This point is a major issue of contention amongst Constitutional scholars. You should be wary of stating it as fact.

My god, stop being a douche with thoughtful discussions. The AMA opposed government run healthcare for the vast majority of the 20th century. They even opposed Medicare right along side Ronald Reagan.

So not only are you retracting from the discussion while claiming a source is bad while not really backing it up, you're actually being an idiot about which source you're attacking.

you should start all of your posts with: "WARNING: I only skimmed your post. This is the part I felt most comfortable attacking"

I said "essentially exists to interpret the constitution." That means that that's their MAIN FUNCTION, not all that they do.

But hey, whatever gets you by with another unsupported, unrelated post.

It's all in the details and how interpretation can suddenly open up an illconceived perception of "some reality"... sounds familiar? Law, as in civilian and criminal affairs.

False logic can only lead to overly complex perfection (still an ongoing quest for optimal results, AFAIC) both in its implications and moral values (be it abortion controversy or anything else such as the silly "Death Panels" freakshow of fallicy); the principle remains -- if they need to reform, there's something wrong.

Thing is, they may figure out what's already right too late to correct some contradictions CREATED by badly defined issues based on **current** facts & situations.

In a word; risk. In a blink of an eye; costs.

( ... and now, it's the other thread which has somehow "vanished"! I think moderators or site staff are really fooling around with us.  )

This sums up my opinion on the matter of American Health Care.

Keeping in mind I'm Australian, I can't help but feel fear mongering is the one and only tactic politicians use in the US of A in an attempt to discredit the opposition or drown them threw the cries of unintelligent people who believe their nonsense. And, unfortunately, stupid people are more plentiful these days and are becoming increasingly vocal.

Fear is always used, by politicians of both the left and the right. For every "death panel" comment on the right, there is a left winger telling us (incorrectly) that "47 million are uninsured". Both parties are outrageous in their claims and distortions, including the President himself.

And that is a large part of the point for the oppostion. Many people (and I do mean *many*) simply do not trust the government, period. It has little to do with republican or democratic, a pox on both their houses. The government run programs that have started in the past have always:

(1) become MUCH more expensive over time, with widening entitlements and ever-escalating costs. This is pretty simple..it is much easier to get re-elected if you promise to give more stuff away to people than if you are trying to limit or stop such give-aways. Virtually every major government program is now facing insolvency (Medicare, Social Security) because of this political tampering.  What makes us think a national health care system won't simply drive costs out of control when EVERY other government program has followed this same pattern?

(2) The promises at the beginning have NOTHING to do with how they evolve. Social security started out as a limited entitlement and the income from it was tax exempt. Now the income from social security is taxed, and the eligibility has broadened considerably.  When the constitutional amendment to allow an income tax was passed nearly 100 years ago, the maximum tax rate was 1%.  This whole thing is about the nose of the camel peeking into the tent, and tons of Americans saying "no", that they do not trust the politicians (of either party) and that they do not want the camel to wind up sleeping in the tent.

I think that proponents of the plan are motivated in a few simple ways. Some (at the grass roots level) just see it as something for nothing, which as we all know always garners tons of support (see "Cash for Clunkers"). This is not a function of class or income level directly, whether rich or poor, if you offer folks something for nothing, many will jump at it. And that is what this is seen as by many. And, by the way, if you see those who oppose national health care as "greedy" (I don't want to pay for their operation), why don't you see the people who want to take money from others for their own benefit as greedy also? I fail to see how one can morally judge one group over the other unless you have predispositions outside of this debate. Both are merely human, imho, looking out for their own self-interests.

The politicians seriously see it as power and control. Like every other big government program, they view its introduction as a way to develop a give-away that can carry them in power for the next 20 years.

And then, there are the poor folks who think this is about helping their fellow human beings. Unfortunately, it is not about that. If it were, there would be alot more discussion about fixes that *reduce* government controls that would make the system better than it is today, such as allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines (which government dfoes not allow today) or allowing insurance companies or offer more kinds of policies (which government will not allow today).

So, like much of politics, it is all about power, control and ultimately money.

It's all apart of his master plan, you see. Obama is a very clevar and devious devil he is...i'm glad he's president...

His overall plan:

This healthcare bill has a bunch of regulations and policies made to benefit the people of the United States, policies that may likely either bankrupt the private insurers, or force them to do what the governmet wants them to do. The public option was just a diversion for everyone, he doesn't care if there is one or not. As long as that is the main issue. His motive is to control the private insurers one way or another, and he will succeed, thanks to everyone's attention fixed on the public option.Tere are many possible outcomes that will result from these rules and regulations. These regulations may force insurance companies to pay for people with whom they will loose their money to (poor people, old people, dying people, paople who they know they won't make money off of). Coupled with the forced decrease in insurance costs and the inability to deny almost no one, they will eventually end up becoming bankrupt, asking for governmet bailouts. The Government will take over the insurance companies and either do one of two things:

1: Eliminate the PICs and instill universal healthcare.

2: Reform the insurance groups into a co-op, like blue cross/blue shield, in which everyone pays for insurance (everyone) and all their money goes into a pool of cash. Once they need money, they can take the money out of that pool. Not very efficient, but it will serve us well, and it is very simple, so adding regulation won't be a hassle.

Another , more universally accepted scenario is that the Private insurers will be forced into submission and follow the regulations that the government instill, however they are still able to make a profit, and we live hapilly ever after.

My point: Obama is planning to take over the insurance companies, public option or not. There is no stopping him at this point. We are all going to have government-run healthcare, so deal with it. And you'll know when he wins when an insurance company asks for a government bailout.

"That MAD Scientist! MHWAHAHAHAA!"

Yes that is the basis of politics, how much power, control, and money can you get.

Something to consider is a saying the George Washington had "Government is like fire, a usefull servant but a fearful master". For those who do not understand what he was saying I will try to explain it with a metaphor.

Your are camping in the woods without a camp stove, so you make a small fire to cook your food. The fire also gives you light at night and helps keep away the various creatures that prowl the night. What happens if you add a little more wood to the fire. It gets a little larger but still remains managable. What if you slowing keep adding more and more wood until you have a bonfire. Suddenly the fire is no longer really under your control, a bucket or two of water or dirt will not put it out or even really slow it down. Next thing you know, you may have started a forest fire.

That is what government is like. Over the years we have gradually given our's more and more power. Now, this bill is proposed that will make the government even larger and give it more power than it already has.We the people are superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.

Where are the watch dogs that were to keep the government from getting away with this, I am refering to the Free Media and the people of the US of A. Unfortunatly, most of the media is in someones pocket and the people are a drowsy watchdog just now becoming aware that something isn't right. That the the media, who is supposed to keep them informed, isn't doing its job like it is supposed to. Before you rail on me about the just stop and think about all the things that hasn't been reported by the major media and that you have only heard from the crazy conservatives.

Where was the media when Obama told the nation of Turkey that we are no longer a Judeo-Christian nation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o)? They weren't there. We have only heard it through sources that most people deem stupid or racist because they disagree with what Obama has been trying to do.

Before you say religion has nothing to do with government I will quote John Adams, first vice-president and second president of the United States. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." While skimming through the post I came across mentions of seperation bewteen church and state. As to whether or not there is actually a seperation of church and state I would recomend reading this article. To sum it up for those who won't read it, it discusses the origins of the "wall of seperation between seperation of church and state". It was a metaphor used to help clarify the words of the first admendment by Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunatly it has been twisted and used beyond what it was intended, if you don't believe me take the time to read the article. Basicly Jefferson explains the the Federal government is not allowed to make laws regarding religions. The words Jefferons quotes from the first admendment is "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

As to these death councils everyone brings up to either mock or make an example of, I don't believe that there will be councils set aside to kill people. But, I do believe that they would condem the old to death without health care. Oh, sure, they will have health care on paper but if they need a treatment of some kind  that will prolong their life by 10 or so years, they will just happen to be continually bumped down on the waiting list until they either die or some miracle happens and they finally recieve the life prolonging treatment. In the words of Batman Begins, "I'm not going to kill you, I just don't have to save you."

@Aroddo: From what I have read, you seem pretty closed minded. Please open your mind and accept the truths that are still out there, but defend the truth whether it hurts you or supports you. "To thine own self be true" (William Shakespear).

You know, I think that if we truly were a "judeo-christian" nation, we wouldn't go into any war.

Why? One of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not kill." You can't get any clearer than that.

Anyways, Rep. James Forbes (the guy who gave the speech talking about Obama saying America wasn't judeo-christian) actually supports the Iraq War. I would think that a deeply religious person who really believed in "though shalt not kill" would be against any form of war and instead would promote a peace effort.

voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=5146&type=category&category=22&go.x=13&go.y=20

Just food for thought.

Actually you can. I believe that if you go to the original Hebrew text it translates to more of a 'Thou shalt not murder' which makes even more since when you realize that the Lord did command the Israelites to destroy several very wicked nations.

Oops, somebody didn't take any theology courses in college. You must not be familiar with the concept of "Just War."

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

Because wikipedia is suddenly a viable source, let's look at the conditions for a "just war"

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

my responses:

1. iraq didn't have WMDs, the primary reason for going to war.  (I assume I dont have to give a  source for this)
   
2. we didn't really do very much diplomacy, and we didn't give the weapons inspectors a chance to finish.
   
3. "prospect of success"? we had no real plan for getting out!
4. "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" -- this is debatable. some would say the iraq civil war was worse, and keep in mind that civilian death tolls from the war are staggering, while others would argue that not having a dictator is better.

Yeah, I really don't think the Iraq War was a "just war."

PS: Here's a definition of muder: "To kill (another human) unlawfully"

There were multiple international efforts to promote the fact that the war was unlawful under international law. But I guess since this is America we can ignore international law.

Derp, derp.

You said: "You know, I think that if we truly were a 'judeo-christian' nation, we wouldn't go into any war."

I said: No, see Just War Theory.

Try again.

um...what? you want me to go through every single war in the history of the US and claim that it's not a "just war"?

edit: nevermind. I was wrong. The only war I can think of that would be a just war (that was declared by congress) would be world war two.

see? it's not hard to say you're wrong. But it is pretty easy to attack someone for a specific wording choice in a sentence instead of debating the gist of the post. Oh well.

History has proven them right.  Who'da thunk?