in direct violation of the constitution. If a state wants to propose a public option they can have that debate at the state level. In any case, any public option should not be funded or sunsidized with tax payer funds. Any program that is, will undercut the private options which is a role that government should never take.

It's not powers granted to Congress , It's powers granted to Federal Gov't ,
Congress is where this issue needs to be decided because they are the representatives of the states.
It;s our leguislative bodies that determine what is granted to Fed Gov't or not.
 
Now whether they(congress) determines The Fed Gov't should have a role in HC reform is really the first
debate that should have taken place,  prior to any Bill being even put forth for consideration. 

Scootrd,

Wrong again. Read the constitution. Section 8 is titled "Powers of Congress". Members of congress represent the states interest at the federal level for those powers afforded to them under section 8. Powers not afforded congress under section 8, are only afforded to the individual state legislatures. Our congress is clearly over stepping. This action to produce a national solution forced upon the states by congress is clearly unconstitutional.

A number of states if you remember used this totally valid argument to reject money from Obama's fake $850b stimulus plan. Their argument was that when the stimulus money runs out, the states would be forced to raise state taxes to continue the programs seed-funded by the federal stimulus plan. Again, this stimulus is clearly unconstitutional and the states have every right to reject the money due to the over-reaching strings attached.

Unconstitutional. Plain & Simple.




 

I will go back and re-read.

However how does that meld with

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[billy_56081]

What is your opinion of this?

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

    * The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
    * The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
    * The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
    * The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
    * The right of every family to a decent home;
    * The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
    * The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
    * The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

WTH is that the parasite Bill of Rights? Dude you are just like the fools in that story we all read in school, Animal farm. Where did you get this sick ideology? You and your commrade Lennon need to stay a sad mistake of history and have no place in the real world.

[scootrd]

What is your opinion of this?

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

    * The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
    * The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
    * The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
    * The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
    * The right of every family to a decent home;
    * The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
    * The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
    * The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

WTH is that the parasite Bill of Rights? Dude you are just like the fools in that story we all rad in school, Animal farm. Where did you get this sick ideology? You and your commrade Lennon need to stay a sad mistake of history and have no place in the real world.

Billy, your the one who is foolish  It's not my Ideology.. I didn't write it.  I asked everyone's opinion of it. (I guess we know yours already)
It's called the Economic Bill Of Rights (sometimes referred to as the Second bill of rights.
It was written by Franklin Delano Roosevelt , January 11, 1944

[billy_56081]

"It's called the Economic Bill Of Rights (sometimes referred to as the Second bill of rights.
It was written by Franklin Delano Roosevelt , January 11, 1944"


FDR well, I would say most do say he was a communist. I think you just backed up my marxist theory of your sick ideology. Are you so lost in the red propaganda that you know no better?

[Cabin4]

Scootrd,

I'm sorry but your just wrong in that assesment. If you agree that the powers not granted to congress are preserved for the states, then lets let the states decide. This is NOT what happening now as you explain. Congress is over reaching in direct violation of the constitution. If a state wants to propose a public option they can have that debate at the state level. In any case, any public option should not be funded or sunsidized with tax payer funds. Any program that is, will undercut the private options which is a role that government should never take.

It's not powers granted to Congress , It's powers granted to Federal Gov't ,
Congress is where this issue needs to be decided because they are the representatives of the states.
It;s our leguislative bodies that determine what is granted to Fed Gov't or not.
 
Now whether they(congress) determines The Fed Gov't should have a role in HC reform is really the first
debate that should have taken place,  prior to any Bill being even put forth for consideration. 

Scootrd,

Wrong again. Read the constitution. Section 8 is titled "Powers of Congress". Members of congress represent the states interest at the federal level for those powers afforded to them under section 8. Powers not afforded congress under section 8, are only afforded to the individual state legislatures. Our congress is clearly over stepping. This action to produce a national solution forced upon the states by congress is clearly unconstitutional.

A number of states if you remember used this totally valid argument to reject money from Obama's fake $850b stimulus plan. Their argument was that when the stimulus money runs out, the states would be forced to raise state taxes to continue the programs seed-funded by the federal stimulus plan. Again, this stimulus is clearly unconstitutional and the states have every right to reject the money due to the over-reaching strings attached.

Unconstitutional. Plain & Simple.




 

I will go back and re-read.

However how does that meld with

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Articale 5 outlines the amendment process. If congreess can muster up the needed 2/3 votes to amend the constituion, then it can be amended. Articale 5 does not address legislation, only constitutional amedments. In any case, no amendment can be constitutional if it violates an exsisting provision. So if congress wanted, they could amend the constituion to repeal the exsisting section 8 and repalce it with a new.

[Cabin4]

I think FDR's vision if executed where feasible and within the confines of the constitution it would be fine. We don't need to be the richest or the most powerful or the most influential nation on the planet to have “security”. If Washington would focus on physical security, productive trade arrangements and regulatory issues, we would be just fine. I don't understand the constant and never ending desire of politicians to try and make us rich or provide hand outs. People came here to be left alone and seek living life free from an over reaching and powerful central government. There's no reason why it can't be preserved.

[scootrd]

"It's called the Economic Bill Of Rights (sometimes referred to as the Second bill of rights.
It was written by Franklin Delano Roosevelt , January 11, 1944"


FDR well, I would say most do say he was a communist. I think you just backed up my marxist theory of your sick ideology. Are you so lost in the red propaganda that you know no better?

Billy  -  you are Truly lost if you think most think FDR was a communist -
You really need to brush up on your History. Or at least have dinner with your grand parents more often.
Roosevelt has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems.
He created Works Progress Administration (WPA),
National Recovery Administration (NRA),
and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)
He initiated the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
Introduction of the Social Security system
and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Under his watch US industry Boomed and the U.S had full employment

[billy_56081]

"During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems.
He created Works Progress Administration (WPA),
National Recovery Administration (NRA),
and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)
He initiated the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
Introduction of the Social Security system
and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Under his watch US industry Boomed and the U.S had full employment"



I would bet many nonparastic American would agree, this was the beguinning of socialism in America. Again you back me up in my thoughts of your Marxist leanings. Obviously you know no better, it's not your fault.

[scootrd]

"During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems.
He created Works Progress Administration (WPA),
National Recovery Administration (NRA),
and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)
He initiated the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
Introduction of the Social Security system
and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Under his watch US industry Boomed and the U.S had full employment"



I would bet many nonparastic American would agree, this was the beguinning of socialism in America. Again you back me up in my thoughts of your Marxist leanings. Obviously you know no better, it's not your fault.

Tell ya what , Keep that view , That way you can give back your communist Social security check so it remains more solvant for me when I retire.
And if you ever lose your monies through a failed bank don't ask it to be replaced by the FDIC as it is obviously a communist entity. 
The communistic TVA developed fertilizers, taught farmers how to improve crop yields, and helped replant forests, control forest fires, and improve
habitat for wildlife and fish. The TVA created DAMS and generated communist electricity for thousands.
During WWII without the TVA we could never have built "communist Bombs nor communist Airplanes for the war.
Without the communist SEC we obviously could not enforce communistic federal securities laws and regulate the communistic
securities industry..
I could go on but you get my point. Go have dinner with your grandparents...Please,