Healthcare Reform: Republican Legislation 1995-2008

Republicans hold onto the myth that the markets will magically self correct if we would just leave them alone. And while we're waiting for the self correction to take place, thousands die yearly as a result of being without health insurance. I'm all for free market enterprise, but there are times when government regulation is needed to protect us from the market's "it's all about the profits" single mindedness.

The "government is the problem" mantra is little more than a marketing slogan designed to garner votes. The government grew enormously under Reagan.

"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html

I have been an active Republican but I no longer call myself that. I agree that the Republicans are desparately trying to keep the status quo with regards to health insurance reform. When Lamar Alexander says we should move in a "step by step" manner towards health insurance reform, I wonder why he didn't start these steps in 2003 when he became a U. S. Senator and had Republican majorites in Congress and a Republican President.

1) “Are Politicians who are philosophically against government effective legislatures?”
It is hypocrritical to be a politician and be against government. Unfortunately it would be "pigeon holing" to lump them all together. Take Ron Paul for instance, he votes against most spending bills on the basis of that he won't approve the pork earmarked into most every bill passed by either side of the aisle. His reasoning is much different than your typical righty or lefty who just votes against anything the other guys are trying to pass just to conform to his party agenda.

2) “If they are more effective legislators then how can you explain a lack of legislative action on the healthcare issue since 1995?”

How can they be an anti government politician and be effective in government? Another hypocrisy!
The lack of reform legislation is simple , no lobbiest offered up campaign contributions to push that agenda, plain and simple.

I found it curious that when Paul Ryan was running his ads in 2008 he never mentioned that he is a republican

They not only done nothing about Health care reform, they did not even attempt to do something about abortion. I laugh at those people who vote for Republicans based on their stance on abortion. Obviously abortion is not a legislative issue any more and the Republicans are just using abortion as an election tool. It takes money (PAC) to run for office, but it takes pandering to win.

it takes pandering to win

Pandering didn't work for John Kerry

Republicans are doing all sorts of self re-evaluation. Recent polls show that they feel they must become something more than a party of "no." But they are a party of no. No to civil rights of marriage. No to health care.

Actually that's not entirely accurate. Republicans are a party of "yes." Yes to discrimination and obfuscation and this only alienates moderates -- this is why the big tent of a moderate to conservative Democrat president is so effective in governing.

Republicans can't hold a candle to that, even if they win from time to time by being beholden to the religious right -- which was self identified in recent polling of the party faithful.

What exactly has been "effective" in obama's tenure in office????

Keep snowing yourselves, liberals--electing this idiot will set your party back--now AND in the future!!!

And I say now if obamas plans for Afghanistan do not pay immediate dividends (and by the way--it's still essentially Bush's time-frame for withdrawl he's borrowed--only he waited too long to committ the troops) his head should role--and I'd better see YOU calling for it hypocrites!

Everybody - Lets give AJ standing applause for answering my question as too what the Republicans have been doing for the past 12 years.

Passing the Buck!!

Aj - Let me reframe the issue in simple engrish:

12 years, 12 years, 12 years, 12 years your cohort has done nothing to addresss teh healthcare issues in this country. Done nothing to shape it to a system that is in a "free market" approach.

Blame yourselves, you lost the election becuase you spent the last 8 years bending over and taking it from the Bush administration.

"Bush's time-frame for withdrawl he's borrowed" In essence this means no set date?
Immediate results? Why wasn't there a call for immediate results for the past 8 years?
Waited too long to send the troops? GW took 3 months to make a decision on the surge in Iraq, why no screaming he didn't move faster?
I'd better see YOU calling for it hypocrites!

Funny--I'm employed and have health coverage--it's even pretty good!!! It's too bad your boy is going to destroy that. I became educated and work for my pay and benefits--I did my "homework" in the past and reap the benefits today. Yes, the FREE MARKET worked for me--and it's available to everybody the same way.

I'll make you look silly later mr hicks.

I find it impossible to read commenters like ajohnson911. He is a silly, construct, no? His posts read like the playbook of Jim Hayett with "idiot" this and "idiot" that. So much for civil conservation buck passer.

As long as it works for AJ that's all that matters. And for those college educated folks who now find themselves unemployed as a result of their jobs being shipped overseas ... too bad suckers!!

Not everyone can live off the government teat. Right fireboy?

The jobs were shipped overseas (and out of Wisconsin) because of liberals and their high taxation, unionized whiners and environmental regulation. That's the facts!!!

But, were talking about FREE MARKET (not allowed to develope above)--that was your question. . .to the contrary, I work "other" jobs to suppliment my income, and give to causes and volunteer too (yes, republicans give--often a lot MORE than liberals)--you know, I think it was Blackwell who wrote it best some months ago: he advocated a change in the way we live, work and how we spend our time--the oness was really on the individual to create his own life (is that about right, Jeff?)--while I'm far from rich or a success; I'm happy and can live with myself--without being a drain on resources, financial or otherwise--this is the conservative way--and getting back to your original point--the reason governement ought not be trusted much less expanded--and yes, mr true, any "IDIOT" can see that.

And you just can't help yourself can you ajohnson.

You. are. so. weak.

True, you find it "impossible to read" my comments? No true--you find it impossible to refute the logic and truth of my arguments and then respond with your last-non-point. . .

AJ: No, the facts are that Pres. Reagan was the one who changed the laws and sold Main Street down the road. He and the Congress allowed the large corporations to export jobs in pursuit of the almighty dollar and profit and to hell with any sense of responsibility to the workers.

You haven't offered an argument worth repudiating, ajohnson.

If person A owes person B healthcare, what does person B owe person A? Our Declaration of Independance gaurantees us each Liberty. When I am forced to work to pay for another person's healthcare, this infringes on my liberty.
If there is a public option, it will force doctors to work for less than market rates. Again, an infringment on their liberty. The mere existance of one person can't create a debt for another.
If you want to provide "free" healthcare to everyone, here is what you can do. Get together with others of like mind. Start a company that provides free healthcare. If 100 million of you can't "pitch in" to cover the 10 million or so legitimate uninsured, than don't expect others who are opposed to do it.
If you want the govt to solve all your problems, here is a clue. They are really bad at it. The reason healthcare costs rise is simple. People want to live longer and new technology costs a lot of money. We also have a spike in people reaching retirement age.
If you want one group of taxpayers to fund healthcare for everyone else, then that group should be able to demand legislation that if you are being funded, then:
1. No smoking
2. No drinking
3. Forced daily exercise
4. No obesity etc........
Don't agree to that? Then you are a hippocrite. Individual rights don't just apply when you find them conveinient. Your rights have responsiblities. The "needs" of one group don't out weigh the rights of another. Don't like it.... Move to Cuba and help bankrupt them.

1. If there is a public option, govt will pay medicare rates.
2.Medicare pays far less than private insurance to hospitals.
3.A new hospital in oconomowoc will employ many and offer state of the art services. Both are good things.
4.The hospital was built with the anticipation of a high % of private insured patients.
5.Healthcare passes and people are forced onto the plan(this is true and I will explain it if you want).
6. Actual revenue for hospital. Way off.
7. Hospital closes.
8. Bye bye jobs and services
9. Thanks for the help government.

If person A owes person B healthcare, what does person B owe person A? Our Declaration of Independance gaurantees us each Liberty. When I am forced to work to pay for another person's healthcare, this infringes on my liberty.
If there is a public option, it will force doctors to work for less than market rates. Again, an infringment on their liberty. The mere existance of one person can't create a debt for another.
If you want to provide "free" healthcare to everyone, here is what you can do. Get together with others of like mind. Start a company that provides free healthcare. If 100 million of you can't "pitch in" to cover the 10 million or so legitimate uninsured, than don't expect others who are opposed to do it.
If you want the govt to solve all your problems, here is a clue. They are really bad at it. The reason healthcare costs rise is simple. People want to live longer and new technology costs a lot of money. We also have a spike in people reaching retirement age.
If you want one group of taxpayers to fund healthcare for everyone else, then that group should be able to demand legislation that if you are being funded, then:
1. No smoking
2. No drinking
3. Forced daily exercise
4. No obesity etc........
Don't agree to that? Then you are a hippocrite. Individual rights don't just apply when you find them conveinient. Your rights have responsiblities. The "needs" of one group don't out weigh the rights of another. Don't like it.... Move to Cuba and help bankrupt them.

Poor You - Do you realize that in the 12 years of Republican power that they never ever once waived For Profit Health Insurance's anti-trust exemption, giving 80% of the market share to 5 companies?

I suppose you perfer to condemen less well to do Americans to die rather than having the government provide for the general welfare of every American, which is written in the constitution bub!

Hey Jacob,
I love how liberals try to wordsmith the General welfare clause of the constitution. Let's refer to "the founding father" of the constitution for his thoughts on the matter.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
- James Madison

So Jake, this means the constitution restricts Congress to the 18 enumerated powers given as the general welfare. Read it. Healthcare isn't in there.

You can't just make it mean what you think it should mean.

Poor You - You come on this blog with a chip on your shoulder. So I'm going to push it off!

Your republicans and conservatives have done nothing for free market reforms f healthcare for the past 12 years. Proving that the "free market" is nothing but a fairytale and excuse used to get votes, rather than practiving what they preach.

Stop passing the buck, you anti-governmnt liberal hater rightwingers are all the same. Take some responsibilty for your "free-market" failures rather than passing the buck.

Another thing BUB!

Another smear, the public option is not free, people will have to pay premiums.

Government run healthcare lets people pick their providers unlike coprorations which give you ONE choice.

Which one is more free to you?

I suppose my general welfare was taken into account when Bush launched a war of agression on Iraq and hundreds of thousands civilians "known as collateral damage" were murered in my name.

General Welfare in the constitution is a debatable and up to interpretation, regardless of James Madison's opinion, he is one of many.

Jake,
ONE of the reasons I and many people take issue with some of the stupid arguments liberals make is cost.
I don't care what you do with your life. Just realize this:
You have rights. Rights have responsibilities. Your actions have consequences. You must bear the consequenses for your actions, not me.

Bad things sometimes happen. Take some personal responsibility. If everyone did, we wouldn't need to have the conversation.

Did you know that the govt will spend $25,000.00 per taxpayer this year. That means unless you make more than $100,000.00/year, you are not even contributing as much as the govt will spend on avg per taxpayer. Only 17% of joint and 7% of individuals earn that. Those people also pay about 70% of all taxes. So, that group is getting tired of picking up the tab. It has nothing to do with being greedy. Greed is NOT wanting to keep what you earned. Greed is taking what others have earned.
You will find that there are many people who not only pick up the tax tab but give generously. They just prefer to give freely rather than be legislated to do it.

"General Welfare in the constitution is a debatable and up to interpretation, regardless of James Madison's opinion, he is one of many."

Hey Jake,
You should then debate it with Thomas Jefferson who said "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Because it seems pretty clear to me.

"I suppose my general welfare was taken into account when Bush launched a war of agression on Iraq and hundreds of thousands civilians "known as collateral damage" were murered in my name."

Would you also say that about Linclon(republican) and the civil war?

What about Harry Truman(dem) Korean war?
I don't believe we were attacked?

Or better yet, WWII. What did that Hitler guy do to us?

Jake, It is evident you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry, you lose.

In my world, not everyone gets a medal. I hope it doesn't hurt your self esteem.

Jacob,
Here are some of the other "Fathers of the Constitution" you spoke about. I think their views are pretty evident on what kind of a role the Federal Govt should have in our lives....

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
- Thomas Jefferson

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry

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

Poor You - Again thanks for the bait and switch. .

It's clear you support trillions for war but not a public option to make health insurance affordable and fair for all Americans, so you view government, escpecially now with the Democrats as liberals in power as wrong.



No I do not lose, for having a campasionate opinion on what government should do for it's people when private enterprise has failed in alomst every respect.

Government is to work for the people and to invervene on our behalfs, we all impower it and shape it.

Be it defense of healthcare or any other issue.

Fact is Poor You that on teh healthcare issue millions of Americans keep on losing and Republicans and Conservatives are to blame since they have held power over the last 12 years with the ability to shape public policy.

I lose becuase I can have my coverage dropped at anytime or my wife can be denied coverage, I lose becuase 30% + of healthcare money goes to private insurance overhead and millions to execs while people die becuase they are demied.

Millions have preventable diseases, but can't get care, becuase they can't afford insurance.

The blame rests with Republicans and conservatives like you who ignored this issue and marganilze those who do not share your opinion's and views.

Your part to the problem, Now own it?

Poor You - I know your game.

You have yet to answer any of my "Free Market Based" Questions?

Should For-Profit Insurance Providers be free from anti-trust lasws?

These laws were enacted when Insurance was a non-for-profit industry.

Poor you - Are you a birther?

Poor You - I must give you a complament, your much more well read and back up your stuff.

Take it if you will, but this is a good debate. Although I will admit I need to read the consitution again and bill of rights (it's been 3 years) in order for me to push back with quotes, and for this I bow my head to you. You got me on that one.

Your way better than the rightwing bloggers on this site.

Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Govt the authority to tax for healthcare?

It doesn't. I proved that.

You can't win that arguement.

Jake,
"Should For-Profit Insurance Providers be free from anti-trust lasws"?

Answer: NO.
We should be able to buy insurance across state lines. We should encourage competiton. NOW WAIT and Listen.
The govt will not create competition. The govt can drive other companies out of business in several ways.
1. Subsidised by taxpayers so it can offer product below actual cost.

2. Govt makes the rules. If you have a pre-existing condition, a company can not insure you at the same rate as one who doesn't.

The govt does not have the authority to determine what is "too profitable" for a company.

You say insurance has 30% overhead? What do you think it costs the govt to do anything.

We can debate the small stuff all day. The only way to figure this out is to take your theory to its end conclusion.

If person A owes person B helthcare, what does person B owe person A?
If we are all entitled to liberty, then person B's mere existance can not create debt for person A.

You have 3 people. 2 decide they don't want to work. what happens? Either:
1. The 2 make the 1 keep working and overall wealth is cut in 1/3.
2. The 1 quits working. No Wealth

Remember that everyone has liberty and that means we both have the RIGHT to be free from one another. The govt can't punish one group in the name of anothers "needs".
These are facts based on our founding documents.

So, when I hear someone say they should have a windfall profits tax on oil. I could say well then they should have one on all these Hollywood idiots, but both are wrong. The govt doesn't have that right.
It's like me asking you " So, how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?"
Its unfair beacause it starts with a false premise and makes you defend the unfounded.

"You should then debate it with Thomas Jefferson who said "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Jefferson would lose the debate if he were to hold fast to that statement today.

"Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Govt the authority to tax for healthcare?

It doesn't. I proved that.

You can't win that arguement."

Sixteenth Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

If the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any new taxing power or modify its existing power, then what did the Amendment accomplish? Since the Amendment states that income taxes are not subject to the rule apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment, by its wording, restricted income taxes to the category of indirect taxes. This means Congress can never, by a general statute, constitutionally impose a direct tax on the people of the several States. Direct taxes must be imposed on the several States according to the rule of apportionment.

This amendment deals with direct and indirect taxes on property. Are there any other amendments that you want to try to throw out and claim that it gives the govt the right to do whatever you want it to.

Try again.

Poor You - The air of infalability you put around yourself is commendable, but you live by the flase premise that our markets are "FREE", when in fact the markets we have in this country are not free. They are owned by the top tier of corporations who buy our polticians.

So it comes down to this "You do not want any of your tax dollars to be spent on healthcare for people who can't afford access to good insurance, becuase you hate government run by Democrats and liberals?"

Please tell me that I am wrong becuase your not placing any blame on the Republicans for the past 12 years for not pushing market reforms that you obviously agree with, but they failed to enact I.E. Insurance across state lines which sounds good at first but states have different laws. Scary, you wonder why certain credit card corporations our based in certain states?

The government exists to set rules and regulate markets.

The Insurance Market is not free, all our markets are not free, plus it will never be competative untill the structure is changed and the status quo defeated.

Republicans did nothing the last 12 years to spur market compeition.

They can complain and whine all they want, but in 1994 they were warned. The lost the elections and their power and thus their ability to shape the legislation.

Man you are reaching. I am not going to insult you. I will just ask you to break my argument.
I use logic to make my argument.

You say "The government exists to set rules and regulate markets"

Let's turn again to the people that created The United States Govt and see what they think.

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” –Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” – James Madison, National Gazette, March 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14 ed. R.A. Rutland (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), p. 266.

READ THEM AGAIN AND LET THEM SINK IN

I do not care if you want to make insurance available accross state lines.
I do not care if you want to cut down on stupid lawsuits.
Democrat's have the vote's to do most anything they want even with 0 (R) votes.

If there are 100 million people that want to give the 10 million or so legitimate uninsured free insurance, go ahead. Get together and do it.
Liberals want entitlements but want others pay for them. Start a website and solicite donations. Who is stopping you and the other 100 million people? You don't need govt to do it.

Here is my argument.
The founding documents do not provide the federal to have the authority to tax for the purpose of healthcare. They are restricted to the 18 enumerated powers.

Break it. You can't prove me wrong by simply disagreeing with me.

If you really wanted to challenge me, you would ask me, "what about medicare?".
I think-
Medicare is unconstitutional. BUT...
Once you have made a contract and taken money from people for that purpose, you must honor it.

I think it should be phased out and here is why:

Take for instance avg work years- 24 to 64 (40yrs)
-$50k per yr
-Medicare tax is 1.4%
that is $700/yr
at 10% avg for 40 yrs
-----------------------------
You have about 390k to provide healthcare for youself.

PYou: The sixteenth amendment establishes that the income tax is an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are subject to the rules of uniformity under Article 1 section 8 of the constitution which explicitly states that congress has the right to collect excise taxes. The Congressional Budget office defines income tax as: “not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by the income they produce”.

Sorry, whether you like it or not, Article 1 section 8 gives congress the authority to tax us for Medicare, Social Security, health care, and whatever else may fall within the general welfare category.

“That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine.”
Chief Justice White

Poor You - Again, you had 12 YEARS to change the healthcare industry.

Conservatives and Republicans FAILED, and could have cared less.

The constitution is a living document, not some stagnent piece of paper.

I guess than your against social security and the civil rights act as well.

You FAILED.

Poor You - You keep on going back to Liberty as the only, I mean only, use for the Constitution.

When a person's or corporation's liberty impinges on someone elses, do you not beleive that some sort of Justice or balancing needs to be done for the person wronged?

I keep on seeing that the only thing you seem to care about is "your liberty" and not the liberty of other's who may not have the recources that you have.

Heck - When Medicare was redone, Republicans gave more power to big Pharma and allowed them to fix prices and take away the federal government's power to leverage against them, another nail in the coffin tht proves my point.

Republican polticians and Conservatives did not care to actually legislate a solution for helathcare.

Poor You - I have challenged you and you keep backing off my main thesis of my blog.

Republicans and Conservatives failed on healthcare reform.

Seems you can't face the fact that your side failed, and keeps failing becuase if your anti-government, you are philisophically against using it.

Poor You...let me help you out since both jmark and Jake are wrong and don't seem to care to read the entire articles. Truth hurts these guys.

The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States ... [Emphasis added.]

It doesn't say the general welfare of the "Citizens" of the United States. This is why taxing all for healthcare is unconstitutional.

You been hitting the sauce Jim?

jhayett,
agree. The "general welfare" is limited to the 18 enumerated powers.

Jmark, I have had this arguement already. Find the above posts where I prove the founders intentions by quotes from both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. You will find both their signatures on the document. So, I would say their intent is clear.

Dem's,
Here is why I, as a responsible citizen hate big govt and entitlements.

Let's take a 50k/yr income and assume you work from 24-64(40yrs) and average 10% on an investment for that time period
1.45% medicare tax
6.5% +$694 wisconsin state income tax
6.2% Social Security
add them up- 14.15% plus $694 = $7769 per yr
over 40 yrs at 10%=
$3,782,351.72
This should make you gag. Does govt really work for you? Is more really the answer? I would rather have $3.7 million. How about you?

I left out fed income tax so govt could provide for the things the constitution says it has to.

JMARK,
You do not understand the sixteenth amendment.

Congress has had the power to lay and collect an indirect tax on incomes from the beginning of the American Government under the United States Constitution in 1787. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to prevent the income tax from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and misapplied as a direct tax (as was done with Pollock). The Sixteenth Amendment made the apportionment rule inapplicable to income taxes, including taxes on income derived from property, by providing that Congress has the power to tax incomes from any source without having to apportion the tax by population.

Jmark- What it is saying is for instance you own a rental property. 16 says Fed can tax you on income for property but not property itself. So, whatever you do to earn income they can tax it. Thats NOT the point.

Just because the fed can tax income, the contention is in the spending on Healcare. 16 has Nothing to do with spending. How the fed govt can spend $ is restricted to the 18 enumerated powers. the 18 enumerated powers describe what "general welfare" is.

PYou: I understand the sixteenth amendment well enough to know that if it were abolished tomorrow it wouldn't have any impact on the government's power to tax our income to provide for the general welfare. Justice White's statement in my previous post makes that clear.

Your question: "Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Govt the authority to tax for healthcare?"

The answer: The same place in the constitution that gives the government the authority to tax for social security, medicare, and other "general welfare" needs; Article 1, section 8, clause 1.

Now, you can believe otherwise based on your interpretations of the intent of the founding fathers (which among them there was much disagreement), but I'll stick with the opinions of the supreme court justices. They are far better qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject than you are.

And as far as the founding father quotes go. It's difficult to interpret what Jefferson intends when speaking of freedom and liberty, knowing full well that when he uttered these words he was the proud owner of liberty denied human beings. Some of these human beings were so used to satisfy his carnal desires, as evidenced by the fact that Sally Heming bore as many as six of his children. The self righteous should ponder that for a moment the next time they speak ill of 'wild Bill' for having consensual sex.

By the way, how can you believe Medicare is unconstitutional? It's been around since 1965, if it were unconstitutional it would have been overturned by now.

One thing has become increasingly clear from reading your diatribes. You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Pretty clear to me. I explained my thoughts on medicare above. You as well as other libs want to wordsmith the context of Art 1 Section 8.

Heres an example: let's say

In 1900 congress outlaws X


over the next 109 yrs progressives start calling X xy. Now in 2009 you say xy is not outlawed. Others say wait you are just calling it xy, its really just X.
The intent was to not let you do what you are doing.

The 18 enumerated powers are the general welfare.

I can't have a logical debate with someone who refuses to accept the explaination of a term by the people that wrote term.

You didn't explain your thoughts on why you think medicare is unconstitutional. You stated your belief.

And it doesn't matter how progressives interpret X. All that matters is how the supreme court interprets X. So you can throw around all the dead man quotes you want, and cry about being victimized by progressives, but it's not going to win you any arguments here.

jmark...your article 1 section 8 is flawed because you omitted one big word (or arbitrarily added one):

The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States ... [Emphasis added.]

It doesn't say the general welfare of the "Citizens" of the United States. This is why taxing all for healthcare is unconstitutional.

Jim:

A General Welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, and in some cases in charters and statutes, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the "people governed thereunder".

Do you understand now, dumb dumb?

"You didn't explain your thoughts on why you think medicare is unconstitutional. You stated your belief. "

The same reason a public option is.
1. Congress does not have the right to spend our tax money on Healthcare.

It is not one of the enumerated powers. The enumerated powers describe what the "general welfare" is.

For the millionth time, look at the quotes from jefferson and Madison. They wrote the it. they specifically say "general welfare" is limited to the 18 enumerated powers.
You claim to know what they wrote better than them? We are talking about the US constitution, not other countries that have no bearing. the intent is to protect the people from the govt.



Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a bad deal for most of us. look at my post above where i break down #'s.

Would you rather have 390k to provide HC for yourself or get medicare from govt?

If you wouldn't rather have the 390k you are a financial idiot.

Why is it still here? Again, i have addressed it. Once govt makes a contract and collects your $, they must follow through.

I think they should set a date to no longer collect the 1.45% and let people make more efficient chioces with their $.

So, are you to lazy to provide for yourself or to stupid to understand you could be getting a lot more for your $?

Hey jmark

Do you like John F Kennedy?

Jake,
This is the 3rd time I have tried to post a response to your original post. Not sure if they are being removed or what?

Any way, here we go...again

You, of course fail to mention Clinton and that the dem's have had the majority since 06. Beside my point.

My answer: I do not think that the govt should come in and regulate the hell out of the insurance industry. The govt seeks to put all the blame on the "evil" big faceless corporations.

And if you are stupid and want to feel better about yourself then believe them.

Let's examine how insurance works:
Insurance is like gambling.
You bet them you will get sick.
They bet you won't.
Based on risk factors they calculate odds and a payment for coverage.
It is still an odd bet. You can purposefully do things that skew the bet for you to get sick.

So, the ins co have to make a profit just like any other business and this is a good thing. No profit no job.
Govt doesn't have the right to tell you what you can earn.

Here is the reason insurance is so expensive:
1. About 70% of Americans are obese
2. Obese people spend about 42% more on HC
3. Medicine can diagnose and treat more illness. This by nature increases cost.
4. More technology to treat is invented.

The bottom line is people live longer and want to. This cost more money.

All the above cost insurance more money. Another problem is medicare. Medicare/medicaid pays so little to hospitals and MD's that private insurance pays higher rates to subsidize them (see what happens when govt gets involved).

This all raises premiums.
So, Get healthier and your risk will go down. Risk down premium down.

These are personal choices YOU make. So, don't assert your right to smoke, drink and be fat and expect others to bear the responsibility for you actions.

If you want private industry to stop finding treatments for illness, keep going down the road you are on(new taxes for medical co's). There is already an insane amount of

Jake, have tried 10+ times to post a response to your original post that you have asked me to.

Is there a size limit or what is the problem?

Part 2for Jake

regulations that cost companies MILLIONS to comply with. This cost is passed on to the hospitals that is passed on to insurance then you. Get it?

I as well as any non-socialist do not want to lose the freedom to make the chioces we want. Where most liberals are hippocrites is when they want to assert the right to make choices that make them unhealthy then advocate for others to help pay for the consequences.

I do not understand why you blindly operate with the assumption that govt is looking out for your best interest. They are often not. Do you teach your kids to trust strangers?

Our founding fathers understood this. They set in place a framework that was supposed to gaurantee a LIMITED govt because they were governed by the alternative.

Freedom is having the freedom to fail. The fact is that some people will succeed and make lots of money. Some will do fine and make an avg amount and yes, some will be poor.

You are not entitled to others work or money. You can't have the govt take it on your behalf.

What did people ever do before there was an insurance industry? There was medical care.
No one owes you anything. Go earn it

PYou: Do you not realize that the whole of section 8 encompasses the enumerated powers. The first clause is commonly referred to as the "taxing and spending clause".
It is the clause that gives the federal government the power of taxation. This is the clause that gives the fed. the right to tax us for Medicare. If you want to continue to harbor the belief that Medicare is unconstitutional, then go ahead. As far as I know, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits one from being stubbornly dim.

Interesting Peice (part 1)

Confessions of Madame Perkins:a Prelude to Medicare and the Clinton Health Care Task Force Testimony before the U.S. Congressby Thomas G. Dorrity, M.D., President of AAPS Congressional Record, Nov. 11, 1971. AAPS WAS ORGANIZED to maintain the highest ethical integrity of the medical profession, to protect the responsibility, independence, and freedom of patients and doctors, particularly from encroachment upon their liberty by government...It does not seek any subsidy of any kind from the federal government. All we want is to be left alone to exercise our best judgment and skill for the benefit of our patients. Mr. Roosevelt knew that the Federal Government did not have Constitutional authority to interfere in social welfare problems and said so quite effectively before becoming President of the United States. The Founders clearly did not intend to grant such authority to the Federal Government, as shown in the Federalist papers and other writings. Social Security legislation, including Medicare, violates Constitutional principles. In a speech to the employees of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, on October 23, 1962 (U.S.D.H.E.W. 17, US Govt Printing Office: 1963, O-685-624), Frances Perkins explained how the Social Security Act was used to subvert the Constitution: ``Before I was appointed, I had a little conversation with Roosevelt in which I said perhaps he didn't want me to be the Secretary of Labor because if I were, I should want to do this, and this, and this. Among the things I wanted to do was find a way of getting unemployment insurance, old-age insurance and health insurance. I remember he looked so startled, and he said, `Well, do you think it can be done?' I said, `I don't know.' He said, ``Well, there are Constitutional problems aren't there?'

"Three Social Security cases made their way to the Supreme Court during its October 1936 term...

On May 24, 1937 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the three cases...

The Court ruled 7 to 2 in support of the old-age insurance program...

Justice Cardozo wrote:

"There have been statesman in our history who have stood for other views. . .We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . .has prevailed over that of Madison."


The opinions of dead men no longer matter.

This is the topic - "Healthcare Reform: Republican Legislation 1995-2008"

Why DID the republicans fail to legislate competition and affordable access to private health insurance?

Poor You's Answer: "Freedom is having the freedom to fail. The fact is that some people will succeed and make lots of money. Some will do fine and make an avg amount and yes, some will be poor."

And the poor, middle class who loose their jobs and insurance, etc.... do not have the RIGHT to affordable health insurance. I get it now!

I rest my case.

Where were teh fiscal conservatives when Bush and The Republicans passed Trillions of dollars in emergency war spending?

Where were the conservatives when Bush launched a war of agression?

Where were conservatives when Government spied without warrents?

Where were you guys, Champions of personal liberty my arse!

Jake...politics and truth 101.

Bush never launched a "war or aggression" I can't believe you still don't know that. Even Obama knows this.

Government never spied without warrants. Government, as did Carter and Clinton, only tapped to calls to and from terrorists. If they did spy on you and me, someone would have reported this and taken their undeniable proof that an innocent American citizen was spied on. This is also not rue.

Conservatives are champions of personal liberties. when you get out from your extended sleep, you only have to watch or read some balanced news to see it's you liberals who have taken away our liberties. the proof is also all over these blogs. The facts that is Jake!

Good ol Liberal hatred, a rightwingers scape goat for all their failures and problems.

Jim - You dolt, the NSA took in all communications, it's well documented and without warrent.

Jake,
Correct! You DO NOT have the RIGHT to the work of a doctor for less than market rates. You want free HC, YOU go to Med School, take on the loans then work for free. Neither I, or anyone else is stopping you.( you won't)

It is funny how Libs view of WANTS turns into NEEDS.
For instance when I see public housing with satelite dishes. How could anyone live w/o cable?

If you feel the govt doesn't give people enough, you and all your lib friends get together and provide it for them.
The truth is you want the govt to legislate that others do it for you. YOU ARE INCAPABLE.
THE GOVT DOES NOT BELONG IN HC.

YOU provide it. There should be no such thing as a rich liberal.

Jake, scape goat? No. The idea is that when you become an adult, you make your own way.

That you are saying that there is a failure of one group to provide for another is silly.

If you fail to provide for yourself, YOU are the failure. Instead of the self pity and blaming, fix your own problems. Then, hold others around you accountable.

Got it welfare boy?

Jake,
I answered your question I have 2 for you or jmark.

1. if person A owes person B healthcare, what does person B owe person A?

2. What happened when there were doctors but before there was insurance?

3. Do you like John F Kennedy?

Here I go again!

"Why DID the republicans fail to legislate competition and affordable access to private health insurance?"

The government is supposed to, in the least, provide an even playing field for consumers, and to protect consumers.

Your philiosiphy provides no consumer protection and seems to assume that for Profit Corporations goals are customer orientated, rather, it assumes that everybody's situation is exactly the same as yours.

"17. Capitalism is pure democracy. You vote with your dollar." From your quote list. But sounds like it was from a chain e-mail.

So you are equating an Economic system with a Poltical system. They are both equal. Money being equal to Voting.

I understand your views on healthcare completely.People should be deviod and free from all social, moral, and ethical issues in the country that we live in. A mega free for all ruled by the almight dollar.
I hope your an athiest.

Survival of the fittest and death to the weak.

Poor You - Your never going to change my mind. Good try though.

I understand that you are uber-libertarian and on social issues I am too, but your philisophy assumes that everybody's situation is the same and if someone does not have the means at the time they need it then too bad for them they should just accept the consequences.

In some situation's this is exactly what should happen (gambling, bad business decsion, over spending, etc...), but when somebodies life is at stake and their not given access to affordable healthcare or the insurance drops them, etc..... I think that since the Insurance market has been unable to and is unwilling to provide this service, becuase they need to make a profit, to consumers then the government has to step in.

The Govt has no right to make evertone's situation the same.

Again,
Look at the quotes from our founding fathers and you will see that the role of the federal govt is exactly the opposite of what you claim it is.

Jake,
Both dems and repubs didnt fail. They are not supposed to be there in the first place.

You won't answer my questions above. If you want a welfare state just say it.

You just the individual "right" to
smoke
drink
tan
eat trans fats
not exercise
etc...

But then want the govt to step in and give this same person HC, Collectivism.

Do you not realize that the govt does not produce anything. So, they take from the productive to provide for the people you are talking about.

By logic, productive people are bearing the responsiblity for the bad choices others made.

Again, see liberty.

Jake,
I just want you to answer my questions from above. You won't.

1. if person A owes person B healthcare, what does person B owe person A?

2. What happened when there were doctors but before there was insurance?

3. Do you like John F Kennedy(I mean in general do you think he was a good president) ?

Sweden's Public Downsizing
Anita Raghavan, 07.15.09, 06:00 PM EDT
Forbes Magazine dated August 03, 2009


Think the answer to America's problems is bigger government? Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg has seen the result up close and says it's not pretty for the economy or investors.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0803/international-invest-guide-obama-sweden-public-downsizing.html

Poor You - You never answered this question you keep on giving me different bait and then move on. if you answer it directly then maybe I'll answer yours. If not then this thread is done:

"Why DID the republicans fail to legislate competition and affordable access to private health insurance?"

Bad Choice = When someone is fired from their Job and loses their health insurance?

Bad Choce = Geneticaly pre-disposititioned to a disease?

Bad Choice = Not able to afford affordable health coverage?

Bad Choice = Going bankrupt and losing everything to get medical care to live?

All these choices are personal liberty aren't they.

Your form of Personal Liberty and the logic used behined christian "free will" sound much to similiar.

When does someones "Liberty" impede on the liberty of others?
Who should be there to protect the one being infringed on?

"The Govt has no right to make evertone's situation the same."

I mean, other people's situations are not the same as yours.

Your questions are gotcha questions. You have already thought of responses to my answers.

Your JFK one in particular.

Jake you are retarted. I answered this directly way up up above. The short answer is they both dems and repubs did not legislate b/c they dont belong in h/c.

What is gotcha? Your party holds JFK up as an icon. JFK had many ideals that would be considered conservative. I just want you to acknowledge the hippocrassy. If you would like we can debate it. You already saw some of the Kennedy quotes i used.

So, I suspect you will just rant and rave then say I didn't answer your questions.
See the above post it starts with:

Jake,
This is the 3rd time I have tried to post a response to your original post. Not sure if they are being removed or what?

Any way, here we go...again

You, of course fail to mention Clinton and that the dem's have had the majority since 06. Beside my point.

My answer: I do not think that the govt should come in and regulate the hell out of the insurance industry. The govt seeks to put all the blame on the "evil" big faceless corporations.

Jake,
You are hopeless. You are like right out of the book Atlas Shrugged. You should read it.

Your basic premise is that collective rights (the good of "the people") out weighs the rights of the owners and stockholders and everyone else involved with insurance.

It's fine to trample on those rights if it's on behalf of the "victim group" ininsured?

WHICH are you for? Individual rights or Collective rights?
You are the one who doesn't answer questions. Welfare boy.

These are not "gotcha" question's. The first 2 are logical questions. Let's explore, shall we?

Jake,
I just want you to answer my questions from above. You won't.

1. if person A owes person B healthcare, what does person B owe person A?

2. What happened when there were doctors but before there was insurance?

3. Do you like John F Kennedy(I mean in general do you think he was a good president) ?

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

Question 1. Your answer of course is "nothing"

- Here is why this is wrong. If your mere existance causes me debt then my liberty is infringed on.
It is like saying that part of my like is owed for your debt.

Question 2: Your answer is.... ?
Here is the problem:
If you say H/C is a right. How can it be a right if it enslaves the provider to the recipient?
MD must work for free. Rights come from God (life, liberty, happiness). The fact that insurance is man made means its not a human right.
It's as if you were to say I am starving I have the right to a McDonalds cheesburger for free. McDonalds has so much. Its for the good of the people.
So, I hope that you can see collectivism infringes on individual rights. You CANT be for both.

If you say it's the right thing to do then do it yourself.

The govt isn't in the business of legislating morality.

Jake: "Your form of Personal Liberty and the logic behind christian "free will" sound much to similiar".

What do you mean by that, especially the last part?

Rtrucker:
Jake won't answer because It will prove he can't break the logic.
To answer your question:
The founding fathers asserted that our human rights such as life liberty etc did not come from our govt, but from a higher power. Since they don't come from govt, govt can't take them away.

"The govt isn't in the business of legislating morality" Then the Stupak amendment has no place in the health care bill. Abortion is a medical procedure, not a moral issue. If it is a moral issue, then the government has no right to be legislating it. Right PY?

referee33,
Your snarky statement is funny to me because it puts on display your hippocrassy. Watch how this works. I will repeat the logic.... again

The amendment you are talking about is so a publically funded option can't pay for abortion right.
Here comes logic:
- Public Option is a collective rights program.(We pay for others)
- You assert the individual right to have sex.
- The consequence to your CHOICE is pregancy.
- You now ignore the INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY that accompanies the CHOICE you have made when asserting an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
- Now you say the public option should pay for the medical procedure.

I hope you can see the hippocrassy.
YOU created your own "Problem" while enjoying your individual right and now want everyone else to fix your "problem" collectively.

YOUR RIGHT---> YOUR CHOICE---> MY responsibility???????????????
So, Justify to me how you are for individual rights and that your rights outweigh my rights?(I can't wait for your logic less retort)

The answer is that the bill doesn't belong.

Please try to defeat the logic instead of just being an emotional welfare lover.

PY: You don't even know what the amendment I refer to does. Stupak prohibits the use of private, your own, funds to obtain an abortion. Public funds have been prohibited for this purpose since 1993 by the Hyde amendment. So the government is infringing on the private use of my own money. But the "snarky"? statement is responding to your statement that the government should not be legislating morality. If you prohibit a medical procedure, no matter who pays, based on moral rather than procedural issues, you are legislating morality. Something you sat the government shouldn't be doing.

So, now I looked it up> Ref33 I thought before you were pretty stupid when you made the above posts. But now, whats a more insulting word?
You flat out don't know WTF you are talking about!
Aside from that Stupak is a (d).

http://house.gov/stupak/stupak_pitts_ellsworth_amendmentxml.pdf

In an interview today, Stupak said his amendment does nothing more than apply current abortion law (the annually renewed Hyde amendment) to health care reform, that pro-choicers are "distorting the hell" out of it, that he's confident his language will be included in the Senate bill, and that pro-choice Democrats have only themselves to blame for its passage on the House floor Saturday night.

The amendment itself (which you can read here) prohibits federal subsidies from being used to purchase insurance plans that cover elective abortions, on any of the regional exchanges set up under the House bill for low-income individuals, and other Americans who don't have access to coverage to shop for health insurance. It specifies that subsidized individuals can purchase supplemental coverage, out of pocket, that covers abortions. It does not restrict coverage of abortions in the case of rape, incest, or saving a woman's life.

Got it? Dummy. If you want to talk about abortion because i'm some clinic bomber, you're an ... wait there is no if. You are an idiot.

Poor You: Thank you for your kind words. Your sensitivity is overwhelming. If you read the amendment, I think you will find that it states that if you purchase insurance, even with your own money, from a plan that is part of the of the health care insurance exchange, you are prohibited from having an abortion. That's the way I read it, but I'm no lawyer, and I doubt that you are either. If it is a moral issue, what is the government doing legislating it? If it is a medical procedure, that the physician and the patient agree on, why is the government legislating it? Once again, thank you for the kind words and dignified response.

PYou: Judging by an analysis by George Washington University the Stupak amendment would effect the health insurance market to such a degree that women would eventually be unable to purchase supplemental elective abortion coverage.

"we conclude that the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

It would be a stretch to think that Stupak is unaware of this analysis. GWU is a highly regarded nonsectarian university, not some left wing think tank out to advance their own agenda. If Stupak is aware of the eventual consequences of his bill, one could certainly make the argument that he's pushing it for the purpose of imposing his brand of morality on others. And if "his amendment does nothing more than apply current abortion law", isn't this just an exercise in redundancy?

Ref makes a valid argument.

By the way, were high on crack when you wrote this: "The amendment you are talking about is so a publically funded option can't pay for abortion right."

Poor You - You really got on the insult train pretty fast. Have you been studying from Hayett.

Seems you don't like the silent treatment. I got a kick out of it. Thanks.

Again you did nto answer my question. I want to know WHY republicans did not legislate the insurance market to become more competative?

You simply can't face the fact that your side failed at market reform.

Poor You - Only when the morality is about abortion?

So you think Abortion should remain legal?

Owners and stock holders are teh top 1% of the people. What makes their liberty outweigh the other 99%?

Pooer you I'll answer #1 for you - Their Life!

I have answered this a million times for you.

Republicans or dems should stay out of healthcare. That is why neither party (clinton and congress since 06)

Get a clue. The same people read these over and over. if they care to see the last 3 times I answered this just scoll up.

Jake,
Poor You - Only when the morality is about abortion?

So you think Abortion should remain legal?

I don't care. If you want to Kill your kid. You will ultimately answer. I Choose not to.

The arguement is whether or not at what point the fetus has it's own right to life. (from the declaration of ind)

Jake,
Owners and stock holders are teh top 1% of the people. What makes their liberty outweigh the other 99%?

Jacob Pickard
» Report abuse Friday Dec 18, 2009 1:50 PM
Pooer you I'll answer #1 for you - Their Life!

You don't even make sense. You don't answer my questions and come back with this?

Business' are made up of people. All people have the same rights. You can't just say lets Tax the hell out of ThemoFisher (or any other company) cause they have a bigger market share or YOU think the profit they earn would be better of somewhere else.

Its because of greedy welfare loving pigs that drive business out of this country. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

This is to pay for "social programs" that buy votes. Then the PIGS get greedier and bleeding heart politicians want more votes and more control. So, gaurantee a vote provide for a lazy pig. How should we pay for it. OINK OINK lets get those evil business'. Tax em more Jake Tax em more. Convince the non-productive it's business' fault. Its so, unfair.

Lower the corporate tax rate. Be inviting to business. More business-> more jobs->more tax revenue. Even JFK saw that.

Greed isn't wanting to keep what you earned. Greed is wanting to take what you didn't.

REf33

Poor You: Thank you for your kind words. Your sensitivity is overwhelming. If you read the amendment, I think you will find that it states that if you purchase insurance, even with your own money, from a plan that is part of the of the health care insurance exchange, you are prohibited from having an abortion. That's the way I read it, but I'm no lawyer, and I doubt that you are either. If it is a moral issue, what is the government doing legislating it? If it is a medical procedure, that the physician and the patient agree on, why is the government legislating it? Once again, thank you for the kind words and dignified response.
-------------------------------------
You were not only snarky toward me you made an assertion about the billand said i was wrong about it's content. Your logic was poor on top of it. If you want me to be civil to you. Be civil to me.

I gave you Stupak's explaination of the bill.
The amendment itself (which you can read here) prohibits federal subsidies from being used to purchase insurance plans that cover elective abortions, on any of the regional exchanges set up under the House bill for low-income individuals, and other Americans who don't have access to coverage to shop for health insurance. It specifies that subsidized individuals can purchase supplemental coverage, out of pocket, that covers abortions. It does not restrict coverage of abortions in the case of rape, incest, or saving a woman's life.

These are All reasons GOVT should stay out of HC.

jmark
» Report abuse Friday Dec 18, 2009 1:13 PM
PYou: Judging by an analysis by George Washington University the Stupak amendment would effect the health insurance market to such a degree that women would eventually be unable to purchase supplemental elective abortion coverage.

"we conclude that the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."
--------------------------------------------------------
Again, GOVT stay out of HC.

Your argument is the same as me saying the public option will lead to single payer.

There are even plenty of Dem's who are on camera saying best way to single payer is public option. Then they claim the opposite.

Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The answer is not the Govt. They just f things up.

If you took your car in to get fixed and the broke the muffler, then told you it'd be $500 to fix. Would you pay them? if so, then they broke the axel while fixing the muffler. Next, they say $1000 for the axel would you pay them to fix it?
Get the point???????
Why do you trust that govt has your interest in mind?
If you don't care because your getting something, then who are they taking it from.
Finally, will you have a voice when they take it from you???

Okay Poor You - Who are you? I either work with you or you know were I work. PM me and let's talk, rather than only having a 1 way street.

PY - My converstation is finished with you until you come clean on who you are, otherwise this is a 1 way conversation while you hide behined your handle, while I am not.

Trucker - Part 1: "Your form of Personal Liberty and the logic used behined christian "free will" sound much to similiar.When does someones "Liberty" impede on the liberty of others? Who should be there to protect the one being infringed on? "

The concept of "free will", basically the ability to make your own choices is governened by the old testmant view God. Man has the will to either whorship jehovah or not. Job through jehovah's trial had the ability to curse god, but he never did. The devil lost. Hell or Heaven? 2 Choices, not much middle ground inbetween. Also, the laws had to be followed by the Jews and their was no "belief" for beliefs sake alone. At least it was somethign to go by during life, laws to follow. Break them and your not going to the party.
With the advent of Christianity and the ability for everyone to be saved in belief via Jesus, "free will" lost it's negatives. Where did the laws go? Why follow the laws when at the last minute I can be saved. Cheat, pillage, steal, murder, but in the end your soul is saved and and you go to heaven for this last minute conversion.

R Trucker - Part 2

PY form of "personal liberty" remindes me of the "christian free will" basically devoid of law and regulation.

So when does somebodies "free will" impede on others free will? Murder being the ultimate form. How are the punsihed?
At least the old testmant version had some negatives associated to it for breaking "gods" law. The christian version does not, some vestigaes can be seen in catholism with it's adherence to doing "good deesds" but the protestant view does not.
When somebody has the "personal liberty" to murder someone else, is this not another ultimate form?

I see this in PY's form of "personal liberty" it seems that it is free from Law and free from responisibilty that we have to others, free from consequences, a nation state unto himself.

Poor You: I guess not only do we have different opinios on political issues, but we also disagree on what is meant by "civil". I thought I asked a pretty straight forward question without any personal derogatory statements. You respond by calling me "pretty stupid", "Dummy" and "idiot". Not a real civil response in my book.

Ref33,
Quit your whining. Before you make assertions that I don't know what something means, read it yourself. I showed you that you were wrong. Post something that is logical and debatable. Your last several posts are just whining.

Explain how it would be wrong if every individual thought that:
"my social responsibility to you is to be self reliant"
If everyone is self-reliant then nobody needs welfare.

I don't play by the PC rules. I don't care if you feel bad. If your logic is bad, i'm going to tell you and more important try to prove it. You can't win a debate by just disagreeing.

PY: You gave your opinion, nothing more. I guess we'll wait and see how the courts interpret the law. Exactly what kind of alternative universe do you live in, where everyone is self reliant so there is no need for welfare. Maybe if you go back a hundred years or so where the majority of the people were subsistence farmers and debts were paid in eggs and chickens, it might have been possible. Now when you have four to five hundred people applying for one job; people with Masters degree's working at McDonalds; a person working full time at minimum wage is still below federal poverty level, there is no way everyone will be able to be self reliant. I don't care if you play by the PC rules or not. You still need to follow the basic rules of common courtesy in your posts. Respectful disagreement will result in a better exchange of viewpoints than trading insults and exchanging derogatory names will.

LOWER TAXES AND MAYBE BUSINESS CAN CREATE MORE JOBS.
The difference between me and you is that you are an enabler and I am not. I recognize that there a a few exceptions. But, they are few and far between.
But people need to learn to live within their means. The problem is incentive:
If the incentive to not work(welfare) supports a lifestyle equal to that of a job. Then someone probably won't work.

If you require welfare recipients to work cleaning city buildings or sweeping streets then maybe the person wil be incentivised get a better paying JOB. Make just collecting (our $) work.

The MA working at McD's. Probably an extreme case. But your education DOES NOT OWE YOU the job you want.

The world I live in understands when lazy people want govt to provide, they tax more to pay for their dependence. More taxes equal less jobs.

Expect more out of those around you. STOP CELEBRATING THE RECIPIENT.