Applying "truth in advertising" to obamacare

[Guest Hyaloid]

"...to promote the general welfare"

I know you'll now try to tell me why that doesn't mean what it says, but, according to which poll you choose to believe, 55 to 80 percent of the public think it means improved access to affordable healthcare.

Well, I can tell you what it's SUPPOSED to mean. I am sure you are familiar with James Madison, you know, the "Father of the Constitution"...

From Federalist No 41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Can you please show me the specific enumerated power below the "general welfare" clause, that gives Congress the authority for providing healthcare as a protection of a Constitutional right?

[Guest H0TSH0T]

your right our government does do some things right, the military was a good example. but you got off point, when our solders come off the battle field they need the best medical treatment, however does the government give it to them, in some cases yes and others no, why no you ask, i remember reading in the paper mold growing in some veterans hospitals, and other piss poor conditions. our soldiers deserve the best, they provide you the luxury to sit and bad mouth this country and display your ignorance.

but they also do alot more wrong, ie

the post office vs ups or fed x

welfare

social security

medicare

education

marriage

homelessness

taxes

border security

war on drugs

and i don't think we need to make the list bigger by adding the ability to destroy innovation and advancements in medicine that can only be made by the private sector, when we know the only thing the government is good at is telling lies and killing people. think about it you may be next.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

just because someone thinks they know, doesn't mean that they do know.

that is the definition of a fool as found in the bible (Pre King James)"he who knows not and think he knows is a fool shun him."

as far as affordability of health care, the people that treat you don't even know the cost, it is an artificial number, it is not like your picking your treatment from a menu, like you do food at a restaurant , and regardless if you have the money or not you still get treatment.

but lets pick apart your statement on the merits.

"55-80% thinks it means improved access to affordable health care"

1. 55-80% of people, first off not that many people voted for him in the first place,

i would say that may be the amount of liberals that may believe that.

2. people you think the government are we the people, or we the people

are the government?

3 . think we know most people don't do this and when they do, if the

conclusion in not constructed in facts, not opinions they may lead you

to a surprisingly wrong outcome.

4. improved access. are they gonna make a door 1000 of a inch bigger, or

send a limo to pick me up, or make sure when i am billed for a hours time

of a doctor, if I actually get a hours time, and not seen by some CNA and

billed for a doctor.

5. affordable, do you know what this means? priced with in someones

means and ability to pay. how can someone that doesn't know me

and has to ask by force how much pay i recived, (taxes) gonna know

what i can afford, when they cant even balance a budget, something

every family must do in America to survive. i don't make any more money

just because i say i need it, and decided it so, take a vote on it, and

neither should they.

6. healthcare, what is this? n. The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the

preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services

offered by the medical and allied health professions.health care - definition of health care in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

i care about treatment, i am responsible for prevention through my choices, same for my well being, and i don't care for the management of illness, as-long as the treatment is effective,(that is what i assume i am paying a doctor for, his/her knowledge and skills to treat me.)

6a. i didn't see govenment in the definition? did you?

I'm submitting your post to the Smithsonian Folklore program as an example of authentic Appalachian gibberish.

It cracks me up how someone can open by quoting the New Testament (?) then try to make a case for essentially saying "to hell with the sick."

Anyhow, the gist of your complaint seems to be based in the fear that somebody's going to take your money to help pay for somebody else's kid's kidney transplant...so to speak. Here's your wakeup call--YOU"RE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT in higher medical and insurance costs. You'd be paying LESS if everyone was insured. The position you're taking on this issue is contrary to your own self-interest, unless you own an insurance company. I confess it's amusing to watch someone kick himself in the ass, or oppose something that would benefit him and his family.

[Guest H0TSH0T]

I'm submitting your post to the Smithsonian Folklore program as an example of authentic Appalachian gibberish.

It cracks me up how someone can open by quoting the New Testament (?) then try to make a case for essentially saying "to hell with the sick."

Anyhow, the gist of your complaint seems to be based in the fear that somebody's going to take your money to help pay for somebody else's kid's kidney transplant...so to speak. Here's your wakeup call--YOU"RE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT in higher medical and insurance costs. You'd be paying LESS if everyone was insured. The position you're taking on this issue is contrary to your own self-interest, unless you own an insurance company. I confess it's amusing to watch someone kick himself in the ass, or oppose something that would benefit him and his family.

you said that not me, keep the facts straight.

you assume that but once again don't know what i am paying for or not.

no fear at all its understanding that someone like you does not know what is best for me.

i don't pay for it now and not going to, i pay cash for my medical needs, and deal with a doctor that is against medical insurance and is very reasonable , and if i needed to go to a hospital for some other need i would still pay cash.

you sound like a fantastic person, NOT.

[tntnixon]

More propaganda from the right. You no doubt profit personally from the healthcare status-quo. It's all about money and /or Obamaphobia to the anti's. Hope you sleep well in your selfishness and greed. Since you're a self-proclaimed expert on healthcare perhaps you'd like to enlighten the rest of the brainwashed tools of the insurance industry as to where the United States ranks compared to the rest of the industrialized world in infant mortality, and amount per capita spent on healthcare? Also what the future holds in terms of healthcare and insurance costs, as well as the number of uninsured, if we continue to do nothing? Tell us why if we're the greatest nation on earth we can't manage to do what so many others have done....and don't give me crap about how terrible things are elsewhere--I've been there. There's no excuse for our being a third-world country where healthcare is concerned.

It violates the constitution, the bible, and common decency.

The evening news carried coverage of a crippled woman in a wheelchair being shouted down by a wingnut at a townhall meeting on healthcare today.... make you proud?

First of, all Ralph, you want me to respond to the mortality rates. Most of the mortality rates have little or nothing to do with health care spending. They have to do with lifestyle and heredity. Take the former Yugoslavia, they have no healthcare system, are relugated to third world status secondary to war, yet they have lower mortality rates. Genetics play a far larger role than you or your kind want to realize.

All things being equal, Asians will always have lower mortalities, followed by Europeans, followed by Hispanics, and finally people of African decent have the highest mortality rates. This formula is proven even when you look at socio-economic status and access to care.

What you fail to realize is that America has the most diverse population on the planet. And, unfortunately, statistics will always show their ugly heads. I may flip a coin a hundred times and it land on heads each and every time, but at some point with enough flips, it will even itself out.

One other thing you fail to realize is that prenatal care is already free in this country to those who don't have insurance. Ever heard of WIC? The problem is that in spite of the availability and even plastering billboards, radio and tv advertizing, and signs and posters all over the projects, government offices including postal, and multiple free clinics including the health department, these people still refuse to take advantage or change their lifestyles, for the sake of their babies. Will nationalized healthcare fix that? Only if you try to take even more freedoms away from the populace and fully make us a police state.

As far as costs, they will continue to rise. You may not know this but one reality of the nationalized systems that are around the world is the fact that America subsidizes them. We pay more for our drugs than other people because the drug comanies have to recoup the losses that they have in other countries. Having done clinical trials, research is extremely expensive even when most of it is done in academia. Someone has to pay for it. Also, the other countries don't have such loose malpractice laws or the ability to sue drug companies like we do and your side refuses to relax like those nations. One other note, those other countries which you love so much, have more ready capital because they rely on our defense department to pick up their slack. Britain, for instance, has a lower defense budget than the United States spends on one aircraft carrier. They feel comfortable with this because they know they have a big brother across the pond who'll cover their asses.

Now lets look at the uninsured. approximately 10% of our population. Half of that number are illegal aliens. A quarter are those under 30 who think they're six foot tall and bullet proof and basically refuse to get coverage because nothing bad will ever happen to them. Another 1/8 are people making over $50,000 per year, who can afford coverage but don't get it because they'd rather have that new TV. So, that leaves us with about 1% who truely need help. If your willing to cut the subsidy to cover only those people, I'm sure you'll get a lot of support even by Republicans. $130Billion is a hell of alot different than $1.3 trillion.

As far as credentials, mine are a lot better than yours. I don't use a fake name and hide behind it. I've been an RN for the last 15 years and have done everything from bedside nursing to administration and everything in between. Before I got my license, I ws a nursing technician. I've been working in academic medicine for the last 14 years at one of U.S News and World Report's honor roll of hospitals facility.

as far as my sleeping habits, I have a lot of trouble. My "greed" gets the better of me when I think of all the charity time I donated, the money I've used to help the truely needy, and the time I wasn't getting paid just to go visit a very special patient. Thinking of all that money and time that I've lost gives me night terrors. And if you don't get it, this is a joke. Greed has never been a part of what I do or why I do it. I just have a significantly different view of the role of government than you.

Now, if you have nothing better to say than to make accusations like "right-wing nut" and call true facts "propaganda", then we have nothing to say to one another. You asked about facts, I'm giving them to you because you're too lazy to actually get them yourself. Either that or the true facts don't meet with your agenda, so you disregard them.

Now you asked about the shouting match, I'd rather be shouted at than have my finger bitten off by a Pacifist liberal. I thought that conservatives were the violent war-mongers.

Unfortunately, therir are a lot of people, who aren't educated, who'll believe that artcle that you didn't cite. That's the part that makes me angry. When you make up "personal stories", plant "fictional doctors" at town hall meetings, you just show your true motives are less than glorious.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Well, I can tell you what it's SUPPOSED to mean. I am sure you are familiar with James Madison, you know, the "Father of the Constitution"...

From Federalist No 41:

Can you please show me the specific enumerated power below the "general welfare" clause, that gives Congress the authority for providing healthcare as a protection of a Constitutional right?

Nice try. This question--what is meant by "promoting the general welfare"-- was argued ad nauseum when Social Security was proposed in the 1930's. Forgive me if I choose not to re-try a case which has already been decided in my favor. Last time I looked we have Social Security. Though you may believe it unconstitutional, and get some satisfaction from defending that belief, I still get my check.

(That's not a cue to begin a debate on Social Security)

As to showing you the enumerated power giving Congress the authority to provide healthcare...you'll find it right next to the clause permitting Congress to fund the Air Force (only the army and navy are mentioned)

and the Interstate highway system. The constitution has survived because it is, and was meant to be, a living document allowing our nation to adapt to changing realities unforseeable in the 18th century.

It is hostile to the constitution to attempt to deny that flexibility.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Nice try. This question--what is meant by "promoting the general welfare"-- was argued ad nauseum when Social Security was proposed in the 1930's. Forgive me if I choose not to re-try a case which has already been decided in my favor. Last time I looked we have Social Security. Though you may believe it unconstitutional, and get some satisfaction from defending that belief, I still get my check.

(That's not a cue to begin a debate on Social Security)

As to showing you the enumerated power giving Congress the authority to provide healthcare...you'll find it right next to the clause permitting Congress to fund the Air Force (only the army and navy are mentioned)

and the Interstate highway system. The constitution has survived because it is, and was meant to be, a living document allowing our nation to adapt to changing realities unforseeable in the 18th century.

It is hostile to the constitution to attempt to deny that flexibility.

The Air Force originated out of the Army. Next.

The Highway system was originally designed for military purposes, and while it receives Federal dollars, it is 'owned and operated' by the individual States. Next.

Social Security exists, but that does not make it right by the Constitution, and that was ANOTHER sweeping legislation brought about by populist/socialist movements that has ballooned out of control and is bankrupt... not exactly a good thing to bring up when debating more government programs.

There is a process by which the Constitution can be changed. It was put into place to give THE PEOPLE the means by which to control the propensity for government to expand and damage liberty. If it's that important, then healthcare must either be left to the States to implement on their own (ever read the 10th Amendment?), or the Constitution must be changed via the established processes to allow the Federal government to have the power.

It really is simple.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

your right our government does do some things right, the military was a good example. but you got off point, when our solders come off the battle field they need the best medical treatment, however does the government give it to them, in some cases yes and others no, why no you ask, i remember reading in the paper mold growing in some veterans hospitals, and other piss poor conditions. our soldiers deserve the best, they provide you the luxury to sit and bad mouth this country and display your ignorance.

but they also do alot more wrong, ie

the post office vs ups or fed x

.

Please don't characterize anything I've said as "bad-mouthing this country." Please explain how the right can simultaneously hate their government and love their country.

The Post office/UPS example illustrates why we need both private and public entities involved in some things. The Post office, for all it's fabled problems, performs a necessary service that the private sector can only partially fulfill--only to the extent that it is profitable. Imagine trying to get a first class letter in a remote area(where I live for exampel) if only UPS and FEDEX were involved. The post office is the "public option" that makes it possible for us to receive daily mail at an affordable cost. Could the same principle apply elsewhere? Hmmm.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

you said that not me, keep the facts straight.

you assume that but once again don't know what i am paying for or not.

no fear at all its understanding that someone like you does not know what is best for me.

i don't pay for it now and not going to, i pay cash for my medical needs, and deal with a doctor that is against medical insurance and is very reasonable , and if i needed to go to a hospital for some other need i would still pay cash.

you sound like a fantastic person, NOT.

Whether or not you pay cash, you're paying more.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

The Air Force originated out of the Army. Next.

>>The fact that it originated as the Army Air Corps does not give literal constitutional authority (which is what you seem to require) to establish a separate Air Force. Next.

The Highway system was originally designed for military purposes, and while it receives Federal dollars, it is 'owned and operated' by the individual States. Next.

>>Still not specified in the Constitution. Certainly not the Federal dollars to the states. A good case can be made that healthcare is also a national security issue....particularly our economic security as evidenced by the failure of our car manufacturers to compete due to healthcare costs not a problem for foreign car makers. Next.

Social Security exists, but that does not make it right by the Constitution, and that was ANOTHER sweeping legislation brought about by populist/socialist movements that has ballooned out of control and is bankrupt... not exactly a good thing to bring up when debating more government programs.

>>You don't understand how our government under the Constitution works. Once again, it was designed to be flexible. Social Security is not, nor need it ever be, bankrupt. Currently no one pays SS taxes on income over $90,000 (I believe that's the figure and am sure if it's not I'll be corrected).

There is a process by which the Constitution can be changed. It was put into place to give THE PEOPLE the means by which to control the propensity for government to expand and damage liberty. If it's that important, then healthcare must either be left to the States to implement on their own (ever read the 10th Amendment?), or the Constitution must be changed via the established processes to allow the Federal government to have the power.

>>OK...we'll make the Air Force constitutional while we're at it.

It really is simple.

Not that simple.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Not that simple.

Oh? Please elaborate. I feel it is surprisingly simple, as it was meant to be.

The waters of Constitutionality have become so muddled with crap (purposefully), that once you clear that all away and research the roots of the document, it is amazing how well written and simple the application of the Constitution is.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Please don't characterize anything I've said as "bad-mouthing this country." Please explain how the right can simultaneously hate their government and love their country.

The Post office/UPS example illustrates why we need both private and public entities involved in some things. The Post office, for all it's fabled problems, performs a necessary service that the private sector can only partially fulfill--only to the extent that it is profitable. Imagine trying to get a first class letter in a remote area(where I live for exampel) if only UPS and FEDEX were involved. The post office is the "public option" that makes it possible for us to receive daily mail at an affordable cost. Could the same principle apply elsewhere? Hmmm.

And the post office is going bankrupt ( Postal Chief Says Post Office Running Out of Money ) Any other shining examples of government programs that you'd like to throw out there? Thankfully, at least the postal service is Constitutional.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

First of, all Ralph, you want me to respond to the mortality rates. Most of the mortality rates have little or nothing to do with health care spending. They have to do with lifestyle and heredity. Take the former Yugoslavia, they have no healthcare system, are relugated to third world status secondary to war, yet they have lower mortality rates. Genetics play a far larger role than you or your kind want to realize.

>>>OK...open to debate. I'll see what detailed stats I can find.

All things being equal, Asians will always have lower mortalities, followed by Europeans, followed by Hispanics, and finally people of African decent have the highest mortality rates. This formula is proven even when you look at socio-economic status and access to care.

>>>see above

What you fail to realize is that America has the most diverse population on the planet. And, unfortunately, statistics will always show their ugly heads. I may flip a coin a hundred times and it land on heads each and every time, but at some point with enough flips, it will even itself out.

One other thing you fail to realize is that prenatal care is already free in this country to those who don't have insurance. Ever heard of WIC? The problem is that in spite of the availability and even plastering billboards, radio and tv advertizing, and signs and posters all over the projects, government offices including postal, and multiple free clinics including the health department, these people still refuse to take advantage or change their lifestyles, for the sake of their babies. Will nationalized healthcare fix that?

>>>It might help. Our current system, in its complexity, has been described as "a maze within a minefield" for good reason.

Only if you try to take even more freedoms away from the populace and fully make us a police state.

>>>Lots of countries who aren't remotely "police states" have universal health care.

As far as costs, they will continue to rise. You may not know this but one reality of the nationalized systems that are around the world is the fact that America subsidizes them. We pay more for our drugs than other people because the drug comanies have to recoup the losses that they have in other countries.

>>>We also pay more because Bush made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices with Pharma.

Having done clinical trials, research is extremely expensive even when most of it is done in academia. Someone has to pay for it.

>>>Much is government funded with the results "donated" to drug companies...no?

Also, the other countries don't have such loose malpractice laws or the ability to sue drug companies like we do and your side refuses to relax like those nations.

>>>What percentage of medical costs are attributable to malpractice and other legal costs?

One other note, those other countries which you love so much, have more ready capital because they rely on our defense department to pick up their slack. Britain, for instance, has a lower defense budget than the United States spends on one aircraft carrier. They feel comfortable with this because they know they have a big brother across the pond who'll cover their asses.

>>>We can have a discussion about DOD waste at a future time. I do believe it's time to let others, Japan comes to mind, foot the bill for their own defense.

Now lets look at the uninsured. approximately 10% of our population. Half of that number are illegal aliens. A quarter are those under 30 who think they're six foot tall and bullet proof and basically refuse to get coverage because nothing bad will ever happen to them. Another 1/8 are people making over $50,000 per year, who can afford coverage but don't get it because they'd rather have that new TV. So, that leaves us with about 1% who truely need help.

>>>All the above need help when they get sick or injured and go to the emergency room, right? Then who pays?

If your willing to cut the subsidy to cover only those people, I'm sure you'll get a lot of support even by Republicans. $130Billion is a hell of alot different than $1.3 trillion.

As far as credentials, mine are a lot better than yours. I don't use a fake name and hide behind it. I've been an RN for the last 15 years and have done everything from bedside nursing to administration and everything in between. Before I got my license, I ws a nursing technician. I've been working in academic medicine for the last 14 years at one of U.S News and World Report's honor roll of hospitals facility.

as far as my sleeping habits, I have a lot of trouble. My "greed" gets the better of me when I think of all the charity time I donated, the money I've used to help the truely needy, and the time I wasn't getting paid just to go visit a very special patient. Thinking of all that money and time that I've lost gives me night terrors. And if you don't get it, this is a joke. Greed has never been a part of what I do or why I do it.

>>>You have my apology. Sometimes the interactions on this forum are to civil discourse as Pro wrestling is to Yoga. We get caught up in the sport of it. I can see you're a serious professional....one with whom a reasoned discussion is possible.

I just have a significantly different view of the role of government than you.

>>>Granted, and there are probably some things we agree on besides "guns are good."

Now you asked about the shouting match, I'd rather be shouted at than have my finger bitten off by a Pacifist liberal. I thought that conservatives were the violent war-mongers.

>>>In the interest of full-disclosure, I believe the finger-biter had been punched in the face, knocked to the ground, twice by the bitee. Unfortunately for him, the second punch came to rest near the biter's mouth. What do you think the result would have been had one of our permit-holders been punched in the face twice? He would have been lucky to have just lost a finger. (Medicare covered his treatment BTW)

Unfortunately, therir are a lot of people, who aren't educated, who'll believe that artcle that you didn't cite. That's the part that makes me angry. When you make up "personal stories", plant "fictional doctors" at town hall meetings, you just show your true motives are less than glorious.

>>>There are plenty of personal stories that arent' the least bit fictional.

As a medical professional you should know.

Thanks for your response.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

And the post office is going bankrupt ( Postal Chief Says Post Office Running Out of Money ) Any other shining examples of government programs that you'd like to throw out there? Thankfully, at least the postal service is Constitutional.

As an old fart I can tell you reliably the the PO has been "running out of money" for at least 40 years. How do you think they get their budget increased. Think about it--you can put a piece of paper in an envelope and in a day or 2 it can be anywhere in the US for half a buck. That's pretty freakin amazing when you think about it. Am I to understand that you'd happily let them go under?

What do you think you'd have to pay UPS/FEDEX for your mail?

[Guest Hyaloid]

As an old fart I can tell you reliably the the PO has been "running out of money" for at least 40 years. How do you think they get their budget increased. Think about it--you can put a piece of paper in an envelope and in a day or 2 it can be anywhere in the US for half a buck. That's pretty freakin amazing when you think about it. Am I to understand that you'd happily let them go under?

What do you think you'd have to pay UPS/FEDEX for your mail?

If they were a private corporation (UPS/FEDEX), they would not have the option to 'increase their budget', which just means increase the burden on the public to keep them funded.

I am not saying the USPS is not a bargain for mailing a letter. I am saying they are inefficient (but at least Constitutional) and their place at the trough guarantees that they get to keep operating.

If UPS/FedEx were able to run mail, and the USPS was magically transformed into a private company competing on equal footing, I'd wager they'd give better service for less money... but let's not deal with the hypothetical.

The reality is if any one of us tried to operate a business the way the government operates their 'businesses', we'd be forced to close in very short order at a minimum. In the real world, deficits eventually have to be paid, and we are going to be forced to realize this in the near future on a national scale.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Oh? Please elaborate. I feel it is surprisingly simple, as it was meant to be.

The waters of Constitutionality have become so muddled with crap (purposefully), that once you clear that all away and research the roots of the document, it is amazing how well written and simple the application of the Constitution is.

I'm reminded of a quote--"For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, easy, and wrong." (I'm thinking it's from H.L. Mencken...and that's not the exact wording)

What you refer to as crap=muddled waters legal scholars call 'interpretation and precedent.'

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

If they were a private corporation (UPS/FEDEX), they would not have the option to 'increase their budget', which just means increase the burden on the public to keep them funded.

>>>They increase their budget by raising prices.

I am not saying the USPS is not a bargain for mailing a letter. I am saying they are inefficient (but at least Constitutional) and their place at the trough guarantees that they get to keep operating.

>>>How can they both be a bargain and inefficient?

If UPS/FedEx were able to run mail, and the USPS was magically transformed into a private company competing on equal footing, I'd wager they'd give better service for less money... but let's not deal with the hypothetical.

>>>If it was profitable for them to run mail they would but how in the world do you imagine it could be for less money?

The reality is if any one of us tried to operate a business the way the government operates their 'businesses', we'd be forced to close in very short order at a minimum. In the real world, deficits eventually have to be paid, and we are going to be forced to realize this in the near future on a national scale.

>>>OK. I agree. But the government is not a business! Are you suggesting the government should only do things that turn a profit?There is a form of government, fascism, where business and government are merged but we don't want that.

WW2 was a money loser. We incurred the biggest debt in our history, dwarfing the one we face now, and managed to come out OK though we had to raise taxes on the rich for awhile (to a 91 percent top rate).

Now that's back down to less than half that. Done it before, we can do it again. Did the deficit worry you under Bush?

Enjoyed the conversation....gotta mow the yard.

Best regards,

Ralph

[Guest H0TSH0T]

Whether or not you pay cash, you're paying more.

your wrong, absolutely wrong, in fact there is a discount unlike with insurances, plus you get what you pay for, try again.

[Guest Hyaloid]

>>>OK. I agree. But the government is not a business! Are you suggesting the government should only do things that turn a profit?There is a form of government, fascism, where business and government are merged but we don't want that.

WW2 was a money loser. We incurred the biggest debt in our history, dwarfing the one we face now, and managed to come out OK though we had to raise taxes on the rich for awhile (to a 91 percent top rate).

Now that's back down to less than half that. Done it before, we can do it again. Did the deficit worry you under Bush?

Enjoyed the conversation....gotta mow the yard.

Best regards,

Ralph

I am not suggesting that the government should 'turn a profit', however they likewise should not expect to constantly expand and demand more and more from the public sector to cover for their inefficiencies. I cannot name one large scale government program that ever ran on budget, let alone under budget, and most that I know of morphed into large scale wasteful agencies that seemingly exist only for their own self preservation.

It is the nature of government to be this way, and that's why the Founders intended to err on the side of personal liberty.

There is very little that government can provide that the private sector couldn't do better, if the government would get out of the way.

Hell yes the deficit worried me under Bush.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

I am not suggesting that the government should 'turn a profit', however they likewise should not expect to constantly expand and demand more and more from the public sector to cover for their inefficiencies. I cannot name one large scale government program that ever ran on budget, let alone under budget, and most that I know of morphed into large scale wasteful agencies that seemingly exist only for their own self preservation.

It is the nature of government to be this way, and that's why the Founders intended to err on the side of personal liberty.

There is very little that government can provide that the private sector couldn't do better, if the government would get out of the way.

Hell yes the deficit worried me under Bush.

How do you feel about public financing of elections?

One reason government budgets are routinely busted is the power of lobbyists to encourage spending by filling the campaign coffers of politicians. I worked on a victorious congressional campaign in 1964.

The candidate spent a total of $5000. Today it would take upwards of a million to be competitive for that same seat. The Jeffersonian ideal of a citizen legislature has been destroyed by the influx of big money into politics. To run you have to either be rich or obligate yourself to moneyed interests. In England it's illegal to give more than 25 bucks to a candidate.

This is off topic I know....probably should start another thread.

[Guest 3pugguy]

How do you feel about public financing of elections?

One reason government budgets are routinely busted is the power of lobbyists to encourage spending by filling the campaign coffers of politicians. I worked on a victorious congressional campaign in 1964.

The candidate spent a total of $5000. Today it would take upwards of a million to be competitive for that same seat. The Jeffersonian ideal of a citizen legislature has been destroyed by the influx of big money into politics. To run you have to either be rich or obligate yourself to moneyed interests. In England it's illegal to give more than 25 bucks to a candidate.

This is off topic I know....probably should start another thread.

Owe you and any OP who read my posts to you an apology. I still don't agree with you, for reasons articulated by tntnixon, who's judgement as a medical professional I will defer to; but, I was having a tough couple of days and should not have transferred BS into a forum discussion.

Again, don't agree with your points (I don't disagree there are things that should change, but I am at odds with current efforts on how and what those changes will be and how they are funded).

So, I' sorry - I am not a jackazz and realized I was being one...

My Pugs would be so upset (as would my four long nosed dogs - yeah, we are dog poor)

[Guest Hyaloid]

How do you feel about public financing of elections?

One reason government budgets are routinely busted is the power of lobbyists to encourage spending by filling the campaign coffers of politicians. I worked on a victorious congressional campaign in 1964.

The candidate spent a total of $5000. Today it would take upwards of a million to be competitive for that same seat. The Jeffersonian ideal of a citizen legislature has been destroyed by the influx of big money into politics. To run you have to either be rich or obligate yourself to moneyed interests. In England it's illegal to give more than 25 bucks to a candidate.

This is off topic I know....probably should start another thread.

To be honest, I haven't given it alot of thought lately... I will try to research and formulate a sound opinion shortly.

My initial, knee-jerk, reaction...

I think it takes entirely too much money and favors the 'good ol' boy' network for someone to run for office... too much special interests (see Soros, George and Swiftboat)... Not that they aren't able to raise legitimate points, but that they are the only one who can afford to make their voices truly heard...

So... I don't know. Let me stew on it for a little bit.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Hyaloid
Typo

[Guest Hyaloid]

Owe you and any OP who read my posts to you an apology. I still don't agree with you, for reasons articulated by tntnixon, who's judgement as a medical professional I will defer to; but, I was having a tough couple of days and should not have transferred BS into a forum discussion.

Again, don't agree with your points (I don't disagree there are things that should change, but I am at odds with current efforts on how and what those changes will be and how they are funded).

So, I' sorry - I am not a jackazz and realized I was being one...

My Pugs would be so upset (as would my four long nosed dogs - yeah, we are dog poor)

Kudos to you, thank you for keeping everything civil, it is greatly appreciated.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Owe you and any OP who read my posts to you an apology. I still don't agree with you, for reasons articulated by tntnixon, who's judgement as a medical professional I will defer to; but, I was having a tough couple of days and should not have transferred BS into a forum discussion.

Again, don't agree with your points (I don't disagree there are things that should change, but I am at odds with current efforts on how and what those changes will be and how they are funded).

So, I' sorry - I am not a jackazz and realized I was being one...

My Pugs would be so upset (as would my four long nosed dogs - yeah, we are dog poor)

3pugguy,

Thanks. Rereading my previous posts I don't blame you...you have no monopoly on being a Jackazz. Apologies all around. Anybody who has 7 dogs has a good soul.

I'm personally trying to generate less heat and more light. I think it's important for our country for people of good will who disagree on political issues to talk/debate/hear each other out. With the advent of cable and the net it's too damned easy for me to live in my MSNBC world and conservatives to live in their FOX news world and for us to lob rhetorical mortar shells at each other rather than seeking common ground and compromise, or at least understanding of where the other guy''s coming from. I've enjoyed this forum...and though my mind has changed little if at all, it has made me think and learn a few things.

Best regards,

Ralph

PS--Curious, what do you think should be changed about our healthcare system and how do you believe those things should be accomplished?

[Guest Hyaloid]

3pugguy,

Thanks. Rereading my previous posts I don't blame you...you have no monopoly on being a Jackazz. Apologies all around. Anybody who has 7 dogs has a good soul.

I'm personally trying to generate less heat and more light. I think it's important for our country for people of good will who disagree on political issues to talk/debate/hear each other out. With the advent of cable and the net it's too damned easy for me to live in my MSNBC world and conservatives to live in their FOX news world and for us to lob rhetorical mortar shells at each other rather than seeking common ground and compromise, or at least understanding of where the other guy''s coming from. I've enjoyed this forum...and though my mind has changed little if at all, it has made me think and learn a few things.

Best regards,

Ralph

PS--Curious, what do you think should be changed about our healthcare system and how do you believe those things should be accomplished?

:up: