Gee... I thought the health care debate was settled?

bravo said:
Are you trying to prove you're a fool...??
You think "infrastructure" was a foreign word to the Founding Fathers and "equal playing field" was a phrase they used ?
Of course, fool, the further musings at the end of the listings are my words....

Cripes, when Apple gives you a 'thanks' for a post, you know it must be stupid.(he'll probably come back here and thank mine just to be an ass...)
Click to expand...

I do enjoy your posts, Bravo. They remind me of slap-stick comedy.

And thanks for thinking of me. :)
 
Dixie said:
No, it was actually a bipartisan plan, with broad support from both Republicans and Democrats. Unlike Obamacare.

But to make a more profound point here, you are saying the LARGEST SINGLE EXPANSION in the history of Medicare was merely "half-assed."
Click to expand...

Of course the Dems went along. The plan was better than nothing. As for being half-assed the cost could have been considerably lower but, again, the Repub's MO is to poison any social policy.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So rather then show where I'm in error; you instead decided to act like your on your monthly visit. :palm:
Click to expand...

You can't blame Aoxomoxoa when he has to explain common sense to you. In msg #70 you wrote,
And yet how many of those countries are now suffering from not having enough money and whose economy is failing.
I wonder where all that Health Care is going, when their entire system is flushed down the toilet.
Click to expand...

Government health care costs at least 1/3 less than health care in the US AND everyone is covered so if certain countries are facing a weak economy imagine the potential problem without a government health care plan.

That's it. That's the entire explanation. One sentence. To say having a plan that costs 1/3 less is the reason for a country's economic problem is illogical. It doesn't make any sense, at all. Saving 1/3 in costs is not going to add to a country's problem.

Your post (#70) doesn't make any sense. Surely you can understand that.
 
apple0154 said:
Of course the Dems went along. The plan was better than nothing. As for being half-assed the cost could have been considerably lower but, again, the Repub's MO is to poison any social policy.
Click to expand...

Bipartisan committee hearings were held, both parties attended and submitted their ideas to the bill. It passed with broad support and praise from D's and R's, but you claim it was only "half-assed." That somehow, Democrats alone, without Republicans, could have found a way to give old people meds cheaper than FREE! BUT... Because Republicans poisoned their OWN IDEA that President Bush campaigned on, the poor old people can only get their meds for FREE!

This is why you should avoid propaganda outlets.
 
Dixie said:
Bipartisan committee hearings were held, both parties attended and submitted their ideas to the bill. It passed with broad support and praise from D's and R's, but you claim it was only "half-assed." That somehow, Democrats alone, without Republicans, could have found a way to give old people meds cheaper than FREE! BUT... Because Republicans poisoned their OWN IDEA that President Bush campaigned on, the poor old people can only get their meds for FREE!

This is why you should avoid propaganda outlets.
Click to expand...

We'll take this slow.

It's about the cost to the government. If the government had included drug price negotiation they could have covered free meds for those who are 64 and maybe 63 years old. Or maybe covered some other thing that Medicare doesn't currently cover. Maybe the savings could have been used to help more people get these.
svcs_self_help_tool.jpg


That's why a comprehensive plan (government medical) works so well and saves money as other countries have discovered. One medical plan, comprehensive and inclusive.
 
apple0154 said:
We'll take this slow.

It's about the cost to the government. If the government had included drug price negotiation they could have covered free meds for those who are 64 and maybe 63 years old. Or maybe covered some other thing that Medicare doesn't currently cover. Maybe the savings could have been used to help more people get these.
svcs_self_help_tool.jpg


That's why a comprehensive plan (government medical) works so well and saves money as other countries have discovered. One medical plan, comprehensive and inclusive.
Click to expand...

But Democrats and Republicans couldn't get enough support to pass the bill with the provision you suggest. It wasn't simply Republicans who didn't want to do it, as you claimed. And speaking of what you actually CLAIMED and are now RUNNING AWAY from... it was supposedly, the Republicans who have always stood in the way of social change... but this was THEIR bill! It could not have passed Congress without broad Republican support. The largest expansion of Medicare EVER... and you claim it was "half-assed" and "not enough." The total cost of the bill to the taxpayers was estimated at $400 billion, and has since been revised to $549 billion... but you are complaining it could have been done cheaper and would have provided everyone with an electric mobility scooter too! You really live in this fucked up delusional world, don't you?

We're not going to single payer. That's not going to happen, apple. Regardless of how the elections pan out, regardless of whether Obama wins a second term, the issue of single payer is dead, and won't be revisited by ANY Congress in the near future.
 
apple0154 said:
"courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning"
Click to expand...

then please show any/all court cases where the justices have said that the preamble is evidence that the government must provide anything that an individual NEEDS.
 
apple0154 said:
You can't blame Aoxomoxoa when he has to explain common sense to you. In msg #70 you wrote,

Government health care costs at least 1/3 less than health care in the US AND everyone is covered so if certain countries are facing a weak economy imagine the potential problem without a government health care plan.

That's it. That's the entire explanation. One sentence. To say having a plan that costs 1/3 less is the reason for a country's economic problem is illogical. It doesn't make any sense, at all. Saving 1/3 in costs is not going to add to a country's problem.

Your post (#70) doesn't make any sense. Surely you can understand that.
Click to expand...

RUN THAT CIRCLE, APPLE! :D

You appear to be trying to say that their HC doesn't add to the Governments debt, which is causing them to fall apart!! :palm:
 
Dixie said:
But Democrats and Republicans couldn't get enough support to pass the bill with the provision you suggest. It wasn't simply Republicans who didn't want to do it, as you claimed. And speaking of what you actually CLAIMED and are now RUNNING AWAY from... it was supposedly, the Republicans who have always stood in the way of social change... but this was THEIR bill! It could not have passed Congress without broad Republican support. The largest expansion of Medicare EVER... and you claim it was "half-assed" and "not enough." The total cost of the bill to the taxpayers was estimated at $400 billion, and has since been revised to $549 billion... but you are complaining it could have been done cheaper and would have provided everyone with an electric mobility scooter too! You really live in this fucked up delusional world, don't you?

We're not going to single payer. That's not going to happen, apple. Regardless of how the elections pan out, regardless of whether Obama wins a second term, the issue of single payer is dead, and won't be revisited by ANY Congress in the near future.
Click to expand...

Whether single payer or the government subsidizing those who can't afford insurance and insisting those who can must obtain it the bottom line is everyone is going to be covered. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because the government has no responsibility or liability to protect your life. Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Click to expand...

While they may not be legally responsible why would "provide for the common defense" be one of the Founding Fathers' ideals if the goal was not to protect the people?

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution." "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

By what logic can anyone conclude medical care does not fall within the scope of that statement?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then please show any/all court cases where the justices have said that the preamble is evidence that the government must provide anything that an individual NEEDS.
Click to expand...

As noted in msg #95 the purpose of the Constitution was to provide a better life for the citizens. How could the Founding Fathers possibly know what the government may or may not be able to provide the citizens hundreds of years in the future?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
please, continue to misconstrue more things I say to prove nothing.

medical care is a necessity, but not a right.
Click to expand...

Again, refer to msg #95. The goal was to form a country offering the citizens the best life possible. How could the Founding Fathers have included medical care in the Constitution when there was no such thing as medical care in today's definition.
 
apple0154 said:
Whether single payer or the government subsidizing those who can't afford insurance and insisting those who can must obtain it the bottom line is everyone is going to be covered. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Click to expand...

See... that's the thing. You keep ignoring this point and not hearing what I say, because you have tuned out any other opinion on the matter... but... We ALREADY HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYBODY WHO CAN'T AFFORD INSURANCE! It is funded through HHS with our tax dollars, ALREADY... BEFORE Obamacare was ever even a thought! It's called Medicaid! A rose by any other name....
 
While they may not be legally responsible why would "provide for the common defense" be one of the Founding Fathers' ideals if the goal was not to protect the people?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but purchasing insurance does not protect you from sickness or death.

The FF's goal was to give you as much FREEDOM as humanly possible, because it's your inalienable right to be free.
 
apple0154 said:
Again, refer to msg #95. The goal was to form a country offering the citizens the best life possible. How could the Founding Fathers have included medical care in the Constitution when there was no such thing as medical care in today's definition.
Click to expand...

There was indeed medical care. Ben Franklin is credited with opening the first public hospital in America. Now I am not sure what they did there, perhaps sat around fires outside their caves, talking about the spirits, or the dispositions of the witch doctors? But they certainly DID have some form of health care, else they wouldn't need a hospital. And the fact that Ben Franklin was instrumental in building one, you have to assume the FFs did KNOW about health care, and did realize how important it was. STILL... they did not see fit to write into the Constitution, government's responsibility to provide health care to the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top