Revolution?

[Nathan]

You posted a rubuttal which failed to rebut.

You are not being put to task because you are a college student, you are being put to task because of your exceptionally naive viewpoints which don't withstand the scrutiny of your own faulty logic, let alone common sense. Spare us the "I could have calibrated my words differently" and "per se" revisionism. You said what

you meant and meant what you said, and they are the words of a bleeding heart liberal. Perhaps one day

you'll come to accept government should not unduly interfer in our lives as a matter of principle as opposed to

a matter of economics, but it's painfully obvious your only interest now is a free ride that lasts long enough

to complete college.

naive... if I'm the one failing to rebut, how come the way you and TypeO keep coming back at me is by bashing me, calling me names, and generally belittling me? Oh yeah... interspersed with Fox-News-scare-tactic-conservative-talking-points bull (you can say all you want that you don't watch Fox News, but the way you two talk it's like you are Fox News).

Oh... and... uh... who's common sense? 'Cause to me, common sense is saying that everybody has the right to the care needed to save their lives (that is, health care) because... you know... they have a right to their life and all...

So I'm a bleeding heart liberal? Fine. Shit. I really don't see that as a bad thing. Guess after I'm finished with school, I'll move to England, where the real liberals are. They have a pretty liberal society, and they love their NHS. BTW, did you ever read anything LDW or any of the other Brits here posted about the NHS? Or are their points not valid because they happen to like their system? Their system obviously works... so why can't their system work here?

Oh... right... because it would offend your delicate conservative sensibilities.

I still don't understand why you think I, personally, want a Free Ride. I've said it a million times:

I hate living with my parent's (I can't wait to move out and live on my own). I, personally, don't need or want any government help for myself. I'm doing just fine, thank you very much. You think I like the fact that I have to apply for student loans? You think I look forward to collecting and eventually having to pay off all that debt?

I simply believe that there are people out there who do need and deserve help. And the government should be involved in helping them.

Period.

It's 4:11 in the morning where I am. I need to go to bed.

[SteveAJones]

The Johnson administration right? What swipe began then?

The Medicare and Medicaid programs were signed into law on July 30, 1965.

[Evster2012]

The Medicare and Medicaid programs were signed into law on July 30, 1965.

<H2 class=title>

</H2>

I guess we could go back to Roosevelt's New Deal then!

I see your point. I simply wasn't referring to that broad a stroke. Just centering on Obama's wild spree. Hey, I'm unemployed. I'm living off the government. I'm not proud of it. I hate it. But as I said earlier, cut 1490 pages from the 1500 pages of this healthcare plan, put it into terms the people can understand, and let US vote on it, not the partisans in the government. We the People, right?

[SteveAJones]

Oh... and... uh... who's common sense? 'Cause to me, common sense is saying that everybody has the right to the care needed to save their lives (that is, health care) because... you know... they have a right to their life and all...

So I'm a bleeding heart liberal? Fine. Shit. I really don't see that as a bad thing. Guess after I'm finished with school, I'll move to England, where the real liberals are. They have a pretty liberal society, and they love their NHS. BTW, did you ever read anything LDW or any of the other Brits here posted about the NHS? Or are their points not valid because they happen to like their system? Their system obviously works... so why can't their system work here?

Oh... right... because it would offend your delicate conservative sensibilities.

I still don't understand why you think I, personally, want a Free Ride. I've said it a million times:

I hate living with my parent's (I can't wait to move out and live on my own). I, personally, don't need or want any government help for myself. I'm doing just fine, thank you very much. You think I like the fact that I have to apply for student loans? You think I look forward to collecting and eventually having to pay off all that debt?

I simply believe that there are people out there who do need and deserve help. And the government should be involved in helping them.

Period.

It's 4:11 in the morning where I am. I need to go to bed.

There is no "right to health care" in the Bill of Rights. You must be thinking of some socialist utopian United Nations document.

I'll preface the following remarks by saying I've lived in England for many years. Now, Obama has made much of

the fact the U.S. spends a much larger portion of GDP on health care than do countries such as Great Britain, which do have a state-provided system covering all citizens (and noncitizens who are taken ill in Britain, including illegal immigrants). Leave aside the question of whether a richer country such as the U.S., which has more completely met basic food, housing, and other needs (not to mention desires), should not properly spend more on health care than a poorer country. Consider only the fact that the method used to keep health care costs lower in Britain, Canada, and other countries in which the government controls the system, is a simple one: rationing. This offends not my conservative "sensibilities", it offends my principles.

[Evster2012]

America=Freedom Freedom=Choice Choice=Options

Seems plain enough when you break it down.

That's why I'm cautious about this whole thing. Not against it. Just cautious. And if I might be boldly honest, selfish. How will this benefit/affect me? I want to know! I demand to know what this will mean for me, my family, my friends. Not only the benefits, but the costs. I hear a whole lotta talk about the costs and benefits, but it's all talk. All sides can produce some rhetoric that "substantiates" their position, but so far the politicians are mostly grandstanding. If Obama wants me on board, he'd better get out a smaller brush. I don't want landscapes. I want to see that single blade of grass. Cause that single blade of grass might just be my ass or yours!

[Mary Hartman]

1966? No you misunderstand me my friend. I was referring to Obama rushing all things through in his first 8 months. And let's face it, the state I was born in may be tanking billions, and I'm no fan of thnat, that's why I had to leave the place, but that's a different issue. The state's can't pave fucking roads! As for going over budget, how many is a trillion anyway? How many of our states will China actually own when all is said and done?

Anyway, no need to get heated. This is just discussion right? If you want to educate me on something I'm missing, please do. I welcome it!

So, 1966. The year I was born. That would be the Johnson administration right? What swipe began then?

The revolution we are speaking of is over health care reform. In the other thread right?

They began fighting over reforming it in 1966. I was 7 then.

If all the bridges collapse let's hope all the people have health care.

If they don't it will be done like it is now. Turned over to the feds, then what the feds do not pick up the state does.

Is this the way it should remain?

What is your answer Evster?

We all know we will look at a tax raise no matter how you look at it.

Wasting time arguing instead of doing something is counter productive.

Oh and Obama still won by a freaking landslide due to all our hard work..

Respectfully we do pretty damned good as a country I think. They aren't going to make any sweeping big changes all at once.

That's for sure. Because they have been arguing over it since 1966.

Good night, or morning or whatever.

I'm off...

[Evster2012]

The revolution we are speaking of is over health care reform. In the other thread right?

They began fighting over reforming it in 1966. I was 7 then.

If all the bridges collapse let's hope all the people have health care.

If they don't it will be done like it is now. Turned over to the feds, then what the feds do not pick up the state does.

Is this the way it should remain?

What is your answer Evster?

We all know we will look at a tax raise no matter how you look at it.

Wasting time arguing instead of doing something is counter productive.

Oh and Obama still won by a freaking landslide due to all our hard work..

Respectfully we do pretty damned good as a country I think. They aren't going to make any sweeping big changes all at once.

That's for sure. Because they have been arguing over it since 1966.

Good night, or morning or whatever.

I'm off...

My answer Ed is to step away from the monitor and take a breath. I hope you sleep better than I do. I mean that sincerely as I am an insommniac.

I don't have an answer. Like many folks I just have questions and concerns. As I said, this is just discussion. I'm not standing at a podium trying to crash anyone's hopes of a perfect society.

It was not my intention to piss you off and cause you to throw your arms up in disgust.

I know many here engage in hard fought battles over this. I am not one of them. I'm not trying to one up anyone, or play a trump card. I'm simply a concerned American who's dubious about whether the current admin's plan is really going to benefit me, the self-serving pig that I am.

I doubt my inquiries into this topic are going to have any effect on the outcome. I just want it explained to me, the pros and cons. Without anger, frustration or hostility. Just a peaceful, reasonable dialog.

No radical "revolution" as the thread is titled. Just talking it out.

As for "sweeping changes", I'm living off that stimulus. That doesn't mean I think it's beneficial overall, because I'm not altogether THAT selfish. And I'm still unemployed.

Obama campaigned on the promise of change. As an American, I have the right to worry that some things that get changed might not have needed fixing. No specifics. Just painting with a broad stroke.

Checks and balances. I just want it to make sense.

Goodnight to you sir.

[Patrycja]

There is no "right to health care" in the Bill of Rights. You must be thinking of some socialist utopian United Nations document.

I'll preface the following remarks by saying I've lived in England for many years. Now, Obama has made much of

the fact the U.S. spends a much larger portion of GDP on health care than do countries such as Great Britain, which do have a state-provided system covering all citizens (and noncitizens who are taken ill in Britain, including illegal immigrants). Leave aside the question of whether a richer country such as the U.S., which has more completely met basic food, housing, and other needs (not to mention desires), should not properly spend more on health care than a poorer country. Consider only the fact that the method used to keep health care costs lower in Britain, Canada, and other countries in which the government controls the system, is a simple one: rationing. This offends not my conservative "sensibilities", it offends my principles.

You can't consider only one fact and use it to rep a whole argument, but I suppose you were summarizing or some such. Still, whether as a point of argument or a conclusion it is reductive, and therefore, inaccurate. While nobody here or in England would say their respective systems are without need for improvement, they are very happy with the systems in place nevertheless, because they work on a very fundamental level, and are founded on sound principles that came from identifying needs after some of the most horrific war experiences imaginable. It is not rationing when people get high quality, consistent, life-saving medical treatment, it's rationalizing the defense of a bloated system that does not work.

Would a hybrid system be acceptable to those who only (myopically) view universal health care as socialist?

[Nathan]

There is no "right to health care" in the Bill of Rights. You must be thinking of some socialist utopian United Nations document.

Here's a thought... maybe the Constitution missed something.

If you're using the Constitution, and only the Constitution, to decide what rights and privileges people "deserve", then might I suggest moving to a Monarchy?

I think the reason there's no "right to health care" in the Constitution is because there was no health care then. They didn't have health insurance companies, or other such issues. "Health care" wasn't exactly a business back then. People just got treated. Sure, there were doctors who made money off it, but, in principle, everybody got health care.

So... uh... the Founding Fathers I guess didn't feel it was needed because they had assumed it would be common sense.

Sometimes I wonder... if the Founding Fathers could see America today... I wonder if they'd regret rebelling from English rule...

I'll preface the following remarks by saying I've lived in England for many years. Now, Obama has made much of

the fact the U.S. spends a much larger portion of GDP on health care than do countries such as Great Britain, which do have a state-provided system covering all citizens (and noncitizens who are taken ill in Britain, including illegal immigrants). Leave aside the question of whether a richer country such as the U.S., which has more completely met basic food, housing, and other needs (not to mention desires), should not properly spend more on health care than a poorer country. Consider only the fact that the method used to keep health care costs lower in Britain, Canada, and other countries in which the government controls the system, is a simple one: rationing. This offends not my conservative "sensibilities", it offends my principles.

See this:

You can't consider only one fact and use it to rep a whole argument, but I suppose you were summarizing or some such. Still, whether as a point of argument or a conclusion it is reductive, and therefore, inaccurate. While nobody here or in England would say their respective systems are without need for improvement, they are very happy with the systems in place nevertheless, because they work on a very fundamental level, and are founded on sound principles that came from identifying needs after some of the most horrific war experiences imaginable. It is not rationing when people get high quality, consistent, life-saving medical treatment, it's rationalizing the defense of a bloated system that does not work.

Would a hybrid system be acceptable to those who only (myopically) view universal health care as socialist?

Says it better then I could...

[Mary Hartman]

My answer Ed is to step away from the monitor and take a breath. I hope you sleep better than I do. I mean that sincerely as I am an insommniac.

I don't have an answer. Like many folks I just have questions and concerns. As I said, this is just discussion. I'm not standing at a podium trying to crash anyone's hopes of a perfect society.

It was not my intention to piss you off and cause you to throw your arms up in disgust.

I know many here engage in hard fought battles over this. I am not one of them. I'm not trying to one up anyone, or play a trump card. I'm simply a concerned American who's dubious about whether the current admin's plan is really going to benefit me, the self-serving pig that I am.

I doubt my inquiries into this topic are going to have any effect on the outcome. I just want it explained to me, the pros and cons. Without anger, frustration or hostility. Just a peaceful, reasonable dialog.

No radical "revolution" as the thread is titled. Just talking it out.

As for "sweeping changes", I'm living off that stimulus. That doesn't mean I think it's beneficial overall, because I'm not altogether THAT selfish. And I'm still unemployed.

Obama campaigned on the promise of change. As an American, I have the right to worry that some things that get changed might not have needed fixing. No specifics. Just painting with a broad stroke.

Checks and balances. I just want it to make sense.

Goodnight to you sir.

I do not believe I am pissed off. I was tired and needed some rest. I was trying to make a point and post something and give a viewpoint on my thoughts instead of being pissed off or selfish.

I am neither.

I have concerns myself. Buuut you know time moves on and we all take our lumps. We get up in the morning, fight our said battles and do our very best to pick them wisely.

A wise girl once said Mom ten years down the highway none of us will give a shit about anything any of us said.

This was my sister who was lucky enough to meet a great guy from Texas and they are very happy.

I used to think you had it in for me. But I figured out I was wrong some time ago. If I thought you did I'd have you blocked. I think your fun. Well, I have reservations about the mullet head. But I had one too.

It all comes back to one thing. Who is still chatting and listening to Zeppelin......

Radical Revolution? Horse Hockey/

[Uncle Bill]

Their system obviously works... so why can't their system work here?

This is easy to answer, the vast majority of Americans don't want it. You can't ram something down peoples throats that they clearly don't want and expect it to work.

"Seventy percent (70%) of likely voters now favor a government that offers fewer services and imposes lower taxes over one that provides more services with higher taxes, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

That’s up five points over the past month and is the highest level measured in nearly three years.

Just 19% would prefer a government that provides more services in exchange for higher taxes, down five points from July and the lowest level in over two years. This marks the first time the percentage of voters who prefer this type of government has fallen below 20%."

source

[Pb Derigable]

This comes out not long after a guy brings a gun to Obama's Town Hall meeting.

I'm sorry... but this is getting out of hand...

The guy was black, so atleast its not racism. I think.

Most polls say that 80% of Americans like their health care. Yes, cost are two high, but ther is no malpractice reform, so most Americans know that this is just a scam to get more taxes and take more freedoms away.

[Pb Derigable]

Here's a thought... maybe the Constitution missed something.

If you're using the Constitution, and only the Constitution, to decide what rights and privileges people "deserve", then might I suggest moving to a Monarchy?

The constitution only says what the government can't do.(i.e. can't limit your speech or take away your guns)

[Uncle Bill]

The guy was black, so atleast its not racism. I think.

Did you see this video from our friends at MSNBC? Notice how it's edited to hide the fact that he is black so it supports their argument about "racial overtones".

Here's a photo of the guy:

[SteveAJones]

So... uh... the Founding Fathers I guess didn't feel it was needed because they had assumed it would be common sense.

Sometimes I wonder... if the Founding Fathers could see America today... I wonder if they'd regret rebelling from English rule...

Read the Constitution, and the Federalist papers. The Constitution clearly says what the Federal government is allowed to control, and the Federalist Papers clearly state why. The general welfare clause is referring to the government's general welfare to carry out it's enumerated powers.

Sometimes I wonder...if the Founding Fathers could see America today...I wonder if they'd regret having pledged their fortunes, their lives and their sacred honor so an unemployed, indeed traitorous college student could live in such blissful ignorance.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1775

[SteveAJones]

Most polls say that 80% of Americans like their health care. Yes, cost are too high, but ther is no malpractice reform, so most Americans know that this is just a scam to get more taxes and take more freedoms away.

It's THE single biggest scam and THE most dire domestic threat to individual freedom Americans have ever faced.

[Nathan]

Read the Constitution, and the Federalist papers. The Constitution clearly says what the Federal government is allowed to control, and the Federalist Papers clearly state why. The general welfare clause is referring to the government's general welfare to carry out it's enumerated powers.

Yeah... And it was written this year, because Health Care is an issue this year.

Sometimes I wonder...if the Founding Fathers could see America today...I wonder if they'd regret having pledged their fortunes, their lives and their sacred honor so an unemployed, indeed traitorous college student could live in such blissful ignorance.

This is the last time I will ask. Stop with the college thing. It's pathetic, okay?

I am getting sick and tired of you and TypeO deliberately ignoring things I've been saying, taking swipes at me because I'm a college student, and so on. It's annoying, ridiculous, and proves you have nothing constructive to actually say to me. My points are obviously the better points because your response to them is to insult me mainly because I'm a college student.

And how am I traitorous? Because I exercise my Freedom of Speech to say that there's something wrong with this country? That's not traitorous. Traitorous is selling secrets to Russia during the Cold War. Traitorous is harboring Nazi's during WWII.

Traitorous is not pointing out flaws in America's system. What you just accused me of is one of the many reason we rebelled against England in the first place.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1775

Let's see...

-War in Iraq

-Patriot Act

-Wiretapping

I don't think Franklin was talking about me (or others with my viewpoint).

[SteveAJones]

Nathan: Yeah... And it was written this year, because Health Care is an issue this year.

Guess again, it was written over 200 years ago.

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." Since the late eighteenth century this language has prompted debate over the extent to which it grants powers to Congress that exceed those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The precise meaning of the clause has never been clear, in large part due to its peculiar wording and placement in the Constitution.

The confusion about its placement arises because it makes up a part of the clause related to Congress's spending power, but does not specify if or how it affects that power. For example, through use of conditional appropriations, Congress could in theory use its power to spend as a tool to regulate areas otherwise reserved to the states. This raises the issue of the extent to which Congress may achieve indirectly, through its power to "spend for the general welfare," that which it cannot legislate directly under the Congress's powers enumerated in Article I, section 8.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, some interpreted the clause as granting Congress a broad power to pass any legislation it pleased, so long as its asserted purpose was promotion of the general welfare. One of the Constitution's drafters, James Madison, objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in their view the words themselves served no practical purpose.

In his famous Report on Manufactures (1791), Alexander Hamilton argued that the clause enlarged Congress's power to tax and spend by allowing it to tax and spend for the general welfare as well as for purposes falling within its enumerated powers. Thus, he argued, the General Welfare clause granted a distinct power to Congress to use its taxing and spending powers in ways not falling within its other enumerated powers.

The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the nationalas opposed to localinterest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds.

The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.

In other words, a liberal New Deal-era Supreme court corrupted the clause to support the Social Security Act.

Nathan: And how am I traitorous? Because I exercise my Freedom of Speech to say that there's something wrong with this country? That's not traitorous. Traitorous is selling secrets to Russia during the Cold War. Traitorous is harboring Nazi's during WWII.

trai·tor·ous adj. 1. Having the character of a traitor; disloyal.

2. Constituting treason: a traitorous act.

You, my good man, are traitorous in suggesting the United States of America return to the rule of monarchy. You will commit treason the moment you act upon your suggestion.

[Nathan]

Nathan: Yeah... And it was written this year, because Health Care is an issue this year.

Guess again, it was written over 200 years ago.

I was being sarcastic in response to you, Steve. That one should have been obvious.

Nathan: And how am I traitorous? Because I exercise my Freedom of Speech to say that there's something wrong with this country? That's not traitorous. Traitorous is selling secrets to Russia during the Cold War. Traitorous is harboring Nazi's during WWII.

trai·tor·ous adj. 1. Having the character of a traitor; disloyal.

2. Constituting treason: a traitorous act.

You, my good man, are traitorous in suggesting the United States of America return to the rule of monarchy. You will commit treason the moment you act upon your suggestion.

Oh. My. God.

I do NOT want America to become a monarchy. I suggested that you move to a monarchy. Not America. Stop twisting my words.

[SteveAJones]

I do NOT want America to become a monarchy. I suggested that you move to a monarchy. Not America. Stop twisting my words.

You said "If you're using the Constitution, and only the Constitution, to decide what rights and privileges people "deserve", then might I suggest moving to a Monarchy?"

You then added you wondered if the Founding Fathers regretted rebelling against the English monarchy. You are communicating neither clearly nor effectively if your intent was to suggest I move to a monarchy. Besides, I have

already resided in at least four monarch-ruled countries.

[Nathan]

You said "If you're using the Constitution, and only the Constitution, to decide what rights and privileges people "deserve", then might I suggest moving to a Monarchy?"

I was attempting to point out that the Constitution may not have gotten everything and could be, dare I say, wrong in some things. The Constitution is, IMO, a living document that can and should be updated for the modern times.

You then added you wondered if the Founding Fathers regretted rebelling against the English monarchy.

If I were a Found Father, I would regret it seeing people like you.

You are communicating neither clearly nor effectively if your intent was to suggest I move to a monarchy.

"then might I suggest moving to a Monarchy?"

If that wasn't clear enough in responding to you, then I can only conclude that you are willfully blind and will only use my words when you can twist them to suit your own purposes.

[SteveAJones]

I was attempting to point out that the Constitution may not have gotten everything and could be, dare I say, wrong in some things. The Constitution is, IMO, a living document that can and should be updated for the modern times.

If I were a Found Father, I would regret it seeing people like you.

"then might I suggest moving to a Monarchy?"

If that wasn't clear enough in responding to you, then I can only conclude that you are willfully blind and will only use my words when you can twist them to suit your own purposes.

The Constitution can and has been amended thru the years. Regardless, it's illogical for you to suggest to

anyone who abides by the Constitution that they move to a Monarchy. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

It's like telling someone who supports a monarchy to move to a democratic republic. Why would they?

If you were a "Found Father" I'd feel so bad for the kid.

[Nathan]

The Constitution can and has been amended thru the years. Regardless, it's illogical for you to suggest to

anyone who abides by the Constitution that they move to a Monarchy. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

It's like telling someone who supports a monarchy to move to a democratic republic. Why would they?

My point was that you blindly support something 100%. That's what a Monarchy is all about. The difference here is, instead of your king being a person, it's a sheet of paper.

If you were a "Found Father" I'd feel so bad for the kid.

Okay... I'll give you that one...

[bigstickbonzo]

Until the stranglehold the insurance companies have on the system is dealt with, I don't see the point of arguing about reform. Everyone upset with Obama or Bush or whatever is full of shit. They don't deserve the "revolution" the far-right media is trumping up.

And when it comes, they'll be the ones left in the ground.

[SteveAJones]

My point was that you blindly support something 100%. That's what a Monarchy is all about. The difference here is, instead of your king being a person, it's a sheet of paper.

Nathan, are you freaking kidding me?! I "blindly support" nothing (well, maybe Them Crooked Vultures)! If I'm not considered one of the 10 most strident critical thinkers you have ever met I shall be sorely disappointed.