Revolution?

[Electrophile]

As you were "respectfully" addressing this post to Electrophile--if this is supposed to be your description of her, I think it's absolutely despicable to describe another forum member in those terms, and should be considered banworthy. If she will accept an apology, I'd suggest sending one ASAP. It's one thing to disagree about issues, but this kind of personal attack is totally disgusting, IMO.

Helen, don't. I appreciate you saying something, but you'd get further if you talked to a wall.

[SteveAJones]

And I'm wondering why you're suddenly claiming that I and ldw make "more indignant assumptions" about your posts than anyone else. Where else have I done this, or made an assumption about your posts that was incorrect? (And I have also agreed with you on many occasions.) And I can only think of that one occasion when you had a disagreement with ldw. Your skin seems mighty thin today, Steve?

Your alright. I'm just tired.

[SteveAJones]

Helen, don't. I appreciate you saying something, but you'd get further if you talked to a wall.

Are we still friends, Elizabeth?

[ZPN]

Obama is a moderate?! He was widely known as one of, if not the single most liberal Senator in Congress. Look at his freaking voting record! Are you freaking kidding me? His middle name is relevant; his father is a Muslim and

Obama breached US Presidential protocol by comporting himself as a Muslim. Facts. Now, Obama can claim to be Christian all day long, but he spent 20 plus years in a church with Reverend Wright as the pastor. Who is kidding who?

My parents were Catholics and my Dad is politically conservative (I was a practicing Catholic until I was around 19). That doesn't make me Catholic and conservative. A "Reverend" is not a Muslim. Reverend Wright preaches at a Christian church. Whether I agree with everything he says or not, doesn't make him a Muslim Reverend. There's no such thing! I agree you owe that other member an apology. If someone decides to have you banned from these forums, I'd be delighted. I cannot believe the level of ugliness and misinformation you spew out. I asked Sam to delete my profile/registration a while ago, because I was so tired of it, and actually a little afraid (when people start talking violence, or quoting people like Nugent who advocate violence, that's going too far for me). I reconsidered, mainly because I thought there would be other subjects/posts such as news on what Robert (& the other members of Zep) were working on, that I wouldn't want to miss. I'm done on this part of the forum, because it's going nowhere and the nastiness, right wing rhetoric and lies are making me sick. I don't know what happened to my country-I sure as hell don't like it.

[TypeO]

You have this seriously flawed perspective of life where it's "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" (which I agree with and would be fine... except...)

You know, I wonder why I put any thought whatsoever into responses to a person who makes statements like this.

All in a single sentence (so to speak), no less.

• "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" (your description of my perspective - not mine) is "seriously flawed".

• But you agree with it, and would be fine...

• except...

How am I supposed to take you seriously?

"you agree with it, and would be fine... except..."

Except what?

Except that whole actually DOING it part?

Get over whatever little thing happened to you in your past to make you hate school, and deal with the fact that I have chosen college to help me better myself and push me forward into the career I dream of having.

Oh and, BTW... if you had ever actually went to college... made it through... and graduated with a degree, then maybe you wouldn't be so negative about it.

Here ya go Nathan. My gift to you.

Even if you already have one, you probably wear it out in no time.

FWIW...

Truett-McConnell College, Cleveland, GA

1980-1982 Associates in Arts, 3.66 gpa (Magna Cum Laude)

Mercer University - Atlanta, Atlanta, GA

1983-1985 Bachelors Degree, Human Resource Administrative Services, 3.0 gpa

Yeah, I live right here in Georgia, too.

Be honest, TypeO... you really couldn't care less about the people who just don't get a break, right? If they can't work, you don't care the reason... fuck 'em.

Okay... that's it. I've had it. I've fucking had it.

I am sick and fucking tired of you goddamn assholes bashing college and judging me because I choose to go college. Fuck you you uneducated prick, but I'm not having it anymore. I have chosen college because what I want to do with my life REQUIRES A GODDAMN MOTHERFUKCING DEGREE FROM A GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING COLLEGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Get over whatever little thing happened to you in your past to make you hate school, and deal with the fact that I have chosen college to help me better myself and push me forward into the career I dream of having.

people dealt a bad hand can go screw themselves.

I'm sorry you couldn't care less about these people. I'll bet you probably think that all that help we received was completely undeserved and we shouldn't have gotten any of it. I'll bet you probably think that if our Insurance Company wanted to drop us when Mom got breast cancer twice, that was their prerogative and they had every right to.

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?

Damn, you are one whiny-ass kid.

Other than what I just said, I'd love to see where I "bashed you, called you names, or generally belittled you".

Because in just a couple of your posts I have illustrated the nature of your responses, where you did all that and then some.

And you're so wrapped up in yourself while simultaneously utterly convinced of who I am and what I'm talking about before I even say it that you are incapable of understanding the points I'm making.

And sorry about your mom, but guess what? about 1 out of every 3 members on this board and in this country have either faced personally or had an immediate family member who's had cancer, because that's the current rate.

It's called life.

And NO ONE promised it was fair.

That includes who "makes it" and who doesn't, whether it be jobs, homes, cars, medical conditions, whatever.

And you are absolutely one of the most naive adults persons over 18 years of age I have ever spoken with.

You have an absolutely childish view of how this country should be, and everyone should have equal everything.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

CREATED EQUAL does not mean they remain equal.

But that's what Obama has been selling to everyone, and you've certainly bought your share and then some.

You throw a tantrum and get all butt-hurt because I (correctly) point out how your naïveté is a result of your insulated college existence.

And to prove it, you mistake my comments as being anti-college/anti-education.

You think because you worked a job to support your family for a period that you have an understanding of the real world.

You are utterly without even a whiff of a clue.

Oh yeah, I went to college too.

But I absorbed the knowledge, not the indoctrination of liberal professors who prey on young children getting their first taste of independence by pandering to their newfound status as "adults."

They're just like drug dealers, waving baggies of their hip attitudes, passing out tabs of their keen insights most kids have never considered before, sparking up fatties of their own idealism to re-live vicariously through each new crop of freshmen.

And your predictable assumptions about me are about as far off-base as you can possibly be.

But since I'm a conservative, I don't care about poor people or people who need help.

Actually, I don't watch FOX news very much at all.

And here's why...

you'll never learn anything by listening ONLY to those who share similar views.

So I watch CNN, MSNBC and the broadcast networks to see for myself how they are portraying events they "report" on.

Kinda like the reason I debate on this forum as well.

BTW, going back through all my posts, I'd be curious to see which ones portrayed me as an "uneducated prick".

You might think I'm a prick, but uneducated?

Once again, you are victimized by your own assumptions.

[ZPN]

WorldNetDaily is the right-wing equivalent to The National Enquirer. It's further to the right than Pat Buchanan. Would you choose a story from the National Enquirer to back up an assertion you were making? Probably not.

You say something utterly preposterous such as "render a subservient bow" and "Since he has chosen to comport himself as a Muslim subject" and then post something from freakin' WorldNutDaily to back it up. No, that was a conscious choice on your part. If such a thing were in fact true (and it ain't) there would have been far more reputable sources at the top of the search results you could have linked to. But you chose WorldNutDaily.

Why oh why do you claim you're not a Republican when you espouse right-wing talking points, espouse traditional social conservative values and then link to the right-wing's version of a tabloid magazine? Can you in even the smallest possible way see how someone might not believe you when you say that?

If Steve says he's not a Republican, I'm willing to take him at his word on that. He does agree with many of their positions, like I agree with some Democratic positions, but I'm not a Democrat. But that's about all I believe to be true from Steve.

[ZPN]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/vocal-minority-greet-howard-dean-at-town-hall-2009-08-26.html

Good to see the level of discourse on the subject of health care reform hasn't sunk too low.....

These are the "deathers". They are the same group of people as the "birthers". These people have become convinced through lies, obfuscations and more lies that Obama wants to kill grandmothers and force abortions on people. These people are the current face of the GOP. These people are scary. While this is but a snapshot of the town hall open mic nights that have been popping up around the country, they are not an outlier.

God-I'm going to one tomorrow. If one of those people start screaming at me, or prevent me from asking a question in a calm, rational tone, I don't know what I'll do. My country is insane (and ignorant-other countries that have universal health care are watching the US in disbelief right now. Not crazy, extremist countries: democracies like England, Canada, others in Europe).

[Electrophile]

LOL, people think Obama is a Muslim. Jesus, what next? That he wasn't really born in Hawaii? That we faked the moon landing? There was a second shooter on the grassy knoll? Conspiracy theories are for wackaloons.

You cannot be a Muslim and attend Christian church. It's not possible. The same as you can't be a Catholic and go to a synagogue for 20 years. You're talking about two radically different faiths, with different tenets, different scripture.....it's not like Obama was a Presbyterian and went to an Episcopalian church or something. At least there you're talking about two branches of the same tree. Islam and Christianity are two separate forests. Furthermore, wasn't his father by his own admission an atheist for most of his life? His mother wasn't particularly religious either.

BTW, who gives a rat's ass what faith the President is? Barack Obama could go on TV tomorrow and say he's an atheist and I wouldn't care. He could similarly go on TV and say he's becoming a Jew and I still wouldn't care. A person's religious beliefs are the business of that person, no one else. That's how I was raised by my Catholic parents. Anyway, I don't see how it matters. You're swearing to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible or any other holy book. I cannot understand why a candidate's religious beliefs are now considered to be as important as what policies they would enact if elected. It's insane to me.

How I would love for the social conservatives to let go of the GOP, start their own party and let the Goldwater Republicans retake it. I would vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican. The neocons are destroying the GOP like a festering, molding infection.

[SteveAJones]

LOL, people think Obama is a Muslim.

I said his father was a Muslim and his middle name honors his Grandfather, also a Muslim. He comported himself as a Muslim on the day when he bowed to the Saudi King. I objected to the breach of U.S. Presidential protocol.

That is really all I said on this matter.

[ZPN]

As far as health care... we need reform. The insurance companies have too much power (as is typical of human nature when there's no regulation to curb human nature) and, like the credit cards, charge for ridiculous things. And I think the "pre-existing conditions" clauses are fucking retarded. It doesn't help that my family had so many issues with our insurance company when my mom had Breast Cancer, twice. Steve, to give you a clue: both my parents are Conservative (they both voted for McCain and my dad even liked Sarah Palin at first). But after what our family went through, after what we experienced with the insurance company (it took lawyers to force them to pay their share of the bill and not drop us before Mom got her surgery both times), even my very Conservative parents want reform. If you, Steve, think that it's okay that our insurance company tried everything they could to leave us high and dry when Mom got Breast Cancer, then I no longer have anything to say to you.

Thanks to our experience, we believe that reform is needed... badly... because insurance companies should not be able to do what they tried so hard to do to us.

Nathan, I hope your Mom is doing ok. Good for your family, that you fought the insurance companies, but the thing is, you should never have had to do that! Your family should have been able to put all of your "fight" into fighting the cancer, not fighting to get treatment. There's a woman named Froma Harrop who just published an article about her husband, who died from liver cancer. They were told by the ins company that he couldn't go to the clinic her husband's doctor recommended, not far from their home. They fought the insurance company and eventually got them to cover the treatment at that clinic, but her husband died, and she'll never know whether he'd still be alive, if they hadn't been delayed. Well, I may as well post the article here (from the Seattle Times):

There are death panels: The insurance industry runs them

Columnist Froma Harrop's experience with a "death panel" involved her husband, who had cancer. It didn't involve a government bureaucrat. It was run by their private insurer, and the experience was not a pleasant one.

Syndicated columnist

"Death panels"? I'll tell you about death panels. My husband faced one some years ago, and it didn't involve any government bureaucrat. It was run by our private insurer, the sort of corporate entity that foes of health-care reform say will give you anything you want.

My husband was diagnosed with liver cancer. We were "insured" by United Healthcare. The deal was as follows: You had to use doctors on its list, but if you needed specialized care outside the network, United's health-maintenance organization would pay for it. Fair enough.

A liver expert within the network said point blank that for my husband's case, there was but one place to go, a specialized chemotherapy program at Deaconess Hospital in Boston. Fortunately, it was only 50 minutes away.

But United Healthcare refused to pay for it. Instead, it directed us to a small, local hospital unequipped to deal with this kind of cancer. Our liver specialist warned, "Don't waste your time."

We naively tried to go through United Healthcare's appeals process. We would call the number and speak to a handler who said our case would be reconsidered. Days later, a one-sentence letter would arrive by slow mail saying that we were being denied, but call this number to challenge the verdict.

Around and around we went. We could never speak to anyone making the decisions. No one would even talk to our doctor, who at one point whispered to us, "Mortgage the house."

I became convinced that the insurance company was trying to run out the clock on my husband's life. Had it issued an outright "no," we would have gone to Deaconess, paid for the care ourselves and fought the insurer later. But it always pretended that a possible "yes" could be around the corner.

Having already lost precious time confronting this cancer, we simply rushed to Deaconess. On hearing the story, the head of the chemo program told us: "HMOs don't care whether you live or die. They just want to save money."

My husband underwent the arduous chemo. Meanwhile, powerful people were pulling strings for us with the insurer. Upon learning we had "connections," United Healthcare finally said it would pay.

The cancer came back. This treatment was never a sure thing, but I often wonder how much the delay affected the outcome.

An ex-Marine, my husband was a tough customer. Toward the end, he said to me, "You know, fighting the insurance company was worse than fighting the cancer."

A year after my husband died, I was still receiving medical bills for some of the treatment that United Healthcare had agreed to cover. Oh, they eventually paid. The game is to break you down.

An economic note: In 2006, William "Dollar Bill" McGuire, CEO of parent-company UnitedHealth Group, walked off with a $1.1 billion golden parachute (on top of the $500 million he had already raked in) — though he had to return some of it in an options backdating scandal.

What we wouldn't have done to have traded Dollar Bill's minions for a government bureaucrat. The bureaucrat would have given a simple "yes" or "no" based on official guidelines. He or she would have had no personal stake in denying you care.

By the way, a government-run program doesn't tell you what treatments you may or may not have. It tells you what the taxpayers will subsidize. You are free to go out with your own money and buy whatever you want. We would have been prepared to do that. Instead, we got tied up in a private insurer's web of tricks.

Believe me, "death panels" already exist, and they have nothing to do with the government.

Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is fharrop@projo.com

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

Tell that woman she's a bleeding heart liberal with a socialist agenda. She's just an ordinary good citizen, like Nathan and his family, who got screwed by these vultures who are making literally millions in profit, on people's misfortunes.

If caring about her and Nathan and his family and everyone else who has medical issues makes me a bleeding heart liberal and a socialist, then go ahead and call me one. England and Canada are not socialist countries, but they do have universal health care. I say lets implement a compromise health care coverage plan that includes a Public OPTION. If for some reason it winds up worse than what we have now, then we can agree to go back to the present system. On the other hand, after it is implemented, if the majority see that the Public plan is more affordable and doesn't deny or delay their treatment, or restrict them to "in network" doctors, like private insurance, we can push for Single Payer. I happen to think President Obama should have started by supporting Single Payer, even if it was only a matter of strategy on his part. Then we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now, where even a Public Option is in peril of not passing.

[ZPN]

If I may put my head on the chopping block...

I think we do need healthcare reform. HOWEVER, I don't think it needs to be fast-tracked with blind urgency. Reflect and consider. Choose the right path. The bi-partisan feeding frenzy will benefit no one. The government needs to take a breath (and I don't mean taking a couple of weeks off in the Hamptons), step back and stop making this a make it or break it issue. Nothing fails more than a government rushing blindly to the kill. Dems or Repubs. Pointless! It's about we the people right? We get to elect the presidant. Why can't we vote on policy? Waving signs and having townhall meetings. Is that really going to derail the political agenda? That's naive. These plans were in place long before Obama took office. They had to be, otherwise he's clearly rushing a plan that he's had no time to properly evaluate. That's pretty simple. Reflect and consider. Rome wasn't built in a day, yet it fell. This is too big an issue to push through the cat door in the first year. Let it marinate and be refined before we all go at each other and end up with something worse than what we have now. The potential is there. The patience is what's lacking. Relax America, positive change takes time. Don't slam the oven door on the souffle!

One one hand, your points sound pretty reasonable. Though one result of Congress allowing a vote to be delayed until after the August recess is the insurance industry gained time to organize and spend millions to try to stop Public Option. I don't know about taking it slow, since people are literally dying and going bankrupt right now over this issue. Many people/organizations have been working on this issue for decades (including Senator Kennedy), so we've already spent a lot of time on it. The difference is, now the situation has become so dire, affecting more people, the media and the Congress can't ignore it any longer, and we have a President who is willing to make it his most important issue right now. I think if we slow down at this point, the opportunity to make really effective change could disappear.

Rant over.

[ZPN]

You can't vote on the issue because you've got a liberal socialist President and his administration who have their own plans for your lives.

I don't remember having the opportunity to vote for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, the bailouts the Bush administration gave, the tax breaks he gave the rich, or any number of things that have happened under Democratic and Republic Presidents (I disagreed with many things Clinton did too) in my lifetime. Because we have a representative government. Unless/until we change that, (and I don't think changing it violently is acceptable) we all have to live with things not being exactly the way we want them to all of the time.

[ZPN]

Perhaps the rumored fall string of swine flu will eliminate the problem, on the left and the right.

If that was intended to be silly, ok with me-there's a dark streak in my sense of humor. If you really hope people on the left & right will die, not ok!

[ZPN]

If health care reform was executed at the state level where it belongs the changes would be up for a vote by the people, a primary reason why seemingly every significant social policy is executed at the federal level,

where the "representatives" are already bought and paid for by special interest groups and lobbyists.

Thanks to our current Governor, a Republican, with our State Medical Assistance, I am forced to pay 50% of my income for medical coverage and bills. I didn't get to vote on that, any more than I will get to vote for a federal health care reform bill. There are plenty of people on the state and local level who are bought and paid for (I believe Blue Cross is based in my state). At least if a federal program is implemented, everyone who needs it will benefit from it.

[ZPN]

Apparently I could...

Let me explain these things to you a little more simply...

"Give every single person, rich or poor, the bare necessities to live, then ensure they have a job."

Okay... I will make a concession to you. I made a mistake here with the "every single person" and "rich or poor". I contradicted myself by wording that statement the way I did, so your call-out was fair. Not very single person. If you are making enough to supply for yourself, then no, the Government should not interfere with your life.

If, however, you are poor (or otherwise unable to provide for yourself), then the government should help you as I said they should.

"Let's send you to school, give you a skill, and put you in the workface, starting at, say, $20,000 a year (or, if it's a family, startingat $30,000 to $35,000 a year with both parents on the work force andany and all kids in school), with the ability to move "up the corporateladder" depending on how well you do. Just don't get fired, or theywon't work so hard to find you another job. Give non-monetaryincentives to keep everyone in school, and monetary incentives (raiseand such) to keep people on the work force. These could monitored bythe government to ensure they happen, but given and controlled by eachbusiness separately."

TypeO, I have a new idea I think you should consider. One word: Context.

Let's take a closer look at the sentence that actually starts off that paragraph:

"If you're living on the streets because of just plain old bad luck andcan't even make $10 a year from begging, then you need a job."

So... the government steps in, provides you temporary assistance to get you back on your feet, and your off to supporting yourself. How does the government do this? Did you know that schools are Public? Government-run? And yeah... some are shitty. But some are also awesome (take a look at the East Cobb, Marietta, GA school district... namely Walton High School). So the government can use some of these already-public school for specified training in a specific field. It's also known as "training", BTW. You aren't going to school for... you know... History. You're going to school to learn how to be a carpenter. Specialized, area-specific training, which is already practiced, BTW. once you've completed training, the government helps you find a job. Not gives persay (again, my bad), but assists you in finding one. At which point, you work the job, do well, move up, and are on your way to supporting yourself.

Do you know who doesn't pay taxes? The poor. Guess what an advantage of putting them in the workforce is? They start paying taxes.

Wow!!! Novel!!!

Not all begging in the street is bad luck. A lot of it is drugs and alcohol. I'm not talking about the Hobos who ask for $10 for food, then use it to get a hit of cocaine off their dealer. What you need to realize is, not all poor people are poor by choice. Those are who I'm talking about... the who aren't poor by choice. Think about it. Sometimes, people get poor because they lose their job in the midst of, say, an economic recession... or maybe there wasn't a recession... they just had a lot of debt, mainly in student loans... and they got laid off of their job for whatever reason... they can't find a new job, can't pay off their debt, have to declare bankruptcy, but that doesn't help...

Woops... foreclosed, on the street... and it wasn't drugs who put you there. Aren't those people worth helping, or do you honestly not give a shit about them? Be honest, TypeO... you really couldn't care less about the people who just don't get a break, right? If they can't work, you don't care the reason... fuck 'em.

Again... giving and helping are two different things. I'm aware I wasn't quite clear with that, but I'm advocating helping, not direct, explicit, no-strings attached, no-limits giving.

Guess what? I agree.

[url=

Okay... that's it. I've had it. I've fucking had it.

I am sick and fucking tired of you goddamn assholes bashing college and judging me because I choose to go college. Fuck you you uneducated prick, but I'm not having it anymore. I have chosen college because what I want to do with my life REQUIRES A GODDAMN MOTHERFUKCING DEGREE FROM A GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING COLLEGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Get over whatever little thing happened to you in your past to make you hate school, and deal with the fact that I have chosen college to help me better myself and push me forward into the career I dream of having.

I am no longer responding to any more of your posts because you show time and fucking time again that you are impossible to talk to. You have this seriously flawed perspective of life where it's "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" (which I agree with and would be fine... except...) and people dealt a bad hand can go screw themselves.

I have no problem with hard work. I believe that the only way to truly covet what you have is to earn it. But there are people in the world who need help. If I have to pay higher taxes to help those people, then so be it. Not that I will, as I don't make $250,000 or more a year. But I wouldn't complain if that government took a tiny bit extra out of my paycheck for someone who was fired, got foreclosed, and now has nothing, not because of bad choices, drugs, or alcohol, but because things just didn't go as planned (by the way, things often don't go as planned).

I want health care reform because our insurance company was going to drop my Mom when she had Breast Cancer, twice. I want help for those who are broke because after Mom's first battle in 2005, we declared bankruptcy, and our situation got worse because a year later, Dad lost his job, then two years later Mom lost her job, and they both only just started working again. We only live in the house we do because our landlord was gracious enough to forego our rent for an entire year and he paid our heat, water, and electricity for the year, too, and he asked for nothing in return other than an assurance that we'd be able to pay at the start of the next year (he never made us pay back that year's worth of rent and utilities and he doesn't intend to). We ate because of 3 differnet local charities and food stamps. We had internet and basic TV only because of a fund set up at our synagogue (which we only found out about two months in to its existence) that was anonymously paying this stuff for us (we still don't know who contributed, but we do know it was several, several people). The only reason we had two cars is because we were able to pay off both cars entirely a month before Mom got breast cancer.

I also helped by getting a job, BTW. I didn't get that job on my own. It was our local Cobb County government that helped me get a job. During 4 months of this period in our lives, I was the only one making money in the family. And 100% of that money (that is, after the taxes I couldn't get exempt from [which weren't that any]) went to buy anything the family needed... extra food, gas for our cars, etc. And I kept that job until the recession hit and I was one of over 40 employees laid off. Luckily, both my parents had started their new jobs.

So yes... I sure-as-hell want the government to help those who need it, because I've experienced a bit of what many people in this country go through.

I'm sorry you couldn't care less about these people. I'll bet you probably think that all that help we received was completely undeserved and we shouldn't have gotten any of it. I'll bet you probably think that if our Insurance Company wanted to drop us when Mom got breast cancer twice, that was their prerogative and they had every right to.

Well, guess what? That's your problem. I no longer have any want to answer you.

Oh and, BTW... if you had ever actually went to college... made it through... and graduated with a degree, then maybe you wouldn't be so negative about it. I happen to love college. I happen to love education. I happen to love learning things. I didn't always. It took me 12 years of school to find that love. But I found it. And I cherish it.

So get over it.

ETA...

Sam... forgive my outburst. But I am sick and tired of the college-bashing by these guys and the way they've pre-judged me because I have chosen to go to college. If you want to delete my post or whatever, fine. I can't, and won't, fight you.

But it's not hard to push me over the edge, and that has happened right here, right now.

The next time college is bashed and/or someone is pre-judged because they choose to go to college on this forum, I cannot be responsible for what I will say...but I guarantee you it will make this look positively pretty.

Nathan, I have such respect for you, and your family. I wish you all the best. I don't blame you for being frustrated with many of the posts here, because I am too! After tonight I probably won't be back here-not on this thread anyway, because it's toxic for people like you and I who try to be compassionate. They think they are being more "American" than we are. I disagree. America is a combination of capitalist, government, and non-profit solutions. All of those in combination need to provide for the basic needs of citizens, including the poor, mentally ill and physically ill. In the case of health coverage, corporations aren't doing the job. The government needs to step in (one congressman-I forget whom-recently told a woman who was begging for help with her husband's medical treatment/expenses at a town meeting, that she should ask her neighbors for help. That would be fine if she needed $100. I doubt her neigbors could come up with tens of thousands immediately, so he could get immediate treatment!).

BTW, I went to college and got a degree, back in the day. I got student loans for a portion of it, and paid them back. I couldn't get a full time job in my field (teaching music), and wound up working a lot of low paying jobs over the years, in order to get medical benefits. I recently became elligible for SSDI (a government program, which I PAID into for years, in addition to my income taxes). I've been disabled since birth but always worked. Because my health problems have worsened as I've gotten older, I was unable to keep my last job, which I started at full time, and decreased to part time. I took an intermittent FMLA (government program again-thanks to Senator Kennedy for that and many other things like the Americans With Disabilities Act, which has also helped me)leave, but when it ran out (5 months earlier than I'd been told it would), they fired me.

So some people will say I'm a lazy drug addict (I've never even smoked a cigarette, much less a joint, and I haven't drank a drop of alcohol since 1984) who went to college on someone else's tax money and just wants a handout. Someone DID email me recently that I should "get of the government tit and get a fucking job". I'm not kidding. I'm sorry but people like that are either cruel, or they're mentally ill and would benefit from "government" health coverage!

Take care, Nathan. Not everyone here wants to beat up on you. I'm sorry for the overwhelming difficulties you had to endure, and I hope the future is better for you and your family. I support people who want to go to college.

And as you say, many jobs require college, not simply because they are elitist, but because the knowledge/training is necessary. Pursuit of knowledge is a good thing, and contributes to a better society.

[ZPN]

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?

You really think they could sign/implement a 10 page health care bill? Take the lies about "death panels", paying for "illegal aliens" and "funding abortions". They probably need a hundred pages just to verify in legalese that those things AREN'T going to be in the program! Not to mention all the things that will be in it. I'm sure they could cut some pages out, but not shorten it to 10 pages! The bills have yet to go through the conference committee process-once they have, they'll be shorter, longer, or about the same length as the bills that have come through the department committees so far. I don't care how long the final bill is, just if it's a plan that will improve cost and access for everyone.

[ZPN]

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.

Well, if you get cancer over there in England, will you refuse treatment provided by the NHS, because it offends your principles? How about if you have a spouse/kids with you-would you prevent them from being treated under the NHS, because it offends your principles? What about moving back here to the US, where you'd have to get a job with benefits, pay for your own benefits, or do without, if you can't pay or they refuse to insure you because of your medical history?

[ZPN]

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!

If you want to see every blade of grass, and a smaller brush, you can't do it in 10 pages!

And the point of a plan that includes a Public OPTION is to give people MORE choices than they have now ("America=Freedom Freedom=Choice Choice=Options").

[ZPN]

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 respect that, and I want peaceful reasonable dialog as well. I hope it's like that at the town meeting I'm going to tonight. It will be my first one and I hope it's not just a bunch of people screaming.

[ZPN]

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 national—as opposed to local—interest, 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.

Sarcasm is treason now, huh? I don't even know what to say anymore. I can't engage someone like Steve in a rational conversation, because he doesn't simply present facts to back up his positions, he has to insult people.

Steve, you aggravate Nathan, he responds with harmless sarcasm, and you then accuse him of treason?!

I guess the only things I have in common with you are enjoying Led Zeppelin and having a pulse. Or do you...

[ZPN]

Helen, don't. I appreciate you saying something, but you'd get further if you talked to a wall.

I'd RATHER talk to a wall.

[SteveAJones]

If caring about her and Nathan and his family and everyone else who has medical issues makes me a bleeding heart liberal and a socialist, then go ahead and call me one. The Enlish and Canadians are not socialist countries, but they do have universal health care. I say lets implement a compromise health care coverage plan that includes a Public OPTION. If for some reason it winds up worse than what we have now, then we can agree to go back to the present system. On the other hand, after it is implemented, if the majority see that the Public plan is more affordable and doesn't deny or delay their treatment, or restrict them to "in network" doctors, like private insurance, we can push for Single Payer. I happen to think President Obama should have started by supporting Single Payer, even if it was only a matter of strategy on his part. Then we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now, where even a Public Option is in peril of not passing.

The government doesn't care whether you live or die or either (VA health care anyone?). They just want to control the system and the money.

What the woman and her husband encountered was unfortunate, and it's an interesting human interest story, but if you look at it impartially it wasn't the system which failed, it was difficulties encountered with a single profit-motivated insurance agency. A clear and indeed overwhelming majority of Americans are insured and still retain a belief in the system.

The policy debate should be focused strictly upon insurance industry reform and regulation, not overhauling the entire health care system. Don't

be so ridiculously naive to believe the genie is ever put back into the bottle once it is allowed out. There would be no turning back to the current

system.

[ZPN]

The government doesn't care whether you live or die or either (VA health care anyone?). They just want to control the system and the money.

What the woman and her husband encountered was unfortunate, and it's an interesting human interest story, but if you look at it impartially it wasn't the system which failed, it was difficulties encountered with a single profit-motivated insurance agency. A clear and indeed overwhelming majority of Americans are insured and still retain a belief in the system.

The policy debate should be focused strictly upon insurance industry reform and regulation, not overhauling the entire health care system. Don't

be so ridiculously naive to believe the genie is ever put back into the bottle once it is allowed out. There would be no turning back to the current

system.

I disagree that Harrop's situation was an isolated one caused by one for profit insurance company. The same stories are out there with different names and different insurance companies. The problem is system wide.

I also disagree that we couldn't go back to the current system if the MAJORITY WANTED TO. I just happen to believe the majority won't want to, if given the opportunity to have a public option or single payer.

Yes, I could be wrong, but I believe we have to try a plan that includes Public Option, or Single Payer.

The for profit insurance companies/hmos have had years to improve things voluntarily, and they didn't.

BTW I appreciate that your response was civil this time and you didn't resort to terms like "bleeding heart liberal" "socialist", or "treason". I caught "ridiculously naive", but I can let it go, because it's better than what you've done in the past. At least you are making an effort to be reasonable. Thank you.

[SteveAJones]

If you want to see every blade of grass, and a smaller brush, you can't do it in 10 pages!

And the point of a plan that includes a Public OPTION is to give people MORE choices than they have now ("America=Freedom Freedom=Choice Choice=Options").

The point of the plan that includes Public Option is to empower the government to methodically take control over the entire health care system.

"Option" is such a gross misnomer for a plan that will levy fees against those who elect to opt out and retain private insurance. Ultimately, opt-out would be phased out because public option is cost prohibitive unless everyone is compelled to contribute.

[SteveAJones]

I appreciate that your response was civil this time and you didn't resort to terms like "bleeding heart liberal" "socialist", or "treason". I caught "ridiculously naive", but I can let it go, because it's better than what you've done in the past. At least you are making an effort to be reasonable. Thank you.

I am a very reasonable person who is perhaps a bit too stridently principled. Peace and love. Peace and love.