Government run health care

LOL what was I thinking. :rolleyes::rolleyes: We don't need a tattoo to easily identify those who voted for Bush, we just have to wait till they quote Bushisms.
They misunderestimated me." --Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000


Do you have blacks, too?" --to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as quoted by Robertson

Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base." --at the 2000 Al Smith dinner.

Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --in parting words to world leaders at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as those present looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"Can we win? I don't think you can win it." --after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008



"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

I've been staying out of political threads lately, and these posts are why.

No one should be tattooed, marked, signed, or anything else because of how they voted, and anyone suggesting it is an absolute ass.

Anyone who hasn't been paying attention lately as to whats happened in Iran should realize why.

Godwin's law rides again.

:mad:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

I've been staying out of political threads lately, and these posts are why.

No one should be tattooed, marked, signed, or anything else because of how they voted, and anyone suggesting it is an absolute ass.

Anyone who hasn't been paying attention lately as to whats happened in Iran should realize why.

Godwin's law rides again.

:mad:

---

I took Richard's comment as a joke because he mentioned those who voted either way and he finished w/a wink smiley. Marigold, on the other hand, specifically pointed to people who voted for Bush and her comment was mean spirited and there was no icon of any kind to indicate whether or not she was joking as well. Your point is well taken LH, however, don't expect things to change any time soon. This forum should be renamed the Snake Pit because there's an awful lot of venom spewed here every day, lots of spitting and striking and biting and then slinking back down into their holes when there is an outcry. If only they would stay there and not come out until they have something constructive to say.

I took Richard's as a joke.

However, there are some who post nothing but spite and vitriol in political threads.

I was specifically referring to Marigold's post, I should have clarified.

What no mention of my funny Obama post? :eek::eek: I am a big fan of his yet I can find the humor and not get mad.
I laugh at both sides and I never take offense at what people say.:p
As for making fun of Bush, he said those things, they weren't made up. He really is that dubm, dmub, dbum.
The Obama ones were funny and so were the Bush ones.
If a person voted for Bush they must have found him intelligent which to me is confusing, but that is what makes a horse race.
But to get upset, life is too short and if you let a post make you mad you are missing the point, which is to hear other opinions and to learn weather, you agree or not.
This is funny regardless of how you vote.

1) You ask for Viagra, and they give you a Popsicle stick and duct tape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marigold2

What no mention of my funny Obama post? :eek::eek: I am a big fan of his yet I can find the humor and not get mad.
I laugh at both sides and I never take offense at what people say.:p
As for making fun of Bush, he said those things, they weren't made up. He really is that dubm, dmub, dbum.
The Obama ones were funny and so were the Bush ones.
If a person voted for Bush they must have found him intelligent which to me is confusing, but that is what makes a horse race.
But to get upset, life is too short and if you let a post make you mad you are missing the point, which is to hear other opinions and to learn weather, you agree or not.

---

If you had merely offered an opinion, it's doubtful that anyone would have objected. No one even mentioned your post that made fun of Bush perhaps because no one was offended, including me. What is offensive is your post about tattooing those who voted for Bush so that they would never forget "what they did". Y'know, there are actual people on the other end of your posts. We have feelings, feelings can be hurt, people can get offended. I'm not a hot house flower who is too precious to live. I can take criticism and read posts that disagree w/my views as well as the next person. However, when a specific person or a group of people are singled out as a target of vitriol, people are going to get upset and offended, Monica! Surely you can see that. Then to add insult to injury we're told that we need to have a sense of humor when we object to being insulted. Here's a thought: don't insult people to begin with. Remind yourself that there are real live people who read these posts, not just faceless screen ID's w/no feelings. I'm sometimes shocked at what people say in the Dog House and wonder if they would dare say those things to a person's face. Maybe they would, who knows, and that makes it all the sadder.

Does this mean my part time job is over?:eek::o:(;)

----------

Going back to the Health Care topic.
I really had a bad time with this foot splinter.

No X-ray found it and an 'exploratory surgery' wasn't a guarantee to fix the problem. I forgot about it and this past year it started to bother me as a sharp pain in my foot.

My toe went numb and I had pain all the way up my leg to my hip. When I was asleep I would stretch my legs until I got cramps and had to elevate both legs to get comfortable. I'd press the sole of my foot on the wall so it would not hurt.

Because a doc had seen the wound and done the x-ray and dressing on it I didn't think it was the splinter.

I got a callus on top of the callus and the skin on the bottom of my foot began to swell, then cracked. I was trying to see what was bugging me and ended up taking a piece of wood that was probably 1/8 of an inch out of the split in the skin.

I probably could have kept going back to the doctor over and over again. But if he didn't find anything the first time out with an X-ray, what good would a surgery done?

Was it wise to go thru the pain? Nope.

Could I have kept bugging the doc to do something about it?
Probably.

The fact that I have seen countless people who go into the doc's office for no reason at all really galls me.

-------------------------

I have sat in the ER rooms when I had the flu and thought I was going to die.

Then some kid would come into the room with a sucking chest wound and head trauma.

It was then I learned I wasn't going to die.

While the topic of HCR is pretty timely, we all have to also look at the way we use the system and who really needs the care provided.

My husband came home last night having heard some of these pernicious lies at work yesterday. Makes you wonder what it will take before people stop spreading them!

Myths about healthcare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marigold2

And if you are on welfare it does mean that you are either mentally unable to take care of yourself or physically not, able or both. What other option is there?

---

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting. You dropped out of sight in your own thread and left it for others to give it a new life and direction.
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pomtzu

Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

---

But can you be easily amused?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RICHARD

But can you be easily amused?:D

---

But of course! I keep coming here, don't I??? There's never a lack of laughable posts.........:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pomtzu

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting.

---

Don't feel bad. I often don't get answers either!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Don't feel bad. I often don't get answers either!:)

---

I guess it's easier to just back off when you're cornered. :eek: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pomtzu

I guess it's easier to just back off when you're cornered. :eek: :D

---

Awwww..... You beat me to it.


<golf clap>


:)

I am sorry I didn't realize you were waiting for an answer, I only come on about once a week and this Sat my son is getting married so I have been so busy, but in a great way.
Plus I work full-time so I am limited to how much time I have for PT, judging from everyones posts I guess that is a good thing. LOL
Got to run but I will get back to you next week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pomtzu

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting. You dropped out of sight in your own thread and left it for others to give it a new life and direction.
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marigold2

I am sorry I didn't realize you were waiting for an answer, I only come on about once a week and this Sat my son is getting married so I have been so busy, but in a great way.
Plus I work full-time so I am limited to how much time I have for PT, judging from everyones posts I guess that is a good thing. LOL
Got to run but I will get back to you next week.

---

I'll check back for an answer in about a month.....:eek::rolleyes:

And I wouldn't have asked the question if I wasn't expecting to receive an answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pomtzu

I'll check back for an answer in about a month.....:eek::rolleyes:

And I wouldn't have asked the question if I wasn't expecting to receive an answer.

---

Should we have a pool...whether she answers your question first or he answers mine?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Should we have a pool...whether she answers your question first or he answers mine?:D

---

I'm not a betting woman. Besides, I wouldn't want to start a competition between the parties involved..........:rolleyes: There might be an off forum pool somewhere. :eek:

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/T...03911_2614.jpg

Funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RICHARD

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/T...03911_2614.jpg

Funny.

---

Yes.

Is Universal Healthcare constitutional????

Quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

If healthcare isn't the general Welfare I don't know what is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Is Universal Healthcare constitutional????

Quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

If healthcare isn't the general Welfare I don't know what is!

---

Your quote is from the Preamble; there is another place in the Constitution where the phrase General Welfare is mentioned.

Article 1, Section 8 states:

Quote:

---

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

---

I know the meaning of words can change over time. So maybe what they meant back then is different from the way we understand the meaning now :confused:

I agree word usage changes over time. So many things have.

Medical care at the time the constitution was written was something you hoped to survive rather than something to help you survive. It consisted mostly of cupping, bleeding, some leaches now and then.

That is why I believe we need to look at the constitution not as a static thing but as something that has different meanings in different times just as words do.

When the constitution was written the men writing it had a distrust of the "rabble." Their intent was to keep control within the group of land owning white men. Senators were elected by the state politicians. Only the house of representatives were elected directly - by those who had the vote.

This did not include women, blacks - free or slaves, Native Americans or white men who did not own property.

That would not be acceptable today. The meaning of "we the people" has grown and changed with our country. And thankful, the constitution was written so it can grow and change as well.

And that includes the rather broad phrase - general welfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace

I know the meaning of words can change over time. So maybe what they meant back then is different from the way we understand the meaning now :confused:

---

It's the way they appear on an LCD monitor as opposed to a sheet of handmade paper?:confused:

If you google general welfare constitution, you will be presented with close to 2 million hits.

I'm guessing there would be at least one hit to back up many differing opinions.

I teach a class on the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It is the federal law that established how employees are paid, minimum wage, child labor, etc.

It says hours of work are "all time the employer requires, suffers or permits...etc" Participants are always confused by the word "suffer". It is not used today the same ways it was used in 1938.

The law also establishes how non-exempt employees are paid for out of town travel - based on train or automobile. Air travel was not contemplated.

So we have to think and apply our interpretation of the law. That is what employers/lawyers do and the courts decide if they do it right.

We spend lots of time in the class talking about what the law was written to accomplish and how that is accomplished today.

Any law is open to many, many interpretation. Who is right and who is wrong?

That depends I suppose!

The Preamble says "promote then general welfare". Article 1, sec 8 says "provide".

Like I said to LH in one of the other threads... Promote is VERY different than provide.

Would a national, forced, healthcare plan work in the United States? I have not heard anybody come up with anything that would. Why not leave it to the states to decide? Our republic is kinda cool like that.

As usual, my issue with the whole healthcare thing is this... My government would FORCE me to surrender the fruits of my labor to support people who did not earn it, more than they do already. Government is force, there are no two ways about it. This country was founded on the concept of individual liberty and that government, especially on the federal level, was a necessary evil. So....


Why in world would we want to surrender something as personal and intimate as our health care to the federal government? Do we REALLY think it would get BETTER? Further, how do we pay for it? Knowing that government programs almost never come in at or under budget.

Its the highest level of insanity. We would, with the stroke of a pen, damn our posterity to effectual slavery to the government that is supposed to ensure our liberty.

I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.

---

I could not agree with you more. There HAS to be a better system then some claims adjuster (without any medical training whatsoever) determining benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

I agree word usage changes over time. So many things have.

Medical care at the time the constitution was written was something you hoped to survive rather than something to help you survive. It consisted mostly of cupping, bleeding, some leaches now and then.

That is why I believe we need to look at the constitution not as a static thing but as something that has different meanings in different times just as words do.

When the constitution was written the men writing it had a distrust of the "rabble." Their intent was to keep control within the group of land owning white men. Senators were elected by the state politicians. Only the house of representatives were elected directly - by those who had the vote.

This did not include women, blacks - free or slaves, Native Americans or white men who did not own property.

That would not be acceptable today. The meaning of "we the people" has grown and changed with our country. And thankful, the constitution was written so it can grow and change as well.

And that includes the rather broad phrase - general welfare.

---

Well said. This description of the era when the Constitution was
written should be kept in mind when talking about what was the original
intent of the framers.

Quote:

---

blacks - free or slaves

---

Wrong. If you are going to make a comment about the history of the constitution, please, please fact check before you do.

Free blacks had the vote in many of the original states, including 2 slave states (Md and NC):

In 1790, free black men could vote on equal terms with whites in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Free black men were enfranchised in the new states of Kentucky in 1792 and Tennessee in 1796, although the right was removed in Kentucky in 1798 and in Tennessee in 1834.

The difference between enfranchising various groups over time is that it has been done within the frame of the constitution through the amendment process.

If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.

It's leeches, with a "C".

And check out the use of cautery.


Taking a saw, cutting of the offending limb, then taking a heated rod and burning shut the part that bled.


No deductibles or insurance worries!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RICHARD

It's leeches, with a "C".

And check out the use of cautery.


Taking a saw, cutting of the offending limb, then taking a heated rod and burning shut the part that bled.


No deductibles or insurance worries!:rolleyes:

---

You are going to be in trouble! Correcting my spelling. I will await your chastisement...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

Wrong. If you are going to make a comment about the history of the constitution, please, please fact check before you do.

Free blacks had the vote in many of the original states, including 2 slave states (Md and NC):

In 1790, free black men could vote on equal terms with whites in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Free black men were enfranchised in the new states of Kentucky in 1792 and Tennessee in 1796, although the right was removed in Kentucky in 1798 and in Tennessee in 1834.

The difference between enfranchising various groups over time is that it has been done within the frame of the constitution through the amendment process.

If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.

---

Okee dokee...I read it in a book the other day...about how Andrew Jackson in 1828 gave white men without property to ability to vote. Are you right and I wrong. Okay...how about the rest of it? Some of the disenfranchising came from things like poll taxes ,etc. Some Native Americans did not get the right to vote until the 1960's...unless again...evrything in the book was wrong.

I am not interested in adding the the powers etc. of the federal government. I am not sure what that is in reference to...

As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

---

See, that's what happens when you are too focused on the topic at hand.

You aren't easily distracted.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

---

You know...I have great respect and admiration for your constitutional knowledge. You and Grace. I may not agree with your application but I repect your knowledge.

Not sure why you are wanting a fight. You corrected me. I asked if the rest of what I wrote was wrong.


You must have missed where I wrote that I accept you are right and I wrong.???


I guess you don't want to discuss. That's okay too.

Mea Culpa. That I misread.


The voting rights in this country have expanded in fits and starts over the centuries, and occasionally contracted, but the general progression has been liberalization.

It wasn't just a bunch of dead white guys voting from the onset.

Guys, yes. White, not necessarily.

(though, last time I checked, it was still illegal for a Native American to enter the City of Boston.....so much for the liberal, enlightened Commonwealth of Massachusetts....so how in heck are they supposed to vote?) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

Mea Culpa. That I misread.


The voting rights in this country have expanded in fits and starts over the centuries, and occasionally contracted, but the general progression has been liberalization.

It wasn't just a bunch of dead white guys voting from the onset.

Guys, yes. White, not necessarily.

(though, last time I checked, it was still illegal for a Native American to enter the City of Boston.....so much for the liberal, enlightened Commonwealth of Massachusetts....so how in heck are they supposed to vote?) :D

---

So, Bo gets two votes?

So, What happens when Cleveland is on the schedule?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.

---

This would be the proper way to address the issue of HCR.

Otherwise, lets have Health Insurance Reform. Health Care proffesionals are doing a good job. Rein in the HI co's, impliment tort reform, and most of the problems go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.

---

So a underpaid and overworked government employee is better than what we have now? You really don't think cost will be a factor in decisions made by a government run plan?

A government run plan can be a LOT worse. But, as a compromise I, for example, think it would be interesting to let the states decide for themselves what to do. Let the results of a few states trying it decide. Just not PA please. LOL I worked for 2 years as a contractor to the PA State Medicade system. Specifically in the claims processing department. I had the "pleasure" of being able to kibbutz in on some phone calls. :rolleyes:

Government should lay the groundwork/rules and then let the private economy actually do the work. Why not start with eliminating the "pre-existing condition" rules.... Tort reform.... If fedzilla gets a hold of something as huge as our healthcare... When it starts to suck, where do you turn?

I wish I could be an optimist when it comes to my government. But I form my opinions based on RESULTS and not "good intentions". Government is not very efficient or cost effective at what it does now... I cannot understand why anyone would want to entrust their health care to them.