On Mar 14, 1:58*am, "RogerN" wrote:
Why shouldn't he, what they are trying to do with the health care bill is
unconstitutional. *Can't get enough votes, skip votes and abuse budget
reconciliation for the health care bill, still can't get enough votes so
skip voting altogether with the Slaughter solution. *Could it be any more
obvious, the government funded abortion health care bill is being forced
upon us with the Slaughter house solution! *These people don't have a clue
when it's right in front of their face. *As one said, the only thing
bi-partisan about Obama's health care plan is the opposition to it. *Looks
like Rush is right again!

RogerN

Oh well, breaking my own rules re OT. But, sometimes........

Roger, you are just being plain silly, and I am surprised that a
citizen of a democracy should have so little understanding of their
own system of governance. Your founding fathers were wise enough to
plan a system whereby no one could have complete, utter and arbitrary
control of the government process. They foresaw that, one day,
politics could fragment into two, wildly different parties. The Loony
Left and the Extreme Right.They foresaw that half the country couldn't
be bothered to vote. So they ensured that the "winner" would not be
able to make decisions on behalf of the majority of the population.
Your constitution has served you well and admirably for over 200 years
- indicates its pretty robust.

And why do you criticise, very publicly, your President, Head of
State, Commander in Chief - you may not care for the mans politics,
but as a citizen you should be able to respect the mandates of your
own constitution. Such ill mannered criticism serves only as a sign of
disunity and gives succor to your enemies.

A view from afar..

Andrew VK3BFA (who remembered, this time, not to cross post)

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

On Mar 14, 1:58*am, "RogerN" wrote:
Why shouldn't he, what they are trying to do with the health care bill is
unconstitutional. *Can't get enough votes, skip votes and abuse budget
reconciliation for the health care bill, still can't get enough votes so
skip voting altogether with the Slaughter solution. *Could it be any more
obvious, the government funded abortion health care bill is being forced
upon us with the Slaughter house solution! *These people don't have a clue
when it's right in front of their face. *As one said, the only thing
bi-partisan about Obama's health care plan is the opposition to it. *Looks
like Rush is right again!

RogerN

Oh well, breaking my own rules re OT. But, sometimes........

Roger, you are just being plain silly, and I am surprised that a
citizen of a democracy should have so little understanding of their
own system of governance. Your founding fathers were wise enough to
plan a system whereby no one could have complete, utter and arbitrary
control of the government process. They foresaw that, one day,
politics could fragment into two, wildly different parties. The Loony
Left and the Extreme Right.They foresaw that half the country couldn't
be bothered to vote. So they ensured that the "winner" would not be
able to make decisions on behalf of the majority of the population.
Your constitution has served you well and admirably for over 200 years
- indicates its pretty robust.

And that's on the verge of breakdown due to the lack of leadership we
have in the judicial and executive branches at the moment. It's why
we're so vocal, and why another revolution seems imminent.


And why do you criticise, very publicly, your President, Head of
State, Commander in Chief - you may not care for the mans politics,
but as a citizen you should be able to respect the mandates of your
own constitution. Such ill mannered criticism serves only as a sign of
disunity and gives succor to your enemies.

The freedom to speak our minds is one of our freedoms, Andy. Is it so
hard to understand that those of us who did not vote for the man would
be critical of him, especially given his current track record?

That's a false succor, sucker.

--
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation,
commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to
study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain.
-- John Adams

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped


The freedom to speak our minds is one of our freedoms, Andy. Is it so
hard to understand that those of us who did not vote for the man would
be critical of him, especially given his current track record?

That's a false succor, sucker.

--

the legal freedom to speak one's mind is a far cry from the social freedom
to be downright rude and offensive. A discussion is one thing, puerile
name-calling and hair pulling is another. This kind of 3rd grade screaming
proves that we are not going to progress much as a nation until we learn to
grow up. those who can only express their opinions via insult and innuendo
prove their lack of both intellectual honesty and capacity, and their lack
of understanding of what it takes to become and remain a great nation. This
is why we should all be sad.

On Mar 15, 2:02*am, "Bill Noble" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped



The freedom to speak our minds is one of our freedoms, Andy. *Is it so
hard to understand that those of us who did not vote for the man would
be critical of him, especially given his current track record?

That's a false succor, sucker.

--

the legal freedom to speak one's mind is a far cry from the social freedom
to be downright rude and offensive. *A discussion is one thing, puerile
name-calling and hair pulling is another. *This kind of 3rd grade screaming
proves that we are not going to progress much as a nation until we learn to
grow up. *those who can only express their opinions via insult and innuendo
prove their lack of both intellectual honesty and capacity, and their lack
of understanding of what it takes to become and remain a great nation. *This
is why we should all be sad.

Thank you Bill - your succinct and well phrased comments are always
worth reading, and pondering.
Andrew VK3BFA.

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 1:58 am, "RogerN" wrote:
Why shouldn't he, what they are trying to do with the health care bill is
unconstitutional. Can't get enough votes, skip votes and abuse budget
reconciliation for the health care bill, still can't get enough votes so
skip voting altogether with the Slaughter solution. Could it be any more
obvious, the government funded abortion health care bill is being forced
upon us with the Slaughter house solution! These people don't have a clue
when it's right in front of their face. As one said, the only thing
bi-partisan about Obama's health care plan is the opposition to it. Looks
like Rush is right again!

RogerN
/
/Oh well, breaking my own rules re OT. But, sometimes........
/
/Roger, you are just being plain silly, and I am surprised that a
/citizen of a democracy should have so little understanding of their
/own system of governance. Your founding fathers were wise enough to
/plan a system whereby no one could have complete, utter and arbitrary
/control of the government process. They foresaw that, one day,
/politics could fragment into two, wildly different parties. The Loony
/Left and the Extreme Right.They foresaw that half the country couldn't
/be bothered to vote. So they ensured that the "winner" would not be
/able to make decisions on behalf of the majority of the population.
/Your constitution has served you well and admirably for over 200 years
/- indicates its pretty robust.
/
/And why do you criticise, very publicly, your President, Head of
/State, Commander in Chief - you may not care for the mans politics,
/but as a citizen you should be able to respect the mandates of your
/own constitution. Such ill mannered criticism serves only as a sign of
/disunity and gives succor to your enemies.
/
/A view from afar..
/
/Andrew VK3BFA (who remembered, this time, not to cross post)
/

Planned Parenthoods (Obama is their sock puppet) health care bill doesn't
have support from Democrats or Republicans. That is why a Republican won
Kennedy's spot even in a very liberal Democrat state. So, since the health
care bill doesn't have the support to get it done according to the
constitution, Obama's gang is trying to bypass the constitutional process
and pass this bill without a vote.

Proof Obama is a socket puppet for Planned Parenthoods health care bill:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6012.html
Obama Gives Planned Parenthood Abortion President Frequent White House
Access

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-30821.htm

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...-unacceptable/
http://yubanet.com/usa/Planned-Paren...-Amendment.php
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03..._.html?showall
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...reform/683.htm
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-31117.htm


For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go to
http://www.alcj.org , click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...-unacceptable/
http://yubanet.com/usa/Planned-Paren...-Amendment.php
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03..._.html?showall
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...reform/683.htm
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-31117.htm


For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go to
http://www.alcj.org , click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN



You're a throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of guy. Planned
parenthood is a good thing. Does it provide abortion services to women
as one of its services, yeah. So what? If you were a woman you would
want access to that kind of a service whether or not you personally
needed it or not. It goes with the territory. Women have the babies and
they decide whether to have one or not. Most women do not have
abortions. Less of them are done every year. Guys like Stupak are
holding the health care reforms hostage just because he's anti abortion.
Everybody is anti abortion. It's just a matter of what you will allow
and what you won't. Some people will have none of it and some will allow
it on demand. There is a middle ground and you don't let the one issue
of abortion hold up fixing a health care problem that is going to
bankrupt the country. Pass the health care reforms and then worry about
abortions. It's a separate issue.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment
in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare
bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...-unacceptable/
http://yubanet.com/usa/Planned-Paren...-Amendment.php
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03..._.html?showall
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...reform/683.htm
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-31117.htm


For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go to
http://www.alcj.org , click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments
of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN



You're a throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of guy. Planned
parenthood is a good thing. Does it provide abortion services to women as
one of its services, yeah. So what? If you were a woman you would want
access to that kind of a service whether or not you personally needed it
or not. It goes with the territory. Women have the babies and they decide
whether to have one or not. Most women do not have abortions. Less of them
are done every year. Guys like Stupak are holding the health care reforms
hostage just because he's anti abortion. Everybody is anti abortion. It's
just a matter of what you will allow and what you won't. Some people will
have none of it and some will allow it on demand. There is a middle ground
and you don't let the one issue of abortion hold up fixing a health care
problem that is going to bankrupt the country. Pass the health care
reforms and then worry about abortions. It's a separate issue.

Hawke

Actually I would like to separate the baby from the bathwater, or at least
separate abortion from the health care bill. Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions. Why doesn't Obama just allow language to
prevent taxpayer money from funding abortion? They claim the don't want to
overthrow Hyde but they reject wording to guarantee it, something smells
fishy here! Why is planned parenthood saying Nelson and Stupak language are
unacceptable in the health care bill? Since when did they start running the
country? (A. when Obama got elected). Since the majority doesn't want the
taxpayer funded abortions, why doesn't Obama and clan remove it?

I agree with you, it is a separate issue, I just wish Obama and clan would
separate it. Why won't he budge on this one issue?

RogerN

snip

Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions.
snip

RogerN

is it not presumptuous to speak for others whose position you have not
personally verified? It would be honest to say that "you" oppose this.
You, nor I are not authorized to speak for others. If you limit your
remarks to yourself only, is it better to have no health care, or to permit
something which you oppose in a bill.

On 3/15/2010 2:47 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment
in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare
bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...-unacceptable/
http://yubanet.com/usa/Planned-Paren...-Amendment.php
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03..._.html?showall
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...reform/683.htm
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-31117.htm


For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go to
http://www.alcj.org , click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments
of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN



You're a throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of guy. Planned
parenthood is a good thing. Does it provide abortion services to women as
one of its services, yeah. So what? If you were a woman you would want
access to that kind of a service whether or not you personally needed it
or not. It goes with the territory. Women have the babies and they decide
whether to have one or not. Most women do not have abortions. Less of them
are done every year. Guys like Stupak are holding the health care reforms
hostage just because he's anti abortion. Everybody is anti abortion. It's
just a matter of what you will allow and what you won't. Some people will
have none of it and some will allow it on demand. There is a middle ground
and you don't let the one issue of abortion hold up fixing a health care
problem that is going to bankrupt the country. Pass the health care
reforms and then worry about abortions. It's a separate issue.

Hawke

Actually I would like to separate the baby from the bathwater, or at least
separate abortion from the health care bill. Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions. Why doesn't Obama just allow language to
prevent taxpayer money from funding abortion? They claim the don't want to
overthrow Hyde but they reject wording to guarantee it, something smells
fishy here! Why is planned parenthood saying Nelson and Stupak language are
unacceptable in the health care bill? Since when did they start running the
country? (A. when Obama got elected). Since the majority doesn't want the
taxpayer funded abortions, why doesn't Obama and clan remove it?

I agree with you, it is a separate issue, I just wish Obama and clan would
separate it. Why won't he budge on this one issue?

RogerN



The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted. So they are not
willing to do anything to rock the boat right now, so to speak. Once the
basic bill is passed then they can address the other peripheral issues.
But as far as I know no federal money is used to fund abortions right
now. That is the way they want to keep it. The problem is some of these
congressmen know how important to the president and the country passing
these reforms are and they are using their power to force their way on
other issues. It's flat out wrong but they have the power right now so
they are cashing in on it. They ought to just vote to pass the bill and
then get on with fighting over the side issues separately. But they have
the power so they are jerking people around. Things will change once the
bill passes. They'll lose their leverage and people will have to get
back to working on each issue as an individual problem. None of us like
the idea of abortion but it's the law that women have the right to
decide. If that is to be changed some time in the future then that
should be addressed all by itself. It's too big an issue to piggyback on
the health care bill.

Hawke

On Mar 15, 4:55*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 1:58 am, "RogerN" wrote:

Planned Parenthoods (Obama is their sock puppet) health care bill doesn't
have support from Democrats or Republicans. *That is why a Republican won
Kennedy's spot even in a very liberal Democrat state. *So, since the health
care bill doesn't have the support to get it done according to the
constitution, Obama's gang is trying to bypass the constitutional process
and pass this bill without a vote.

Proof Obama is a socket puppet for Planned Parenthoods health care bill:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6012.html
Obama Gives Planned Parenthood Abortion President Frequent White House
Access

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...s-releases/pla...

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare bill..

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...s-releases/pla...

For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go tohttp://www.alcj.org, click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN

You are a hopeless case Roger - you take the time, and trouble, to
find (and presumably read) all those links to support your view.

Have you read your constitution
Do you understand your system of governance.
Do you believe in democracy.

This sort of REALLY BASIC stuff is taught in grade school here - thats
how I remember it, as we were taught about other systems. Including
yours. Do you teach it in the USA? - might help if your not.

Bill Noble wrote:

snip

Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions.
snip

RogerN

is it not presumptuous to speak for others whose position you have not
personally verified? It would be honest to say that "you" oppose this.
You, nor I are not authorized to speak for others. If you limit your
remarks to yourself only, is it better to have no health care, or to
permit something which you oppose in a bill.

Rasmussen Poll: Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters favor a ban on
abortion coverage in any health insurance plan that receives federal
subsidies.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...in_health_plan

CNN Poll: A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday
morning indicates that 61 percent of the public opposes using public
money for abortions
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/abortion.poll/

Smaller poll: The Susan B. Anthony List surveyed 300 voters in each of
11 House districts held by Democrats identified as "pro-life." A
majority of these voters -- which include self-identifying Democrats,
Republicans and independents -- said that they would be less likely to
re-elect their representative if the member votes for "healthcare
legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion."
http://healthtopic.nationaljournal.c...l-abortion.php

here's a compilation chart of such polls, in PDF form.
Looks like a median of about 60% opposed.

http://www.nrlc.org/ahc/AHCPollsSummary.pdf

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 1:58 am, "RogerN" wrote:

Planned Parenthoods (Obama is their sock puppet) health care bill doesn't
have support from Democrats or Republicans. That is why a Republican won
Kennedy's spot even in a very liberal Democrat state. So, since the health
care bill doesn't have the support to get it done according to the
constitution, Obama's gang is trying to bypass the constitutional process
and pass this bill without a vote.

Proof Obama is a socket puppet for Planned Parenthoods health care bill:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6012.html
Obama Gives Planned Parenthood Abortion President Frequent White House
Access

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...s-releases/pla...

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...s-releases/pla...

For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go
tohttp://www.alcj.org, click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments
of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN
/
/You are a hopeless case Roger - you take the time, and trouble, to
/find (and presumably read) all those links to support your view.
/
/Have you read your constitution
/Do you understand your system of governance.
/Do you believe in democracy.
/
/This sort of REALLY BASIC stuff is taught in grade school here - thats
/how I remember it, as we were taught about other systems. Including
/yours. Do you teach it in the USA? - might help if your not.
/

Yeah, we had constitution classes and test in 8th grade and high school.

This is from a legal firm that argues constitutional cases before the
Supreme Court. If they were lying they should be held accountable for it,
but they have recorded statements to prove what they are claiming is true.

From the American Center of Law and Justice:

House Scheme: Approving Health Care Without a Vote?

It seems that with each day comes a new legislative scheme in an effort to
ram a dangerous, pro-abortion health care plan through Congress. Now, House
Speaker Pelosi appears to be turning to what can only be described as an
unconstitutional scheme to get health care through.

It's become increasingly clear that the Speaker cannot find enough votes to
pass the Senate health care bill, and now with the pressure intensifying to
meet President Obama's self-imposed deadline of next week, Speaker Pelosi
appears to be turning to a new legislative gimmick. This one is dubbed the
"Slaughter Solution" - a tactic put forward by House Rules Chairman Louise
Slaughter (D-NY).

While the details of this proposal are complex and can be confusing, the
bottom line is really very simple:

Speaker Pelosi is trying to get the pro-abortion Senate bill signed into law
without having the House of Representatives ever vote on the actual bill.

This would be accomplished by having the House vote to pass a Rule that
would "deem" the Senate bill "as passed." The Speaker's hope is that this
would allow the bill to become law without House members having to actually
cast a vote for it. That's right - approving a massive health care bill
representing one-fifth of our economy - without actually voting on the
measure.

Of course, in order to comply with the Constitution, she will have to
simultaneously argue that a vote on the Rule is indeed a vote on the bill,
because Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that all bills be
voted on by both the House and the Senate.

So, the question facing Speaker Pelosi - which is it? Would a vote on the
"Slaughter Solution" be a vote on the Senate bill? Or would it not be? The
Constitution does not allow her to have it both ways.

On Mar 17, 4:25 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message

...
On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "RogerN" wrote:

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 1:58 am, "RogerN" wrote:

Well then, it should be fairly simple. If you can get enough people to
support your views, they can, at the next election, vote for a
candidate who represents their views. thats the democracy part. If
they cant be bothered, then they have made a choice too.
So Roger - start organising, see if you have enough support at the
ballot box to implement your no doubt sincerely held views. Its your
right as a citizen in a democracy. Otherwise, its just crap.
Andrew VK3BFA.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:02:45 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped


Only when a Leftist defines it.

Shrug



"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on
Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:04:17 -0700 (PDT), Andrew VK3BFA,
wrote:

Have you read your constitution
Do you understand your system of governance.

It's a Constitutional Republic.

Do you believe in democracy.

Absolutely not, nor did any of the founding fathers.

--

sigh...

"The full experiment of a government, democratical, but representative, was
and is still reserved for us. The introduction of this new principle of
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY has rendered useless almost everything written
before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our
regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient,
have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. --
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

"I consider the war as made for just causes [War of 1812 -- ed.] , and its
dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism
and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent
necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican
institutions, and the excellence of a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY compared
with the misrule of kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the
natural rights of expatriation... -- Jefferson, letter to Mr. Wendover.
Washington ed. vi, 444.
(M. 1815)"

Shall I go on? g

It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic? It's
really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this nonsense
quoting.

--
Ed Huntress

"The full experiment of a government, democratical, but representative, was
and is still reserved for us. The introduction of this new principle of
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY has rendered useless almost everything written
before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our
regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient,
have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. --
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

"I consider the war as made for just causes [War of 1812 -- ed.] , and its
dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism
and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent
necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican
institutions, and the excellence of a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY compared
with the misrule of kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the
natural rights of expatriation... -- Jefferson, letter to Mr. Wendover.
Washington ed. vi, 444.
(M. 1815)"

Shall I go on?g

It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic? It's
really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this nonsense
quoting.



Don't you think the problem these guys have is they don't understand the
meaning of the word democracy? It seems that they have got the idea that
democracy means only one thing, a direct democracy. I guess they never
learned that under the overarching term "democracy" there are
considerably more than only one kind. They must have gone to
"government" schools.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"The full experiment of a government, democratical, but representative,
was
and is still reserved for us. The introduction of this new principle of
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY has rendered useless almost everything written
before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves
our
regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient,
have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. --
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

"I consider the war as made for just causes [War of 1812 -- ed.] , and
its
dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism
and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of
urgent
necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican
institutions, and the excellence of a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY compared
with the misrule of kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the
natural rights of expatriation... -- Jefferson, letter to Mr. Wendover.
Washington ed. vi, 444.
(M. 1815)"

Shall I go on?g

It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic?
It's
really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this nonsense
quoting.



Don't you think the problem these guys have is they don't understand the
meaning of the word democracy?

I think that the first problem is that they don't know what the *Founders*
meant by the word democracy.

It seems that they have got the idea that democracy means only one thing,
a direct democracy. I guess they never learned that under the overarching
term "democracy" there are considerably more than only one kind. They must
have gone to "government" schools.

Hawke

The bigger problem is that they all have different ideas about what the word
republic means, now, and what they think it meant to the Founders. Hamilton,
Madison, and Jefferson all gave their definitions -- all of them different.
g

Jefferson acknowledged the problem in one of his letters. Yes, I have it on
tap if required. And numerous historians, including the primary historian of
Madison and his writings, make clear that what Madison meant by a "republic"
then is what we now call a "representative democracy"; a phrase that
Jefferson was among the first to use, in that letter I quoted above from
1815.

--
Ed Huntress

It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic?
It's
really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this nonsense
quoting.



Don't you think the problem these guys have is they don't understand the
meaning of the word democracy?

I think that the first problem is that they don't know what the *Founders*
meant by the word democracy.

It seems that they have got the idea that democracy means only one thing,
a direct democracy. I guess they never learned that under the overarching
term "democracy" there are considerably more than only one kind. They must
have gone to "government" schools.

Hawke

The bigger problem is that they all have different ideas about what the word
republic means, now, and what they think it meant to the Founders. Hamilton,
Madison, and Jefferson all gave their definitions -- all of them different.
g

Jefferson acknowledged the problem in one of his letters. Yes, I have it on
tap if required. And numerous historians, including the primary historian of
Madison and his writings, make clear that what Madison meant by a "republic"
then is what we now call a "representative democracy"; a phrase that
Jefferson was among the first to use, in that letter I quoted above from
1815.


I'm still surprised at how many people are so concerned about what the
founders thought. These guys were smart, sure, but they had the
disadvantage of being 18th century thinkers. Common thought at the time
was that blacks were less than human beings, women were property, voting
was only for property owners, and duels were a proper way to deal with
insults. They also had little real knowledge about how a "democracy" or
a "representative republic" would work in America. The first try, the
Articles of Confederation, worked badly. It seems rational to use their
work and their design of the government as a foundation of our country
but to think that we have to be held to exactly what they wanted or
thought back then seems as crazy as believing the Bible has to be
accepted in its entirety as absolute truth. Wait a minute. I just
thought about something. The same people that want us to follow the
founders to the letter are the same people who think we should follow
the Bible to the letter too (just kidding). But it is true. It's the
same people who want to follow the founders just like they want to
follow religion. Glenn Beck is the worst. That guy wants to follow the
constitution and the original intent of the founders just like it's the
Koran and the words of the Prophet. No wonder the country is so screwed
up with people like that having so much influence.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic?
It's
really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this
nonsense
quoting.



Don't you think the problem these guys have is they don't understand the
meaning of the word democracy?

I think that the first problem is that they don't know what the
*Founders*
meant by the word democracy.

It seems that they have got the idea that democracy means only one
thing,
a direct democracy. I guess they never learned that under the
overarching
term "democracy" there are considerably more than only one kind. They
must
have gone to "government" schools.

Hawke

The bigger problem is that they all have different ideas about what the
word
republic means, now, and what they think it meant to the Founders.
Hamilton,
Madison, and Jefferson all gave their definitions -- all of them
different.
g

Jefferson acknowledged the problem in one of his letters. Yes, I have it
on
tap if required. And numerous historians, including the primary historian
of
Madison and his writings, make clear that what Madison meant by a
"republic"
then is what we now call a "representative democracy"; a phrase that
Jefferson was among the first to use, in that letter I quoted above from
1815.


I'm still surprised at how many people are so concerned about what the
founders thought. These guys were smart, sure, but they had the
disadvantage of being 18th century thinkers. Common thought at the time
was that blacks were less than human beings, women were property, voting
was only for property owners, and duels were a proper way to deal with
insults. They also had little real knowledge about how a "democracy" or a
"representative republic" would work in America. The first try, the
Articles of Confederation, worked badly. It seems rational to use their
work and their design of the government as a foundation of our country but
to think that we have to be held to exactly what they wanted or thought
back then seems as crazy as believing the Bible has to be accepted in its
entirety as absolute truth. Wait a minute. I just thought about something.
The same people that want us to follow the founders to the letter are the
same people who think we should follow the Bible to the letter too (just
kidding). But it is true. It's the same people who want to follow the
founders just like they want to follow religion. Glenn Beck is the worst.
That guy wants to follow the constitution and the original intent of the
founders just like it's the Koran and the words of the Prophet. No wonder
the country is so screwed up with people like that having so much
influence.

Hawke

Well, Beck wants to follow the Constitution as he imagines it to be. g

Real, originalist conservatism -- Edmund Burke conservatism -- has some
strengths, such as having some solid rocks of culture, values, law, and so
on, that we can stand upon for stability. That does NOT mean that they
thought nothing should ever change. They just thought that change should
always be suspect, and should proceed slowly.

Taking that view of the Constitution is not a bad idea. It's the same idea
that Madison had (but which Jefferson definitely did not). We have the means
to amend our Constitution and it's been used dozens of times.

What I find annoying is that most of those Constitutional "originalists" we
have today have never read the darned thing. Nor have they studied the
history surrounding it, except to cherry-pick select bits and pieces that
reinforce their notions of what the Constitution *ought* to be. They've
never read all 85 of the Federalist Papers, nor the anti-federalist papers
(also 85, depending upon how you count them), nor the records of debate in
the House over the Bill of Rights. Most of all, they haven't read the many
federal court cases that put the Constitution to the test, generally with
legal questions that aren't clearly answered in the Constitution.

So they flounder around with an imagined Constitution, and little sense of
how it's been challenged by events that made it to court, or what doctrines
the courts have developed to deal with the many ambiguities and unwritten
questions in the document itself.

They live with a misunderstanding a lot like that of this guy:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/

g

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:

The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted.

A lot of the stuff doesn't kick in for years. What is the hurry? Maybe
it is that
election coming up that has the Obamunists worried that their turn at rule
is coming to a
well deserved close in November. There is an opinion poll that matters.

Wes

Maybe it's that they've been trying to pass this since 1933 and it's now or
never, because the business interests in medicine -- particularly the
insurance industry -- will spend with no limit to confuse and defeat it.

Now or never. And if it's never, brace yourself for a declining economy that
is totally in the hands of big business interests.

Republicans, who suddenly have expressed an interest in "alternative" reform
measures, have had 70 years to propose ideas. The first ones came last year,
in an effort to defeat the ones the Dems had proposed. If they feel no
pressure to do anything about it, after a defeat, they'll put it on the
shelf again for the rest of their lives.

--
Ed Huntress

Hawke wrote:

The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted.

A lot of the stuff doesn't kick in for years. What is the hurry? Maybe it is that
election coming up that has the Obamunists worried that their turn at rule is coming to a
well deserved close in November. There is an opinion poll that matters.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:

The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted.

A lot of the stuff doesn't kick in for years. What is the hurry? Maybe
it is that
election coming up that has the Obamunists worried that their turn at
rule
is coming to a
well deserved close in November. There is an opinion poll that matters.

Wes

Maybe it's that they've been trying to pass this since 1933 and it's now
or
never, because the business interests in medicine -- particularly the
insurance industry -- will spend with no limit to confuse and defeat it.

I'm thinking that is a canard in respect to the insurance industry. At
the proposed law
is constructed they will have to work with a new framework but there is no
chance they
will go over one year without adjusting rates to the new framework or
existing heath
insurance. A lot of us think the whole concept is to destroy private
insurance and force
us into single payer aka socialized medicine. Time will tell on that one.

As one who worked with that industry, I don't think it's a canard. And as
I've said before, it isn't because they're bad people, but it's because the
whole system of incentives works against the interest of the people who need
the insurance.

I agree there is little in the bill now that will turn the incentive
structure in the right direction, but putting controls on the industry is a
first step. We have to get the bit out of their teeth, or else tighten up
the reigns. As long as they win these legislative battles (and they always
have) they have NO incentive to change. None. Nada. Their only incentive is
to keep the money rolling in, which means to ignore medical costs and hang
onto their market share. If higher prices decrease the size of the market a
bit, that's trivial compared to their income increases that come from rising
costs. They just take a percentage of whatever it is.

As for whether the "concept" is to destroy private insurance, I'm sure there
are plenty of people who want to. Like John, I think it's probably
inevitable -- not because something else wouldn't work, but because nothing
else will have much of a chance to work. The industry may adjust and we may
be able to work together with government to produce a private insurance
system that accomplishes what we need. But I doubt it. I think we'll have
single-payer within two decades. I've thought that for ten years.



Now or never. And if it's never, brace yourself for a declining economy
that
is totally in the hands of big business interests.

You left out unionized governmental and Davis Bacon protected union
workers that currently
are sucking at the debt troth. (I don't think I spelled that right) That
is a drag on the
economy. Taxes collected on those that are paid by the government don't
count when it
comes to our deficits.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. People covered by Davis Bacon law(s) pay
taxes. So do government workers. What are you saying here?


Republicans, who suddenly have expressed an interest in "alternative"
reform
measures, have had 70 years to propose ideas. The first ones came last
year,
in an effort to defeat the ones the Dems had proposed. If they feel no
pressure to do anything about it, after a defeat, they'll put it on the
shelf again for the rest of their lives.

You know Republicans tend to be free market types expecially the
Libertarians in the
party.

There are few libertarians in Congress, except on their few pet issues. And
they aren't really libertarians. They're people on both sides who want their
favorite region, state, industries, and friends, free to make a lot of money
at other peoples' expense.

There are a lot of Republican congressmen who align themselves with business
interests. That includes many who are big supporters of ag subsidies, pork
spending, and so on.


No further responses tonight, I'm off to bed. Sleep tight, sounds like
you are winning on
this one atm. Just hope you like what comes out of it if it passes.

This is just a first step. Now we have to get incentives aligned right, if
that's possible, to start getting sensible controls on costs. I don't think
we'll have a socialized health system in our lifetimes, and maybe never. But
it is likely -- virtually inevitable -- that we'll have a heavily regulated
health care insurance industry.

Sleep tight.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:

The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted.

A lot of the stuff doesn't kick in for years. What is the hurry? Maybe
it is that
election coming up that has the Obamunists worried that their turn at rule
is coming to a
well deserved close in November. There is an opinion poll that matters.

Wes

Maybe it's that they've been trying to pass this since 1933 and it's now or
never, because the business interests in medicine -- particularly the
insurance industry -- will spend with no limit to confuse and defeat it.

I'm thinking that is a canard in respect to the insurance industry. At the proposed law
is constructed they will have to work with a new framework but there is no chance they
will go over one year without adjusting rates to the new framework or existing heath
insurance. A lot of us think the whole concept is to destroy private insurance and force
us into single payer aka socialized medicine. Time will tell on that one.


Now or never. And if it's never, brace yourself for a declining economy that
is totally in the hands of big business interests.

You left out unionized governmental and Davis Bacon protected union workers that currently
are sucking at the debt troth. (I don't think I spelled that right) That is a drag on the
economy. Taxes collected on those that are paid by the government don't count when it
comes to our deficits.


Republicans, who suddenly have expressed an interest in "alternative" reform
measures, have had 70 years to propose ideas. The first ones came last year,
in an effort to defeat the ones the Dems had proposed. If they feel no
pressure to do anything about it, after a defeat, they'll put it on the
shelf again for the rest of their lives.

You know Republicans tend to be free market types expecially the Libertarians in the
party.

No further responses tonight, I'm off to bed. Sleep tight, sounds like you are winning on
this one atm. Just hope you like what comes out of it if it passes.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

I'm still surprised at how many people are so concerned about what the
founders thought. These guys were smart, sure, but they had the
disadvantage of being 18th century thinkers. Common thought at the time
was that blacks were less than human beings, women were property, voting
was only for property owners, and duels were a proper way to deal with
insults. They also had little real knowledge about how a "democracy" or a
"representative republic" would work in America. The first try, the
Articles of Confederation, worked badly. It seems rational to use their
work and their design of the government as a foundation of our country but
to think that we have to be held to exactly what they wanted or thought
back then seems as crazy as believing the Bible has to be accepted in its
entirety as absolute truth. Wait a minute. I just thought about something.
The same people that want us to follow the founders to the letter are the
same people who think we should follow the Bible to the letter too (just
kidding). But it is true. It's the same people who want to follow the
founders just like they want to follow religion. Glenn Beck is the worst.
That guy wants to follow the constitution and the original intent of the
founders just like it's the Koran and the words of the Prophet. No wonder
the country is so screwed up with people like that having so much
influence.

Hawke

Well, Beck wants to follow the Constitution as he imagines it to be.g

Have you ever actually watched this guy's show? I do, and I really get a
kick out of him. He's a prime example of someone that doesn't have the
experience and education to really understand a subject but he thinks he
does, and so well that he's able to teach others. He likes to put two
and two together but he comes out with five and thinks it's the right
answer. It's amazing so many people watch him basically teach a class in
a subject where he's no better informed than the audience.



Real, originalist conservatism -- Edmund Burke conservatism -- has some
strengths, such as having some solid rocks of culture, values, law, and so
on, that we can stand upon for stability. That does NOT mean that they
thought nothing should ever change. They just thought that change should
always be suspect, and should proceed slowly.

I can't say that I see anything wrong with that thinking.


Taking that view of the Constitution is not a bad idea. It's the same idea
that Madison had (but which Jefferson definitely did not). We have the means
to amend our Constitution and it's been used dozens of times.

Yes, there is a means to amend it but it's so difficult that in over two
hundred years it's only happened less than 20 times and one was to
repeal another one. At this point I'd say it's next to impossible to amend.


What I find annoying is that most of those Constitutional "originalists" we
have today have never read the darned thing. Nor have they studied the
history surrounding it, except to cherry-pick select bits and pieces that
reinforce their notions of what the Constitution *ought* to be. They've
never read all 85 of the Federalist Papers, nor the anti-federalist papers
(also 85, depending upon how you count them), nor the records of debate in
the House over the Bill of Rights. Most of all, they haven't read the many
federal court cases that put the Constitution to the test, generally with
legal questions that aren't clearly answered in the Constitution.

The world is full of "experts" who don't really know what they believe
they do. What is funny is that they have their opinions but they are
uninformed or misinformed ones. If they actually had the education in
the subject like you described the odds are they would hold the opposite
opinion. It's like if you're uneducated you think one thing and if you
have an education you think the opposite, kind of like religion.


So they flounder around with an imagined Constitution, and little sense of
how it's been challenged by events that made it to court, or what doctrines
the courts have developed to deal with the many ambiguities and unwritten
questions in the document itself.

They live with a misunderstanding a lot like that of this guy:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/

Yeah, I saw that guy. Makes you wonder why the people who know so little
feel so compelled to share their ignorance with everyone else.

On another note, today on Book TV was a professor of economics from
M.I.T. named John Gruber. PH.d. in economics from Harvard, by the way,
and he was giving a presentation about the health care bill. Turns out
he is a big player in the legislation and advises Obama et al on the
issue. If you get the chance to see him on Book TV tomorrow I wouldn't
miss it. He explains how the whole change in health care works and why
it's got to be done. If you Google the guy you see he's absolutely top
echelon in his field. Check it out if you get the chance.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:

The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted.

A lot of the stuff doesn't kick in for years. What is the hurry?
Maybe
it is that
election coming up that has the Obamunists worried that their turn at
rule
is coming to a
well deserved close in November. There is an opinion poll that
matters.

Wes

Maybe it's that they've been trying to pass this since 1933 and it's now
or
never, because the business interests in medicine -- particularly the
insurance industry -- will spend with no limit to confuse and defeat it.

I'm thinking that is a canard in respect to the insurance industry. At
the proposed law
is constructed they will have to work with a new framework but there is
no chance they
will go over one year without adjusting rates to the new framework or
existing heath
insurance. A lot of us think the whole concept is to destroy private
insurance and force
us into single payer aka socialized medicine. Time will tell on that
one.

As one who worked with that industry, I don't think it's a canard. And as
I've said before, it isn't because they're bad people, but it's because
the whole system of incentives works against the interest of the people
who need the insurance.

I agree there is little in the bill now that will turn the incentive
structure in the right direction,

There is plenty Ed.
Medicare is going from a fee per service model to a result based model.
The cost of treatment is headed down in a big way without altering what is
an excellent result even a little.
There is also going to be a huge pool of otherwise healthy individuals
incorporated into the system.

but putting controls on the industry is a first step. We have to get the
bit out of their teeth, or else tighten up the reigns. As long as they win
these legislative battles (and they always have) they have NO incentive to
change. None. Nada. Their only incentive is to keep the money rolling in,
which means to ignore medical costs and hang onto their market share. If
higher prices decrease the size of the market a bit, that's trivial
compared to their income increases that come from rising costs. They just
take a percentage of whatever it is.

As for whether the "concept" is to destroy private insurance, I'm sure
there are plenty of people who want to. Like John, I think it's probably
inevitable -- not because something else wouldn't work,

Employers are going to drive this dynamic, in my opinion.
If I can, as an employer, pay a couple of grand per year to the government
per employee and dump my healt-care costs, I'm going to do so ASAP. I'll
have to in the end anyway because I'll be competing with people that have.
Employer based health-care will be as dead as a door nail by Monday morning.

To Wes, that means he'll be in the market through the exchange system and
what he'll see is that a pool that includes millions of individuals can lead
to a real cost effective result. He'll also be responsive to even small
premium increases because he'll have to pay them every month. That will make
it much harder to raise rates because people will just change plans. As
things are now, he doesn't either know or care because he's one or two steps
removed from the process and isn't included in any decision making.

This is just a first step. Now we have to get incentives aligned right, if
that's possible, to start getting sensible controls on costs. I don't
think we'll have a socialized health system in our lifetimes, and maybe
never. But it is likely -- virtually inevitable -- that we'll have a
heavily regulated health care insurance industry.

Single payer is a decade or less away and we have the benefit, if we are
smart, of reviewing and incorporating the best parts of every other first
world countries system of health-care without the burden of their mistakes.

JC

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I'm still surprised at how many people are so concerned about what the
founders thought. These guys were smart, sure, but they had the
disadvantage of being 18th century thinkers. Common thought at the time
was that blacks were less than human beings, women were property, voting
was only for property owners, and duels were a proper way to deal with
insults. They also had little real knowledge about how a "democracy" or
a
"representative republic" would work in America. The first try, the
Articles of Confederation, worked badly. It seems rational to use their
work and their design of the government as a foundation of our country
but
to think that we have to be held to exactly what they wanted or thought
back then seems as crazy as believing the Bible has to be accepted in
its
entirety as absolute truth. Wait a minute. I just thought about
something.
The same people that want us to follow the founders to the letter are
the
same people who think we should follow the Bible to the letter too (just
kidding). But it is true. It's the same people who want to follow the
founders just like they want to follow religion. Glenn Beck is the
worst.
That guy wants to follow the constitution and the original intent of the
founders just like it's the Koran and the words of the Prophet. No
wonder
the country is so screwed up with people like that having so much
influence.

Hawke

Well, Beck wants to follow the Constitution as he imagines it to be.g

Have you ever actually watched this guy's show?

Yeah, but not for months. He was getting pretty wacky then and it just
depressed me that people were listening to him and believed that he knew
what he was talking about.

I do, and I really get a kick out of him. He's a prime example of someone
that doesn't have the experience and education to really understand a
subject but he thinks he does, and so well that he's able to teach others.

Oh, yeah. I remember his chart of the money supply and his prediction that
we were going to have raging inflation -- by sometime last summer. g

Have you heard him explain why that didn't happen? I wonder if he knows. His
original talk suggested that he learned his economics from a comic book.

He likes to put two and two together but he comes out with five and thinks
it's the right answer. It's amazing so many people watch him basically
teach a class in a subject where he's no better informed than the
audience.



Real, originalist conservatism -- Edmund Burke conservatism -- has some
strengths, such as having some solid rocks of culture, values, law, and
so
on, that we can stand upon for stability. That does NOT mean that they
thought nothing should ever change. They just thought that change should
always be suspect, and should proceed slowly.

I can't say that I see anything wrong with that thinking.


Taking that view of the Constitution is not a bad idea. It's the same
idea
that Madison had (but which Jefferson definitely did not). We have the
means
to amend our Constitution and it's been used dozens of times.

Yes, there is a means to amend it but it's so difficult that in over two
hundred years it's only happened less than 20 times and one was to repeal
another one. At this point I'd say it's next to impossible to amend.


What I find annoying is that most of those Constitutional "originalists"
we
have today have never read the darned thing. Nor have they studied the
history surrounding it, except to cherry-pick select bits and pieces that
reinforce their notions of what the Constitution *ought* to be. They've
never read all 85 of the Federalist Papers, nor the anti-federalist
papers
(also 85, depending upon how you count them), nor the records of debate
in
the House over the Bill of Rights. Most of all, they haven't read the
many
federal court cases that put the Constitution to the test, generally with
legal questions that aren't clearly answered in the Constitution.

The world is full of "experts" who don't really know what they believe
they do. What is funny is that they have their opinions but they are
uninformed or misinformed ones. If they actually had the education in the
subject like you described the odds are they would hold the opposite
opinion. It's like if you're uneducated you think one thing and if you
have an education you think the opposite, kind of like religion.


So they flounder around with an imagined Constitution, and little sense
of
how it's been challenged by events that made it to court, or what
doctrines
the courts have developed to deal with the many ambiguities and unwritten
questions in the document itself.

They live with a misunderstanding a lot like that of this guy:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/

Yeah, I saw that guy. Makes you wonder why the people who know so little
feel so compelled to share their ignorance with everyone else.

On another note, today on Book TV was a professor of economics from M.I.T.
named John Gruber. PH.d. in economics from Harvard, by the way, and he was
giving a presentation about the health care bill.

Yeah. That's Jon (Jonathan) Gruber. He was the guy who wrote the
Massachusetts health care plan.

Turns out he is a big player in the legislation and advises Obama et al on
the issue. If you get the chance to see him on Book TV tomorrow I wouldn't
miss it. He explains how the whole change in health care works and why
it's got to be done. If you Google the guy you see he's absolutely top
echelon in his field. Check it out if you get the chance.

Hawke

Ok, I'll see if I can catch him on Book TV.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:

The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted.

A lot of the stuff doesn't kick in for years. What is the hurry?
Maybe
it is that
election coming up that has the Obamunists worried that their turn at
rule
is coming to a
well deserved close in November. There is an opinion poll that
matters.

Wes

Maybe it's that they've been trying to pass this since 1933 and it's now
or
never, because the business interests in medicine -- particularly the
insurance industry -- will spend with no limit to confuse and defeat it.

I'm thinking that is a canard in respect to the insurance industry. At
the proposed law
is constructed they will have to work with a new framework but there is
no chance they
will go over one year without adjusting rates to the new framework or
existing heath
insurance. A lot of us think the whole concept is to destroy private
insurance and force
us into single payer aka socialized medicine. Time will tell on that
one.

As one who worked with that industry, I don't think it's a canard. And as
I've said before, it isn't because they're bad people, but it's because
the whole system of incentives works against the interest of the people
who need the insurance.

I agree there is little in the bill now that will turn the incentive
structure in the right direction,

There is plenty Ed.
Medicare is going from a fee per service model to a result based model.
The cost of treatment is headed down in a big way without altering what is
an excellent result even a little.
There is also going to be a huge pool of otherwise healthy individuals
incorporated into the system.

All true; I was thinking of incentives for insurance and Pharma. I only read
summaries but it looks like they'll be able to continue to print money.


but putting controls on the industry is a first step. We have to get the
bit out of their teeth, or else tighten up the reigns. As long as they win
these legislative battles (and they always have) they have NO incentive to
change. None. Nada. Their only incentive is to keep the money rolling in,
which means to ignore medical costs and hang onto their market share. If
higher prices decrease the size of the market a bit, that's trivial
compared to their income increases that come from rising costs. They just
take a percentage of whatever it is.

As for whether the "concept" is to destroy private insurance, I'm sure
there are plenty of people who want to. Like John, I think it's probably
inevitable -- not because something else wouldn't work,

Employers are going to drive this dynamic, in my opinion.
If I can, as an employer, pay a couple of grand per year to the government
per employee and dump my healt-care costs, I'm going to do so ASAP. I'll
have to in the end anyway because I'll be competing with people that have.
Employer based health-care will be as dead as a door nail by Monday
morning.

Hmmm...we'll see. Again, I haven't read the details on that one, but I
realize it's coming sooner or later.


To Wes, that means he'll be in the market through the exchange system and
what he'll see is that a pool that includes millions of individuals can
lead to a real cost effective result. He'll also be responsive to even
small premium increases because he'll have to pay them every month. That
will make it much harder to raise rates because people will just change
plans. As things are now, he doesn't either know or care because he's one
or two steps removed from the process and isn't included in any decision
making.

Very true. That's the basis of most opposition -- the payments are indirect
and out of sight.


This is just a first step. Now we have to get incentives aligned right,
if that's possible, to start getting sensible controls on costs. I don't
think we'll have a socialized health system in our lifetimes, and maybe
never. But it is likely -- virtually inevitable -- that we'll have a
heavily regulated health care insurance industry.

Single payer is a decade or less away and we have the benefit, if we are
smart, of reviewing and incorporating the best parts of every other first
world countries system of health-care without the burden of their
mistakes.

JC

On Mar 20, 4:53*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:02:45 -0700, "Bill Noble"

wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped

Only when a Leftist defines it.

Shrug

"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." *Grey Ghost

What day of the week is it Gunner - or is that a leftie plot too.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Mar 21, 1:05*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Sleep tight.

--
Ed Huntress

Wes - I cant argue with you, you are in a different class. But can I
say

Here in Australia, we have both a government health insurance scheme
funded by a 2.5% levy on taxable income. There are also LOTS of
private health funds, who managed to get a huge subsidy from the last
Conservative government to keep them viable. There is a Gov run.
Private Health Scheme - costs and benefits are a consistent 15% better
than the best other fund. (No CEO, more efficient)

And if your in a big car crash, or need heart surgery NOW, your best
bet will be the public hospital system. They have the gear and the
people to do it.

So. They can co-exist. On the Democracy debate, you said much better
(AND with references) what I was trying to say - ie, learn what sort
of a system you have before going off your brain.

Got an email recently from someone here, saying he was going to have
to wait till he was 65 before he could get anything done about his
skin cancers - it was then that your Medicaid/Medicare(?) kicked in.
Is that a just, equitable health system in action or what?

Andrew VK3BFA.
(aka "Perplexed of Australia")

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message
...


Got an email recently from someone here, saying he was going to have
to wait till he was 65 before he could get anything done about his
skin cancers - it was then that your Medicaid/Medicare(?) kicked in.
Is that a just, equitable health system in action or what?

You can set aside the "just and equitable" argument and just go with stupid.
This is an excellent example. Your friend could be treated today at a much
lower cost than will be possible tomorrow or the next day.
By the time treament will be covered, your friend will be very sick, the
treatment will be extremely expensive and much less effective.
The public will end up spending a fortune in the future for what will likely
be end of life care rather than a few bucks today.
That's as dumb as it gets and the terror these people experience between now
and the time their coverage begins to kick in isn't something that should be
visited on anyone by their fellows, especialy not given the practical
reality of what will happen at age 65.
It is debilitating to both the work force and society.

JC

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

As for whether the "concept" is to destroy private insurance, I'm sure
there are plenty of people who want to. Like John, I think it's probably
inevitable -- not because something else wouldn't work,

Employers are going to drive this dynamic, in my opinion.
If I can, as an employer, pay a couple of grand per year to the government
per employee and dump my healt-care costs, I'm going to do so ASAP. I'll
have to in the end anyway because I'll be competing with people that have.
Employer based health-care will be as dead as a door nail by Monday
morning.

Two grand?

That's the "fine", yes, and it's paid to the IRS. You'll never see it
directly.
This assumes that your epmloyer has 50 or more employees.
Otherwise, there isn't a penalty but i will be elgible for a tax credit if I
choose to offer coverage, even if we share the cost.
Small business will finally get a fair shake.

Where is the rest of the money coming from?

That's your problem.

You giving all your employees a
raise so they can fork over the rest of what takes for converage?

Maybe, but only if I have to. That's the way free markets work Wes and with
15 million unemployed, I can probably find someone qualified and motivated
that will work for your wage. I'm even going to hire a contractor to come in
and explain it to you so I don't have to do my own dirty work and if I do
choose to subsidize your coverage, there is going to be a line item for it
on your check every week for you to look at.

Most of us above room
temperature know part of our compensation is not on our W-4 forms.

You'd think that but it isn't actually the case. People percieve the value
of health care coverage based on their usage, not it's cost.



To Wes, that means he'll be in the market through the exchange system and
what he'll see is that a pool that includes millions of individuals can
lead
to a real cost effective result. He'll also be responsive to even small
premium increases because he'll have to pay them every month. That will
make
it much harder to raise rates because people will just change plans. As
things are now, he doesn't either know or care because he's one or two
steps
removed from the process and isn't included in any decision making.

So President Obama's line of "If you like your health care plan, you can
keep your health
care plan" was a blatant lie?

Hardly Wes. It's that he was adressing those that actually buy health care,
that is your employer, not you.
As an employer, I don't like "my" plan even a little so I'm going to make a
change. You can keep "your" doctor if you want but you can't necessarily
keep mine.

You'd be in a different situation were you self employed or a contractor
because you'd be in the private market.
Under that set of facts, yes, you could keep your plan if you liked it.

What ought to be increasingly clear to you is that a public option or single
payer system is in your best interests and, as an employer, mine.
What we have now puts us both at a competitive disadvantage in todays world
marketplace. The only winners are the insurance and pharmaceutical
industries.


JC

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Andrew VK3BFA
wrote:

On Mar 20, 4:53*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:02:45 -0700, "Bill Noble"

wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped

Only when a Leftist defines it.

Shrug

"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." *Grey Ghost

What day of the week is it Gunner - or is that a leftie plot too.

Andrew VK3BFA.


While Im flattered, Ive never heard of a day of the week called Gunner.

Perhaps its from an old German calendar?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

As for whether the "concept" is to destroy private insurance, I'm sure
there are plenty of people who want to. Like John, I think it's probably
inevitable -- not because something else wouldn't work,

Employers are going to drive this dynamic, in my opinion.
If I can, as an employer, pay a couple of grand per year to the government
per employee and dump my healt-care costs, I'm going to do so ASAP. I'll
have to in the end anyway because I'll be competing with people that have.
Employer based health-care will be as dead as a door nail by Monday morning.

Two grand? Where is the rest of the money coming from? You giving all your employees a
raise so they can fork over the rest of what takes for converage? Most of us above room
temperature know part of our compensation is not on our W-4 forms.


To Wes, that means he'll be in the market through the exchange system and
what he'll see is that a pool that includes millions of individuals can lead
to a real cost effective result. He'll also be responsive to even small
premium increases because he'll have to pay them every month. That will make
it much harder to raise rates because people will just change plans. As
things are now, he doesn't either know or care because he's one or two steps
removed from the process and isn't included in any decision making.

So President Obama's line of "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health
care plan" was a blatant lie?

Wes

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Andrew VK3BFA
wrote:

On Mar 20, 4:53 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:02:45 -0700, "Bill Noble"

wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped

Only when a Leftist defines it.

Shrug

"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

What day of the week is it Gunner - or is that a leftie plot too.

Andrew VK3BFA.


While Im flattered, Ive never heard of a day of the week called Gunner.

Perhaps its from an old German calendar?

Gunner

Well, if Obama keeps arm twisting and cramming bad bills down our throat
that the majority don't want, we might get to the point of having a Gunner
day. Personally I don't want to give the anti-gun crowd any more excuses so
I would prefer the use of baseball bats.

Many are strongly against their tax money being used to fund abortions, if
Obamacare passes it could push many more to actions like what happened to Dr
Tiller, the baby killer. I have mixed feelings on this, I think it's wrong
to kill babies but since most liberals believe in it maybe they are killing
off the future libtards, making the world a better place. And if Obamacare
passes, next election might end up with a Republican majority in the house
and senate. So, a vote for Obamacare will likely increase killing of future
liberals and may undue much of the terrorists takeover of 2008, so,
Obamacare has a plus side.

RogerN

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

snip

Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions.
snip

RogerN

is it not presumptuous to speak for others whose position you have not
personally verified? It would be honest to say that "you" oppose this.
You, nor I are not authorized to speak for others. If you limit your
remarks to yourself only, is it better to have no health care, or to
permit something which you oppose in a bill.

It's the result of polls that the majority of those polled did not want
their tax dollars used to fund others abortions.

RogerN

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The bigger problem is that they all have different ideas about what the
word
republic means, now, and what they think it meant to the Founders.
Hamilton,
Madison, and Jefferson all gave their definitions -- all of them
different.
g

Hey Ed, do you ever consider the anti-federalists? Just wondering.

In what sense, Wes? I've read all the anti-federalist papers, if that's what
you mean. That was most of what they left to posterity. You'll see other
arguments from anti-federalists in the transcripts of the state ratification
debates.

In the context of defining democracy and republic, there is no difference
between the federalists and anti-federalists. Democracy then meant direct,
face-to-face voting by the people on every issue. Of a republic, Jefferson
said, "It must be acknowledged that the term 'republic' is of very vague
application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise
and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by
its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules
established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less
republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this
ingredient of direct action of the citizens."

That's all they meant by "republic." Although Hamilton, Madison, etc. worded
it differently, and Hamilton, particularly, had a rather broad idea of what
could be a republic, they all agreed on that point above, as stated by
Jefferson. There were no other restrictions. It did not require a
constitution. There were no rules for supermajorities, or for state- versus
individual representation, or anything else. Those were later additions to
their basic idea of what a republic is.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

As for whether the "concept" is to destroy private insurance, I'm sure
there are plenty of people who want to. Like John, I think it's probably
inevitable -- not because something else wouldn't work,

Employers are going to drive this dynamic, in my opinion.
If I can, as an employer, pay a couple of grand per year to the government
per employee and dump my healt-care costs, I'm going to do so ASAP. I'll
have to in the end anyway because I'll be competing with people that have.
Employer based health-care will be as dead as a door nail by Monday
morning.

Two grand?

That's the "fine", yes, and it's paid to the IRS. You'll never see it
directly.
This assumes that your epmloyer has 50 or more employees.
Otherwise, there isn't a penalty but i will be elgible for a tax credit if I
choose to offer coverage, even if we share the cost.
Small business will finally get a fair shake.

A very simple solution would have been to have one group. Why are the feds a group and
small business a bunch of very small groups? There is an issue though.

I can see a group being limited if the employer is self insured. Many Fortune 500
companies are.


Where is the rest of the money coming from?

That's your problem.

That's a bit cold. Glad I don't work for you.

You giving all your employees a
raise so they can fork over the rest of what takes for converage?

Maybe, but only if I have to. That's the way free markets work Wes and with
15 million unemployed, I can probably find someone qualified and motivated
that will work for your wage. I'm even going to hire a contractor to come in
and explain it to you so I don't have to do my own dirty work and if I do
choose to subsidize your coverage, there is going to be a line item for it
on your check every week for you to look at.

I'm assuming you are engaging in hyperbole. As far as line items. Everything including
the employer part of medicare and ssi should be on the check. I'm a big fan of everyone
knowing just how much tax they are paying to the state and feds. Too bad when I buy
something from a store, I can't see how much embeded taxes I'm paying for an item.


Most of us above room
temperature know part of our compensation is not on our W-4 forms.

You'd think that but it isn't actually the case. People percieve the value
of health care coverage based on their usage, not it's cost.

That is your opinion. While I carry auto insurance with unlimited medical, I don't hope
to have a car crash to give my insurance a whirl. I doubt any of us want to die early and
get value out of our life insurance.






To Wes, that means he'll be in the market through the exchange system and
what he'll see is that a pool that includes millions of individuals can
lead
to a real cost effective result. He'll also be responsive to even small
premium increases because he'll have to pay them every month. That will
make
it much harder to raise rates because people will just change plans. As
things are now, he doesn't either know or care because he's one or two
steps
removed from the process and isn't included in any decision making.

So President Obama's line of "If you like your health care plan, you can
keep your health
care plan" was a blatant lie?

Hardly Wes. It's that he was adressing those that actually buy health care,
that is your employer, not you.
As an employer, I don't like "my" plan even a little so I'm going to make a
change. You can keep "your" doctor if you want but you can't necessarily
keep mine.


You'd be in a different situation were you self employed or a contractor
because you'd be in the private market.
Under that set of facts, yes, you could keep your plan if you liked it.

Tax treatment for private contractors sucks. There I bet we see eye to eye on. I'm all
for extending the same tax treatment to the self employed carrying their own policy as
those like me that work for a corporation.



What ought to be increasingly clear to you is that a public option or single
payer system is in your best interests and, as an employer, mine.
What we have now puts us both at a competitive disadvantage in todays world
marketplace. The only winners are the insurance and pharmaceutical
industries.

I'm going to wear my self out on this. Insurance has to respond to regulation and will
tack on the profit needed to come out whole. They may loose in one year but the next year
they will adjust.

The public option is a system that will administrated by unionized government workers
sucking at the teat of those that actually pay into our system. It will stick most of the
population into a single model of heathcare with no opportunity for experimentation and
change. It will be under constant pressure to keep costs under control. Good by grand ma
on that one.

Of course the elite will have their separate system. They always do. Who was that guy
from Canada that didn't wait for his country to treat him but came here for good treatent.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/che...heart_sur.html

That wasn't even hard to find on google and I have a poor memory.

As far as Pharma based in the US, we should not pay a cent more than Canada or the EU for
the same damn drugs. Now what happens when they move to another country to counter that,
that is something we will just have wait and see about.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Andrew VK3BFA wrote:

Well then, it should be fairly simple. If you can get enough people to
support your views, they can, at the next election, vote for a
candidate who represents their views. thats the democracy part. If
they cant be bothered, then they have made a choice too.
So Roger - start organising, see if you have enough support at the
ballot box to implement your no doubt sincerely held views. Its your
right as a citizen in a democracy. Otherwise, its just crap.
Andrew VK3BFA.


Our system has a 2 year feed back loop. It is the House of Representatives. They are
elected every two years, can not be appointed, a vacancy requires a special election out
of time of the general election schedule.

This is the populist part of the legislature. The Senate, that is elected every 6 years,
is the part that can take a longer view on things.

Six years is a long time in politics.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The bigger problem is that they all have different ideas about what the word
republic means, now, and what they think it meant to the Founders. Hamilton,
Madison, and Jefferson all gave their definitions -- all of them different.
g

Hey Ed, do you ever consider the anti-federalists? Just wondering.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

As for whether the "concept" is to destroy private insurance, I'm sure
there are plenty of people who want to. Like John, I think it's
probably
inevitable -- not because something else wouldn't work,

Employers are going to drive this dynamic, in my opinion.
If I can, as an employer, pay a couple of grand per year to the
government
per employee and dump my healt-care costs, I'm going to do so ASAP. I'll
have to in the end anyway because I'll be competing with people that
have.
Employer based health-care will be as dead as a door nail by Monday
morning.

Two grand?

That's the "fine", yes, and it's paid to the IRS. You'll never see it
directly.
This assumes that your epmloyer has 50 or more employees.
Otherwise, there isn't a penalty but i will be elgible for a tax credit if
I
choose to offer coverage, even if we share the cost.
Small business will finally get a fair shake.

A very simple solution would have been to have one group. Why are the
feds a group and
small business a bunch of very small groups? There is an issue though.

This is what the public option that Republican's reviled was all about.
The group would have been that portion of the American public that wanted to
be part of the public group.

Requiring the public option would be about the same as single payer - the
most sensible thing to do if you want to flex a lot of purchasing power.


I can see a group being limited if the employer is self insured. Many
Fortune 500
companies are.

Yes, the in effect institute their own single payer plan for their work
force.
They cut out the middle man and have insurance companies compete for the
right to administer the group.
What you seem to be missing is that if it weren't economical to do this,
nobody would and that it's sort of ass backwards for the American public not
to do what employers that self insure do.




Where is the rest of the money coming from?

That's your problem.

That's a bit cold. Glad I don't work for you.

You giving all your employees a
raise so they can fork over the rest of what takes for converage?

Maybe, but only if I have to. That's the way free markets work Wes and
with
15 million unemployed, I can probably find someone qualified and motivated
that will work for your wage. I'm even going to hire a contractor to come
in
and explain it to you so I don't have to do my own dirty work and if I do
choose to subsidize your coverage, there is going to be a line item for it
on your check every week for you to look at.

I'm assuming you are engaging in hyperbole.

Hardly. Were the health care markets truly free youd see what chaos and
extorsion looked like at first hand.


As far as line items. Everything including
the employer part of medicare and ssi should be on the check. I'm a big
fan of everyone
knowing just how much tax they are paying to the state and feds. Too bad
when I buy
something from a store, I can't see how much embeded taxes I'm paying for
an item.


Most of us above room
temperature know part of our compensation is not on our W-4 forms.

You'd think that but it isn't actually the case. People percieve the value
of health care coverage based on their usage, not it's cost.

That is your opinion.

Not really. It's an opinion formed by having every insurance carrier I've
ever bought group coverage from come in and spend significant time
educationg my employees about the value of their coverage and also providing
me with ta bunch of tools to reinfoece the message on my own throughout the
year.

While I carry auto insurance with unlimited medical, I don't hope
to have a car crash to give my insurance a whirl. I doubt any of us want
to die early and
get value out of our life insurance.

Eventually, you wouldn't carry medical coverage in conjunction with any of
the insurances you buy.
In fact, with yearly and lifetime limits removed as part of what's just
passed, you might want to look at all or your coverages and see what you can
do to eliminate duplication.

There also wouldn't be a medical component to Workers Compensation coverage.
All of these put Americans at a tremendous competetive disadvantage Wes.

You'd be in a different situation were you self employed or a contractor
because you'd be in the private market.
Under that set of facts, yes, you could keep your plan if you liked it.

Tax treatment for private contractors sucks. There I bet we see eye to
eye on. I'm all
for extending the same tax treatment to the self employed carrying their
own policy as
those like me that work for a corporation.

I'd rather the reverse be true. Health care premiums would go down
significantly if the revenue pool were reduced.




What ought to be increasingly clear to you is that a public option or
single
payer system is in your best interests and, as an employer, mine.
What we have now puts us both at a competitive disadvantage in todays
world
marketplace. The only winners are the insurance and pharmaceutical
industries.

I'm going to wear my self out on this. Insurance has to respond to
regulation and will
tack on the profit needed to come out whole. They may loose in one year
but the next year
they will adjust.

The cost of health care is rising so rapidly because the business model in
the health care industry if fee per service driven.
The really simple version of this is that medical professionals can create
demand whenever they want to and insurance companies LIKE THAT because they
simply raise premiums and their percentage of the action stays the same.
More Services Provided/Higher costs = Higher Profits. It's that simple.

What we need to get to is a model that rewards cost effective equivalent
outcomes and penalizes or discourages overuse.


The public option is a system that will administrated by unionized
government workers
sucking at the teat of those that actually pay into our system. It will
stick most of the
population into a single model of heathcare with no opportunity for
experimentation and
change. It will be under constant pressure to keep costs under control.
Good by grand ma
on that one.

Of course the elite will have their separate system. They always do.

It isn't only "the elite" Wes. It's a matter of priorities. Regardless, you
will always be able to do what people the world over do and plus up your
coverage on your own.

Who was that guy
from Canada that didn't wait for his country to treat him but came here
for good treatent.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/che...heart_sur.html

That wasn't even hard to find on google and I have a poor memory.

The worlds best health care isn't delivered in the US Wes. Not even close.
There are two countries that I can think of right off the top of my head
where care is significantly better and much, much cheaper.
Let me guess, you are one of those that still thinks we are number on in
health care technology as delivered.
We aren't Wes and haven't been for a decade.

Here is some other "news" for you. Barak Obama really is a US National, not
Kenyan.
I know. It's hard to believe, but true none the lessG



As far as Pharma based in the US, we should not pay a cent more than
Canada or the EU for
the same damn drugs. Now what happens when they move to another country
to counter that,
that is something we will just have wait and see about.

The very next health care initiative ought to rescind the law forbidding the
feds from negotiating the best price for drugs under part D.
I can't imagine either the public or any member of Congress opposing that
and if you wanted to close the "donut hole" yu cold do it right there and
overnight.

This law is the dumbest damned thing I've ever seen. Well, almost the
dumbest. I've seen some really stupid things in my time.
Keeping GM alive, among other things, was dumber.


JC