2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate

[Syphon]

im not even gonna read your argument until you prove that the north didnt want a strong fed and south didnt want state to have the power.

i also want you to address Fed 10 and Madison advocating for a strong federal government. until you do that your on ignore. you cant even have a decent debate with your 4th grade skills.

oh btw THE SOUTH LOST the Civil War and the North got the strong Fed they wanted!

Let me guess. You're in prison....?

My guess is that you CAN'T read it.

You can't even spell or punctuate.

But, you have Madison before you who you won't read. Game, Set and Match.

BTW: As shown in Federalist 45, Madison was for a stong central government that had a very limited scope. It was not, as I originally asserted, an open ticket. So the fed can be very strong in it's defined areas and totally powerless in those places that lie outside it's scope. Federalist 10 is nothing more. It is more about local factions, than anything. Again his argument for a very limited but meaningful federal government. Health Care was not in that scope.

Madison also penned the 10th amendment, which I am sure will be a surprise to you.

I also showed you the Slaughter House Cases which essentially shut up the propopents of using the 14th to continue their tyranny from D.C.

I am sure you can't read those either.

still failed to address the fact that madison advocates for a strong central government. keep avoiding fed 10 like the plague since it plainly goes against your argument. what came first? fed 10 or fed 45? what do historians call the most important federalist paper? fed 10.

game set match, boitch!

youre really a retard, its perfectly acceptable to post on a message board without using perfect punctuation. i.e. just like texting.......

so put up or shut up....

tell me again how the north didnt want a strong fed and south didnt want the states to have all the power. comon..... ive given 5 chances to prove me wrong and you still keep changing the argument.

you are also the idiot who likes to spout off the things that arent in the constitution but yet the courts have ruled that government has the power to do.
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

or did you forget that the courts interpret out law now.....

 

[Listening]

still failed to address the fact that madison advocates for a strong central government. keep avoiding fed 10 like the plague since it plainly goes against your argument. what came first? fed 10 or fed 45? what do historians call the most important federalist paper? fed 10.

game set match, boitch!

youre really a retard, its perfectly acceptable to post on a message board without using perfect punctuation. i.e. just like texting.......

so put up or shut up....

tell me again how the north didnt want a strong fed and south didnt want the states to have all the power. comon..... ive given 5 chances to prove me wrong and you still keep changing the argument.

you are also the idiot who likes to spout off the things that arent in the constitution but yet the courts have ruled that government has the power to do.
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

or did you forget that the courts interpret out law now.....

You've not shown how the Federalist 10 supports your argument at all. You are relying on someone else from what I can tell because your fifth grade history book is probably mute on the point. Might be time to advance junior.

However, you only need read the words of Madison in his actual inclusion in the Bill of Rights to know you are so full of crapp, your eyes are brown.

Let's see...10...oh yeah.....that pesky 10th amendment.......

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

Making you look stupid is so easy.

But let's continue.....

Federalist 10 is not considered any more imporant that any of the others. It is most quoted because Madison shows why a Republic is more desirable than a democracy (something you lefties don't agree with....but I digress).

And here we have Federalist 46:

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.

......... which connects to his earlier statements in 45 which I highlited for you and you have not addressed (except to post some crap about how 10 comes before 45..).

continuing....if you can ingest the following......

It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members.

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

*************************************

As to the stupid assertions of your 5th grade history book (you got that your I (am dumb) pad to junior ? One more time....the Civil War was fought to PRESERVE THE UNION....got it.

Game (your not even in it), Set (down but don't hurt yourself), Match (that you might breed is scary).

 

[Listening]

Hey there butt-nugget (Syphon)....

Let's finish your ass-kicking with Federalist #39:

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

*******

You have not addressed any of this.

All you do pull #10 out of your ass and you don't even know what it says or the context in what it is saying it. I'll bet you don't know how many articles comprise the entire set anyway.

So keep trying there Junior....I really would suggest a 6th grade history book. It might serve you better.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, you said you "think" you're right. you (of course) offered no research or evidence.

Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Premature Mortality

there ya go.
Now go **** yourself.

you didn't actually read the whole thing, did ya? If you had done so, you would see this:

Our study has practical implications for those working to reduce racial disparities in Minnesota and elsewhere. Our findings support the notion that racial disparities can occur across all socioeconomic groups and that disparities in health mirror larger social and economic inequalities in our society. With this knowledge, health advocates interested in reducing disparities in premature mortality might do well to advocate for laws and policies that uphold civil rights and foster social justice.15

in other words, it's not because they have "black" genetics. But when you start from your hyper-racial prism, where black people are incapable of leading, it's easy to apply race to your assessment of everything else.

Yanked that out fo your butt, eh?
They clearly compare health across similar socioeconomic planes and blacks have worse health. That is the only salient thing. We can argue as to why in a different thread.
I've proved my point. More than you've ever done.

 

[Syphon]

Hey there butt-nugget (Syphon)....

Let's finish your ass-kicking with Federalist #39:

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

*******

You have not addressed any of this.

All you do pull #10 out of your ass and you don't even know what it says or the context in what it is saying it. I'll bet you don't know how many articles comprise the entire set anyway.

So keep trying there Junior....I really would suggest a 6th grade history book. It might serve you better.

bwhahahahah hey *****, remember when you failed to comprehend a website written for 5th graders to understand.......

oh yeah, you sure showed me!!!!! when you actually graduate the 5th grade come back and maybe the adults will let you sit at the big kid table....

oh yeah..... tell me again how the south wasnt for states rights and the north didnt want a strong fed....... tell me again who wont the civil war......... tell me again how you still dont know jack from shit.....

so thats it, get mad at me! yell at me! call me names!!!!! im sooooo scared of you and your "words". then again the words of someone with a 4th grade education are very important to me anyways....

 

[Listening]

Hey there butt-nugget (Syphon)....

Let's finish your ass-kicking with Federalist #39:

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

*******

You have not addressed any of this.

All you do pull #10 out of your ass and you don't even know what it says or the context in what it is saying it. I'll bet you don't know how many articles comprise the entire set anyway.

So keep trying there Junior....I really would suggest a 6th grade history book. It might serve you better.

bwhahahahah hey *****, remember when you failed to comprehend a website written for 5th graders to understand.......

oh yeah, you sure showed me!!!!! when you actually graduate the 5th grade come back and maybe the adults will let you sit at the big kid table....

oh yeah..... tell me again how the south wasnt for states rights and the north didnt want a strong fed....... tell me again who wont the civil war......... tell me again how you still dont know jack from shit.....

Wow, great arguments.

You posted article 10 and just really rolled over the top of the other Federalists Papers that clearly make a liar out of you. That you need someone to tell you who won the Civil War is not unexpected.

You're not sitting at any table junior. You're in your crib.

That you don't understand history seems evident. Maybe you should pick up a 3rd grade history book and get your facts straight before you try to do something that will make you look even more assanine (if that is possible).

Come back when you've got an argument, Junior. I'll be waiting.

 

[Syphon]

Hey there butt-nugget (Syphon)....

Let's finish your ass-kicking with Federalist #39:

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

*******

You have not addressed any of this.

All you do pull #10 out of your ass and you don't even know what it says or the context in what it is saying it. I'll bet you don't know how many articles comprise the entire set anyway.

So keep trying there Junior....I really would suggest a 6th grade history book. It might serve you better.

bwhahahahah hey *****, remember when you failed to comprehend a website written for 5th graders to understand.......

oh yeah, you sure showed me!!!!! when you actually graduate the 5th grade come back and maybe the adults will let you sit at the big kid table....

oh yeah..... tell me again how the south wasnt for states rights and the north didnt want a strong fed....... tell me again who wont the civil war......... tell me again how you still dont know jack from shit.....

Wow, great arguments.

You posted article 10 and just really rolled over the top of the other Federalists Papers that clearly make a liar out of you. That you need someone to tell you who won the Civil War is not unexpected.

You're not sitting at any table junior. You're in your crib.

That you don't understand history seems evident. Maybe you should pick up a 3rd grade history book and get your facts straight before you try to do something that will make you look even more assanine (if that is possible).

Come back when you've got an argument, Junior. I'll be waiting.

yeah good argument from someone who stomps their feet and calls people names when theyve been pwned in public.

maybe if you took your head out of your ass you might finally get that 5th grade education and realize that when the North won the war, part of the victory was a strong federal government. the states were not left with all the power. but then again i wouldnt expect someone who calls themself "listening" to be able to listen very well.

here is why it is the most important for one last time.

Madison begins by stating that a "well contructed union" will be able to break apart the violence of factions. He states this is the vice that democratic government have fallen prey to. Democracies are not stable and that the source of this instability is a self interested majority:

if we wanted all the states to have more power than the fed, we would not be the United States of America, we would be the States of America and each state would govern itself as such. this was what the south wanted and is one of the main reasons they lost the war. if you want to go back to those days go ahead and try, but it has already been established through many avenues that a strong federal government is required in order to have a stable union.

you have failed to show that fed 10 is not considered the most important federalist paper. you have failed to show that Madison did not believe in having a strong federal government, you have failed to show have any real intelligence. all you have done is show little snippits of the other federalist papers and shout SEE, SEE, i told you so like a child. no one is buying your little games and shows anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because of market forces drives cost down (not to mention affordability). We NEED to go to a system that allows competitive pricing.

The thing is, people don't price medical treatment the way they price buying sneakers or cars. They aren't going to go to "Murry's Discount Colonoscopies". When it's that serious, they want the best.

The problem with "Pay as you go" health coverage is that people will neglect that cold until it turns into Pneumonia. They'll hobble around on that broken ankle hoping it will get better on its own.

Some will, yes. And many others will not. Some do that now. What is the difference? There is none. There are more things required to drive costs down and there are going to be problems with all of them but pay as you go for minor incidents is by far the best that I can see with the least in consequences.[/quote]

Well, there's a major difference. A part of the reason the current system is nearly in collapse is because people are going to Emergency rooms to treat ailments that could have been treated for one tenth the cost as a family practioner- if they had one. They welch on those bills and the cost is spread to the rest of us.

The fact that we demand hospitals treat first and worry about payment later is part of the problem. Because, eventually, those costs get spread around.

I don't think you are correct here. I am on the complete other side of this issue and while I am a small government guy, the beast we have created with employer HC needs to be killed. The only way I see that happening is making it ILLEGAL for employers to offer HC plans. That's right, it should be illegal. You are creating an inherent problem in the system when you separate the customer from the product. With healthcare, insurance does this. By having the employer involved it simply adds another layer to the problem. In essence, you have the user (you) covered by an insurance company that is beholden to the employer's desires paying for a product the employer never uses. You are completely removed from the process AND your doctor.

The system would not collapse. Quite the contrary, insurance companies would actually have to cater to the users of their service rather than some vaunted third party. It would also address the problems that occur when you lose your job and suddenly your insurance is gone.

The problem with the Market Fetishists like yourself is that there is no reason for insurance companies to give policies to the people who need it the most- the chronically ill.

IAW: have you ever had to deal with healthcare in one of these 'better' countries. I have been through the German HC system and can say, without a single doubt, our system is FAR better. Many of the things you note in your last post about those countries that have single payer systems are not so cut and dry as you made them out to be.

No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does. Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.

 

[Listening]

yeah good argument from someone who stomps their feet and calls people names when theyve been pwned in public.

Thanks.

I figured I kicked your ass up one side and down the other. Good of you finally acknowelged that.

maybe if you took your head out of your ass you might finally get that 5th grade education and realize that when the North won the war, part of the victory was a strong federal government. the states were not left with all the power. but then again i wouldnt expect someone who calls themself "listening" to be able to listen very well.

Well junior, nothing changed in the union after the war. The fed had the power accorded it under the consitution and so did the states. You might recall that states had power over abortion until 1972...about 100 years after the end of the war. I realize your math skills suck as bad as your reading comprehension....so take my word for it. And, as I handed you your ass with the Slaughterhouse cases that came right after the war that again affirmed states powers...in spite of past liberals slobbering over the 14th amendment. If you could read, you'd see that the federal government had a defined set of duties for which they were fully powerful. That was never a problem. Get it straight.

here is why it is the most important for one last time.

Madison begins by stating that a "well contructed union" will be able to break apart the violence of factions. He states this is the vice that democratic government have fallen prey to. Democracies are not stable and that the source of this instability is a self interested majority:

if we wanted all the states to have more power than the fed, we would not be the United States of America, we would be the States of America and each state would govern itself as such. this was what the south wanted and is one of the main reasons they lost the war. if you want to go back to those days go ahead and try, but it has already been established through many avenues that a strong federal government is required in order to have a stable union.

Oh shock....you like making stuff up to argue against ? The reason they lost the war was because they were an agricultural group and the north was industrialized....an side bar into your stupidity.

A need for strong enforcent power of government was demonstrated by....by....come on now.....can you say Shay's Rebellion....that's right. But as Madison pointed out repeatedly. They fed has powers (go back and read 45) over a set of defined responsibilities (health care was not one of them) and the rest was with the states. Didn't read the 10th amendment did you (and if you did, you certainly didn't address it). Prior to that bastard FDR trying to pack the SCOTUS, it was knocking out all of his social programs as out of scope or in other words....unconsitutional. You might read up on the court packing scheme...might be a freshmen textbook.

So strong only means strong in it's scope....end of discussion. That does not mean health care. That is, of course, why the states are challenging it and why the SCOTUS should knock it down.

you have failed to show that fed 10 is not considered the most important federalist paper.

You've certainly demonstrated that you don't know much about anything. You made the claim it was the most important. You have not backed up that claim.

you have failed to show that Madison did not believe in having a strong federal government,

The only think I failed in was thinking you could read. With Federalist 39, 44, 45, 46 which have been quoted to you showing where Madison clearly felt States would have power in a vast number of areas (undefined as compared to the fed which only had defined scope and powers to execute that scope) kicking your ass....it is clear you can't read.

you have failed to show have any real intelligence. all you have done is show little snippits of the other federalist papers and shout SEE, SEE, i told you so like a child. no one is buying your little games and shows anymore.

Which is just your way of saying...."mommy, mommy....he's kicking my ass and the only way I can fight back is to lay on the floor and cry because I certainly can't argue against what Madion wrote.

Not that you've addressed any of the papers I shared. Not that you've posted the section in 10 that supports your argument. In fact, it is hyersterical that you would make any comment about someone else's I.Q. given you've yet to prove you even have one.

Come back when you're ass has healed...junior.

 

[8537]

[

Yanked that out fo your butt, eh?

No, it's a direct quote from your link - which you clearly didn't read.

They clearly compare health across similar socioeconomic planes and blacks have worse health. That is the only salient thing.

No, it's not. You said this:

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Making it obvious you believe it's the gene pool. The study you linked to makes no such claim - and in fact does quite the opposite.

 

[The Rabbi]

[

Yanked that out fo your butt, eh?

No, it's a direct quote from your link - which you clearly didn't read.

They clearly compare health across similar socioeconomic planes and blacks have worse health. That is the only salient thing.

No, it's not. You said this:

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Making it obvious you believe it's the gene pool. The study you linked to makes no such claim - and in fact does quite the opposite.

Your cognitive ability is about on a par with the rest of you. Were you dropped as a baby?
I do not believe it is the gene pool. You introduced the idea of genetics, not me. I merely pointed out the facts.
But it is odd that people in the same demographic group have disparate health profiles. What do you attribute that to?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does. Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.

Barely, asswipe.
Germany passes unpopular healthcare reform | Reuters

 

[8537]

No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does. Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.

Barely, asswipe.
Germany passes unpopular healthcare reform | Reuters

Just think, if the price of providing health care in Germany increases by more than a half of current expenditures, it will rival the US system!

It employs 4.3 million people and accounts for 11 percent of economic output.

 

[8537]

Yanked that out fo your butt, eh?

No, it's a direct quote from your link - which you clearly didn't read.



No, it's not. You said this:

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Making it obvious you believe it's the gene pool. The study you linked to makes no such claim - and in fact does quite the opposite.

I do not believe it is the gene pool. You introduced the idea of genetics, not me. I merely pointed out the facts.

You used an explanation that involved ONLY the gene pool.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Study: Repealing The Mandate Will Increase Premiums By 25 Percent | ThinkProgress
^Repealing the health care mandate would increase health premiums by 25%

 

[FA_Q2]

That's because of market forces drives cost down (not to mention affordability). We NEED to go to a system that allows competitive pricing.

The thing is, people don't price medical treatment the way they price buying sneakers or cars. They aren't going to go to "Murry's Discount Colonoscopies". When it's that serious, they want the best.

Bullshit. They sure as hell do price them. I have done so myself for my wife's dental work. The funny part of trying to do so was that more than half of the offices COULD NOT EVEN GIVE ME A PRICE. Their reason? They did not know what to charge someone without insurance. That is how ******* asinine our system is, companies don't even know their own damn prices. Of the prices we did get, there was a range of 200 to 1000 dollars!

Also, what people want is meaningless. If you want the best then you better be willing to pay the price for it. That is how it works. If you can't afford it, you sure as hell are going to go to Discount Colonoscopies. Why do you think it should be different? Let me give you some reality: you can't elevate the quality of service to 'the best' by making a process 'free' or available to anyone. That lowers the best quality services to the lowest common denominator, not raises the lowest quality to the highest.

The problem with "Pay as you go" health coverage is that people will neglect that cold until it turns into Pneumonia. They'll hobble around on that broken ankle hoping it will get better on its own.

Some will, yes. And many others will not. Some do that now. What is the difference? There is none. There are more things required to drive costs down and there are going to be problems with all of them but pay as you go for minor incidents is by far the best that I can see with the least in consequences.

Well, there's a major difference. A part of the reason the current system is nearly in collapse is because people are going to Emergency rooms to treat ailments that could have been treated for one tenth the cost as a family practioner- if they had one. They welch on those bills and the cost is spread to the rest of us.

The fact that we demand hospitals treat first and worry about payment later is part of the problem. Because, eventually, those costs get spread around.
[/quote]
That is another problem altogether though and I think a rational solution is to create a midpoint in the level of service. Emergency rooms are massively overpriced in large part because the way they operate. I do not see why there cannot be an urgent care facility that is manned by nurses and one single doctor that can care for 90 percent of the people that go to emergency rooms. If you have a fever, you should not be in the emergency room yet the majority of people that go there have little to no need of emergency services and are there for things like fevers or broken bones.

I don't think you are correct here. I am on the complete other side of this issue and while I am a small government guy, the beast we have created with employer HC needs to be killed. The only way I see that happening is making it ILLEGAL for employers to offer HC plans. That's right, it should be illegal. You are creating an inherent problem in the system when you separate the customer from the product. With healthcare, insurance does this. By having the employer involved it simply adds another layer to the problem. In essence, you have the user (you) covered by an insurance company that is beholden to the employer's desires paying for a product the employer never uses. You are completely removed from the process AND your doctor.

The system would not collapse. Quite the contrary, insurance companies would actually have to cater to the users of their service rather than some vaunted third party. It would also address the problems that occur when you lose your job and suddenly your insurance is gone.

The problem with the Market Fetishists like yourself is that there is no reason for insurance companies to give policies to the people who need it the most- the chronically ill.

That is why we have regulations because it should be illegal to cut someone from a policy because they are utilizing it. I never said the insurance market should be unregulated. Try and keep up here.

IAW: have you ever had to deal with healthcare in one of these 'better' countries. I have been through the German HC system and can say, without a single doubt, our system is FAR better. Many of the things you note in your last post about those countries that have single payer systems are not so cut and dry as you made them out to be.

No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does. Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.

Yes, it's better there because.....

I have utilized their medical system extensively and found it far better here for many reasons. The left rails on quality of American care and yet fails to give anything to actually back this up. Most of the arguments I have seen have nothing to do with our medical system but rather our lifestyle. The only thing you can point to is bankruptcy and preventative care (something can be addressed without all the bullshit we are doing atm) but as far as the actual care received, that's another story.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
"
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."

The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

Which brings up the age-old question as to how susceptible the Supreme Court is to this kind of pressure....

The Robert's Court, the activitst Court the conservative movement wanted and GWB provided to repeal Roe, Miranda, Social Security and Medicare and in time make our nation into the plutocracy conservatives want.

 

[RDD_1210]

[

Yanked that out fo your butt, eh?

No, it's a direct quote from your link - which you clearly didn't read.



No, it's not. You said this:

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Making it obvious you believe it's the gene pool. The study you linked to makes no such claim - and in fact does quite the opposite.

Your cognitive ability is about on a par with the rest of you. Were you dropped as a baby?
I do not believe it is the gene pool. You introduced the idea of genetics, not me. I merely pointed out the facts.
But it is odd that people in the same demographic group have disparate health profiles. What do you attribute that to?

Just embrace your racism already. It's what you are, we all know it, you know it. Why spend the energy pretending you're not what you are.

Rabbi - "Black people are inferior in many ways to other races, but don't call me racist"

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it's a direct quote from your link - which you clearly didn't read.



No, it's not. You said this:



Making it obvious you believe it's the gene pool. The study you linked to makes no such claim - and in fact does quite the opposite.

I do not believe it is the gene pool. You introduced the idea of genetics, not me. I merely pointed out the facts.

You used an explanation that involved ONLY the gene pool.

No, I did not. That was you.
Thanks for playing.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it's a direct quote from your link - which you clearly didn't read.



No, it's not. You said this:



Making it obvious you believe it's the gene pool. The study you linked to makes no such claim - and in fact does quite the opposite.

Your cognitive ability is about on a par with the rest of you. Were you dropped as a baby?
I do not believe it is the gene pool. You introduced the idea of genetics, not me. I merely pointed out the facts.
But it is odd that people in the same demographic group have disparate health profiles. What do you attribute that to?

Just embrace your racism already. It's what you are, we all know it, you know it. Why spend the energy pretending you're not what you are.

Rabbi - "Black people are inferior in many ways to other races, but don't call me racist"

RDD: "I can't argue. I can't write coherent sentences. And I get all my news from Bill Maher. But don't call me a moron."