It seems that once a political idea is implanted in the mind, anecdotal evidence becomes of equal value as actual verifiable facts.

How is it that birth certificates from other births at the same hospital as BO was born at and at the same time not directly show what type of birth certificates BO's hospital was producing at the time?

Maybe this will shutup the birthers.

Not likely, since the birther kerfuffle is a cover for not being to have a rational argument about substantive issues. At best, it will have the same people move on to some other bullshit.

If the birth location thing were true, and as important as it is, someone would have leaked the truth and people in high places would be on to it.

Ever person that is half white and half ( some other color) is always a person of ( some other color), Why?

Apparently because in this country white is right. Then there are the others.

Yeah, hospitals always record the darker color. Even if they're only 1/64th black. Not sure why.

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

Best me. After all if we remove the skin, are we not all the same? If so what does it matter? Prejudiced is some thing this world can do with out. It was the reason for the killing of 6 million Jews in WW2, the Spanish Inquisition, the war to remove the native Americans from their land, and this list can get real long so I will stop with that. I am sure the point is clear.

People should be very careful generalizing their personal experiences. There are far too many serious issues at stake to be saying ridiculous, unproven, and likely false things such as "Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good."

Facile solutions are pablum.

And how about some respect? "Obummer"? How can you be taken seriously when you belittle serious discourse.

Bankruptsy?
 

There is talk of changing Federal law to allow states to go into bankruptcy and restructure their finances. In view of the dire situation here in California, this may be the way to go. After years of handing out plush salaries and generous retirements and borrowing money to cover operating costs, the state is frozen in a political stalemate. No one is willing to give up anything, the legislature is a farce. Jerry Brown sincerely wants to do something but his power is very limited by the initiative process that has locked expenses into the Constitution.
Bankruptcy would allow the state to break down all the special interests and start from scratch. Sounds good to me.

Welcome to the site and to this thread. It's nice to have some input from someone who's actually in the healthcare business and to get their thoughts on what Obummercare will do. Is that what people in healthcare are calling it? lol Hopefully it will be repealed somehow, someway before it becomes yet another monstrous cancer on our nation that we can't get rid of like Social Security which will run out of money in 2037. How much further into debt will we go to fix that?

Once again, no one is entitled to her or his own facts.

Social Security, according to the Congressional Budget Office, currently has enough to pay 100% of claims until 2037, and then only 80% of claims for decades after that. You should pay attention to the whole story, not just the part that is told TO YOU so you will think a certain way.

A simple change in the rate people pay into Social Security -- i.e., make those who make a $1 million a year pay more than those who make $175,000 a year, and only a bit more -- will keep the system solvent at 100% for a much, much longer time. But that fix doesn't fit into the narrative of those who want to turn Social Security over to Wall Street speculators.

What freaks me out is how the Egyptian government pretty much pulled the plug on the internet, to keep people from twittering and blackberrying and stuff.....imagine if that happens here.

When the government is threatened, they(the government) will do anything to protect themselves from the public or any other threat(9/11, Homeland security).

I am a Canadian, as indicated by my location in every post that I make. You never talked to me so right off your statement is false because I am more than satisfied with the quality of healthcare that I receive here. I can choose my own doctor, there is no cost to me for any visits to my doctor, I don't have to worry about getting rejected by an insurance company, I don't have to fill out forms for any treatment, everything that is available in the US is available here, and most importantly if I should ever be hospitalized I will not have to sell my house and all my possessions just to pay medical bills.

There are some people that do go to the US because they complain about wait times for some procedures, but I've never had to wait long for any medical procedure. One must also realize that Canada is the second largest country in the world and yet the population of the whole country is less than California. It's not easy to provide all services to people all over such a large country, but it does happen.

So I suggest you don't make such generalizations unless you know your facts and then be more specific.

Thank you for contributing to helping keep facts, and not regurgitated, impressionistic "talking points," a part of the discussions on this site.

Homeland security is a threat....plus 9-11 is now just an excuse to do ANYTHING that takes away people's rights in the name of security. And We are the government's boss, we are not there servants...as shocking as that sounds.

And when a government does that, it already shows the problem is with the government. I'm all for what the Egyptian people are doing.

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily. Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake.
Also it is not the discourse I belittle, it the idiot that wishes to impose a law on the people that he has set up so he does not have to take part in it.

Of course you are. My point is that to extrapolate from that to make a political point is ridiculous. I have a primary care physician and three specialists I see regularly. Each and every one of them thinks something quite different from you have posted. The physicians I know in the healthcare program at my university think otherwise, too.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

I never wrote anything that remotely corresponds to your quote above, so don't put words in my mouth ... even if by inference.

Of course it's the discourse that you belittle, denigrate, etc. By calling names and making facile generalizations, you diminish the quality of the discourse. Instead of discussing healthcare reform and the legislation on its merits, or exclusively on its merits, you resort to "Obummercare" and now, calling someone an idiot. Do you mean Obama? How do you suppose you would fare in a test against Obama using some of the standardized tests to measure if one is an "idiot" -- e.g., the standard IQ test that rates one who scores below 20 as an "idiot"?

Around here yes every one calls it Obumercare. If a person had the time to hit on the more than 2000 pages of the bill they would soon find out why. The bill was so bad that any one that had the opportunity to vote to remove them self from having to take part in did so.
As you said about S.S. going bankrupt, this bill was pasted with the idea that if they tax pharmaceutical company's, Insurances company's, and hospitals, high enough they can pay for it. Not stopping to think this will drive up the cost, so it would cost even more to pay for it. On top of driving up the cost of insurance, they want to fin us for not having it. My bad they call it a tax. Now the large corporations did the math. They are going to drop all insurance from the benefits package, and pay the fin. They can see a savings of over 2mil a year. So we now have folks with insurance now, that will end up on the obumer plain. So once more the cost goes up. If I may use the words of one doctor, " This not the Obumer plain, it is the ho shit did not see that coming obumer plain. "
Now what most don't stop to look at is the cuts in coverage for teh elderly and the poor. Long term care will become a thing of the past, and so on as I posted before. This will end up with total government control of health care. They can even run a used car lot. I mean come on, the bad move they made with cash for clunkers, that still has not been paid for.
As for the remark I seen about how I would feel if my IQ test was placed beside Obmer's. Well not that bad I don't think. I may be dyslexic, and that enpeads my ability to get my thoughts from my head to my fingers, or find the right word in a spell check, but it in no way lowers my IQ. In fact it has forced me rely on comincents over book cents. Find a way to masher that and I know Obumer would be the one looking silly.

Yet it is Obama I am calling an idiot. Any one willing to push on the people any thing they know is not going to work is an Idiot. Besides all that, as I posted above, find a way to mesher comincents and I know I would out shine Obumer. Or as folks to point out, His name is an acronym for One Big Ass mistake America.

Your responses don't even warrant rebuttal, since you write idiotic things suggesting that Obama is pushing something on the people that he knows is not going to work.

Truly, ignorance is bliss.

I would bet anything that you couldn't articulate an alternative to the healthcare legislation that would make any sense.

Being a doctor does not necessarly make one knowledgeable about the intricacies of socialised medicine. It has never been done in the US so I rather doubt there are many doctors that have enough knowledge of the subject to speak intimately of it. One should actually examine how other countries with socialised healthcare operate before making blanket statements such as what you have posted.

I will post a response to this in the thread "There Goes the Internet".

Same thing as what happens anywhere that that happens... The situation escalates as suddenly millions more people who were not angry enough to go out on the streets suddenly get the final shove over the edge.

A media blackout is pretty much the worst thing a government cos do, it's a sign of desperation and defeat, and it's the biggest incitement to people to take to the streets.

What would get your attention more? seeing riots on the TV news or the tv suddenly shutting down? When the internet suddenly turns off, it is basicly the government saying, 'every rumour you just heard about our collapse is true'. It's a pure gift to all protesters.

Will to truly understand thing one must have at lest some first hand knowledge of how it works. You know as well as I do that should I tell you how an 18 wheel works it would seem Greek to you. (Well if you never had to deal with one that is) Yet for some one that has spent better than 1/2 his life in or under one, it would be clear as a bell. I made this statement at work, that was when we found and printed a copy of the bill, before it was passed, and gave it real close look.
Now keep in mind I have said before I am dyslexic, so rather than take the week it would have taken me to really read it, I had some one read it to me, then I went back to the parts I wanted to really look at. So what I have to say about the parts of the bill I did study, come from my understanding of the thing.
The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

I don?t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

A Federal judge has struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, based on the stipulation that everyone must have healthcare or be fined. Since that requirement cannot be modified, the entire bill is struck down. He stated Congress does not have the authority to require people to have health insurance.
A single payer system, like Canada's would have avoided this problem.

I can't speak for England, but Canada is not looking to replace the current healthcare system. Every government will always make minor changes and tweaks, but there is no movement to replace the system.

Now back to my original point in your quote and the first sentence of your quote. I wrote that just because one is a doctor in the US does not necessarily make that person an expert or even knowledgeable about socialized healthcare. One would actually have to work in socialized healthcare to be able to properly form an opinion and the majority of doctors in the US have not worked in socialized healthcare.

Next point; a great many countries in Europe also have socialized healthcare and it is functioning well in those countries.

Last point; There is a good chance that I know more about 18 wheel trucks than you do so don't start making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know.

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

Greed rules
 

All I can say is that I've never met any doctor in the US who was not in it for the money. I'm sure there are some,,, possibly even many, but I produced health care and related teleplays for the health care industry, and this quote from a recognizied top shelf surgeon, I think says it best " my patients are the stupidiest people I've ever met'. There will never be true reform until those who are sick can decide for themselves, how best to treat (spend on) their illnesses. No 3rd party system will ever approach self determination, about anything.

The level of generalization is just so ridiculous as to be almost dismissable, were it not for the danger inherent in these generalizations. ANY OBJECTIVE PERSON? Give me a fuckin' break.

First off, the ruling is only about the "individual mandate" clause. Second, it's open to judicial interpretation ... the basis of how the system works. You are so hell-bent on seeing your views vindicated that you don't even stop to think about the full story.

The courts have given wide latitude to Congress to regulate markets, and that's what the individual mandate is about. The logic -- whether you agree with the law or not - is that a person without coverage who is hospitalized might run up huge medical bills that then would be absorbed by others with insurance or by taxpayers.

That one judge in a particular jurisidiction noted for a particular politican bent makes a ruling is no cause for such hyperbole. But it's what we've come to expect from you, Tracy, just like equating Congress with a dictatorship. In Egypt, 30 years of dictatorship has had the kind of consequences for people that you make a mockery of with your false equivalency.

It does, though, point once again to the underlying vitriol in your views that seems to make it impossible for you to sustain a rational discussion for more than a post or two.

american should be able to seek other forms of medical treatment, other drugs and surgery for things. I seen parents threatened if they did not make their cancer stricken kids take chemo and radiation.....one teenager was forced by a judge to take it, despite the fact he did not want to....luckily public outcry forced this stupid (and pay off, I bet) judge to change his decision. Many of these people, ie politicians or FDA people, after leaving their current line of work, go on to be either lobbyists or the heads of various big pharma. And before some of you people (I've been hounded for saying this on both hung angels and hung devils), who most likely invest in pharma stocks, that some drugs and surgery can be useful and helpful...but there are many, many that don't work and are harmful.....like viox and avandia....the latter of which, I think, killed my dad....are poisons just made to make a quick buck (they make millions, if not billions off this stuff before they pull it off the market) and many scientists were bribed or threatened not to tell of the dangers. And that fat fuck, John Engler, the former MI governor, made it illegal to sue drug companies here....even if they are at fault.

People should be given choices on how to treat themselves, not not be limited to one or two. Anyone else agree with me on this, or am I just a misfit, more so? :drool:

The pharmaceutical firms are, from a business standpoint, reprehensible profiteers who put profits ahead of everything.

To be forced to undergo certain treatments happens, but it is hardly the norm anywhere in the U.S. medical system. You really need to stop generalizing everything, Trogdor. When you see something you oppose, you can write about it without making it bigger than it really is. That only diminishes the value of your points and makes it easier for others to dismiss them.

However, separate from the pharma issue, who should pay when people show up at the emergency room with no insurance and needing care to reverse their "self-treatment" or their choices that may have been contrary to medical advice?

I thought you'd get a kick out of that. I know I can count on you not to dismiss it though. ;)

btw about the dictator comment, if I see a government that has a supermajority and uses that as a go-ahead to ram something as big as nationalized health care through when the public is telling them to stop then I call it as I see it. Yes they had a vote, but that was merely a formality.

Two months ago the Democrat Attourney General of Maine said we did not have a case in the lawsuit against Obamacare.
Since our new Republican Governor joined the suit, and yesterdays decission, the news is NOT on the front page of the local paper ( blantantly Democrat) but tucked away inside on the health page. Now ain't that odd?

Because of the stranglehold of the healthcare industry, a national healthcare plan could not support itself unless everybody was paying into it. The young people who had minimal healthcare needs would support us olderfolks who need more care.
The only way we can have a "free" national healthcare plan is for the government to run it as a single payer and get the greedy profit obsessed healthcare providers out of it. Yes, it would be expensive. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be take care of it, however.

Well to start with I did not make any assumption at all. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I said IF YOU HAD NEVER HAD TO DEAL WITH ONE> there for any assumption on that statement looks to be on your part not mine.

I will have to look for the web sight to be sure, though I do know that england is in fact looking for a way to one of 2 things, Cut cost, to make it more affordable, or find some way to raise the needed funds to pay for the health care as is. As it stands now, (should I find the web sight) you wil also see that many people in many of the places that do have socialized health care, can not get drugs they need, or in some cases the care they needed. The Government simply can not afford the cost.
This is why in Obumercare there is a close that gives the goverment the right to deny care. If you look up the text of the bill you will find this on page 380 lines 10and 11.

Got to love it. LOL

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealt...healthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:

There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.

That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

If we are to bring down health cost in this nation, I feel it be best to start by stopping all the silly lawsuits that cost doctors and or hospitals well over 2 million a year to ether fight or just pay the person off. To bring this to an end, I would say if a person does sue another, and they loss. What ever they sued for they should have to pay out. Also we need more people with commonsense to sit on the jury. There simply is no way I would have said that McDonald's should have had to pay out any thing over some one spilling coffee on them self. Or that any one other than one doing the smoking is respectable for their getting COPD from the cigarettes. This nation needs to face the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. Not look for the fast buck by saying McDonald's made me fat. If they push away the fries, and don't eat food that is know to be fating, or just stooped eating at fast food, would they loss wight?
Now get me wrong, ( seems most every one want on here wants to make any one that does see things there way as the bad guy) I do not think a doctor should be allowed to make a blatant mistake and not pay for it. How ever to sue them for simply thinking you had a cold and it turned out to be allegories, now that going to fare. And yes that did happen right in my little town. The doctor rather than fight it, simply paid them off, and went on about his rat killing. I think he should have fought it my self. Then if you look at the pay out it was less than the cost to fight. So in a way it does add up. That would just be a first step. Next I would want to know why it is that in Mexico, you can get the same drug made by Johnson and Johnson, for less that 1/2 the price.
I could go on and on about the things I see wrong. And even if there is a legit reason for any of it, there has to be a way to fix it. Like killing some of the regulations faced by business in this nation. Lower taxes and fight hard to bring jobs back into this nation that have been shipped over sea's. Trust me I can on for days and even years about what is wrong in this nation. Every bit of would lead back to the government. Ether in taxes, NAFTA, the EPA, and so on.

I am NOT generalizing.
Medical schools are run and operated by big pharma, and people, especially kids have been forced to undergo things like Chemo or vaccinations, with threats of social services after the parents and take away the kids. Also, when a cure, a legit cure, made of something that can not be patented, such as an herb or a mineral or something pretty much get silenced. Hell, the so-called war on cancer stared by Nixon in 1971 is a loosing battle, and with all these decades of making billions in cancer research shows to me there's going to be no cure, until someone finally puts pharma in its place.....


.....our paid bitches looking for real cures.....and if loosing profits because people can live longer, be healthy and not miserable....then pharma people simply need to, as John McCain said to disgruntled auto workers in 2000, to "find another job". Things like B17, apricots and apple seeds, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda to any joe sixpack....which is good, an anti acid, which is great to kill cancer) and so on can easily kill a cancer and save someone. Making one's body alkali switches off cancer production, pretty much telling the cancer cells to go fuck themselves.:respect:

FDA even had the AUDACITY to send a letter to the CEO of Diamond Walnuts and said they are in trouble because they had health benefits of walnuts on the package, including the fighting cancer, and because the packages said they can help fight cancer, the walnuts automatically became a 'drug' (Because the FDA said "Only a DRUG can treat an illness" and anything said, even a food, becomes a drug if aid to fight illness) and Diamond was found guilty of selling drugs without a license. Land of the free my white ass. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.
Shit, mammograms cause cancer......heat imaging is safe....no radiation damage and more accurate. Cat scans are horrible. The guy who made the prostate PSA test i saying it's not safe or effective. Hell, those trucks that haul fluoride, the same in dental care and drinking water have skull and cross bones...makes no sense to me to use a confirmed poison poison into drinking water and whatnot. It's like someone wants to make sure everyone stays sick.

FDA = Big Pharma's police force. I call them the health care mafia.

And if you want proof, I say go do a little independent research (mainstream medias are often sponsored by drug companies, so make it independent)

I will let other moderators address your last point. I've put in bold what I will address here.

You write that you don't generalize, and then you proceed to make a ridiculous generalization. There is no doubt that the evil hand of the pharmaceutical companies runs rampant in many medical schools. But by generalizing, you impugn every doctor and medical student at these schools. At medical schools such as those where I live, there is a continuing ethical battle the hand of pharma and the work of the school. It plays out in public with commissions and rules and rewriting of rules and lawsuits and so on. It plays out behind the scenes in students' lives -- I know some of them -- who get lucrative summer positions (summer positions with hospitals and pharma firms are a key perk of medical school) and others risking their financial stability to refuse to work for pharma.

To write a generalization like "medical schools are run and operated by big pharma" is not a generalization makes it difficult to take seriously everything else you write. Which is too bad.

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can?t compete with the low wages of some countries. It?s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or ?inventing? new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.
Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) It would take me some time to put anything together that would have a chance of working. Though give some time I bet I can. The place to start would be looking back to see just what got them moving over sea's in the first place. Though I know it had to with the drop of both import and export tax, I also know there was a lot more to it than that. This is not something we can just put a bandage on.

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.
Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. They now have lets say 1000 people working for them. They are paying out 100,000 a year to help the employees with health coverage. Now under Obama care, they can keep paying out the 100,000 or drop alll coverage and pay out only 10,000 a year to cover the fines. What would you do? So given that almost all will drop any coverage they now keep, you have another 1000 people that will be forced to except Obama care. Add to that the some, (lets make the math easy here, ) 1000 others like X Inc that will do the same, and the cost keeps going up. I am not talking the cost of care, I am talking the cost to the tax payer. The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don?t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can?t be that simple and stupid.
I don?t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

Employment?
 

We had full employment a few years back. True, alot of it was in the building industry. What pisses me off, is we gave billions to the banks so they could loan money to companies so they would hire more workers. The problem is that the companies aren't going to hire more workers unless there is more demand for their goods. So the money sits there while the bankers take huge bonuses with our money.
It's a backasswards situation. With all that money the government could have organized massive reconstruction projects (like WPA in 1930s) to hire the unemployed to build and repair infrastructure. Once people had jobs and income, they could buy more stuff causing the companies to hire more employees to meet the increased demand.
Seems simple doesn't it?
So why hasn't Obama implemented such a program?
Guess who really runs the country.

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

Ever considered becoming a comedian, Tracy?

Obama
 

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

No, only 13% of americans want to keep the healthcare bill as it is. 46% not only want to change it but want it gone. The Tea Party movement was a grass roots organization that arose in part because the public did not want nationalized health care. Most Obama supporters voted for him because of his promise of Hope & Change. I don't know about hope. His stimulus packages did nothing for unemployment, and left us further in debt. How does that equal hope? But it definitely is a change so I'll give him points for that. People voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush. The fact that John McCain wasn't George Bush either didn't seem to occur to them. I saw NO evidence that people actually voted for Obama because of actual policies that he supported. The media never asked Obama the hard questions. They were too busy ooohing and aahhing over the tingle going up their leg.

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.

I think that tingle was going the other way. Just a little worm tete to keep them going.
I seen a thing on Fox news, ( keep in mind I dont trust any news ) They ask people what they knew about Obama, and not person could think of any thing other than it was the guy they seen TV all the time. Uninformed votes is the biggest treat to this nation as a whole.

The judge obviously was reluctant to rule it unconstitutional and realized there is an urgent need to have affordable health care in this country.

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:

The facts are now straight.

Bottom line: the judge DID NOT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION. Now the facts are really straight.

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

The bill was written without the usual "separability" clause that makes it possible for a judge to rule on parts of a law that is challenged rather than on the entire law. This may or may not have been done deliberately (that is a separate discussion). Hence, the judge's ruling is on the entire law.

He could have chosen to STOP the law's implementation immediately by issuing an injunction. He did not. There are arguments among lawyers and talking heads about the judge's intent, but it is clear that however he may define various words, he did not enjoin the government from its immediate implementation of the law, which he could have done and which he could have made clear.

The Justice Department considers the ruling to be a declarative one that allows for the implementation of the law as the case makes its way higher, to the Supreme Court (remember, the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014). Some of the states that have sued the federal government consider the ruling to be more than declarative, and are clamoring for the immediate halt to implementation.

It is notable that the judge has NOT changed his ruling. It would be easy for a state that thinks he ruled to enjoin the law and stop its implementation immediately to go back to his court and ask for him to make this clear. That has not happened, precisely for the reason I stated earlier. Judge Vinson is acting in accord with the spirit of the statutes and his judicial authority. He seems to be recognizing the absurdity of enjoining something that hasn't yet gone into effect (in other words, how can you stop something that hasn't yet started?). And, by virtue of his statement in the ruling quoted by Randolph earlier, he recognizes the political reality that there are provisions in the law that, to stop their implementation (e.g., the provision that disallows an insurance company from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition), would not only wreak havoc but -- he implies -- are probably constitutional (remember, this bill lacked the "separability" clause).

Vinson may be an "activist judge" -- as some proponents of the law have claimed -- but he surely is no dummy.

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn?t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

But there are other companies that didn?t/don?t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don?t have to pay less with Obama care?

(I?m not sure if it shines through enough that I?m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)

The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don?t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

Well you could turn your car in to any car company that wanted take part. Toyoda, Honda, G.M. Ford. It was more an attempt to gt us out of the SUV and into Government approved cars. You know going green thanks to the lie of Global worming.
I had to look that up to make sure if I was right or wrong.
By the way I do not know how to do the reply where it splits up my rely inside your post. I did get it once only now seem I cant. SO my reply in bold inside of your.

Rainrider I asked you if you can explain me why it gets more expensive, but you only describe me things from a single view point. You let other positions out, and ignore them. If every tax payer would have to pay more, the whole idea of affordable health insurance for everyone would go wrong. It can?t be that simple and stupid.

Can you, or are you willing to tell me the full story why you think it gets more expensive in long term, or not? If you only telling me these single view shreds, we can stop here. That will lead nowhere.


Global warming is no lie. There is the question how much mankind has to do with it. If you have any creditable prove for that statement, you could post it in the global warming thread.

Copy and paste or type in the quote commands, so that the paragraph you want to quote is implemented by the quote commands. For further information Click here.

The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

After reading the exchanges between Tracy and smc all I can think of is that too many lawyers have so screwed up the laws that it's impossible for the average person to be able to understand what has really happened. It's not just the most recent court decision on healthcare in the US, but laws in general. How can the public be expected to support or disagree with any politician when the wording of judgments and laws are so full of legalese?

I am certainly not a stupid person (and in fact consider myself to be quite intelligent), but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the judgment really is on the lates court ruling over US healthcare.

When in doubt, the smart route is to assume that I am correct. :lol:

And remember the old Spanish proverb: "It is better to be a mouse in a cat's mouth than a man in a lawyer's hands."

The judge cleverly used Obama's own words. The mandate that all citizens must participate is not separable from the bill. Therefore he said the whole bill must be struck down.

Harry Reid has been chastising republicans about their position on the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling. He says "We can't back out on the money we owe the rest of the world."

Well, we don't have to. We can pay the money we owe, and stop payments towards Obamacare (especially since it is currently unconstitutional), and not pay out the rest of the several stimulus packages that have been enacted. That would easily cover it.

Perhaps Senator Reid would take his beloved Obama's advice on the matter:
Don't believe him Senator Reid? Well there's another person who I think you'd find yourself forced to agree with about the matter:

(Republican has been changed to Democrat to better apply the economic lesson to this situation)

I hope this clarifies things for you Senator Reid. You should be glad that the Republicans have finally heard Senator Reid and Barack Obama.

It should be noted that this is one judge in one federal court district. Other federal judges have thrown similar suits out of court. Nothing has been settled.

As a matter of principle, Obama should recall his 2012 budget. In his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size. But then when he campaigned, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first year. In reality it quadrupled. Forgive me if I don't buy even his weak promises of deficit reduction this year.

If you look at overall government spending, taking into account spending by states, overall spending does not show a huge spike but a steady rise. Granted the rise is enormous over the past ten years. We have been living on borrowed money for a long time. All the special interests will protect their cut to the end.

Right-Wing Dumping Done For
 

Check out Wisconsin today-- 20,000 people against the Republican Governor's denial of the right to publicly protest on the part of workers and his promise to remove collective bargaining rights from state employees.

Where have you been since 2001?

Bush's tax cuts and war spent Clinton's surplus and increased the U.S debt to incredible levels. Just like Reagan's tax cuts did.

Republicans never will touch the Defense Budget. Why not?

Have you heard of the peace dividend from George Bush Sr? Republicans will cut defense spending when it makes sense. BO has us in some kind of war with Afghanistan. Not really sure what that's all about, but you don't cut defense when you're in a war.

But speaking of not touching something. Why have you not mentioned the democrats refusal to touch entitlement programs which dwarf defense? Not only do they never touch them, but they continuously add to them.

I'm all for the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, but even Tracy knows that this war was inherited by Obama, not started by him. Of course, why let facts get in the way when you have a point to make (even if that point is inexplicable)?

Tracy Really! The Pentagon budget exceeds all other Federal expenses combined, over 50% of the budget. The biggest welfare program the world has ever seen. Fuck market capitalism, lets just spend our money on useless stupid military hardware and fat ass generals. Our massive cold war style military is an abject failure at dealing with current terrorist reality. :frown:

Wrong! Health and Human Services has the most expenses.

There are four things that cost us money...

1) Medicare
2) Military Spending
3) Social Security
4) Interest(Treasury Dept.)

Any conversation of reduction that does not focus on these 4 things is pretty much pointless.

Oops, make that 23%

I apologize. The post I read was wrong and I should have checked it out. :blush:

Actually, I should have pointed out that the plus fifty percent applied to discretionary spending not the total budget.
The point is that the military spending is discretionary so if we seriously want to get out of this budget hole, we need to cut military spending. Our Congress is not willing to do that. Are they hostages to the military industrial complex? Eisenhower would be shocked and appalled.

Capital Expenditure ?
 

Well, it's much the same on this side of the Atlantic too.

Might even be symptomatic of capitalism itself, except that there are too many nominally-Democratic Totalitarian governments which do not !

I'm not sure where your source came from (it doesn't even have a year on it, or even a country for that matter lol), and to tell the truth, I'm not sure where my pie chart came from. So I went to the horses mouth here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-th...ractive-budget

Since it's not in a convenient pie chart I made my own (you can check the numbers if you like, I didn't fudge anything. Just mouse over the categories and see the numbers there). And then I made another one lumping all the welfare programs into one category.

You say, or your source says, that defense is discretionary. I would argue that maybe some of it is discretionary, but for a large country, full of resources like the US, it's mandatory.

Defense is 19.27% and welfare programs are a whopping 60.84% of the budget. Some can certainly be cut from defense... when we're not at war, but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

The term "discretionary spending" has a very specific meaning in economics and in government fiscal policy, whether in this country or anywhere else. It refers to spending about which the spender can make choices. Hence, it is optional, not mandatory -- no matter how important any one individual may think it is.

That is why you never hear any mention of defense spending in the specific discussion of "mandates." Mandatory spending in this context includes the so-called "entitlement programs" and spending that is specifically required by law (e.g., a federal requirement that a state spend on a particular thing or program).

How about corporate welfare? It doesn't show up as an entitlement program in the budget, but is hidden in hundreds of places via tax loopholes and subsidies given to the corporations by the politicians they've bought. Are you for cutting every single penny of that? If not, can you justify the expenditure of a single penny of corporate welfare?

OK this is from: National Priorities.org
The Federal Budget can be divided into two types of spending according to how Congress appropriates the money: discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year. Total Budget: $3.64 trillion Mandatory: $2.1 trillion Discretionary: $1.2 trillion Interest on Debt $247 billion Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2011. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on programs which are discretionary. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.
The discretionary budget is about one-third of total federal spending. The chart below indicates how discretionary spending was divided up in fiscal year 2011.
58 percent of the discretionary budget in FY 2011 is "national defense," a government-defined function area that roughly corresponds in common parlance as "military." However, this category does not include foreign military financing, security assistance, and other programs commonly thought of as military. Other types of discretionary spending include the budget for education, many health programs, and housing assistance.
In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.
In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.

Ok, if that's the definition, then that's the definition. Still, suppose we have Obama and a democrat congress for another 4 years after 2012 and our debt has gone up another $8 trillion or so. The dollar collapses and our economy is sent into a serious tailspin. The government goes into emergency budget cutting mode. Entire departments are now being cut. I guarantee you we will still have a military, because we must have a military. But anyways, on with the technical definitions...

Yeah, after he raises the deficit several $trillion, THEN let's freeze it lol. And that's only if you believe him. As I said above, in his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". At least he has a sense of humor right? He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size.

Sorry, but that does not fulfill BO's promise and frankly after raising the debt $5 trillion in the last 5 years, cutting the debt $1.3 trillion in 3 years is not adequate. What the republicans are proposing isn't even adequate. Our government needs to get serious about ELIMINATING the fucking debt! If we have to borrow to maintain our lifestyle, then something is wrong and that is unsustainable. We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

Nice dodge, Tracy. Bring up the welfare issue again but don't answer the question about corporate welfare.

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

CORPORATE WELFARE

Some people who like to beat up on the notion of the "welfare state" target only the disadvantaged, but remain silent on corporate welfare. We have people on this site who remain silent on this topic while they insult poor people about purchasing $90 shoes and generally imply that the most vulnerable in society are indolent and don't care about their families.

The Cato Institute is a think tank in Washington that promotes "limited government" and "free markets." Here's the intro to a Cato Institute report from 2007:

The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses

by Stephen Slivinski

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute and author of Buck Wild: How the Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government (2006).

Published on May 14, 2007

The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities ? expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" ? in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, "corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.

Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs continue to fund the wealthiest farmers.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

You can download the full report here:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

Perhaps, Tracy, you could explain this for all of us non-American members. Your country's budget, from what I've read, is currently in the House of Representatives where, from what I understand, it won't pass without a lot of spending being taken out. How does it shutdown the government if it doesn't pass the House of Representatives? Does the budget go back to your president so that he can make requested changes or does the budget get passed on to the Senate so that it can be debated and voted upon there?

Tracy's post is disingenuous at best. By writing "neither side will give," Tracy -- as Tracy is wont to do in multiple posts throughout this site -- seeks to establish a false moral equivalency between the actions of two sides. In fact, there is only one side that would be responsible for shutting down the government, were it to happen: the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. One need only look at U.S. political history from 1992, when the Republicans last pulled this stunt, to see both what it means for the party that does it but more important the terrible toll it takes on the most vulnerable people in society.

As to ila's question, the House must pass a budget. It then goes to the Senate, where it will not likely pass. But if it does, it then goes to the president for a signature. The president has promised to veto (i.e., not sign) the budget that the House will likely pass. To override that veto requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which is next to impossible.

Thanks, smc, now I understand.

Healthcare,
 

You know what i find amazing in this debate on healthcare is, the health industry always says "We don't make any money on this", hospitals are the same, no one makes any money, we just get by. Doctors too say the same. You know for an industry that makes no money, they sure are fighting hard to stop this. Lets look at healthcare in a new way. They make sure they empty your bank account if your sick, and have to go to the hospital. They are making billions on your, mothers cancer, or your grannies bad joints. I notice you say its the will of the American people, your math is like most of your quote, full of Russ,

In the words of Tavis Smiley: "I believe budgets are moral documents."

The US now finds itself riddled with money problems and what is the solution the Tea Party and others like yourself prefer? To balance the budget "on the backs of the poor" as Smiley said. Never mind the assistance these people need given their poverty. Let us simply attack them and their families. Let us cut funding for education and break the already near-dead unions. They are evil after all. Any man or woman who demands a fair chance, who demands good pay, any group of people who band together into a union in order to better be able to fight against exploitation is evil. These things get in the way or profit, after all.

And never mind all the money given to corporations. God forbid the government start representing the needs and aspirations of the people. The unwashed masses undoubtedly are poor because they want to be and the rich are rich because they work all those tens of thousands of hours that it takes the average worker to make anything like a CEO makes in a year. The poor like being poor don't they? There's lots of them and they've been around for a long time. That they are poor cannot possibly be caused by socioeconomic factors beyond their control, right?

It's funny--not sitcom funny, but still--it is always the working people who get put on the chopping block when things go bad. But the rich always get away. They never get blamed. The Republicans skated scot free when the economy went up thanks to the Bush tax cuts--it's really tax spending: all the money the rich get is taken from the people--thanks to the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wall Street types lie to the people and sell them bad loans--loans the people would not have to take had private industry not moved elsewhere to the planet to exploit peoples in countries without worker's rights on the one hand and frozen wages on the other, but upper management kept reaping ever more obscene rewards--but do any of these assholes go to jail? No. Instead the problem gets blamed on workers leading ever more desperate lives--their work unsatisfying, the pay atrocious, personal lives crumbling because of the financial pressure and the long work hours which get longer. And does the Republican Party, the party of unapologetic greed, receive any of the blame it so richly deserves? No. More funny: the Republicans are always talking about preserving the family and family values yet their fiscal policies have largely chipped away at the middle class, which is the same as destroying one family after another. Reagan started it. Bush perfected it.

I wonder Tracy: you were against the stimulus but are you for corporate welfare? It would be quite the case of hypocrisy if you were for corporate welfare--which includes the military industrial complex--since the stimulus and welfare are ultimately the same thing.

Democrats--Lets make everybody happy, regardless the cost.:censored:

Republicans--fuck the poor, lets make the rich happy, regardless the cost.:censored: