What the Left Isn't Telling You About US Healthcare

[Navy1960]

The insurance industry had about 2.3 million wage and salary jobs in 2006. Insurance carriers accounted for 62 percent of jobs, while insurance agencies, brokerages, and providers of other insurance-related services accounted for 38 percent of jobs.

The majority of establishments in the insurance industry were small; however, a few large establishments accounted for many of the jobs in this industry. Insurance carriers tend to be large establishments, often employing 250 or more workers, whereas agencies and brokerages tend to be much smaller, frequently employing fewer than 20 workers (chart 1).

Insurance

According to data from the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), total
automotive employment in the United States increased by 8% from 1991 to 2005 (but by just 4%
since 1990), rising from 1,054,000 workers to 1,098,000. (See chart on following page.)
However, looking only at these end points hides a significant and dramatic downturn that has
decimated the industry since the year 2000. In that year, employment reached a peak of
1,313,600 workers, but the drop from that peak over the ensuing five years to 2005’s level
represents a decline of 16%, with a total loss of 215,500 jobs. The two major halves of the
automotive industry – the parts producing companies and the motor vehicle assembly companies
– show different trends over the long-term, but similar declines in recent years.

http://www.trade.gov/static/auto_reports_jobloss.pdf


Let me see if I understand this correctly now, the 2 plus million people that work in the insurance industry their jobs are somehow not "worthy" because some believe that healthcare should be a right and therefor the jobs of these people should be thrown in the garbage can and then turn around and advocate for another industry because of the same employment issue seem to think it's okay to be selective as long as it fits the agenda.

Hey Navy...YES...health care IS a right...PLEASE give me ONE scenario where any citizen can have the RIGHT to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT his or her health?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Healthcare is an unalienable right , not a right granted to you by the constitution. What you quoted is from the Declaration of Indpenedance.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal - except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)


Your constitution does not give you a "right" to healthcare, rather it gives you the individual the "right" of liberty to decided for yourself what is best for you. In the Declaration of Independance it expresses these rights of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness as moral rights , or those given to you from your creator and thus cannot be taken away from you. In other words it's a basic human freedom that your entitled to that is expressed in the Declaration of Independance. It does not give you however a "right" to healthcare granted to you from the Govt. , what it does do is express the feeling that you have a right to be alive and that right was given to you by your creator, I fail to see how you make the leap that it somehow now give the Govt. proper authority under the constitution to grant you that right. In fact you do realize that the courts have generally held that it has not force of law.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.

However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Legal Lad :: The Declaration of Independence

While your assertion of "life" in conjunction with healthcare is by no means an incorrect one when it comes to a moral standpoint. Under our constitution you have no such right as it applies to healthcare. In fact as I have pointed out several times in here the courts have held that the only Americans actually entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners. This is the primary reason I have long held the opinion that those that are advocates for healthcare as it applies to mandates, and a public option are putting the cart before the horse and should be screaming for a healthcare rights amendment , then if passed this would not be a debate.

 

[Bfgrn]

The insurance industry had about 2.3 million wage and salary jobs in 2006. Insurance carriers accounted for 62 percent of jobs, while insurance agencies, brokerages, and providers of other insurance-related services accounted for 38 percent of jobs.

The majority of establishments in the insurance industry were small; however, a few large establishments accounted for many of the jobs in this industry. Insurance carriers tend to be large establishments, often employing 250 or more workers, whereas agencies and brokerages tend to be much smaller, frequently employing fewer than 20 workers (chart 1).

Insurance

According to data from the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), total
automotive employment in the United States increased by 8% from 1991 to 2005 (but by just 4%
since 1990), rising from 1,054,000 workers to 1,098,000. (See chart on following page.)
However, looking only at these end points hides a significant and dramatic downturn that has
decimated the industry since the year 2000. In that year, employment reached a peak of
1,313,600 workers, but the drop from that peak over the ensuing five years to 2005’s level
represents a decline of 16%, with a total loss of 215,500 jobs. The two major halves of the
automotive industry – the parts producing companies and the motor vehicle assembly companies
– show different trends over the long-term, but similar declines in recent years.

http://www.trade.gov/static/auto_reports_jobloss.pdf


Let me see if I understand this correctly now, the 2 plus million people that work in the insurance industry their jobs are somehow not "worthy" because some believe that healthcare should be a right and therefor the jobs of these people should be thrown in the garbage can and then turn around and advocate for another industry because of the same employment issue seem to think it's okay to be selective as long as it fits the agenda.

Hey Navy...YES...health care IS a right...PLEASE give me ONE scenario where any citizen can have the RIGHT to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT his or her health?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Healthcare is an unalienable right , not a right granted to you by the constitution. What you quoted is from the Declaration of Indpenedance.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal - except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)


Your constitution does not give you a "right" to healthcare, rather it gives you the individual the "right" of liberty to decided for yourself what is best for you. In the Declaration of Independance it expresses these rights of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness as moral rights , or those given to you from your creator and thus cannot be taken away from you. In other words it's a basic human freedom that your entitled to that is expressed in the Declaration of Independance. It does not give you however a "right" to healthcare granted to you from the Govt. , what it does do is express the feeling that you have a right to be alive and that right was given to you by your creator, I fail to see how you make the leap that it somehow now give the Govt. proper authority under the constitution to grant you that right. In fact you do realize that the courts have generally held that it has not force of law.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.

However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Legal Lad :: The Declaration of Independence

While your assertion of "life" in conjunction with healthcare is by no means an incorrect one when it comes to a moral standpoint. Under our constitution you have no such right as it applies to healthcare. In fact as I have pointed out several times in here the courts have held that the only Americans actually entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners. This is the primary reason I have long held the opinion that those that are advocates for healthcare as it applies to mandates, and a public option are putting the cart before the horse and should be screaming for a healthcare rights amendment , then if passed this would not be a debate.

Navy ...that is the longest winded attempt I've ever seen to reinforce John Kenneth Galbraith's astute observation; to justify the right wing agenda...ME, MYSELF and I...

IF your patriotism is based on pieces of parchment and not on citizens of YOUR country, as in "We, the People", then you are totally obtuse to the intent of our founders...

Under our current system, the insurance corporations you want to protect can destroy a person's life because it creates profit and it creates more jobs. It doesn't matter if you pay your premium on time and you have been their most loyal customer...and they can deny you coverage when you are facing the biggest crisis in your life...

It is NOTHING like what our founders envisioned!

The Germans created plenty of "jobs" at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka... go fight for them...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey Navy...YES...health care IS a right...PLEASE give me ONE scenario where any citizen can have the RIGHT to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT his or her health?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Healthcare is an unalienable right , not a right granted to you by the constitution. What you quoted is from the Declaration of Indpenedance.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal - except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)


Your constitution does not give you a "right" to healthcare, rather it gives you the individual the "right" of liberty to decided for yourself what is best for you. In the Declaration of Independance it expresses these rights of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness as moral rights , or those given to you from your creator and thus cannot be taken away from you. In other words it's a basic human freedom that your entitled to that is expressed in the Declaration of Independance. It does not give you however a "right" to healthcare granted to you from the Govt. , what it does do is express the feeling that you have a right to be alive and that right was given to you by your creator, I fail to see how you make the leap that it somehow now give the Govt. proper authority under the constitution to grant you that right. In fact you do realize that the courts have generally held that it has not force of law.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.

However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Legal Lad :: The Declaration of Independence

While your assertion of "life" in conjunction with healthcare is by no means an incorrect one when it comes to a moral standpoint. Under our constitution you have no such right as it applies to healthcare. In fact as I have pointed out several times in here the courts have held that the only Americans actually entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners. This is the primary reason I have long held the opinion that those that are advocates for healthcare as it applies to mandates, and a public option are putting the cart before the horse and should be screaming for a healthcare rights amendment , then if passed this would not be a debate.

Navy ...that is the longest winded attempt I've ever seen to reinforce John Kenneth Galbraith's astute observation; to justify the right wing agenda...ME, MYSELF and I...

IF your patriotism is based on pieces of parchment and not on citizens of YOUR country, as in "We, the People", then you are totally obtuse to the intent of our founders...

Under our current system, the insurance corporations you want to protect can destroy a person's life because it creates profit and it creates more jobs. It doesn't matter if you pay your premium on time and you have been their most loyal customer...and they can deny you coverage when you are facing the biggest crisis in your life...

It is NOTHING like what our founders envisioned!

The Germans created plenty of "jobs" at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka... go fight for them...

I think it's pretty safe to say the founders would not want their government telling them what's "good for them" and then have the privilege of being taxed to pay for the government "good for you" legislation

 

[Bfgrn]

Healthcare is an unalienable right , not a right granted to you by the constitution. What you quoted is from the Declaration of Indpenedance.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal - except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)


Your constitution does not give you a "right" to healthcare, rather it gives you the individual the "right" of liberty to decided for yourself what is best for you. In the Declaration of Independance it expresses these rights of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness as moral rights , or those given to you from your creator and thus cannot be taken away from you. In other words it's a basic human freedom that your entitled to that is expressed in the Declaration of Independance. It does not give you however a "right" to healthcare granted to you from the Govt. , what it does do is express the feeling that you have a right to be alive and that right was given to you by your creator, I fail to see how you make the leap that it somehow now give the Govt. proper authority under the constitution to grant you that right. In fact you do realize that the courts have generally held that it has not force of law.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.

However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Legal Lad :: The Declaration of Independence

While your assertion of "life" in conjunction with healthcare is by no means an incorrect one when it comes to a moral standpoint. Under our constitution you have no such right as it applies to healthcare. In fact as I have pointed out several times in here the courts have held that the only Americans actually entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners. This is the primary reason I have long held the opinion that those that are advocates for healthcare as it applies to mandates, and a public option are putting the cart before the horse and should be screaming for a healthcare rights amendment , then if passed this would not be a debate.

Navy ...that is the longest winded attempt I've ever seen to reinforce John Kenneth Galbraith's astute observation; to justify the right wing agenda...ME, MYSELF and I...

IF your patriotism is based on pieces of parchment and not on citizens of YOUR country, as in "We, the People", then you are totally obtuse to the intent of our founders...

Under our current system, the insurance corporations you want to protect can destroy a person's life because it creates profit and it creates more jobs. It doesn't matter if you pay your premium on time and you have been their most loyal customer...and they can deny you coverage when you are facing the biggest crisis in your life...

It is NOTHING like what our founders envisioned!

The Germans created plenty of "jobs" at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka... go fight for them...

I think it's pretty safe to say the founders would not want their government telling them what's "good for them" and then have the privilege of being taxed to pay for the government "good for you" legislation

NO, it isn't safe at all to say... the government of our founders had NO PROBLEM "telling them what's "good for them""

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/edwards_morgan_corporate.html

 

[Navy1960]

Hey Navy...YES...health care IS a right...PLEASE give me ONE scenario where any citizen can have the RIGHT to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT his or her health?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Healthcare is an unalienable right , not a right granted to you by the constitution. What you quoted is from the Declaration of Indpenedance.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal - except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)


Your constitution does not give you a "right" to healthcare, rather it gives you the individual the "right" of liberty to decided for yourself what is best for you. In the Declaration of Independance it expresses these rights of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness as moral rights , or those given to you from your creator and thus cannot be taken away from you. In other words it's a basic human freedom that your entitled to that is expressed in the Declaration of Independance. It does not give you however a "right" to healthcare granted to you from the Govt. , what it does do is express the feeling that you have a right to be alive and that right was given to you by your creator, I fail to see how you make the leap that it somehow now give the Govt. proper authority under the constitution to grant you that right. In fact you do realize that the courts have generally held that it has not force of law.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.

However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Legal Lad :: The Declaration of Independence

While your assertion of "life" in conjunction with healthcare is by no means an incorrect one when it comes to a moral standpoint. Under our constitution you have no such right as it applies to healthcare. In fact as I have pointed out several times in here the courts have held that the only Americans actually entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners. This is the primary reason I have long held the opinion that those that are advocates for healthcare as it applies to mandates, and a public option are putting the cart before the horse and should be screaming for a healthcare rights amendment , then if passed this would not be a debate.

Navy ...that is the longest winded attempt I've ever seen to reinforce John Kenneth Galbraith's astute observation; to justify the right wing agenda...ME, MYSELF and I...

IF your patriotism is based on pieces of parchment and not on citizens of YOUR country, as in "We, the People", then you are totally obtuse to the intent of our founders...

Under our current system, the insurance corporations you want to protect can destroy a person's life because it creates profit and it creates more jobs. It doesn't matter if you pay your premium on time and you have been their most loyal customer...and they can deny you coverage when you are facing the biggest crisis in your life...

It is NOTHING like what our founders envisioned!

The Germans created plenty of "jobs" at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka... go fight for them...

I'm very secure in the knowledge that the founders of this nation wished every single person to be the masters of their own destiny. In fact, the constitution is very clear in it's meaning that liberty is best served the citizens have the power and not a strong Federal Govt. In fact, I would submit that those that advocate willingly giving freedoms to Govt. in favor of personal comfort are at odds with the original intent of the constitution. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, all of them spoke on this issue and even you and I have debated this in other threads. What you assume though is that I and those that feel as I do have a blanket objection to healthcare coverage and are somehow shills for the insurance insdustry when nothing could be further from the truth. What I advocate is and have from day one on this debate is fixing the actual issues that cause healthcare to rise and do so in a manner where healthcare insurance can be available to anyone that wishes to purchase it. What I advocate is fully within the framework of the commerce clause of our constiution and is not some misunderstood doctrine that the likes of Lenin, Marx, and others have advocated over time. I submit that it is those that advocate healthcare mandated for all lack a clear understanding of our form of Govt. and it's history and have been indoctrinated in the good works of Lenin and have zero understand of the framers original intent that a person and not the collective or the Govt. is where the power of liberty and choice lay. While you may see this as akin to Nazi Germany, I would submit to you, that those advocating this sort of healthcare have more in common than I do.

Now that being said, there are many here that want healthcare reform, there are only a few here though that wish to do so within our form of Govt. and not one that has little if anything in common with the framers intent or our own constitution. While you mah not like the idea of personal liberty, or freedom of choice, or the power of a constitution that is meant to give that power to the people, it is what the framers intended and as such is there for all to see. If you don't think so then I have a suggestion try reading the 10th Amendment as a starting point, or even the 1st., in fact all of them, at one point or another put power in the hands of the people and place limits on the Govt. Again, if you and others wish healthcare as a mandate or a public option then you really should work within it, and stop making suggestions that are out of the intent of our form of Govt.

 

[Chris]

Healthcare is an unalienable right , not a right granted to you by the constitution. What you quoted is from the Declaration of Indpenedance.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal - except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)


Your constitution does not give you a "right" to healthcare, rather it gives you the individual the "right" of liberty to decided for yourself what is best for you. In the Declaration of Independance it expresses these rights of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness as moral rights , or those given to you from your creator and thus cannot be taken away from you. In other words it's a basic human freedom that your entitled to that is expressed in the Declaration of Independance. It does not give you however a "right" to healthcare granted to you from the Govt. , what it does do is express the feeling that you have a right to be alive and that right was given to you by your creator, I fail to see how you make the leap that it somehow now give the Govt. proper authority under the constitution to grant you that right. In fact you do realize that the courts have generally held that it has not force of law.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.

However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Legal Lad :: The Declaration of Independence

While your assertion of "life" in conjunction with healthcare is by no means an incorrect one when it comes to a moral standpoint. Under our constitution you have no such right as it applies to healthcare. In fact as I have pointed out several times in here the courts have held that the only Americans actually entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners. This is the primary reason I have long held the opinion that those that are advocates for healthcare as it applies to mandates, and a public option are putting the cart before the horse and should be screaming for a healthcare rights amendment , then if passed this would not be a debate.

Navy ...that is the longest winded attempt I've ever seen to reinforce John Kenneth Galbraith's astute observation; to justify the right wing agenda...ME, MYSELF and I...

IF your patriotism is based on pieces of parchment and not on citizens of YOUR country, as in "We, the People", then you are totally obtuse to the intent of our founders...

Under our current system, the insurance corporations you want to protect can destroy a person's life because it creates profit and it creates more jobs. It doesn't matter if you pay your premium on time and you have been their most loyal customer...and they can deny you coverage when you are facing the biggest crisis in your life...

It is NOTHING like what our founders envisioned!

The Germans created plenty of "jobs" at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka... go fight for them...

I'm very secure in the knowledge that the founders of this nation wished every single person to be the masters of their own destiny. In fact, the constitution is very clear in it's meaning that liberty is best served the citizens have the power and not a strong Federal Govt. In fact, I would submit that those that advocate willingly giving freedoms to Govt. in favor of personal comfort are at odds with the original intent of the constitution. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, all of them spoke on this issue and even you and I have debated this in other threads. What you assume though is that I and those that feel as I do have a blanket objection to healthcare coverage and are somehow shills for the insurance insdustry when nothing could be further from the truth. What I advocate is and have from day one on this debate is fixing the actual issues that cause healthcare to rise and do so in a manner where healthcare insurance can be available to anyone that wishes to purchase it. What I advocate is fully within the framework of the commerce clause of our constiution and is not some misunderstood doctrine that the likes of Lenin, Marx, and others have advocated over time. I submit that it is those that advocate healthcare mandated for all lack a clear understanding of our form of Govt. and it's history and have been indoctrinated in the good works of Lenin and have zero understand of the framers original intent that a person and not the collective or the Govt. is where the power of liberty and choice lay. While you may see this as akin to Nazi Germany, I would submit to you, that those advocating this sort of healthcare have more in common than I do.

Now that being said, there are many here that want healthcare reform, there are only a few here though that wish to do so within our form of Govt. and not one that has little if anything in common with the framers intent or our own constitution. While you mah not like the idea of personal liberty, or freedom of choice, or the power of a constitution that is meant to give that power to the people, it is what the framers intended and as such is there for all to see. If you don't think so then I have a suggestion try reading the 10th Amendment as a starting point, or even the 1st., in fact all of them, at one point or another put power in the hands of the people and place limits on the Govt. Again, if you and others wish healthcare as a mandate or a public option then you really should work within it, and stop making suggestions that are out of the intent of our form of Govt.

You are "very secure in the knowledge that the founders of this nation wished every single person to be the masters of their own destiny?"

What a crock of shit!

The "founders of this nation" owned slaves, and designated them as being "three fifths of a person" in the Constitution.

Our Capitol building was built by slaves.

We have had a government option for health insurance for 50 years. It's called Medicare.

No, the republic is not going to fall if we stop letting the evil ones deny coverage to the sick and the poor.

 

[Navy1960]

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue.[citation needed] The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.
The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

You really should read a lttie more history Chris before reading from the list of "talking points" provided by your party. Secondly, you need to read my posting and understand it in context rather than try to judge it with those very same talking points. It's called thinking for yourself rather than let others do it for you. The point was, and still is, that our constitution is quite clear where the power in Govt. lay and thats in the hands of the people and the original framers of the constitution were clear on that. Try not to take your 21st century "group think" education and apply it to the 18th century way of life then you may be able to understand it a little more. The 3/5th compromise I need not go into detail on because what I posted speaks for itself and your contention that somehow the constitution is flawed because iof this shows you need to get away from MSNBC, daily KOS, and other places for a little while. Our constitution has the power to change and thats EXACTLY what I have been talking about and thats why that power is in the hands of the people and its only those who have litttle understanding if it that would willingly hand it over.

That Govt. option you speak of Medicare Chris is not a mandated option from the Federal Govt. Chris its original intent was to be a program for Seniors and the disabled . If your using this as an example of Govt. run healthcare you may want to reconsider that, because Medicare is not in the best of shape and is facing insolvancy at the moment.

Your last comment operates from a permise that this is a nation that only some companies should be allowed to operate and others not. If this is so then have the courage of your convictions and advocate for a constitutional amendment and make it a "right". Your contention that these companies are evil somehow doesn't fly with me because these companies have every right to operate under the laws that have been written to make a profit until such time those laws change. While you think it's immoral to make a profit on healthcare , again if you think this you need to change the system. I suspect though that the reason why those that advocate this sort of thing are facing such an uphill climb is because so many are unwilling to throw away liberty for personal comfort.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay, let's discuss health care in industrialized nations,

why not discuss how 5 Capitalist Democracies pay for health care and what the ups and downs of their experiences are? Why rant and rave like a fuckin loser?

 

[Oddball]

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.....

You do realize that you're explaining true historical facts, that get in the way of authoritarian rationalizations for making up their own rules as they go along, don't you??

 

[Bfgrn]

Healthcare is an unalienable right , not a right granted to you by the constitution. What you quoted is from the Declaration of Indpenedance.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal - except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)


Your constitution does not give you a "right" to healthcare, rather it gives you the individual the "right" of liberty to decided for yourself what is best for you. In the Declaration of Independance it expresses these rights of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness as moral rights , or those given to you from your creator and thus cannot be taken away from you. In other words it's a basic human freedom that your entitled to that is expressed in the Declaration of Independance. It does not give you however a "right" to healthcare granted to you from the Govt. , what it does do is express the feeling that you have a right to be alive and that right was given to you by your creator, I fail to see how you make the leap that it somehow now give the Govt. proper authority under the constitution to grant you that right. In fact you do realize that the courts have generally held that it has not force of law.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.

However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Legal Lad :: The Declaration of Independence

While your assertion of "life" in conjunction with healthcare is by no means an incorrect one when it comes to a moral standpoint. Under our constitution you have no such right as it applies to healthcare. In fact as I have pointed out several times in here the courts have held that the only Americans actually entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners. This is the primary reason I have long held the opinion that those that are advocates for healthcare as it applies to mandates, and a public option are putting the cart before the horse and should be screaming for a healthcare rights amendment , then if passed this would not be a debate.

Navy ...that is the longest winded attempt I've ever seen to reinforce John Kenneth Galbraith's astute observation; to justify the right wing agenda...ME, MYSELF and I...

IF your patriotism is based on pieces of parchment and not on citizens of YOUR country, as in "We, the People", then you are totally obtuse to the intent of our founders...

Under our current system, the insurance corporations you want to protect can destroy a person's life because it creates profit and it creates more jobs. It doesn't matter if you pay your premium on time and you have been their most loyal customer...and they can deny you coverage when you are facing the biggest crisis in your life...

It is NOTHING like what our founders envisioned!

The Germans created plenty of "jobs" at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka... go fight for them...

I'm very secure in the knowledge that the founders of this nation wished every single person to be the masters of their own destiny. In fact, the constitution is very clear in it's meaning that liberty is best served the citizens have the power and not a strong Federal Govt. In fact, I would submit that those that advocate willingly giving freedoms to Govt. in favor of personal comfort are at odds with the original intent of the constitution. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, all of them spoke on this issue and even you and I have debated this in other threads. What you assume though is that I and those that feel as I do have a blanket objection to healthcare coverage and are somehow shills for the insurance insdustry when nothing could be further from the truth. What I advocate is and have from day one on this debate is fixing the actual issues that cause healthcare to rise and do so in a manner where healthcare insurance can be available to anyone that wishes to purchase it. What I advocate is fully within the framework of the commerce clause of our constiution and is not some misunderstood doctrine that the likes of Lenin, Marx, and others have advocated over time. I submit that it is those that advocate healthcare mandated for all lack a clear understanding of our form of Govt. and it's history and have been indoctrinated in the good works of Lenin and have zero understand of the framers original intent that a person and not the collective or the Govt. is where the power of liberty and choice lay. While you may see this as akin to Nazi Germany, I would submit to you, that those advocating this sort of healthcare have more in common than I do.

Now that being said, there are many here that want healthcare reform, there are only a few here though that wish to do so within our form of Govt. and not one that has little if anything in common with the framers intent or our own constitution. While you mah not like the idea of personal liberty, or freedom of choice, or the power of a constitution that is meant to give that power to the people, it is what the framers intended and as such is there for all to see. If you don't think so then I have a suggestion try reading the 10th Amendment as a starting point, or even the 1st., in fact all of them, at one point or another put power in the hands of the people and place limits on the Govt. Again, if you and others wish healthcare as a mandate or a public option then you really should work within it, and stop making suggestions that are out of the intent of our form of Govt.

Navy, you're arguing a polarized debate against a straw man. NO ONE is proposing a government run health care plan. The House and the Senate are proposing reform and regulation over corporations and the decreasing possibility of being able to BUY your insurance as an individual through a public option...

The debate over our Constitution and our framers' intent has been going on since the beginning of our nation. It has been debated by men that have much more knowledge than you or I ... But I'm sure one common thread all "strict" Constitutionalists share... an attempt in some way shape or form to DENY some citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

IF the intent of the framers is such a passion to you, then you should be incensed that corporations have totally subverted the role our founders saw for them...

You touched on it Navy...this IS a moral issue...even a life or death issue to fellow citizens that do NOTHING wrong or irresponsible...they get run over and crushed by a corporation that has NO public responsibility, but has gained all the rights of an individual...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jumbo sized bureaucracy?

You mean the 150 seperate insurance companies, and all the staff that doctors have to hire to deal with them?

Why do you think all the other industrialized countries pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare?

Yes. Like this:

We have 1.4 million people employed by the National Health Service. It is the third biggest employer in the world after the Red Army in China and the Indian National Railways. Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators, that the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. And that is the electoral bloc that makes it almost impossible to get rid of.

Daniel Hannan, British politician and Member of the European Parliament, in an interview with Glenn Beck.

Daniel Hannan on Health Care Debate - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

holy crap
the UK need the 3rd largest employment base to administer their health service?

I liked how Chris thought that because there are 150 insurance agencies (no idea where he got that number), that means people have to deal with ALL of them, instead of just one, each of which are incredibly small compared to any government bureaucracy you'd care to name.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The insurance industry had about 2.3 million wage and salary jobs in 2006. Insurance carriers accounted for 62 percent of jobs, while insurance agencies, brokerages, and providers of other insurance-related services accounted for 38 percent of jobs.

The majority of establishments in the insurance industry were small; however, a few large establishments accounted for many of the jobs in this industry. Insurance carriers tend to be large establishments, often employing 250 or more workers, whereas agencies and brokerages tend to be much smaller, frequently employing fewer than 20 workers (chart 1).

Insurance

According to data from the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), total
automotive employment in the United States increased by 8% from 1991 to 2005 (but by just 4%
since 1990), rising from 1,054,000 workers to 1,098,000. (See chart on following page.)
However, looking only at these end points hides a significant and dramatic downturn that has
decimated the industry since the year 2000. In that year, employment reached a peak of
1,313,600 workers, but the drop from that peak over the ensuing five years to 2005’s level
represents a decline of 16%, with a total loss of 215,500 jobs. The two major halves of the
automotive industry – the parts producing companies and the motor vehicle assembly companies
– show different trends over the long-term, but similar declines in recent years.

http://www.trade.gov/static/auto_reports_jobloss.pdf


Let me see if I understand this correctly now, the 2 plus million people that work in the insurance industry their jobs are somehow not "worthy" because some believe that healthcare should be a right and therefor the jobs of these people should be thrown in the garbage can and then turn around and advocate for another industry because of the same employment issue seem to think it's okay to be selective as long as it fits the agenda.

Hey Navy...YES...health care IS a right...PLEASE give me ONE scenario where any citizen can have the RIGHT to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT his or her health?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

You have the right to have me not kill you. You don't have the right to have me keep you alive. That's YOUR job. Next you're going to tell me that the right to life entitles you to have the government keep you from ever dying at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, let's discuss health care in industrialized nations,

why not discuss how 5 Capitalist Democracies pay for health care and what the ups and downs of their experiences are? Why rant and rave like a fuckin loser?

I don't know. Why DO you rant and rave like a fucking loser? I've always wondered.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'm very secure in the knowledge that the founders of this nation wished every single person to be the masters of their own destiny. In fact, the constitution is very clear in it's meaning that liberty is best served the citizens have the power and not a strong Federal Govt. In fact, I would submit that those that advocate willingly giving freedoms to Govt. in favor of personal comfort are at odds with the original intent of the constitution. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, all of them spoke on this issue and even you and I have debated this in other threads. What you assume though is that I and those that feel as I do have a blanket objection to healthcare coverage and are somehow shills for the insurance insdustry when nothing could be further from the truth. What I advocate is and have from day one on this debate is fixing the actual issues that cause healthcare to rise and do so in a manner where healthcare insurance can be available to anyone that wishes to purchase it. What I advocate is fully within the framework of the commerce clause of our constiution and is not some misunderstood doctrine that the likes of Lenin, Marx, and others have advocated over time. I submit that it is those that advocate healthcare mandated for all lack a clear understanding of our form of Govt. and it's history and have been indoctrinated in the good works of Lenin and have zero understand of the framers original intent that a person and not the collective or the Govt. is where the power of liberty and choice lay. While you may see this as akin to Nazi Germany, I would submit to you, that those advocating this sort of healthcare have more in common than I do.

Now that being said, there are many here that want healthcare reform, there are only a few here though that wish to do so within our form of Govt. and not one that has little if anything in common with the framers intent or our own constitution. While you mah not like the idea of personal liberty, or freedom of choice, or the power of a constitution that is meant to give that power to the people, it is what the framers intended and as such is there for all to see. If you don't think so then I have a suggestion try reading the 10th Amendment as a starting point, or even the 1st., in fact all of them, at one point or another put power in the hands of the people and place limits on the Govt. Again, if you and others wish healthcare as a mandate or a public option then you really should work within it, and stop making suggestions that are out of the intent of our form of Govt.

That's it, simply and clearly stated.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

You are "very secure in the knowledge that the founders of this nation wished every single person to be the masters of their own destiny?"

What a crock of shit!

The "founders of this nation" owned slaves, and designated them as being "three fifths of a person" in the Constitution.

Our Capitol building was built by slaves.

Another fool stuck on stupid. Get over your Historical race-baiting rant bro. I am sure if you were alive back then you would have changed everything with your feel good Political views.

We have had a government option for health insurance for 50 years. It's called Medicare.

Excuse me Dick, I mean Rich, No I mean Chris? Yeah, That's right, but are you a mentally ill lunatic or something bro? Medicare and Social Security alone have a projected debt of 56 trillion dollars. Do you idiots even consider that? Why do you morons continue to ignore the results of your earlier Socialist disasters by thinking up even more insanity? You pukes are suicidal. This Bill will kill this Nations future. Why should future Americans pay for you peoples mental illness?

No, the republic is not going to fall if we stop letting the evil ones deny coverage to the sick and the poor.

This is no longer a Republic, It's a disgusting Democracy. Though it can be saved, if it's saved from freaks who think like you. "cool"? No bro. You should change that to Mentally Ill Sheople.

~BH

 

[Chris]

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.....

You do realize that you're explaining true historical facts, that get in the way of authoritarian rationalizations for making up their own rules as they go along, don't you??

Historical facts like the fact that the "founders of our country" were slave owners?

 

[Chris]

Yes. Like this:



Daniel Hannan, British politician and Member of the European Parliament, in an interview with Glenn Beck.

Daniel Hannan on Health Care Debate - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

holy crap
the UK need the 3rd largest employment base to administer their health service?

I liked how Chris thought that because there are 150 insurance agencies (no idea where he got that number), that means people have to deal with ALL of them, instead of just one, each of which are incredibly small compared to any government bureaucracy you'd care to name.

I like how you don't realize that a doctor's office has to deal with multiple insurance companies and all their different forms and rules, and how they have to hire extra staff to handle all the paperwork.

 

[Zoom-boing]

holy crap
the UK need the 3rd largest employment base to administer their health service?

I liked how Chris thought that because there are 150 insurance agencies (no idea where he got that number), that means people have to deal with ALL of them, instead of just one, each of which are incredibly small compared to any government bureaucracy you'd care to name.

I like how you don't realize that a doctor's office has to deal with multiple insurance companies and all their different forms and rules, and how they have to hire extra staff to handle all the paperwork.

And the government will do this more efficiently at less cost?

 

[Chris]

Okay, let's discuss health care in industrialized nations,

why not discuss how 5 Capitalist Democracies pay for health care and what the ups and downs of their experiences are? Why rant and rave like a fuckin loser?

I don't know. Why DO you rant and rave like a fucking loser? I've always wondered.

You didn't respond to his post.

Why not discuss how 5 capitalist democracies pay for health care and what the ups and downs of their experiences are?

Some countries do healthcare better than we do. We can learn from them.

 

[deb0918]

I dont think i want a government involved in the health care system as they cant seem to manage social security or medicare. if we have to donate for this next where and how will they squander this money? my biggest question is, are all these folks in washington going to participate in this health plan? washington is going after the insurance companies, how about the providers that are giving the services? the charges for tests and treatment are sky rocking, which in turn makes insurance premiums go higher. so i would say that if you start with the providers and their charges maybe that would help the problem and get these costs under control... this should not be the burden of the tax payers.