OK, A Little Health Care

But not the real article I know that you are expecting. I am still reading through all the “changes” and “fixes” that have been done. Trying to re-evaluate and see if there is anything that I can find that I like about what has been passed. So my true evaluation of the bill is forthcoming, but could take a bit. 3000 pages is a lot of reading. What I am finding extremely frustrating is the consensus from those on the left that the passage of this monstrosity is a good thing. It is almost as though they have no concept of what is in the bill. I am failing to comprehend how on earth anyone could think that this is a good bill that we should be celebrating the passage of.  Strike that.  I absolutely understand why the politicians think it is a good thing. But I am talking about everyone else. It simply baffles the mind.

First let me explain what I mean when I say that all those on the left think this is a good thing. I am not talking about politicians. Watching the idiots in Congress, along with the President, members of SEIU, and other progressive political machines high five and clap and thank god and everyone else for this awesome new world they are creating was enough to make me throw up in my mouth just a little. Pelosi’s grand smile was enough to make a very non-violent man want to strike a woman for the first time since my sister made me mad over her getting her Barbies in the way of GI Joe’s critical mission. I know the political hacks are happy. They got what they were after: a gigantic expansion of federal power and the joy of further adding to the entitlement society that keeps them employed. It is the rest of the population that I cannot seem to understand. I will eventually ask folks like Buck to tell me why exactly you think this passage is a good thing. Because I just don’t see it.

It appears to me that there is no one outside of the beltway that actually thinks that the bill that was passed is a good bill. The reasons vary. Some hate the same portions that I don’t like. Others think the bill doesn’t go far enough. The reasons vary, but the fact still remains that there are very few people outside of the 219 criminals that voted for the bill that actually believe it is a good bill. Some examples:

Arianna Huffington

Yes, the final health care bill is deeply flawed. But the lives of millions of Americans will be improved because of what the Democrats have done. – Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post

Yes, it’s very trendy to say “it’s not perfect,” and “it’s not everything we wanted,” but the passage of the health care bill in the House yesterday is a bold step forward in the right direction. – Michael Seitzman, Democratic Strategist

There is no doubt the sweeping changes enacted today will create unforeseen problems. But that is the nature of reform. – Paul Begala, Democratic Strategist

But we’re not done. The framework for a comprehensive health care system is in place. Now we must finish the job. – Representative Alan Grayson, Criminal member of Congress and General A-Hole

People struggle to understand how extending health insurance to 32 million Americans, at a cost of a trillion dollars over ten years, can be a deficit-reducing measure. If cuts in Medicare will pay for half of that outlay, as the plan intends, they struggle to see how the quality of Medicare’s services can be maintained — let alone improved, as Pelosi said again in her speech on Sunday. The CBO notwithstanding, the public is right not to believe these claims.

Whether you agree with that or not, the law the Democrats just passed is unpopular. It is a far-reaching, transformative measure that in the end will affect almost everyone; it is opposed by most of the country; and it is now law. I would never have believed this possible in the United States. – Clive Cook, Writer for The Atlantic

And even our own Buck: Do I support the health care bill? yes and no. I feel it is better than what we have now, but there are certainly problems with it. Overall, if you are asking if I would personally vote for the bill, the answer is yes. – Buck The Wala, esteemed participant at Stand Up For America

What I fail to understand is why all of these folks think that what has passed the House of Representatives is a good thing, or even a good start. This bill isn’t just flawed, it is unconstitutional, and at best inept at its claimed purpose. Why would we support something like that. The bill doesn’t go as far as some folks want. OK, I understand that sentiment. If you are for a single payer or Universal Health care the way it exists in Europe, you are correct that it doesn’t go that far…. yet. But if that is the case, why not do a better job of presenting your case to the American people and find out if the majority of the people are interested in what you want to give them. If single payer is what you believe is best, why not passionately make that claim and sell it? Because let’s be clear, no one could stop you from doing it anyway.

Democrats in Congress accepted this bill because they knew it was a foot in the door. It allows them to create an entitlement that cannot be rescinded. It allows them to make health care a “right”, which means that in the future, once that has become established they can more easily sell whatever they want to do in order to ensure that the right to health care is not taken from the citizens. This is little more than a set up for future legislation. And the trick that they are using, while legal, is far from moral or ethical. They can’t get it passed in the Senate, so they will bypass the Senate and use reconciliation in order to forego the process of consolidating two bills and voting again. This is, at best, immoral, and at worst, the complete disregard for the intent of how our representative government is supposed to work. If the founders were here today to preside over this madness, they would write something into the Constitution that would have stopped what we have watched the Democrats do with this legislation. It goes against the very spirit of the way things are supposed to work.

As I recall I watched Alcee Hastings say that he supports the idea that there are no rules. That when the deal goes down they make them up as they go along. I understand that he was quoting MLK, but he made it clear that he supports the idea that making the rules up in order to accomplish what they want to accomplish is acceptable:

So the reason that the Democrats took this path is because it was the easier path. Pass what they can fool people into supporting for now and fix it later. There are many examples of this sentiment being shared by members of Congress, including the Speaker herself. What they did not want to do was have to fully explain and justify to the American people what it is that they have as an end game. Because I believe that they are well aware that where they eventually want to go is not something that the majority of Americans want. But I am unclear on why this matters at this point. The American people overwhelmingly do not like this bill for one reason or another. The majority of Americans wanted this bill scrapped and a fresh start. The Democrats in Congress didn’t care a bit about that, so why bother pussyfooting around? If you are going to say “screw what the public wants, they will thank us later,” then why not do what it is that you want to do all the way?

I will tell you why…. revolution. Had they stated their end game of a single payer government run health care program, the American people would have revolted if they were ignored. But by doing things the way they did, they can avoid that revolution because there are just enough people out there saying it is a good start. There is just enough daylight to make the false claim that the single payer is not their end game, even though we all know that it is. Every far left person in the political spectrum fully admits that this is the goal, except the politicians. They don’t admit it, but all their supporters do.

And it is my belief that by crafting a bill that is so overwhelmingly long, so overwhelmingly difficult to understand, and so impossible to read, they have furthered the standard of listening to them describe to us what they have done. People willingly lap up what they are selling because who has time to read 2700 pages to find out if they are telling the truth? Even if you had the time, who besides a lawyer who knows all the referenced other codes and laws would understand what they are reading? You literally have to read roughly 20,000 pages of US Code and previous law to even understand what they are talking about in that 2700 pages. And no one is going to do that. Instead they will either believe the Republican politicians or the Democrat politicians. They will believe that this is the apocalypse or that this is a good start.

So I ask those of you who believe that this is a good start to tell me why this is a good start. Tell me what about this bill is going to bring down the cost of health care for Americans. Tell me what is going to increase the available coverage for those who currently go without. Tell me how Medicare or Medicaid could get better by taking money away from them for this bill while adding 15 million new enrollees. Tell me how pre-existing conditions can be covered by an insurance company without increasing premiums for everyone else. Tell me how it is Constitutional to require everyone to have health insurance whether they want it or not.

Tell me how this bill is going to defy history and not cost 6 Trillion over the next decade despite what the CBO attempts to tell us. After all, no major social program in government history has even come close to coming in below the projected costs. It is always at least double that. So given that inevitable budget shortfall, tell me how this is going to be paid for other than increasing the taxes significantly on every American. It is already not deficit neutral despite the claims otherwise by those selling it (just the “Doc Fix” alone cancels that out). Tell me how it is that private insurance companies will survive under these new rules about pre-existing conditions. Tell me how the IRS will legally enforce these mandates without incurring gigantic expenses and intruding on the privacy of citizens in the same ways that the left complained the Patriot Act does.

Tell me how Arianna Huffington is correct, but isn’t telling only half the story. What the Democrats have done will improve the lives of millions of Americans is true. But she left out the part that it will do so at the expense of millions of other Americans. You will bring down the quality of life and the quality of health care in the United States in order to improve the lives of those 30 million.

Go ahead. Tell me what is good about this bill. Tell me why it is better than where we are. Tell me how it is a good start. Enough of the rhetoric from the politicians. Tell me how all the years that I have spent studying and participating in politics has rendered me stupid when analyzing the monstrosity that you say is a good start. And when you are done telling me all that, tell me one more thing……

Tell me how you intend to weather the storm that you have caused in the American people when all the things that I talk about come to pass. You all know that I won’t take part in violence against innocent people, but I am a minority in that respect. Joe Biden was right, the proof is in the pudding. And I have a feeling that it is going to leave a very sour taste in the mouth of America’s citizens. Torches and pitchforks will end up the order of the day.


  1. The only thing I can gather about the hopey-changey crowd loving this bill, is that Dear Reader wants it. It was created by politicians with Ds after their name, and will be blessed by the One. What else could possibly be required?

    Yes, I’m still disgusted by this. Going to bed to now…….

    • Yes Cyndi, the Democrats own this…they will pay at the ballot box come November…I just hope that their adgenda is not furthered too much before then. IMHO this presidency will go down in history as the worst ever. I can only hope it will push the Progressives into a cave long enough for me to die.

  2. PapaDawg says:

    I have already posted my disgust with our government on my website, However what we have to do now is act – NOT TALK!

    Talk is what got us here. We can all talk until we’re blue in the face and it will get us nowhere at all, just deeper into this humongus pile of bulldookey that we are now in.

    Later this week, providing the cable internet gods smile upon me, I will post on my website what actions I believe need to be taken. With all due respect to USW and his wanting to keep our discussions on this site more civilized, I will not mention any of it here.

  3. I have more respect for “Working Girls” in a red light district, than the US Congress. They make no pretense as to what their trade is, as opposed to the other group, they are both the same.

  4. USW,

    I would like to hear the answer to all your questions as well. The only way I can see the actual cost of healthcare to be lowered, is by government to pass a law that cuts wages of all healthcare workers from 30 to 50 percent. Wages are a hospitals biggest expense. So if they don’t do this, how can the cost go down? If they mandate this change, how many paople will continue or want to work in healthcare? My suggestion is that everyone learn natural methods to relieve your ailments, because the system in place can’t handle this mandated bulldookie.



  5. The number of gullible every day people that think this bill is a good thing is sickening. I really wish that Fox and other news sources would have brought out more details before the vote.

    Here is a site that thinks the bill does not go far enough (they were for the public option), so they are against it. They give some of the highlights about the bill and it is worth looking at:


    Thanks for sticking with this, USW. How you are ever going to wade through that mess written by lawyers and an ex health insurance executive is more than I know, but good luck!

    • I like their fact sheet. Its easy to read and offers plenty of firepower for those who oppose the bill. For a lefty site they sound like a bunch of righties..did you read the comments?

  6. All I can say is, I hope it works.

    I am not so petty to want our country to fail because this is a liberal ideal. That being said, what makes me so very frustrated is the fact that some on the left tout this bill as a step in the right direction, all the while claiming the right is misinforming and are working for the insurance companies. If this bill is as great as they say it is, why all the back room deals? Why twist the numbers to make it look like this will save money when it most definitely will not? Here is a look at some of the fancy number crunching, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html.

    While claiming misinformation on the right, the congress and the president actually did misinform by claiming a deficit reduction in this bill.

    To those who support this bill, if you support the idea then do so, but you MUST be accurate and responsible with the cost. If it is worth the money than say so, but don’t try to be fancy with the numbers, because that will create yet another big financial problem for our country.

    Contrary to what some on the left wants to happen (and therefore believes will happen), this bill WILL increase the cost of health insurance. There is nothing that will keep it down to my knowledge. Forcing people to have a minimum standard of health insurance and cutting restrictions on pre-existing conditions will certainly increase premiums. When that happens, how many more will be unable to afford health insurance? Then what happens? As USW stated, thus begins the road to a single payer system and the inevitable rationing and declination of service. I hope not, but I can’t help but postulate.

    I hope it works.

    • I am like you JB, I hope it works, but I don’t see it working. It is similar to saying, I hope the Pirates have their first winning season since 1992, but I am not betting a trillion dollars on it, I’m not even betting one dollar on it.

      • Pirates fan? I really hate to admit it, but I am…and no, don’t bet the farm on them.

    • JB, it can’t work. The cost is too great, and the intrusion to privacy too extensive. Hoping it will work is a pipe dream at best. This “bill” is one of the biggest abominations that have befallen the American people since “Progressives” have been pushing their ideology on the United States.

      I am hoping too…hoping beyond hope that somehow this will be reversed. The portion that mandates that all HAVE to buy into this is unconstitutional, and IF this can be brought before the Supreme Court, AND if the justices rule constitutionally it has to be struck down. IF that part gets removed, then there is no way the CBO can find that it is budget neutral much less debt reducing. Not that I believe it will be anyway.

      The Democrats will pay heavily in November and beyond. They know that and now will push to enact immigration reform (read fast track illegals to citizenship), and cap and trade and other progressive baloney because they know it has to be now. They know that come November that their window of opportunity will be closed for some time.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      No matter how much Insurance premiums increase in the future it looks to me that people who get subsidies will have a cap as a percent of income that they would have to pay for there share of the premium. So unless congress increased the cap, people would have no concern about the cost of healthcare going up as ‘someone else’ would be paying for the increase.

      I would not be surprised if the ‘mandate portion’ is ruled unconstitutional that this bill will continue as otherwise written. Being in the red doesn’t bother our government.

      Here is a link to a subsidy calculator. >


  7. Buck The Wala says:

    Let’s see…some GOOD things about the Bill…here is a list of 18 changes that will go into effect immediately or almost immediately:


    Also, saw an interesting factoid last night about polls showing nearly 60% of the public is against this bill – when you actually break it down, around 13% were against the bill because they felt it does not go far enough, meaning a majority either support the bill or feel it is not enough.

    Lastly to clarify on some of the problems I have with the bill — it is more of an issue of my believing the bill does not go far enough than anything else.

    • Yes, there are some good things in the bill…IMHO the bad so far out weighs the good it makes the whole thing stink. I have tried to understand how this is a good thing and that it does not go far enough, but cannot phathom that thought process. Perhaps this dumb ole country boy is too dense to grasp how this is a good thing.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        The thought process, for me, as to why it does not go far enough is pretty simple and straightforward. I view health care as a right. I believe we as a society should provide universal health care to all. At the very least there should be a public option open to everyone to join.

        Since this bill does neither, it does not go far enough.

        • Healthcare a right? Not so fast Cochise. How can this be a right? The entitlement mentality just does not compute with me.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            You are free to characterize it as evidence of an entitlement mentality. To me though, it is about providing a certain minimum standard of living for all in our society.

            I’m not advocating that universal health care is free. There is a real cost here, but that cost is more than justified as a cost of living in a civilized society in my mind.

            • I am more prone to lean toward the founding fathers. You have the right to pursue your dreams, but do not have the right to impose those dreams on me, or make me pay for them. The cost is too great…we, as a nation are already broke, when will people realize that? Our politicians spend like drunken sailors because it is easy to spend someone else’s money. In the mean time, just keep those printing presses busy printing up more money…don’t you see that we will ultimately have to pay a price for that?

        • Buck

          Then WHY support it?

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Because it still does good; it improves upon our current system.

            • It does no good and does not improve our system.

              • Buck The Wala says:


                You can’t find a single good thing in the entire bill? Come on, try harder!


              • Buck


                It does nothing the State’s couldn’t have done on their own, if the citizens really wanted these changes.

                It expands federal power for no needed reason.

                It will drive up the cost of insurance.

                It will NOT address the underlying problems causing health CARE costs to skyrocket.

                It will result in more rationing and increased wait times.

                Nope, can’t see a single good thing in it.

                Let alone the fact that is has probably created lasting animosity, distrust and cynicism among major segments of our society. Just the hope and change everyone was looking for.

        • The problem with viewing health care as a right is this, SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR IT! If health care is a right, then I have a right to take your money to pay for my doctor’s bill. Tread softly if you think demanding the right to other people’s money will not cause some major problem in this country.

          • Indeed. Someone always has to pay.. sucks don’t it. Unfortunately, since we on the left feel that we have an obligation to provide care for those in need, we submit to the belief that those costs have to be shared amongst society. Single payer sounds good to me, too.

            Adding, JB: you’re a particle physicist, right? I have a physics question for you.

            • Bottom line is you believe you have the right to hold a govt gun to my head in order to force YOUR views of compassion on me.

              And this is called a “LIBERAL” concept in the year 2010.

              • It’s not about compassion so much as a moral obligation.

                Compassion is voluntary. I think it would be compassionate to donate your time at the soup counter. But I can’t impose that on you.

                Providing health coverage to everyone is an obligation. In a society that can afford to do so, has the technology, and has people who cannot access it, we have a moral imperative to make it more available. As such, yes, I believe we are justified (lesser of two evils) in putting the government gun to your head and ‘stealing’ from your wallet.

              • Providing health coverage to everyone is an obligation

                According to who?

              • According to all the people who agree with me. (and there are a lot of us)

                But “because I said so” isn’t a very good argument. So here’s the short version. Flag’s mantra is (simplified) “I shall do no harm.” The liberal’s mantra is (simplified) “I shall minimize harm as much as I can.”

                It doesn’t seem like a huge difference at first glance, but it leads us in very different directions.

              • Mathius,

                And that is the problem with your mantra.

                Unlike mine, it is vague.

                “No harm” has a hard-stop – it is definitive.

                The vague “minimize harm” leads to what is “minimum”?

                For some, minimum harm still means killing the person.

                I watched 2012 and the scene where one of the Arks had its roof damaged.

                So, they didn’t want to risk sailing because it might not be sea worthy.

                So instead, the story had them tell the people “Sorry, you can’t go on the ship because it is dangerous, therefore you have to stay here and die!”

              • I haven’t seen it yet. Thanks for ruining it for me!

                But yes, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice for the greater good, and sometimes it is necessary to force others to sacrifice.

                We return to the age old question: (a hypothetical, of course) if you could cure all the world’s diseases, but to do so you had to kill one innocent child, is it right to do so? You, of course, say no. I say, it’s an awful situation, but the answer has to be yes.

              • v. Holland says:

                And when you kill this one innocent child, when your idea of morality allows you to kill one innocent child, what in the name of all that is holy are you saving? I’ll answer that for you, what you are trying to save is no longer worth saving.

              • I ask you then Mathius, who defines the cut off point? Is killing 10 babies Ok? 100? 10000? To that baby, it is not minimum harm, it is the maximum. Why do you (ok, not you specifically in this case) get to define who gets maximum harm and who gets the minimum?

              • I respectively disagree. Just because you and some others believe it is an obligation does not make it so.

              • We can certainly debate that – all I’m saying here is that it’s not just some whimsical wish on our part, or a sense of entitlement. It is something we view as a deeply seeded moral imperative. As such, the conversation is ill-served by treating it as if it’s just some folly of the bleeding heart liberals. We know the realities of the options and chose the lesser of two evils. We are not happy about having to do so.

              • v. Holland says:

                It is not the lessor of two evils because it goes to far-we have too many huge social programs already.

              • An obligation is an obligation. It would be like me saying, you have too much property, so I’m going to only respect your right to own 3/4ths of it. We have to do as much as we can.

              • v. Holland says:

                No, it is not saying that at all it is saying there are less invasive, econic killing ways to help people.

            • Yes, I am an aspiring particle physicist. Lay it on me.

              • Alright. Image a single particle of light trapped between two perfect mirrors in a vacuum.

                The particle hits the first mirror at the speed of light and, when it does, it imparts a force. When it travels toward the second mirror, it is again traveling at c. It has not lost any mass.

                As it bounces back and forth, it keeps imparting the same force on the mirrors but never slows and never loses mass. Correct?

              • Mathius,

                It has no mass to lose.

                It is a massLESS piece of MATTER.

              • For it to exert a force it must transfer ENERGY.

                To transfer energy means it has to be absorbed – that is, it is not reflected.

                Your perfect mirror – that is no energy absorption – would have the effect of no force on the mirror.

              • Now, it could be absorbed and then released, which means the mirror would register a force, and use that force to expel the quanta.

                If it did this, the net effect is zero – on the mirror. It would still register no effect.

              • Do you know those mobile-like things where you have a shiny side and a matte side and the sunlight causes them to spin? I am under the impression that this is because the bounced light (from the shiny side) pushes it more than the absorbed light (from the matte side). You are saying that if, instead of simply being shiny, it was a perfect mirror, this phenomenon would not work?

              • For these objects, the issue is conservation of momentum. If the particle bounces off, it imparts a total of 2p to the screen, while if it is absorbed it imparts just p. This is actually for a perfect reflector and absorber. In actuality both sides get just a little less momentum.

              • JB,

                That may be true of particles that have mass – but light has no mass.

                Conservation of momentum is MASS x VELOCITY.

                0 Mass, no momentum.

                So, with light, it has to be energy absorption.

              • Mathius,

                That is due to one side being warmer than the other side.

              • Right you are BF. The motion is totally due to the absorption. If the reflective side were a perfect mirror, the motion would be maximized. I don’t think warmth has to do with anything, though. Except maybe that the light absorbing side would be warmer… Though it is not a massive particle, light does have momentum and can transfer that momentum (create a force) if it is absorbed.

              • In terms of special relativity, energy and momentum are related/the same thing. E = sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2). Just like time and space are related. We use these things called 4-vectors. (ct, x, y, z) rather than the traditional vector. For energy it is (E/c, px, py, pz).

              • Interesting question. I think the issue is that things are a bit more complicated than they appear. BF has it right (beat me to it, grr). I’ve never really thought about it before, but I assume that when light is reflected,it is actually absorbed by the material and then re-emitted. The issue is that electrons can only be promoted to higher orbits if they are given a specific amount of energy, so the same energy would be emitted when it jumps back down to the non-excited state. I believe that, in actuality,there are several other light rays of little energy that are emitted in all directions, with the total energy totaling that of the incident ray. This is on the quantum level, though and so would not really be observed.

                As an aside, the energy of light depends on its frequency.E=hf, where h is a constant. If light were to become less energetic,it could still move at c, but just have a different frequency.This is why a prism makes a rainbow, it separates out the light with different energies.

                Glad to interject some science here at SUFA!

              • OK, so. I’m a little out of my element here, but I want to try this again. Sorry.

                Imaging that spinning mobile. Instead a of shiny side, you place a perfect mirror. Instead of a matte side, you place a perfect mirror angled such that that any reflected light would be perpendicular to the angle of rotation (or nearly so) and thus would not affect the moment of the whole as it spins. Now, encase the whole thing in a box of perfect mirrors and vacuum. This prohibits light from escaping or being absorbed. Now release a single particle into the box. Assume no friction.

                What happens? Does a single particle massless particle cause the mobile to spin?

              • Now I’m confusing myself (and likely those who placed their trust in my physics). Light does, in fact, have a momentum. The photoelectric effect proves this. The issue in reflection, I believe, is that the momentum is converted from linear momentum to rotational angular momentum (spinning electrons) and back again. Like I said, I’ve never really thought about the mechanics of reflection in this sense, but it seems like this is the way it happens. If the light is reflected it does not transfer energy, this I know, so your photon would not induce motion. If light is absorbed, on the other hand, energy is transferred and motion may occur.

              • Interesting. Thanks, guys.

                WOOOOOO, SCIENCE!

              • Mathius,

                JB is correct – and it is very difficult to test.

                You are trying to create an inertia-less ‘drive’.


                If Minkowski formula is correct, it exists – but as NASA found, it maybe so insignificant it is worthless.

              • I hate when my brilliant inventions don’t work.

              • Mathius,

                Who knows?

                No one believed the cloak of invisibility would word – but it does!

                No one knew we could create absolute zero in an lab – and create a new form of particle! Heck, for about $1,000 you can do in your own home! How cool (pun intended) is that!!

                What is really neat is when the atoms reached absolute zero, all the particles combined into a single atom.

                So they created a super-hyper-massive single atom!

                When it heated just a little bit – the particle dissolved back into the all the individual atoms again!

                What is that useful for? Who knows!? …for now!! 🙂

    • Buck,

      I’m not even the debater around here but even I can shoot holes in in your 18 immediate changes. Take the kids stay on the plan til age 26. Oh cool, now we can keep our children dependent on us for 5 years longer, which keeps us broker for longer and also teaches the kids nothing about take care of yourself since you are an adult.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        26? Hmm…I had thought the age was 27. Oh well.

        It isn’t about keeping our children dependent on us. It’s about making sure they have affordable and adequate health care coverage. When I graduated college I was basically forced off my parents’ health plan. I had lined up a job, however wasn’t eligible for health care for the first 3 months. So it was either do without or purchase private insurance for those 3 months at a very high rate. Fortunately, my parents were able to help me out with the premium payments for those 3 months.

        • Life is not easy. Luckily your parents could help you. I assume you graduated when you were 21/22? You are now an adult. “buck up” and support yourself. Mommy and daddy are trying to save for their retirement now. Dont take thousands more from their retirement. Sounds like me, me, me, Buck.

          • Haha.. if you knew him, you’d know how silly that sounds

          • Buck The Wala says:

            That is a huge mischaracterization of the issue. I had just graduated college with little to no savings ready to start my own life and be independent. Yes, I needed my parents help to get myself on my feet. I don’t see anything wrong with this.

            Once the 3 months were up and I had access to affordable health coverage, I paid my own share of my premiums.

            • Hang on. Fine I have no problem with your 3 month situation. I would have paid it too. I’m talking about 5 years worth of premiums that are put on the parents. And you know their are kids who would do that and the law is with the kids.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I believe the bill permits individuals to stay on their parents’ plan until 26 or 27. It provides for an alternative for those still in school or do not have access to coverage through their employers.

            • Having your parents help if that is what they choose is one thing…imposing all others to help is criminal…in my opinion.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I don’t believe the bill forces parents to continue coverage for their children. I believe the bill forces insurance companies to allow for continued ‘family coverage’ until the child reaches the higher age.

              • That I don’t have a problem with…it is making me pay for those who either will not or can not pay for themselves. If I choose to help, that is one thing…if I am forced to help that is quite another thing. Lost freedoms come as wolves in sheeps clothing…

            • Yep, that’s right Buck, you grow up. Our kids were in the same boat and took out that interim policy AND DIDN’T COME CRYING TO US TO PAY IT! Wasn’t even a discussion.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Yes I am an adult. I didn’t go crying to mommy and daddy to pay for it. I sat down with them and had a discussion. We looked at my salary and what I could reasonably afford. I didn’t expect anything from my parents – truth be told, I would have opted to go without insurance for that period. They then offered to pay the difference for those three months.

                But what is wrong with mandating that insurance companies offer the option of allowing parents who so choose to keep their children on their policy (and pay the higher premiums associated with that choice) for a few extra years? Parents will be free to say no, you are an adult and you must provide for yourself. But at least the option will exist.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              But you are arguing that SOMEONE ELSE should have helped you pay those premiums, rather than your parents…


              • Buck The Wala says:

                I am arguing that society should provide a basic standard of living for all, and that such basic standard of living should include health care.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Why then, should I not merely chose to unproductively exist?

                Why should I strive to be productive if society has an OBLIGATION to provide me with a certain standard of living?

                If I am happy living at whatever that minimum standard is which society is supposedly obligated to supply me with, where is my incentive to do anything whatsoever?

              • Who defines that ‘basic standard’? I define it as having a roof over my head and food to eat. You include health care. Currently my girlfriend is shopping for a dog. I bet if you ask her right now, her opinion would be that ‘basic standard’ should include a pet. Others may thing a computer is necessary. Should we provide a computer to all, so they can communicate on facebook all day (some people find that a necessity)? The list goes on and on, because everybody defines it differently.

                Who should have final say in what is and is not a ‘basic standard’?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                We as a society define that basic standard.

                No one is arguing that a computer or dog is necessary (though as with your girlfriend, my wife would surely disagree!) But health care is intimately related to life. Yes there is a difference between a right to life and a right to healthcare, but they are connected. A computer and dog are not.

              • USWeapon says:

                At least they are not arguing for it YET. How long before the claim is that you cannot function in modern society without a computer? After all the ability to find employment is based on the job search and the resume and the knowledge, all things that are linked to computers now. Is it fair that those with a computer are allowed such a distinct advantage over those whose situation at birth was one that didn’t have a silver keyboard? And before we blow this off as crazy, let’s not forget that the federal government is already providing cell phones to the poor because they are now deemed as necessary.

                And therein lies the problem, Buck. I will expand on this with a new post at the bottom.

              • Buck,

                If by society you determine a artificial need and enforce the means to satisfy the means by violence, there exists NO MORAL stance to block others in society of creating artificial needs (computers and dogs and pretty whirling mobiles) and using violence to satisfy them too.

                The end game: whoever holds the monopolistic holder of violence inflicts upon the masses an ever increasing demand of artificial needs and uses whatever violence it needs to satisfy itself.

                Thus, your game always ends in total tyranny.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                We, as a society CANNOT define that basic standard, because it is different for different people.

              • Buck/Matt;

                We live in a free society, a Republic as it is Constitutionaly defined – correct?

                As such you are entitled to your thoughts, actions and adventures, as am I, so long as those actions and adventures do not impead uopn my equal rights.

                Therefore I no longer choose to abide by or to the wishes of those who decide what and who gets what; since it is a violation on my God given freedom.

                And since I am a freeman your wishes are invalid.


      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Anita, Didn’t you hear Nancy Pelosi splain it to ya? She wants kids who are still trying to find them selves and might want to be “artists” to be able to follow their dreams. Geeesh pse have some understanding and compassion….

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          ‘Kids’ and anyone up to the age of 100+ to be able to try there hand at “ART” while someone else buys them healthcare.

          SHE really said that about art twice, I heard her!

          • See, silly me. I thought art was a HOBBY! Get a damn job 😦

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              A hobby can indeed be a “job” if you make enough money doing it to pay all of the bills 🙂

    • So you are saying that there were no undecided in those numbers? The entire 40% was for it? Where was this poll story?

      • Buck The Wala says:

        The numbers are a bit from my memory – it was a CNN poll I believe. The end result was that when you back out those that are against the bill because they feel it did not go far enough, you wind up with fewer than 50% against the bill.

        • Buck;

          And who among us watched CNN, or NBC, ABC, CBS, etc, hence those responding to a CNN poll are predominately liberal/progressive based. The same goes for those who respond to the polls conducted by FOX or any other ‘conservative’ based institution.

          Polls are useless and bias. I am a registered voter who has lived at the same residence for over 12 years and I have never been polled by any institution about anything.

          Bottom Line: I think that the majority of the ‘entitlement minded crowd’ vote yes for anything that adds to their pile; right, wrong or indifferent. Those that feel Bills/Acts of this nature jepordize liberty and freedom vote ‘NO’ regardless of the proposed benefits. The remaining population either doesn’t care or doesn’t undertand either way.

          This Bill will affect the Republic much like the first bite on an elk’s hind-quarter from the lead wolf in a hunting pack; it is just a matter of time before the elk falls. Nancy, Harry and obama are leading a pack of hungry wolves and they now have drawn first blood.

          Make no mistake our country is bleeding and if left un-treated the wound will fester and the nation will fall.

          The only good to come from this Bill is most likely it has certified the end of a 1 party congress come November. Nancy, Harry and let’s hope all those that supported them are no longer holding a seat in Jan


        • Understood, just saying that from the polls I have seen, even if you clarify the numbers and there are fewer than 50% against it, there are still more against it than for it, because even if you counted those who thought it was not enough as for it, the numbers for it still remained below the numbers against it. Its sort of like the last election. A majority may have voted for Obama, but that was a majority of voters, not eligible voters.

  8. Buck,

    Perhaps you would feel differently if your employer did not pick up the tab for your coverage. Assume you are a small business owner. You have 10 employees and 3 children. Would you feel the same if you had to come up with the premiums for 15 people. What is the sense of being in business? In a small business there is only so much money available. You’re in business to create wealth for yourself not to accomodate for everyone else.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Seems that this bill has a few good things in it for small business owners as well:

      The bill creates Small Business Health Care Exchanges, allowing small businesses to pool together for coverage – the idea being the more people being insured as a ‘group’ the lower the premiums. The bill also, from my understanding, specifically exempts small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from providing insurance.

      • Obama himself admits that this is just a foot in the door. Additions will be tacked on later. It’s going to happen. The goal is to cover everyone. Say goodbye to small business in America. Say hello to your govt job that creates no money.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Pretty cynical and unsupported by anything said.

          I hope this is a foot in the door. I hope we do have universal coverage in the near future. I don’t understand how you proceed from ‘universal coverage’ to the ‘end of small businesses’. Can you explain the thought process?

          • Easy Buck

            Who is going to pay for Universal Coverage?

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Taxpayers. Individuals and Small Businesses and Large Businesses. Of course there will be a cost associated with universal coverage – that’s a given.

              But again, walk me through precisely how universal coverage will be the death knell to small businesses in this country.

              • You just did that for me. Increased costs through taxes.

                But alas, in the long run they will be saved by the LEFT who will pass laws to impose those new taxes ONLY on the Corps and the Rich.

                And of course those increased taxes will NOT flow downhill to the regular tax payers, who include the small business owners.

                Since this nation is broke and given there will be higher costs for this “universal coverage” then one could assume some inflationary pressure from all the printed money. Or deflation and depression caused by devaluation. In either case the small business, that has less margin for error, will be hit harder that the big boys.

              • Buck,

                I wish you would spend some time in Pohnpei. I’m not sure what the health care system is there but I can tell you that 55% of the economy consists of government. The rules on business, and ecspecially foreign owned are ridiculous. There are all kinds of restrictions. You should see the poverty. As I see it, there is no good reason for most of the people living the way they do. Spending a couple of weeks there was an eye opening experience. BTW, you can drive around the entire island in less than two hours, and the only reason there is anything money there at all is because the US government has been supporting the Pohnpei government since WW2.

      • Buck

        Interesting concept.

        Create legislation that will bankrupt the small business.

        Then give them an “exemption” to that portion and call it “we put some good things in there for small business”.

  9. Our founding fathers would revolt against the current government of the USA and passage of this healtcare bill. We no longer have a representative republic or even a democracy. We have some type of oligarchy where once elected to office politicians will do whatever they want to do and there is nothing we can do about it.

    Should a civil war break out, I will do whatever I can to support liberty and freedom. I think we are at the point or very close to it. This bill cannot stand!

    • Civil War Part Deux?

      Can we call it the War of Liberal Aggression?

      • Mathius,

        Just let the states that want out of the USA the ability to do so peacefully and no war is needed. You can continue your socialist, fascist, progressive, communist experiment in those states that want to remain in the USA.

        Is that fair enough for you? If you really want to transform the USA, then let the states decide whether they want in or out. You will have plenty of states that want in the system (blue states) and several states that will want out (red states). This will reduce the size of the USA but it will be good for everyone, a Win/Win.

        Some of us just want to be left alone. I don’t want anything from the government nor do I want forced to pay for government expansion and less freedom and individual choice.

  10. Interesting brief article from David Frum:


    • Buck The Wala says:

      Very interesting article; be interested to hear others’ takes on it.

      • My take is that we can’t even remember history accurately when it is only one year long.

        Mr. Obama was never interested in really getting Repub. support. If he was he could have had it very early, in Feb 09 when he told the R’s “we won, get over it”. At that time the Rep. leadership was all about stay quiet and play nice. The “conservatives” hadn’t jelled yet into the unified opposition. They were busy fighting the Rhino’s inside the party.

        Mr. Obama let Pelosi and Reid, ala Baucus, take the lead on health care. Which put it in the hands of the far left (Pelosi/Reid) and the insurance companies (Baucus). Remember, Reid killed the Baucus bill. The President has played a great Kabuki dance, in the end taking credit for something he had nothing to do with. Except the deal on abortion at the end. Now, if he did orchestrate and thus should get credit for this bill, then he was out right lying to the public just one week ago. “My bill” will do this and that. But his “this and that” wasn’t the bill passed by the House or the Senate.

        This is not the waterloo for conservatives. This was the end of the “conservative or moderate Democrat”.

        It is however, the Waterloo for Freedom and Liberty.

        • My take is that we can’t even remember history accurately when it is only one year long.

          There might be something to this. I can’t even remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    Above you say that you believe that healtcare is a RIGHT. Please explain how you arrive at that and why you believe so.

    Also above you claim that society should provide healtcare for all. Ok, society should do this (maybe), but why, specifically, should GOVERNMENT be the instrument which society uses in order to do this?

    Is government the most efficient way for society to provide healthcare for all, or are there other entities which society could use that would be far more likely to provide healthcare for all more efficiently, effectively, and for lower cost?

    I personally think that you are confusing and conflating a “right to life” with a “right to health”, but I look forward to your response.

    I think that you would eliminate alot of your own personal confusion (which you may or may not admit that you have) if you answered the question, “Who is ultimately responsible for ME?”

    The answer to that question is the same for each and every individual as it is for you. I suppose that you could answer, “Society is responsible for me!” and if that is your answer, I will be happy to tell you why things cannot possibly work if you answer that way.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      1) As I’ve explained, its very straightforward. Healthcare is a right because we as a society should provide a minimum standard of living to all. I will let others expand on this thinking.

      2) Government is the mechanism we use to govern our society. What other entity should provide healthcare for all? I would be open to hearing alternatives as long as you can support how such alternatives would be able to provide healthcare for all.

      3) Who is ultimately responsible for me? ME. That’s a given. However, as a society I strongly believe we need to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Not even that, but we should also strive to ensure everyone has a minimum standard of living. To me, healthcare falls under this minimum.

      I take it you believe health care is not a right, but is a privilege? How so? Why should we deny health care to anyone? Why should we allow people to go bankrupt because they cannot afford health care? If you accept the premise that health care is a privilege, then you are necessarily saying that there are certain people who do not deserve it. Is that your belief?

      • Buck

        So health care is a Right because YOU say so? That seems to be the heart of your “logical” defense.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Health care is a legal right; it is one of many human rights. I believe it is the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Right that spells this out.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The UN declaration of human rights has no legal authority, and most of the things listed therein are not actually rights.

          • A simple YES would have sufficed.

            Whether you personally or a group of YOU’s what is the difference?

            You have not natural right to impose your theft upon me young Buck. You may be able to use the power of govt to do your will but don’t belittle yourself by trying to convince me it is a moral act on your part.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Again with this theft?? It always comes back to theft… But given your views, I do see your point. I just disagree.

              A few questions:

              How would you categorize health care then?

              [Right / Privilege / Responsibility / Other]

              What do you see as the consequences of labeling it as such?

              • What do you call taking from those who do not wish to have taken from them?

              • Health Care is an economic good, no different than any other economic good.

                It is an economic good because it exists to solve a human problem. But so does sugar.

                It should be treated in exactly the same method and means as any other commodity.

                That is, provisioned and consumed by free men in voluntary exchange with each other.

              • Buck

                I would call it a SERVICE. One that I provide to myself or that I purchase from someone else.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                And for those that cannot afford said service? Or who are denied from accessing said service due to a pre-existing condition from no fault of their own?

              • v. Holland says:

                I’ll try to answer that because my family happens to be in that situation-you stand or fall on your on two feet-you cannot decide what is best for this whole country based solely on the needs of a few. You can’t just say to heck with the reality of our economy, I care about people and I want to help them while destroying everyone else and the people you want to help too.

              • Buck

                You have the right to give them all you want of your money to help them out. Nobody is going to interfere.

                They have a right to property but can not afford it. Am I now obligated to purchase it for them?

                Pre existing conditions do not preclude anyone from receiving medical care. What you are really saying is that WE should pay for their care because they can’t. Whether you hide behind Insurance or govt programs that is the essence of your argument.

              • Buck;

                Health Care is a commodity just like the services of a CPA, Lawyer, Barber, baker, and candlestick maker. Nothing more, nothing less.


      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        You are incorrect in what you think my version of “what is healtcare” is.

        To me, healthcare is NOT a right. It is also NOT a priveledge. It is a RESPONSIBILITY. I am responsible for taking care of myself and my family, you are responsible for taking care of yourself and your family.

        If you are down on your luck and cannot afford healthcare which you need, it does not suddenly become MY RESPONSIBILITY to provide it to you.

        I may CHOOSE to provide it to you, but such a choice on my part does not imply that the responsibility to do so has somehow been transferred to me. You are still responsible for yourself, as you actually said above.

        I believe that you, and many others in this country, have a great confusion when it comes to the difference between what is a right and what is a priveledge and what is a responsibility.

        It would be interesting to have people on the site here simply make posts containing 3 columns (one for rights, one for priveledges, and one for responsibilities) and then put 5-10 things in each column, and attempt to justify why each thing belongs in the column which they listed it in. I think that might be highly educational and informative.

        My speculation is that certain people would have far more items listed in the “rights” column than certain other people would 🙂

        • Buck The Wala says:

          So you view health care as a Responsibility. That’s an interesting characterization which I really haven’t heard before (so much debate between right vs. privilege that anything else has been ignored).

          My one major problem with labeling it as a responsibility is what of the family that cannot afford coverage? If it is a RIGHT, then we must provide coverage for all. If it is a PRIVILEGE, then they are underserving. If it is a RESPONSIBILITY, then too bad since you failed to meet your responsibility to yourself and your family?? I’m honestly not sure how to complete that sentence.

          • Sorry to butt in here but Buck, where have you been? Your life is your responsibility. Not mine. Period. No fancy stepping around it.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Anita, I pose the same question to you as I posed to JAC above:

              How do you define health care? (right / privilege / responsibility / other)

              What do you see as the implications of such a label?

              I do agree that my life (and my family’s life) is my responsibility. But that doesn’t exclude the obligation of society to ensure a minimum standard for everyone.

              • Responsibility. Mine. No implications at all. My life, my responsibility.

                Same question to you as Matt: Obligation? According to who?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                But there are implications. You claim it as a responsibility. So what of the individual or family that cannot provide for themselves, if its their responsibility – and their responsibility alone?

                And yes, I do see it as a moral obligation. Since it is a right, then we are all obligated to provide and guarantee that right.

              • Then it is their responsibility to seek out some charity from somene who chooses to give it to them not from someone who is forced to give it to them.

              • Buck

                Am I “obligated” to provide you with speech?

                Am I “obligated” to provide you with property as you desire?

                How am I obligated to provide you something you believe is a right.

                Answer: I don’t.

                This is not a right you are describing. Because no right places an obligation on anyone that can impair another right.

                It is your right to take care of your health and to seek medical care when you need it. But you may not impose upon me to achieve your desires or to secure your “right”.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            It is my belief that just as you are responsible for providing food for yourself to eat (and your family if you have one), you are also responsible for providing yourself (and your family if you have one) with the healthcare that you need.

            I would also agree that there are indeed people that do not have the jobs, income, etc. needed in order to provide themselves and their families with this need, and I would agree that at least a certain level of healthcare is indeed a need, rather than a want.

            All of that being said, my fundamental difference from you is how to best provide this need for the people who are unable (not unwilling, but GENUINELY unable) to provide it for themselves and their families. You seem to believe that the best way to provide this need is through the government. In some ways, that may be true. The government certainly COULD arrange for the provision of healthcare to all through taxation and redistribution. Many countries do it that way.

            My fundamental problem with that is that if it is done that way, it eliminates both personal choice and personal responsibility from the equation. Basically if you boil it down, a governmentally mandated solution amounts to the following:

            I have the talent, drive, skills and abilities to make X dollars. With X dollars I am able to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and many wants for myself and my family. (I would say that food, clothing, shelter, and a certain level of medical care could be classified as genuine needs). In addition, because I make X dollars, I am now also forced to be responsible for providing a certain level of healthcare (and perhaps even subsidize the food, clothing, and shelter needs) of others as well.

            The problem with this is the whole concept of force. You could certainly argue that many people would not voluntarily choose to contribute towards the needs of others in the absence of being forced to. This is why I think a lot of people do not believe that a truly free society would actually work. It goes back to Mathius’s People Are Greedy hypothesis. Some people actually believe that people are SO greedy, that they simply would not help others of their own free will, so they MUST be forced to do so. It is a sad commentary on what some people believe of humanity in general in my humble opinion.

            I have one further question regarding healthcare being a right. If healthcare is indeed a fundamental human right (I would say that it is not, but for the sake of argument I will at least temporarily go along with it here…), why does our responsibility to provide that right for others who cannot provide it for themselves stopp at some arbitrary lines drawn on a map?

            Should we not HAVE to provide this to every person on the planet as opposed to simply those within the arbitrary lines drawn on our maps? Would it not be better to simply have a global governing body to ensure that every person on the planet was afforded the same level of healthcare that is theirs by right?

            • why does our responsibility to provide that right for others who cannot provide it for themselves stopp at some arbitrary lines drawn on a map? It doesn’t. But I can’t force the government to take ownership of all the world’s problems. We simply can’t bankroll it.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Precisely — our responsibility does extend beyond an arbitrary line. We do advocate for human rights and basic level of care globally. But it just isn’t possible to provide for the rest of the world.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                By the same argument, it is not possible to provide for those in the world who happen to be within certain imaginary lines drawn on a map.

              • We think it is.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Yes, you THINK it is, however you cannot provide a cogent justification for that beelief.

              • Of course you can and you (liberals) already have to a great extent.

                But your right, we can’t bankroll it, thus we are bankrupt.

              • hey, at least you acknowledge that I’m right about something.

  12. “Fatal conceit”

    That is what the Progressives, like Mathius, Buck and Adrianna, have.

    By “Revolution within the Form”, they pervert definitions, such as “rights”, to include oppression of some people to the benefit of those that do not earn such benefit.

    Their conceit lies in the belief they know best and because of that Progressive “knowledge” they believe they can use force on people to act “properly”, as long as this “properly acting” is defined by the Progressives. However, you will never be able to pin them down to what this definition is, for they make it a moving target to enable them to constantly expand their reach.

    It is fatal because they are wrong. They will fail.

    They institutionalize violent force; provide access to an ever increasing amount of violent force necessary to continue forcing their plans since their previous plans have all failed.

    They see their only recourse is to increase their intrusion, their demands and their violence to try to fix the failures of their intrusion, their demands and their violence.

    Carried out to its obvious end, it means the destruction of civilization.

    This is a war and freedom and civilization is fighting a losing rear guard action.

    Bit there is a small window of opportunity.

    The Progressives have bet it all on the economy. When it fails, it will expose the depravity of their beliefs like the failure of the economies of the Eastern Europe exposed that depravity of their systems.

    But the window will be small and if freedom is unprepared, the Western world will descend into a new feudal era – the Age of Endarkenment – which probably will last a thousand years.

    • Right BF. But the progressives can’t even see past right now. They want progress but cannot even think out what the end game results in.

      • Anita,

        They cannot deny it, so they never address it. They pretend that by some magic, the disaster will be avoided, all the People will awaken to the same ideals as they hold and the Universe will flow rose petals upon them.

        Mankind will not survive the success of the Progressives.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      It is my belief that the “progressives” tried a “grand experiment” which was arrived at through violent revolution. This “grand experiment” was called U.S.S.R.

      After a mere 70 years, this grand experiment failed. I believe that the progressives were all convinced that the failure was caused by the initial use of violent revolution. Because of the mistaken belief that violent revolution was the cause of the failure, we now see progressives attempting to re-create the “grand experiment” in both Western Europe and the United States, this time through “incremental reform” rather than violent revolution. They believe that if the people are taught that their ideas are “the right ideas” and that if they implement their ideas slowly over time, then the “grand experiment” will finally take lasting hold and succeed.

      Unfortunately for all of us, their analysis was flawed. It was not the implementation of their ideas through violent revolution which caused the U.S.S.R. to fail after a mere 70 years, it was the fact that their ideas are flawed to begin with. You can see the results of this now throughout Western Europe and the United States. All of the “Western World” is essentially bankrupt, just as the U.S.S.R. went bankrupt.

      The system which would be imposed (whether through violent revolution or creeping incremental reforms) by the progressives is simply not even vaguely close to fiscally sustainable.

      The “healthcare reform” bill is a prime example of this. It would be FAR LESS EXPENSIVE for the government to simply go out and purchase individual or family insurance policies for every citizen of the country rather than do things the way they have done them in this bill. However, they have no genuine interest in cost control whatsoever. Their interest is simply in TOTAL control, regardless of the cost. This is why their system has failed in the past, and it is why their systems ARE FAILING NOW.

      They are fundamentally incorrect in their deeply held belief that their ideas would work if only they could be implemented properly. It simply just is not the case.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        It seems you are conflating Progressivism with Socialism.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          It is mightily easy to conflate the two, Buck.

          Whether you arrive as Socialism instantaneously through revolution or you arrive at it incrementally over time, it remains Socialism.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            I’m honestly not sure why so many here believe that progressivism and socialism are the same thing.

            Are some elements of socialism in tune with a progressive philosophy? Sure. But they remain two very distinct concepts.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Any system under which one human being claims the right to use force on other human beings in order to accomplish their goals may or may not be “Socialism”, but it is certainly “Tyrrany”. Perhaps Socialism and Progressivism are not ultimately perfectly equal, but both are tyrranical systems.

            • Buck

              It is because you do not see the eventual outcome of what you support. As your ambitions fail and are reformed and fail and are reformed, the eventual outcry will be for the govt to take it over.

              It will be the only “pragmatic” solution left. It will be called “logical” when it is delivered to us by the elite.

              Look to the health care issue for the example.

              The only question is whether socialism wins or whether corporatism wins. You see, eveyone has a dog in the fight and the bigger dog will win. In either case, freedom and liberty lose.

    • They’re arleady working on increasing that violent force. Look at the EOs, the expansion of the IRS, new bills for Homeland Security, John Holdren’s plan to have UAVs patrolling the skies over America, just to name a few. Yes, its a VERY short timeframe, probably just a few seconds long.

    • Black Flag:

      Are there areas in the USA that will survive the economic collapse and be prepared for freedom to fill the vacuum rather than another dark age?

      Where are they?

      • Birdman,

        People need oil, water and food.

        Texas, Montana and the Dakotas, the farm belt.

        Big cities will be real big trouble.

        Take a look at Detroit. Ready for a shock?

        In 1994, the median sales price of a house in Detroit was about $41,000.

        The housing bubble pushed it up to about $98,000 in 2003. In March 2009, the price was $13,600.

        Today, the price is $7,000.
        There has never been a collapse of residential real estate values of this magnitude in peacetime history, anywhere. Detroit is dying.

        We are unfamiliar with anything like this.

        The media are silent.

        The Powers That Be are not interested in reporting on this, because readers might ask the obvious question: “How did this happen?” Obvious questions tend to lead to obvious answers.

        Detroit has been killed by flight out of the city.

        There is no surge of buyers to take advantage of fabulously low prices in Detroit.

        Can you imagine buying a home for cash for $13,600 in 2009 — a house that had sold for $98,000 six years earlier — and losing half your money? It’s incredible.

        There is a story of the history of a 5-bedroom home in Detroit, from the land purchase to its recent sale.

        It was built by one of the most influential man you have never heard of, Clarence Avery.

        Avery was on the Ford Motor Company teamn that conceived of implementing an assembly line for Ford’s factory. He copied the idea from a hog-slaughtering operation.

        His home was a very nice home for the time.

        As recently as 2005, the home sold for $250,000. It was purchased by a woman who was lent $200,000 to buy it.

        It was financed by a subprime loan. The asking price was $189,000. Where the other $61,000 went, the woman has no idea. She defaulted.

        The deteriorating house was bought by a Christian organization that is renovating it. The house sold for $10,000.

        This is simply inconceivable to anyone who is unfamiliar with Detroit since 2005.

        Nothing like this has ever happened.

        How can we conceive of a lender lending $200,000 to a woman to buy a $250,000 home offered at $189,000?

        How can we conceive of a fall in price from $250,000 to $10,000?

        This is the sign of a dying city.

        This does not happen in a normal environment.

        Even with the mania created by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in conjunction with Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve, nothing like this has happened anywhere else.

        If you had predicted anything like this in 2005, you would have been dismissed as a crackpot on crack. You would not have been taken seriously by anyone.

        Yet it has happened.

        The city planners, the Federal government’s subsidy defenders, and the welfare state aficionados are all discreetly silent about Detroit.

        This will be the scene for most major cities in America. Stay clear. They will be gang-run and run badly.

        • Black Flag: I will be moving to the farm belt but it is in Illinois. Not a very good state for freedom and liberty. It is in the food industry so I believe that is more secure than other types of business. I plan to live in the country but stay in a good school district.

          Do you live in one of the states you cited?

          I am very familiar with Detroit. Not a city to be living in or any where near it.

          • I use the tactic of avoidance – mobility. Quick pack and I’m down the road … well, a lot slower now with wife and kid, but we’re not more than 5 days from “Oh oh!” to “Go GO!”

            Alaska or Texas or Montana – where lots of distance needs to be covered by moccasins before necessarily meeting too many people.

            Canada too is a good place to consider. “Hewers of wood, Drawers of water” – resource based. Lots of oil, land, and water. Just damn cold 5 months of the year.

            • Should I purchase a home now or just rent in IL?

              Should I place my home on the market now in MI? I have 18 months to relocate.

              I have one other question that I want to ask you but not on here. I will send to USW a question that he can forward to you. You can send it back to USW and he can forward it to me. That way your e-mail address remains confidential.

              • Birdman,

                RE: Buying or renting

                If you are able to buy – buy. Lots of deals out there. Negoitate hard – its a buyers market. Ask around to find who’s-who at a bank or two that maybe holding foreclosures. Ask around for distressed sellers.

                Get his books:

                Rates will never be this low. Money is essentially free – if you can qualify.

                Make sure you lock in a long term rate (20+ years, longer if possible). Do not get a renewable mortgage or any strange and wonderful weird one and any 5 year deal will slaughter you.

                But you don’t have to rush to buy. Get the right deal.

                Renting is good for another 12/24 months too. You can rent cheaper than you can buy in many markets right now.

                As far as current home:
                If you can hold on to it (ie: rent it out) that’s a great plan.

                Remortgage it under the new rates for as long as possible. Get a renter.

                Rents, in the long run, rise at the rate of inflation. Your bank payments do not.

                Eventually, your cash flow will go extreme positive inside an inflation spiral with rental income. If you can, you want to trap this once-in-a-lifetime event. This alone can set your children into a legacy of wealth.

                Once cash flow goes strongly positive, you’ll be in position to adjust your rent rates to attract a good renter. When you find someone you want to keep, you can trade rent for maintenance and long term stability. You can undercut the market because you have a large gap between payments and cash flow.

                Read John’s book! 🙂

                You can ask USWep for my email – no prob.

        • BF,

          Furthering your story. I’m 30 miles from Detroit. Group of my friends is buying up forclosed homes in my city for $5000-$10000.They have a warehouse full of new cabinets, carpet, etc. They flip the $5k house and sell it to the now displaced Detroit crowd for $30k. They (my friends) are making a killing. There are hundreds of homes still available.

  13. In this entire debate there has been the underlying fallacy that somehow if you have no coverage, then you get no treatment. By that notion, the bodies should be lying all over the streets in New York City and stinking up the place.

    I am not a health care worker but it does seem to me that everyone who shows up in an emergency room, including people whose residency status is in question, get treatment. Therefore Buck’s issue, that of healthcare being a “right” is a non issue. Follow up treatment is also available.

    Now there are better ways to administer what we offer than those we have now, but this nonsensical bill, is not one of them. Find the fraud, prosecute those who commit it. Put real caps on lawyers fees. Loser pays in nuisance lawsuits designed for nothing other than to extort insurance companies. Make health insurance portable. Cover breaks in health insurance caused by job loss to prevent future denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. We are about to find the money to hire some 16,000 IRS agents to make sure you sign up. Just think what a dent could be made in Medicare and medicaid fraud had these agents been in place for the past few years.

    Today I heard a Long Island New York Congressman who voted for the bill talk about the issue of pre-existing conditions. With a totally straight face he talked of pregnancy as a pre existing condition. Nobody called him on this. How insane! Imagine, being able to duck the expense of health insurance for many years and then applying for the bennies only when you know you are pregnant! How do turkeys like this ever get elected?

    Anyone out there in government knows, note, I said knows, not thinks, not believes that the cost of this new program is incalcuable. Americans do I think, have a penchant for fraud (it comes from being the wretched refuse of their teeming shores). If 1.5 BILLION dollars a year can be fradulantly sucked out of the NY Medicaid program every year just imagine what the future holds.

    On another note, having planned for my retirement with certain investments. I now find that I will lose somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 3,000 per year to new taxes on those investments. So, in order to make Buck feel good, I have to live on less. Perhaps that property tax bill from NJ will become smaller. hah!

    • Buck The Wala says:

      You are correct in that you can still get treatment even absent insurance by showing up at a hospital. This is not efficient health care in any sense of the word and it results in driving up costs to everyone else.

      Is this adequate health care? Affordable? Efficient?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Is the current system adequate? Probably fairly close, we do not have tons of “formerly-poor-now-dead” people littering the streets of our major cities.

        Is it the most affordable and efficient way to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford to provide it for themselves and their families? Almost certainly not. However, the current bill which just passed is ALSO NOT the most affordable and efficient way to do so, so I would recommend that if that is your goal, you scrap the monstrosity and start over from scratch.

        Also, it is critically important to define precisely what you mean when you say “adequate”. Is adequate healthcare a certain, defineable, level of care that can be provided to most for a particular cost, or is adequate “any treatment necessary regardless of cost”? Your answer to that question is very important regarding just how much you are willing to force yourself and everyone else to pay for the system which you envision.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          No, the current bill is not the most affordable nor efficient means. But it is a step up from what we have now. I would be all in favor of scrapping the entire bill and providing for universal coverage. Unfortunately, that’s not an option right now.

          Adequate to me must be a certain defineable level of care. Adequate cannot be any treatment necessary regardless of cost – there must be a cost-benefit analysis.

          • See Buck, You can’t define anything. There is no end. That is dangerous

          • And tell me Buck, why is that not an option right now?

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Because the Dems can’t stick to their guns. They never could.

              I hate to rely on polls because they are so easy to manipulate, but they do provide the best indication of public opinion we have — polls routinely indicate that the majority of this country supports either a public option or universal coverage.

              Now if only the Dems could get their act together…(of course that’s nothing more than a pipe dream)

              • USWeapon says:

                In your mind is it even a possibility that the Democrats can’t do it because they understand that the public DOESN’T want it. That perhaps they cannot do it because even the corrupt body that is the US Congress can’t bring itself to force through something of that magnitude without a revolution.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I honestly believe that the majority of the public does want universal coverage, or a public option at the least.

                And this isn’t me being naive or projecting my own desires. This is based on everything I have read on the topic to date.

      • To Buck and all others,

        See the problem is that I was born, raised, got married and worked for NY City for a long time. I therefore have practical, in the field experience not of a hypothetical nature.

        In many social programs, NY City wss and probably still is the cutting edge. Throughout my career here and before that as a child I was involved in some of NY’s “socialized” medicine, the Health and Hospitals Corp and the Health Department.

        NY City was not the provider of last resort but it was the provider for many of us who grew up in low income neighborhoods whose parents did not have cushy union jobs where health insurance was provided. We had something called “health clinics”. This is where you got your regular immunizations as well as TB tests, X-rays and follow up care. The care was actually pretty good. the downside as I remember it was the wait. Not the wait for an appointment if you needed one but you would show up at 9AM and be seen at 2:30 in the afternooon. If you wound up in a hospital, it was in a ward with, in my case, about 8 other kids of my general age.

        The concept of clinics became passe as did that of wards. With universal care, we can expect, due to volume and the need for efficiency, more of them. In the 1950’s, growing up in NY with these services available to all, we still had kids with rickets. Just because the programs are there, there is no guarantee that the dummys will use them, especially if it involves getting up off your ass and actually doing something like making an appointment. Man, you gotta deal with the reality that exists out there, not some hypothetical do good B.S. that’s fine in text books but bears no relation to the real world at Lenox avenue and 141st Street, Cypress Ave and East 136th Street or Gates and Throop Avenues.

        The one thing I really liked about Chairman Mao’s great leap forward and the cultural revolution of 1968 was the concept that you take the academics and give them a sabbatical to the rice paddies every five years or so. Nothing like a little intimate knowledge of how the other half lives.

        Be wary of saying “the majority wants…” I hate most polls because of the wording used. take for example the questions:

        Do you support universal health care ?

        Do you support universal health care if you have to give up your current coverage ?

        Do you support universal health care if it means you and your family may be denied some elective procedures and are forced to wait longer for appointments to see specialists?

        Note that # 2 and #3 are probably more accurate and relevant than # 1 since all governemnt programs have consequences both intended and unintended.

        As my Psych. Statistics Prof used to say “Statistics don’t lie, statisticians do”.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          I agree, it is very easy to manipulate these numbers in polling depending on how the question is worded. My point though is that, at least in theory, the majority of Americans do support either the creation of a public option or universal coverage.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I believe that most American citizens do not actually support a public option or a single-payer system.

            I have yet to see any sort of poll that shows that a majority are in favor of such.

            Also, we are a Republic, and not a Democracy. The Tyrrany of the Majority is something that the founders specifically sought to AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE. So, even if a majority DID in fact favor a public option or a single-payer system, that would still not make it the right thing to do whatsoever.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              That would only be true if a single-payer system represents tyranny or infringed upon the rights of the minority. It does not, despite your claims to the contrary.

              Majority control with respect for minority rights.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                A single-payer system MOST CERTAINLY is tyrranical.

                It is the use of force or the threat of the use of force to get me to pay for something which is someone else’s responsibility.

                That, by definition, is tyrrany.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                In your opinion it is tyrranical. In mine, it is not.

    • A friend asked me the other day if I noticed the last 4-6 weeks or so the number of ads AGAINST ObamaCare which he heard was paid for by insurance companies and big pharm, has radically stopped if not ceased entirely.

      I came up with the simplest explanation – pre existing conditions !!!!!

      That will be the reason and excuse for the insurance co to increase premiums! They will now make even more money. The radical rate increases already by Blue Cross in Ca and other states is just the tip. They knew what could happen so they wanted to get a new higher base to start from ! Pity the smaller insurance co that already didn’t get major increases.

  14. Here’s a view from the left I have on it: No cost controls = higher profits based on the 30,000,000 more customers insurance companies will have for doing nothing more than fighting single payer. This was a complete sellout of the left and because it will cost probably 3x’s what has been projected (like usual), I take another step closer to the opposite side of the political spectrum (Libertarian). If this is what we have to have for a government (both parties), we’re better off with neither.

    I wrote about Kucinich’s sellout on my blog last week:

    Kucinich’s sellout on the sellout … On March 14, Dennis Kucinich (someone I find agreement with on some social issues) had this to say in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: “Absent a strong public option or legal protection for states that wish to pursue single payer, the bill that the president is proposing is a step in the wrong direction. Even with the few modest improvements in the bill, the insurance companies will still have dozens of loopholes to deny care and continue to find ways to leave Americans with the unpayable bill.”

    And then on Wednesday, after getting a nifty ride in Air Force One, Kucinich agreed to vote for what he called a step in the wrong direction.

    He’s not the only one on the Democratic Left (what TK feels is the fugazy left) … Michael Moore joined the chorus as well: “This bill is a joke” but he’s also pushing for it to pass now too. It is a call to arms to defend at all costs (including the left’s self interest) the Obama Administration. Now one really does have to wonder if they think of him as The Savior.

    My question to the blind faithers supporting the Democratic sellout is this: After all the FACTUAL evidence in just the past few years of how Democratic Party legislators admitted to not having read legislation they voted in favor of (i.e., the war(s), the bailouts, this 2700+ page health care bill, etc.), what makes you think that in this piece of legislation, the same party will have done the necessary due diligence to make sure insurance companies won’t find the loopholes Senator Kucinich stated they’ll still have … to deny care and continue to find ways to leave Americans with the unpayable bill?”

    Well, at least they won’t have Ralph Nader to blame for this one.

    Black Flag … you’re starting to win your argument with me …

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    Of course, I offer this with the caveat that I still would not support it myself, because I do not believe the government should have anything whatsoever to do with the provision of healthcare.

    However, I would love to see Buck and Mathius’s objections to the following proposal.

    #1 Do away with all forms of health insurance altogether.

    #2 When a person visits a doctor or goes to a hospital, the doctor or hospital treats the person as needed, and then simply submits a justification for all tests and procedures performed and drugs/prescriptions administered and a bill for said tests and procedures and drugs directly to the government. If treatment requires long-term prescriptions, that is also justified and directly billed to the government.

    #3 The government has each claim reviewed to ensure that the tests, procedures, and prescriptions were all adequate and reasonable. If everything is deemed adequate and reasonable, the government pays the bill directly. If some or all of the tests, procedures, and/or prescriptions are deemed unnecessary, then the government simply denies payment to the doctor for those portions of the bill deemed to be unnecessary. The government could use former insurance experts and actuaries to help determine what is necessary and unnecessary, based upon the doctor’s detailed justifications.

    #4 This is paid for by a flat increase of X% in everyone’s taxes. X would be determined by exactly how much money the government paid out in any given year for healthcare. Rather than being added to the payroll tax (since X would not necessarily be the same from year to year), each person would simply receive a bill for their portion no later than June 30th of the following calendar year, to be paid by the next April 15th. This would ensure that by April 15th of the following year, the government would be fully reimbursed by the people for its healthcare expenditures. The cost of the government administration of the program would be included yearly.

    #5 The ability of the government to deny payment for tests, procedures or drugs deemed unnecessary or inadequately justified by the doctor would lead to a great reduction in expensive and unnecessary tests, procedures, and drug prescriptions.

    #6 The doctor or hospital would have ONE attempt to appeal any denials of payment by the government by providing further justification for the test/treatment/procedure which had been deemed unnecessary.

    Any objections? Since government is FAR more trustworthy and far less greedy than individuals, surely they would make absolutely fair decisions as to what procedures, tests, and drugs were deemed necessary and which were not.

    • Is this sarcasm?

      • It sure feels like sarcasm.

        Sounds good to me though. With one change. I don’t like the flat tax in #4. I’d prefer to make it progressive.

        • I was referring primarily to his last paragraph as sarcasm ! To think that the VA or medicaid bureaucrats and employees are more than just 9-5 employees is ludicrous.

          • Yea, but there might be something to economy of scale, and a standardized system. It might not be the best system, but at least it’s the same system for everyone.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          A flat tax IS PROGRESSIVE.

          1% of your income at $10,000/year is $100.

          1% of your income at 1 million per year is $10,000.

          What isn’t progressive about that?

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Its not progressive because it results in a greater burden to the poorest among us.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Incorrect. It results, percentage-wise, in precisely THE SAME burden upon all.

              Now, you could theoretically argue that the poor are less able than the rich to afford their particular burden, even though their burden is $9,900 less than the rich guy….

              • Buck The Wala says:

                That’s not theoretical – that’s reality.

                Take a 20% tax.

                I make $20K a year; you make $1M a year. This tax results in my living on $16K/year. You live on $800K/year.

                Now let’s take a progressive tax. Let’s say 15% on the guy making $20K and 35% on the guy making $1M:

                $20K guy lives on $17K. $1M guy lives on $650K. See the difference?

              • No, he doesn’t. People on the right are blind to this argument.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                On the right of WHAT Mathius?

                I am neither right nor left, I am simply for freedom.

                What Buck is REALLY saying is that the guy making 20k and the guy making a million should BOTH be forced to live on 20k (the guy making 20k pays nothing and the guy making a million pays 980k of it to the government).

                However, he knows that such complete “equalization” would never actually fly, so he cannot come right out and say that 🙂


                YES BUCK THAT WAS ACTUALLY SARCASM, I know your beliefs are not quite THAT extreme 🙂

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I appreciate the disclaimer.

                I hope others see the sarcasm there as well!

                Ok, now I seriously gotta get back to work…been avoiding it for too long today.

            • Perhaps if EVERYONE had some skin in the game, the government would not have the power over them as they do the ones who pay nothing.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Actually, no, this is not ENTIRELY sarcastic.

        There are only 2 ways of going about paying for healthcare that have any hope in hell of being the least bit efficient.

        Way #1 is a truly, completely free market. If you want the ABSOLUTE BEST price on medical care, pay for it OUT OF POCKET. Just ask your own doctor about this. If he is EVEN REMOTELY HONEST, he will tell you that he will charge you personally FAR LESS out of pocket than he would bill an insurance company. Part of the reason for this is that there is far less paperwork involved if you immediately pay in full for service, and the immediacy of the payment also financially works in the doctor’s favor, so he can charge you less that way.

        Of course, there are MANY medical sevices for which the average person would have no hope of making immediate, out-of pocket payment. For this, a TRUE free-market for health insurance is required. Each person must decide for himself the exact level of insurance which he needs, and there must be sufficient free competition for his business to ensure that the cost of customizeable policies is reasonable for all.

        If you ARE NOT going to go the free-market route, the ONLY alternative that has a hope in hell of being cost effective is to have the doctors directly bill the government and have the government make immediate and direct payment to the doctors.

        Anything in between is just going to be a gigantic, money-wasting boondoggle.

        • “If you ARE NOT going to go the free-market route, the ONLY alternative that has a hope in hell of being cost effective is to have the doctors directly bill the government and have the government make immediate and direct payment to the doctors.”

          Isn’t this how medicare works now?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Not precisely.

            In my scenario, the doctor would bill the government for the actual cost of the procedure, including all associated costs such as operating expenses, overhead, salaries, etc. Of course, the government would probably not allow doctors and hospitals to actually operate at a profit under this scenario, so it would be strictly limited to verifiable, actual costs.

            In the case of Medicaid, the government actively TELLS a doctor what he is ALLOWED to charge for a given procedure, and that is the amount the doctor recieves, REGARDLESS of the actual cost of the procedure. This is the reason that many doctors are refusing new patients with Medicaid, because they are reimbursed less than the cost of a particular procedure every time the procedure is performed for a medicaid patient. The more times the procedure is performed, the more money the doctor LOSES.

            Under my scenario, there would be no medicare, no medicaid, no insurance of any kind, NOTHING.

            Simply doctors billing the government directly for the actual over-all cost of each necessary test, procedure, and prescription.

            If the government mandates specific acceptable charges for specific procedures (as it does with Medicaid), then that would force most health professionals to become used car salesmen instead.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Peter, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the same true of private insurance — private insurance companies negotiate with the doctor as to what they will pay for a given procedure?

              Given the government will pay less through Medicaid, but in principal, isn’t it the same?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                I imagine that the insurance companies do negotiate such agreements.

                However, you will still pay far less out of pocket for ANY procedure compared to what the doctor will bill the insurance company for the same exact procedure as I explained above.

                Of course, the whole issue is further complicated by the fact that the country is so large that costs are not really standardized. The cost of something can vary GREATLY by where you are in the country.

                This is one of the main reasons that this would be far better left to the States as opposed to the Federal Government in my opinion.

                Compare the price of a gallon of milk in Hawaii to the price of a gallon of milk in Indiana….

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I’m not so sure it is far cheaper to pay out of pocket. I feel that would also be a product of negotiation between you and the doctor and the nature of the particular treatment being provided.

              • Buck

                A doctor in my last town stopped taking insurance of any kind, including govt.

                He laid off his overhead staff and cut his billing rate by 50%.

                My current orthopedic docs told me they are at 68% overhead rate with about 40% due to cost to administer insurance, medicaid and medicare. They also said when it hits 70% they are closing the practice and retiring early. Which probably means a cash only business for the very wealthy.

                I personally don’t like Peter’s solution but I hope you see why Congress is chasing after the wrong damn rabbits.

  16. Mathius,

    RE: your hypothetical “kill child, end disease”

    Your first, and most deadly, fallacy – you are horrifically misusing an hypothetical.

    You are using your hypothetical as a PROOF to justify an action.

    You are using a FANTASY as a PROOF to justify REAL ACTION of violence.

    • Mathius,

      Next, do not extend the killing to “some child”.

      Think this, instead.

      “If it was YOUR wife and YOUR children, would YOU kill them for the benefit of another (or two or twenty or twenty thousand?).”

      • of course it’s harder when it’s your own family, that’s why society has to make the call.

        Think: are you ok with people paying for X? What if you have to pay? See where I’m going with this?

        • Mathius,

          What right does society have to make that call?

          All human action is ultimately individual.

          If you cannot kill your own family, then what right do you have to kill my family?

        • Mathius,

          Re: Other people paying “X”

          It is not my business what other people pay or not.

          I do not look into another persons wallet to determine MY rightful action!

          I look into MY wallet to figure out what I will do!

        • v. Holland says:

          You use an analogy of the harshness of reality to justify killing innocent people but you refuse to look at reality when it comes to social programs and their effect on our Country based on a moral stand. I am totally confused by your stance.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The baby was really dirty, so I gave him a bath. After that, the bathwater was really dirty… and the baby was soaking in the dirty bathwater.

          Because the baby and the bathwater were now BOTH dirty, I threw out the baby with the bathwater.


  17. I’m really glad USW made this point- “You literally have to read roughly 20,000 pages of US Code and previous law to even understand what they are talking about in that 2700 pages.”

    Way back when, I attempted to read a few sections in order to prove or dis-prove some talking points. Wow – you had to have complete access to lexis/nexis or all bills ever submitted in congress to even get a hint of what it is saying. THERE is NO way, congress knows what is really in the bill, just that by passing it, they know they have the power to make more and more changes. Is social security and medicare / medicaid the same now as when they originally passed it?

  18. A Puritan Descendant says:

    My 2 cents >

    Something else I think gets missed in some of this healthcare debate. Healthcare in America has a lot to offer a patient, even heart transplants. It is expensive.

    People have high expectations and demand they have access to what today’s healthcare has to offer.

    If tomorrow a Pill was created, which when ingested added 30 years to your life, this pill would be of great demand! If this pill cost 1 million dollars to produce and only the rich could afford it, would it not be demanded by the poor for free? Or wouldn’t they want insurance to cover it at low cost? Wouldn’t Nancy Pelosi demand it be covered?

    Today’s regulations on health insurance does not allow for much freedom in how policies are written. I would prefer not to pay for coverage for a Million dollar Pill or a heart transplant. I would prefer to die first. With less regulations Insurance companies could be free to write a policy that I would not mind paying for. As for people who want the heart transplant, or magic million dollar pill coverage, let them pay the HUGE premium without my help.

    Health care costs could come down if we all did not expect and demand so much.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      In Methusula’s Children (Robert A. Heinlein) there was a small segment of the population which suddenly had immensely long life-spans relative to everyone else. This was basically the result of a human breeding experiment.

      Of course, all of the long-lifers were forced to flee the planet because all of the ephemerals were convinced that they had access to some great medical secret which they were refusing to share with the rest of the people. This of course made the long-lifers “traitors against humanity” because they were monopolizing this supposed secret for themselves.

      Relations between the long-lifers and the ephemerals only normalized after extensive medical research by the ephemerals resulted in them uncovering some actual medical secrets which resulted in them being able to have comparable longjevity.

      There is an interesting lesson to be learned from this.

  19. Mathius,
    “at least it’s the same system for everyone.”

    Are you serious? OMG !! I recall that was a standard talking point in the USSR. But wasn’t even close – only those connected got the good care ! Look at the situation in the UK.

    I thought you were in IT? There is no way that you would be successful in IT and think that way !!(if you are and you write well so I expect so)

    When you are asked for example to build an accounting system, you just say sure I’ll do it and after a few minutes thinking about it, sit down and design a system and code it. Right ?? I bet not !!

    You’d 1st see what other accounting systems were out there, evaluated the good and bad points, and hopefully build on that previous experience and create an application that was better for your clients !@!

    • I work for a hedge fund, but I write a lot of code to automate things that we do.

      But, if I’m honest, I really do like to just start typing code and see what comes out, then plug the holes later on. You’d be stunned at how effective I am at this. (Unlike the government, I don’t need committee approval to make changes)

      • So you don’t bother to see if you’re doing the same as a hedge fund that failed or maybe you learn from techniques that from successful hedge funds ?

        • No, I use my near-godlike skills (seriously, if there’s anyone who even approaches me in this, I haven’t met them) and I just automate my job. Then, I help out my co-workers to automate their jobs. I don’t have to know what anyone else does in a different company. I just have to know what you were doing manually and find a way to make the computer do it instead.

          Whether what they were doing before was a good method or not, I don’t concern myself. They say it should do A, B, C, then I make it do A, B, C. But a computer does it faster and more reliably than any human.

          • Mathius,

            You sound just like a programmer who recently transfered out of our department. He’s 27 and sounds just like you. EVERYONE in my department was very happy to see him go. We laugh at the poor schmucks in his new department and joke around at the crap he said to us just to prove his superior intellect and programming ability.

            Thanks for a laugh, Mathius.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Don’t criticize or laugh at the awesome power of Mathius’ programming.

            • Cyndi, you are a meanie.

              I’ll tell you what. Just because I’m such a nice guy, I’ll help you out if you ever need anything automated in excel or outlook (I don’t feel like getting involved in anything more complicated than that unless you ask really nicely).

              To this day (years later), people from my old jobs still call me up to ask advice and lament how they have to do so much stuff manually that could just be the push of a button.

              So how ’bout it? What do you do every day the same way that annoys you that you think a well written piece of code could do? Offer going once.. twice…?

              • I don’t work with the decommutators other than to get said signal to said decomm. That’s pretty much all I can to disclose.

                Our former programmer is very talented, everyone agrees. Everyone also agrees that working with him is not exactly a pleasure.

              • Programmers are a strange breed. But we are not all unpleasant. Some, like myself, are just very odd.

              • We refer to ours as “Freak Show”. LOL!

          • Interestingly you ignore or miss the point twice now. To ignore and not to learn from others is a sign of great ignorance.

            I’m really disappointed that Obama met my expectations. I was hoping to be wrong. He had the opportunity to incorporate real change in health care but as many have said he really just wanted the power.

            Not to evaluate and learn from the EU, Canada, Massachusetts and many other states who have implemented bits and pieces, is outlandish incompetence.

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I see that there are a few people who I would characterize as “on the left” that are attempting to argue by “moral obligation” again.

    As we have fully, logically, and cogently demonstrated in the past, the concept of “moral obligation” is a logical fallacy.

    Because the concept has been thoroughly debunked in the past on this very site many times, I have not felt the obligation to respond to any posts whatsoever which are attempting to argue for this on the basis of the fallacy of “moral obligation”.

    • PeterB – I’ve erased two such responses myself. The old let me pull your moral obligation strings. We’ve just witnessed some of the most immoral behavior ever and yet, they want to talk morals. Spare me.

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Someone please SPECIFICALLY define for me the following things:

    #1 What is an ACCEPTABLE level of care?

    #2 Should everyone, regardless of income be LIMITED to this acceptable level of care, or should those who can afford it be allowed to have BETTER care? Seems to me it would be UNFAIR if people are allowed to have different levels of care based on their ability to pay, no?

    #3 What is an acceptable level of cost for the above-clearly-defied acceptable level of care? If someone is so sick or injured that this acceptable level of cost for acceptable care would be breached, what is that person’s recourse? Are they allowed cost over-runs? If so, how are such cost over-runs paid for and by whom?

    #4 What is an acceptable average life-span for a human being? If a particular person lives beyond this acceptable average life-span, then would they be denied further care? If not, then who would pay for it and how would it be paid for?

    In order to keep costs under control and keep them from exploding exponentially, you MUST provide clear definitions of these things and provide clear cut-offs. In the absence of clear definitions and clear cut-offs, run-away costs are completely unavoidable I am afraid.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Gee, no responses to these key, crucial questions from any “government health proponents” yet… why does that not surprise me???

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Oh, and by the way, don’t go with the old, tired, “we as a society have to decide these things” because I will throw the BS flag and assess you a 15 yard penalty.

      It is not “we as a society” that decide jack shit. The government decides, period. So if YOU were in charge of the government, where would YOU say the limits should be set on these things?

      Still anxiously awaiting straight answers….

      • Peter: I think you know why. These are the questions that reqire a definite answer which is something that cannot be answered by them because everything is theory to them not reality. So they hide.

  22. Good morning, all. I had been called to the border the last 10 days to set up procedures to help stem the growing violence there. Back for a little while and writing my article on Immigration with new stats to provide. It should be ready for next week.

    Now….on to health care. It is no secret that health care, to me, is not a right but since that has been taken away with the latest vote, there is no sense in arguing that now. I am not a collective greater good person. I guess that the next step is everyone will have a “right” to drive a Lexus and live in a tax supported 5,000 square foot home without paying for it.

    But on to the “good” aspects as Buck wishes to put it.

    First, I wonder if anyone noticed that the cost limitations on the “evil” insurance companies were eliminated from the bill and are not in the reconciliation. So, let us proceed.

    #1 End to pre-existing conditions. Sounds good on the surface and a great talking point. Ok, If I were an insurance company, then, since the cost limitations have been eliminated, my decision is to say….cool…I will accept your pre-existing condition and here is your premium for doing so. Sorry that it has increased 50% but I do have to cover costs to cover your pre-existing condition….by the way, board of directors, let us raise the premiums on everybody to cover the “possible” pre-existing conditions. By the way, our stock rises the minute it is signed into law….no…wait…the stocks have already risen.


    #2 Small business’ (50 or less)get a 50% tax credit for covering employee premiums. Hmmmm…I am a small business man with 75 employees named United Widget. I think that I will drop my coverage now and split my company into two separate companies (United Widget of Texas and United Widget of Oklahoma) to get under the 50 employee rule and negotiate separate contracts. If I reside in the same state, the holding company rules allow you to create as many profit centers as you want and put employees in different corporations under the holding company and the same management govern each corporation. So, you can now negotiate health agreements for each individual company and create a non existent profit margin while utilizing the depreciation rules and losses for each under the holding company. There is no incentive for me to go to the insurance company as a whole now… I can get a tax credit and Buck will pick up the 50% of my tab….cool.


    #3 Closing the donut hole for seniors in medicare drug coverage. Hmmmm….since there is no penalty for opting out of medicare…why not? Cool…I choose not to be in medicare. Buck, et al, gets to pick up the tab. As a senior myself and opting to carry supplemental insurance, it will not affect me, since I have an alternative to medicare….how many seniors do not have that option.


    #4 Carrying the kiddos to age 27. Ok, I am the insurance company and there is no penalty or cost containment…here is your premium. Oh…by the way, board of directors, let’s raise the premiums to everybody that do not have kids to further cover costs and increase our profits. There is no penalty for doing so and no cost containment. Look…our stocks are rising again.

    #5 Covering pre-existing conditions when changing insurance. See #1


    #6 Ban on lifetime caps. Ok by me, if I were an insurance company with no limitations or restrictions. Just raise the premiums.


    #7 Mandatory preventative care with no copay? See # 1, 5, 6…. take your pick.


    #8 End of recissions? Same song fifth verse of # 1.


    #9 Transparency in Insurance companies? Wow…you are going to force a public company to reveal their balance sheet? Oh, wait…quarterly reports already do that. Transparency from a government that does not do transparency…how ironic. AND…so what if they list their costs…what are you going to do about it….without competition across state lines….you have no choices.

    #10. Customer appeals process. Wow….you are going to force an insurance company to appeal to a human and health resource board that has no power to regulate premiums? See # 1…or sing the chorus.


    #11. Taxing indoor tanning salons….not even worth a comment. What the hell is this? Oh…they can’t tax the sun……yet.

    Inflationary? and who the hell goes to them?

    #12. Medicare expansion into rural areas. Hmmmmmmm….so far the only thing that makes a little bit of sense…..but…who will man this? A private hospital will most likely opt out of medicaid and medicare….at least I hear that is probably what is going to happen. There is talk of it here. That would put the burden on the public health hospitals. As a doctor, I have no obligation, moral or ethically, to accept medicaid or medicare.

    Inflationary? Lack of medical coverage?

    #13. Enhance fraud and abuse checks. This should be done anyway….I wonder what enhancement means? Government and IRS interference?

    #14. Deductions for Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Interesting. Let me see if I understand this. A non profit organization is going to be allowed certain deductions without any oversight of the administrative costs. That was taken out of the bill specifically for Blue Cross…perhaps to get their endorsement?

    Inflationary? Bribe?

    #15. Nutrient disclosure. You gotta love this one. Let me see….I have to have labels that tell me that I will get fat? I need the government to tell me what is healthy and unhealthy. Unfriggin’ believable. Ok…so I am a food manufacturer that now needs to label everything. I will just pass that cost along to you.


    #16. TEMPORARY programs for companies to provide health coverage for early retirees. Ummmm….temporary? What is to prevent a company from eliminating early retirement options? There is nothing to prevent a company from raising the copay of insurance to employees.


    Hoo boy….this is going to be interesting to watch. But the damage is done and the socialist foothold is there. The real cost is coming four to ten years down the road. The dice have been rolled craps is looming.

    Buck…I know you say that this has not gone far enough, but do you, in reality, think that the premiums are going to fall? As of today, I want to see those that do not have health care go get it. Where is it available? the only thing that will occur in the next year is premium increase. There is no competition and no public option and neither are in the reconciliation for to do so, it will have to go back to the house and I do not think that is going to happen. The only thing that occurred today is a raising of taxes and premiums.

    The mandate that everyone get it is a constitutional issue that does not past the smell test. But even if the mandate sticks when is the health coverage available? You are going to penalize those that do not have it but they are not going to be able to pay for it anyway. reconciliation is not going to address anything…..even if there is reconciliation. I think Health care is over as far as the President is concerned. I hope that I am wrong.

    • D13 – Glad to see you are back; was getting worried as every night there were Texas border stories on the news. Will be interested in hearing what you’ve been up to.

    • Ditto to Kathy’s response.

      Home run for your post.

    • #11. Taxing indoor tanning salons….not even worth a comment. What the hell is this? Oh…they can’t tax the sun……yet.

      Inflationary? and who the hell goes to them?

      People in the North go to them. Some people do year round. Personally I am not attaracted to the orange people in january.

  23. I think this sums it up pretty well. Leave it to us Colonels to put things into perspective. Cut and pasted by D13. I cannot take any credit for these words but they are interesting.

    21 March 2010
    Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Retired)

    “The Lesson of Phidippides”

    Greetings Wheels on the Road (WOTR) readers, fellow South Floridians, and all Americans, time for another monthly political assessment. It is 11pm Sunday night, the first weekend of March Madness and my two teams, University of Tennessee and Kansas State University, survived and shall move onto the coveted “Sweet 16”. It is also the evening when our US House of Representatives stand ready to make a decision with immense ramifications for our Republic, the healthcare reform vote….another form of March Madness.

    For whatever reason, I began the think about endurance. I pondered enduring the grueling 40 minutes of an NCAA tournament basketball game and how fantastic it must be for the University of Northern Iowa in beating #1 Kansas. I also considered how our America will endure what will certainly be a fateful decision soon to be made in the late hours of night.
    As a former Army Commander, we always told our Soldiers that nothing good ever happens after 2300 hours (11pm for you civilians).

    The theme of endurance led me to recall one of my favorite maxims, “the race is not given to the swiftest, but to he that endures to the end”. Therefore I remembered the Man for whom the Olympic distance race was named, the Greek Soldier Phidippides. If I may set the stage, in 490 BC the great Persian Empire sought to expand their territory and move into Europe, under King Darius I. They landed a huge army in Greece, city-states who created the first ideals of democracy, just outside of Athens on the open plains of Marathon.

    Athens was incredibly outnumbered and sought the assistance of the warrior city-state, Sparta. Sparta was some 140 miles away and the Athenian Generals chose a professional runner, Phidippides for the task. History records that he covered the 140 mile distance in 36 hours only to be told that the Spartans would not immediately support Athens due to a religious observance. Phidippides then ran back to deliver the horrifying news and afterwards, joined the Athenian Army to prepare for battle.

    Outnumbered some 4 to 1, the Athenians launched a brilliant surprise attack and slew some 7000 Persians to minimal losses for their force. The Persians withdrew to the sea and embarked south to conduct a direct attack on Athens. The Generals again called upon Phidippides to run the 26 mile distance from Marathon to Athens informing them of the victory and the impending threat.
    Phidippides rose to the challenge, after the trek to Sparta and back, and having fought in full hoplite heavy armor. Going past the normal limits of human endurance, he reached Athens, delivered the message, and died shortly thereafter from fatigue. In America we are now in an ideological race for the soul of our Republic. We oft time believe we are heavily outnumbered and it seems as though there is no support. The healthcare legislation which will certainly pass violates the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic in every way. The voices of the American people are being cast aside for special interests such as unions and other deals for respective members of the House and Senate.

    We know that our honored Senior citizens will be severely affected by the cuts to Medicare, regardless of what the liberal progressive spin may be. And in my State of Florida where there is a large retirement community, what shall happen when we see a growing loss of medical professionals?

    We will see an incredible increase in taxes immediately while none of the “so called needed reform programs” begin until the years of 2013 and beyond. We will see a huge increase in the federal bureaucracy, especially the IRS which will now be empowered to penalize Americans not succumbing to unconstitutional mandates. And how can anyone explain, or comprehend, an American government ordering its citizens to purchase health insurance? And this is supposed to punish those evil insurance companies?

    And even in this legislation there was a proposal to make the federal government the sole source for college education loans, totally unrelated. At a time when our economy is suffering and Americans are out of work, our Representatives will burden its producing citizens with more heinous taxation. Yes, we need healthcare reform but it must be done within the American principles which respect and cherish liberty and free market solutions. Just as the Persians sought to conquer Greece and enslave their human will which was rooted in liberty and freedom, so we have entered into this ideological battle, race, in America. And in this race we, American citizens, must have the endurance of Phidippides to answer the call and stand.
    Regardless of what seems to be an adversary that is all powerful and outnumbering us, we have to be bold. However we must be competent in taking actions which allow us to regain and retain the initiative. It is a long march to the 2d of November but we must not grow weary as future generations of Americans are depending on us…just the same as in Greece. The ideological race in which we are embroiled, if lost, will relegate America to nothing more than an advanced debtor Nation. We will become a Nation whose foreign policy will be dictated because we will have lost any moral high ground. We will find ourselves more vulnerable to external and internal security threats because the liberal progressives seek a domestic agenda which makes us weaker.

    I am reminded of a great quote, “We are either a unified people, or we are not. If the former, let us in all matters of general concern act as a Nation which has national objects to promote, and a National character to support. If we are not let us no longer act the farce by pretending to it”- George Washington, November 30, 1785.

    My challenge to each of you is simple, run the race of endurance for America and its principles, not faltering. Let us lay aside every weight and burden which so easily ensnare each of us and run with endurance the ideological race that is set before us. We can remember the lesson of Phidippides but not finish in exhaustion but as those who run the modern day Marathon and win, receiving the wreath of Victory upon our heads. In the end Greece defeated the Persian invasion not once but twice enabling the democratic ideals and principles they had borne to spread into Europe…and eventually to a fledgling Country called America.
    In closing, remember the words of Thomas Paine in December 1776 after a series of early defeats for the Continental Army, “These are the times which try men’s souls. The summer Soldier and the sunshine Patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his Country; but he that stands now deserves the love and thanks of men and women”. Join me and run this race, stand on the battlefield for America ensuring its future and legacy.

    Steadfast and Loyal!
    LTC A B West (USA, Ret)

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      That man could be our next President!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        He greatly surpasses the maximum IQ and common sense quotient requirement for the job unfortunately.

        Anyone who is actually QUALIFIED to be a politician is too smart and has far too much sense to actually BE a politician.

        Yet ANOTHER reason why I do not vote. All candidates are inherently UNQUALIFIED for the positions which they hope to acquire, so all applications must perforce be rejected.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Here is his blog. he may be selling himself short running for congress.


          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Every once in a great while, a person with actual qualifications does run for “high office”. There are 4 possible outcomes of this action:

            1. Good guy defeated in primary.

            2. Good guy defeated in general election.

            3. Good guy elected, succumbs to the “system” and ends up as corrupt as most of the rest.

            4. Good guy elected, fights against the system, and becomes mightily frustrated at his inability to actually accomplish anything whatsoever.

            Every once in an Aeon or so, good guy might get elected, fight the system, and actually win, but that is about as rare as a field-mouse on the moon unfortunately.

            • v. Holland says:

              Very rare, if people who recognize he’s a good guy refuse to vote.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I refuse to vote even if there is a “good guy” running, because the only statistically possible outcomes even if a “good guy” gets elected are #3 and #4, because the system is no longer free (if it ever was to begin with).

            • Peter, my Super Bowl beaten friend, your point #3 has me moving toward Libertarian …

              3. Good guy elected, succumbs to the “system” and ends up as corrupt as most of the rest.

              Where Black Flag’s argument is making more and more sense. I’ve been taking that dopey quiz at the Libertarian site and coming up 6 out of 7 Libertarian and 1 centrist but I know it’s just a cursory examination.

              Anyway, #3 just seems to be the case (when we can find a good guy–no matter how one is defined). In the meantime it’s a rigged deck and everyone is probably best watching out for themselves.

    • I’d like to hear Matt or Buck respond to this post.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Not much to respond to – a lot of empty rhetoric. His entire point can really be summed up in two or three sentences — this bill is unconstitutional, at least by way of its mandates (In actuality there are valid arguments that it is perfectly constitutional), and this bill fails to conform to his views of fundamental American principles (Again, there are competing views here).

        Either way he is entitled to his opinions.

  24. v. Holland says:

    Question-saw a video this morning that said the AG would lose the court case over the Constitutionality of the insurance mandate based on the Supremacy Clause, can anyone expand on this?

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I heard something like that to. Meaning Federal supremacy over states rights. My first thought is that it is more left wing BS

      • v. Holland says:

        I can see where some of the laws or whatever the states are passing to try and protect themselves from this monstrosity might be over turned by the Supremacy clause if the mandate is found to be constitutional but I don’t understand what the supremacy clause has to do with the constitutionality of the mandate.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      This quote from Allen B. West in D13’s post is exactly how I feel about the mandate. >

      “And how can anyone explain, or comprehend, an American government ordering its citizens to purchase health insurance?”

      • v. Holland says:

        Their trying to be pragmatic, 🙄 I give them a facepalm.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I have heard the argument that REQUIRING people to carry health care insurance is perfectly ok, because the government already requires people to carry automobile insurance, and that has already been established to be ok.

        However, this argument is fallacious. EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE (not the Federal Government) decides whether to require auto insurance or not. EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE determines the minimum requirement for auto insurance (if any), and, most importantly, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR YOU TO OWN AN AUTOMOBILE. If you do not own a car, truck van, SUV, etc, then you are not required to have auto insurance!! Plenty of people that live in big cities do not even own a car! If they go on a trip, they rent a car, and pay for insurance at that time.

        The health insurance mandate is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. It is mandated by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (not individual states), and you do not have an option not to own your own body (although I suppose you could sell it to the government as an indentured servant at this point), so there is no way to opt out of the mandate.

        Because it is federal and there is no way to opt out, it is indeed unconstitutional.

        • Buck The Wala says:


          You did a great job of explaining the differences between this mandate and that of automobile insurance, but you failed to explain why that renders this mandate unconstitutional. Likewise, anyone making the argument that this is constitutional simply because mandatory automobile insurance is constitutional also misses the point – the two are different situations. One does not make the other constitutional nor unconstitutional.

          The sheer fact that it is the federal government imposing this requirement does not make it unconstitutional. Likewise, the sheer fact that there is no way to opt out does not make it unconstitutional.

          Build on your argument — why is it unconstitutional for the federal government to impose such a mandate? I of course do not believe this to be unconstitutional, but I would be interested in hearing your analysis.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            It is unconstitutional simply because the Federal Government cannot, under the Constitution, mandate that the free people of the country be REQUIRED BY FORCE OF LAW to purchase any particular good or service, regardless of the nature of that particular good or service.

            Simply put, according to the restrictions placed upon the Federal Government under the Constitution, the Federal Government simply does not have the power or the authority to impose such a mandate.

            • Buck The Wala says:
              • Missing Texas says:

                I don’t see how the interstate commerce clause would apply. I only live in one state (CA), I only have 4 choices in companies to purchase insurance from–based on the legislative rules set by the State of CA–so please tell me how this is interstate commerce, when I don’t live across state lines, the state legislature doesn’t regulate across state lines, and the insurance companies are not allowed to sell across state lines?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Economic activity which in the aggregate impacts interstate commerce.

                It doesn’t matter that your specific purchase is confined to one state; in the aggregate it affects international commerce.

              • v. Holland says:

                Their not talking about regulating commerce, they are talking about forcing you to participate in commerce. Doesn’t one have to actually participate before something can be regulated.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Not necessarily.

                There are valid interpretations of this on both sides. I’m just saying that it isn’t as clear cut as you may believe.

                Also, if it fits under the power to tax, we can ignore any commerce clause issues (and vice versa – you only need it to be constitutional under one provision).

              • v. Holland says:


                Hide links within definitionsShow links within definitions
                A fee charged (“levied”) by a government on a product, income, or activity. If tax is levied directly on personal or corporate income, then it is a direct tax. If tax is levied on the price of a good or service, then it is called an indirect tax. The purpose of taxation is to finance government expenditure. One of the most important uses of taxes is to finance public goods and services, such as street lighting and street cleaning. Since public goods and services do not allow a non-payer to be excluded, or allow exclusion by a consumer, there cannot be a market in the good or service, and so they need to be provided by the government or a quasi-government agency, which tend to finance themselves largely through taxes. Don’t see where this can be classified as a tax.

              • USWeapon says:

                But not the power to force commerce Buck. Big difference between having a say in interstate commerce and forcing people to have commerce when they don’t want to.

  25. USWeapon says:

    To all but specifically as a response to Buck from above,

    I understand that no one is arguing for computers or pets as a necessity that government is obligated to provide. But we are not that far from this happening in today’s America.And that is the core of the problem in America.

    When you decide that your core is that society is obligated to provide a certain level of living standard for people, you have no way to set a concrete line in the sand where need ends and want begins. I can make a solid argumet that computers are a necessity today. I can make a solid argument that a vehicle is a necessity today. I can make a solid case that many things are a need. But since we cannot stop the list from ever expanding, we are obligated to not attempt to go down that path. Two thoughts for me go with this…

    First. The mistake that you make, in my opinion, is that you start from a core that is deeply flawed. When you start from a core principle where you feel that you can justify forcing someone to commit their property to what YOU believe that they should commit to, you have fallen into the trap. I know that I am wasting my time saying this because you aren’t going to change your core belief until the day it results in a vast negative impact to you personally. That will happen one day. I will be right here to accept you back to the liberty team 😉

    Second. If you are so eager to ensure that the “basic level” is met for all, then why are you not willing to settle for JUST providing that? Why is it that you feel the right thing to do is negatively impact EVERYONE in order to positively impact the few? A basic level of health care was provided to every person in America the entire time. No one is turned away from an ER. You know that. But let’s go a little further and say that I accept your concept that every America should have more than that, preventative care, etc. Why then do you believe that the right way to accomplish that is to negatively impact everyone else? We could, for far less money than we are spending on this mostrosity, provide a basic level of care for all 30 million that don’t have it (a number I still dispute). And we could do so without all these other things that are in the bill. For example:

    Want pre-existing conditions covered? Fine. Then have government write a bill and sell it to the American people that is basically a tax that pays for government to create an insurance plan for anyone denied private market alternatives because of pre-existing conditions. A fairly simply solution. Yet, instead, the government decided the better plan was to force private companies to do what the government isn’t willing to do. Why do you think that is?

    There are plenty of answers that did not get a voice. And the solution offered instead is a vastly complex and over-reaching plan that is set up at its core to first decimate the private markets and then will later be the only viable option remaining. Yet you claim it is the bill of the intellectual party. If that is so, then why were the most common sense answers ignored and the most risky or intrusive included? The party of intellect certainly didn’t do that by accident. After all they are 11 points higher than us silly liberty seekers. You actually trust these asshats. That is your mistake.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      USW, you raise some good points. I’ll answer them briefly as I just got a pile of work and can’t be goofing off anymore today!

      I am extremely eager to ensure everyone has a basic level of care, and I am willing to settle for providing that to everyone. However, everyone having access to the ER does not meet that basic level of care. It is counterproductive and extremely ineffecient causing everyone to pay more. Part of basic care includes having access to affordable preventative care.

      As for pre-existing conditions, I don’t believe your solution actually resolves the problem. Take pre-existing condition coverage. You argue for simply providing a government plan that only accepts those with such conditions. That is not cost effective – your solution forces the government to pay for only those most at risk or most in need of expensive treatments. Without having ‘healthy’ people on a plan there can be no ‘risk spreading’. Forcing private companies to accept those with preexisting conditions is not the best solution (remember, I am for universal coverage), however it goes further to spread risk and reduce costs over all.

      I don’t trust these asshats. I believe they completely sacrificed their principles on this bill. The only reason I support this bill is because I also believe that, despite its flaws in not going far enough, it is better than what we currently have. The Dems always shoot themselves in the foot. They seem completely incapabable of sticking on message and following through. The GOP consistently has them beat on this front – they are experts on staying on message.

      For proof take a close look at the final bill. It is much closer to the GOP plan than it is to the Dem plan based on campaign promises and rhetoric. Yet not a single Republican voted for this plan. If no Republican was going to vote for this plan anyway, why didn’t the Dems push through with their original proposal? Why is there no public option? Because the Dems cannot enjoy shooting themselves in the foot!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        You cannot seriously believe that the democrats (or ANY politician) sacrificed their principles on this bill.

        THEY HAVE NO PRINCIPLES TO SACRIFICE. And no, that is NOT sarcasm. They may CLAIM to have principles, but in reality, they have NONE.

        Once you learn this, you may finally be able to snatch the pebble from my hand and leave the monastery.

      • But they have no problem shooting 300 million of their fellow citizens in the foot. Why? Because they didn’t even include themselves in the bill. Ridiculous

  26. I'm learning! says:

    If you want to see what track our government is on for the “health and well being of America”, read the book I am currently reading. It’s by Byron Richards – Fight for Your Health – Exposing the FDA’s betrayal of America. This book was written in 2005-2006. It actually talks about the 5 – 10 year plan in place by our government about American health care and how they plan to control it. Interesting, things are written 5 years ago are falling into place. It even mentions in the book about how Homeland Security will eventually define a terrorist as any American who disagrees with the government’s plan. Sound familiar anyone? Anyone who speaks out against it can be harassed because health care and national defense can be connected through the threat of biological weapons.

    Why are there so many cases of ADHD being diagnosed lately? What is in ADHD medicines and what are their true side effects. Do you know what fluoride really does to our bones and how much is really considered safe? Do you realize that the when we established the department of Homeland Security, at the last minute there was legislation added to protect Eli Lilly from lawsuits from people who have reactions from thimerosal – a very controversial mercury based additive in most immunization. Funny – Eli Lilly’s CEO was on the advisory committee for establishing Homeland Security.

    Many people have aliments by no fault of their own. Want to know why? FDA approves the medications that cause them. I saw it first hand with a family member who was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. He was also taking a mood altering medicine and eventually had some sores that would not heal. Discovered that it is a side effect of the drug and he quit taking it. His diabetes suddenly disappeared also. Our doctors are being trained to doctor by numbers. Statin drugs, high blood pressure medicines, anti depressants – all have side effects causing more medical conditions. They don’t appear immediately, but it takes a toll on our bodies. Meanwhile, FDA is doing all it can to suppress more natural methods of medicine. Why? You can’t make any money as a pharmaceutical company if you don’t have to treat a long term chronic disease.

    (sarcastic) Yea, I want our government having more control over what I can do to take care of my health. Don’t you? Check out their website – http://www.truthinwellness.com

    • Hi I’m Learning,

      Is there any mention of using the new health care system as a means of popluation reduction? I suspect that is the ultimate goal given how indebted the Ds are to Big Green. BTW, Big Green feels the planet is very overpopulated with human vermin, especially white ones.

      • I'm learning! says:

        Yes, talking about how Dr Offices will become a large clinical trial for new and unproven drugs. How the government plans to have the DNA of every American on file, profiling a new eugenics for the 21st century. It parallels many things happening now like during the time of Hitler. We will have no recourse against the drug companies if we have problems with the drugs we are given. Eventually the plan is to plant a computer chip in everyone. It will have your medical information included for ease of treatment no matter where you are. Of course, you will be able to be found via GPS if needed also.

        It already talks about how homeless and prisoners are used in clinical trial for that reason. It also talks about controlling population in the world. Listing what countries are targeted for population reduction and how governments and many corporations are accomplishing it.

        I need to re-read this book because my brain is on information overload right now. But yes, there is a quite a bit of information on that topic.

        • I’d like to see that list of countries. I suspect they’re all governed by Leftists…

          • I'm learning! says:

            Countries of most concern:
            India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thiland, The Phillipines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil and Columbia.

            • I’m going to get that book…

              Interesting about Philipines. They’re supposed to have very good and affordable care.

        • Dale Albrecht says:

          With the new Immigration Reform Act proposed by Chuck Schumer (D) and Lindsey Graham (R) each man women and child, citizen or not will be required to provide samples so biometric data can be embedded in your work card. If anyone has a misconceived notion that this will be kept confidential in the Social Security Adminstration only, you are crazy.

      • I'm learning! says:

        Next open mic day (if I am lucky enough to have a light day like today – which hasn’t happened for quite a while), I will post something about his other book I am reading – the Leptin Diet. I have tried and failed too many diets but what he wrote is interesting. And what he has written I have seen firsthand with others. So, I am trying some of his methods. He is a nutritionist who truly believes that while sometimes you need medication, you need to take care of things as naturally as possible. Our bodies are not designed to live in a “food is available 24/7 world” and that is where most of our health issues come from. I will summarize some of what I have read and tried. But I don’t want to hijack today’s discussion so I will try and get back out here during an open mic day. But I am typing some of it up today so if it gets busy, maybe I can just post and check back periodically. But check his website. He is very informative.

        • USWeapon says:

          Open Mic gets posted tonight! I look forward to hearing about it! I am intrigued with the concept of our bodies not being set up for 24/7 availability of food. What kind of reactions are caused by this?

      • Dale Albrecht says:

        Sure….people say how great the European health system is and how long people live. The problem is that it is to expensive to maintain. The proof is in that the European people’s have a negative birth rate. Isn’t that population reduction. The only growth in population is by the “guest workers” and illegals and those that are an antithesis to their culture. Here at least all our segements of population still are positively growing.

        We also have to look no further to the financial crisis and reactions by the state workers in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy and the complete rejection this past weekend by the French voters of any attempt to reduce entitlements by electing communists and socialist to parliment.

    • Dale Albrecht says:

      Years ago my wife was diagnosed with a degenerative neurological disease. The head of the University of Vermont’s neurology department said that it would be fatal in less than 4 years. We wanted a second opinion and they refused. We out of our own pocket found a research team at Mass General who were interested in the case. Just by reading the her medical records they broke down the probable causes of the percieved disease. However in their summary and recommendations they said that the hospital had poisoned her with the pharmaceuticals (all FDA approved) They recommended to cease at once all medications and they bet all symtoms would be gone as soon as her body flushed them out. That was twenty five years ago and she has had NO reoccurrance of this fatal disease.

    • Dale Albrecht says:

      I am sure you have noticed that the FDA took a flawed and incomplete analysis on heart disease and changed completely the way our food is put together. The net result has been a sick nation with diabetes running rampant. Has this US government regulatory agency ever claimed any culpability for their actions or held liable.

      My health insurance is a very good package. There is no co-payment. However, you pay out of pocket the first 1200 dollars each year. I am pushing 60 years old and my total out of pocket expenditures over the past 4 years has been $325.00

      If I can not read the labels on my food, in such a manner of plain speaking simply, as milk, egg, flour etc. I do not buy it. If I have to open any of my chemical compounds books from college, I do not buy it. Actually most of the compounds did not exist 40 years ago.

      My family with very rare exception have had very long and healthy lives. This I believe is directly related to eating mostly home grown foods. They ate very little processed store bought foods. My grandmother just passed away at 102 years old. All her sisters lived well into their late ninties and all but two of her seven brothers lived until into their mid to late nineties and one is still living. They also had a practice of staying away from doctors and hospitals.

  27. A Puritan Descendant says:

    The latest Fox News poll finds that 79 percent of voters think it’s possible the economy could collapse, including large majorities of Democrats (72 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and independents (80 percent).


  28. TexasChem says:


    How would you categorize health care then?

    [Right / Privilege / Responsibility / Other]

    I have the RIGHT to choose my Health Care because I have the PRIVILEGE of living in the nation that has/HAD the greatest healthcare system in the world!It is MY RESPONSIBILITY to provide for myself and my families financial and health needs.It is indeed a Fact that People do not want to work just to pay taxes to Uncle Sam, and to be told by OTHER’s how much profit they can make!

    • TexasChem says:

      Perhaps Buck you can relate to this story.

      My 7 year old daughter tells my 11 year old son all the time, “You’re not the Boss of me!”

    • Buck The Wala says:

      TC, I appreciate that – put a smile on my face.

      But in all actuality, how would you characterize healthcare?

    • Please list the metrics you are using for “greatest healthcare system in the world”. As someone who lives in the UK and has lived in the US, Canada, France and Germany, I am kinda scratching my head why anyone would make such a claim.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Good point Bob — the claim that the US has the best healthcare system in the world is often thrown around to criticize any reform efforts. No study I know of has validated this claim. In all actuality, our system is one of the most costly and inefficient systems in the western world.

        • …and its going to get worse, Buck.

          Down hill from now on.

        • USWeapon says:

          That is patently false Buck, and I think you know it, and so does Bob, despite his claim.

          You can find facts and figures, and more importantly reports, that show the US to be the best health care system in the world. You can find other such that will show that they aren’t. But just for a start, while Bob likes to conveniently discount it, cancer survival rates in the US are one example. What is ridiculous are the claims that it is a completely flawed and broken system. Those claims are far more ridiculous than claims that it is the best in the world.

          Bob, you can keep attempting to harp on the US system, but the fact remains that when your screwed up UK system lets your citizens down, this is where they come to get fixed. I know you don’t like that answer, but you will when you need it. Too bad it won’t be here for you any longer.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            USW, can you post any links to studies that validate the claim that the US has the best healthcare system in the world?

            The most comprehensive list I am aware of – issued by the WHO – places the US healthcare system 37th (if I remember correctly, but thereabouts).

            • In the previous articles that I have written on health care I have both posted links to articles that discussed the areas that we are the best at (cancer survival rates for instance) and links to the study from the UN and WHO that placed us 37th. I think both have validities. I think in some areas we have the best health care in the world, while in others we have work to do. COST seems to be the biggest compaint about our system compared to the rest of the world. But not performance. I also discussed that UN/WHO study and why it was vastly flawed in its conclusions (for example, vast differences in how different countries report average life expectancy) and discussed the fact that there are plenty of other facts that support the US health system. For example, the UN/WHO study mentioned does rank us 37th, but we are first in the number of people who reach the age of 85 in our population. That seems a bit contradictory, and the study was full of contradictions such as this.

              I do my best to not do too much to disparage other countries systems. If it works for them fine. They don’t have the inherent freedom principles as the foundation for their countries and their system works for them. But I don’t do well with the folks who attempt to claim that ours is so horrible while the world comes here to get care when their system fails them. If you want the links to the studies I can go back and get them when I have some time later.


          • You do realise we have private health insurance and private hospitals here right? Why would someone raise the many thousands of dollars to travel to the states and many more thousands for the procedure when they could get the procedure done in a private hospital in the UK or travel to eastern europe orIndia for a fraction of the cost? The only reason people go to the states is to see a specialist for a rare disease which due to your large population you have more of.

            Why do 750,000 Americans leave the country every year for health care and procedures in other countries? It always makes me laugh when people do the “why do people come here” argument when they have ten times the amount of people leaving the country for health care than coming in.

            Click to access 59-4_HANSEN.pdf

            If you think the British system is screwed up I would hate to think what you think about the current US system, how many times have you been treated by the NHS anyway?

      • Bob,
        Expound on your experience. I have not heard of americans going to the UK for ANY healthcare. But seems we hear of high profile folks from other counties who come here regularly!

        Another little personal dichotomy, is that the surgeon who performs my quad heart bypass was an Iragi and the cardiologist fellow was from Nairobi via the UK and California (an foreign place for sure!) ! So even the top medical personal in the world are here in this lousy system. LOL

        • 10 times the amount of people leave the US for medical care than go into it. My personal experience is that when I have had to use the ER I was seen quicker and treated in the UK than in the US. There was also a big difference in the bills I got, I dont understand why it cost $1500 to give me 10 stitches.

          You should have gone to India for your bypass, they have a better success rate at 1/10 of the cost.

          The GP I see is Indian and the guy who operated on my Grandads knee was Iranian, whats your point?

          Dont get me wrong if you have money you can get fabulous care in the US, unfortunately a friend of mine living there has a condition insurance companies will not go near. She lives on a knife edge praying she does not fall ill and trying to scrape by to get prescription drugs for her condition.

          • I did not know that more folks went overseas for healthcare. Only ones I’ve heard about were because some procedures were cheaper or not approved by the AMA etal..

            ER cost is outlandish. Second hand knowledge is a ER physician makes $350,000 – only works 2 days a week ! Expect its at least 12 hr days – But I worked that and little more during many periods of high stress situations.

            Don’t think I would have made the plane ride to India in time ! But when I can get a cruise – just might ! I’m currently undergoing a low tech heart procedures that will cost $22,500. Found a place in India where I could have a similar procedure for approx $2500. So without ObamaCare, I’d go to India !

            My point was that top medical folks come to the US and don’t stay in the EU. Why is that?

            I also have a condition that is not recognized by the “official” medical organizations. My opinion is that there will be MORE not less areas that will be ignored by the system. But at least there is some slow recourse in recognition of the problem.

            • But they do stay in the EU, hence my Indian doctor and my grandads Iranian surgeon. Doctors do very well for themselves in the UK.

          • Most people going abroad for health care are either going to a subsidized place (usually they have dual citizenship or some other way of working into the foreign system), or they are going for stuff that is not approved here. Our FDA and various other “safety” regulations and departments are a huge blockade to our health care system. If the US health system is inferior, it is because of government interference, not because of the lack of it. You think the FDA is going to suddenly open things up and allow holistic medicine and experimental treatment now that the government is running things totally? Fat friggin’ chance.

            • Sorry that is not true, like I said to FrankC a heart bypass in India has a better success rate and a fraction of the cost in the states.


              This site is for Americans, in fact type medical tourism into google and you will find that most of the sites are for Americans looking for treatments out of the country. No crazy stuff either, hip replacements, heart operations etc.

  29. On the Desk of the President, circa 2012

    Surgeon General Bouhler and his deputy, Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death.

    • The above is the society of Buck and Mathius.

      Thoughtful, and caring. Applying decision power into competent authority.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Yup, death panels and all. That’s exactly where Mathius and I want to go. I guess we’ve been found out by the pirate…

        • too late though.. now that the bill is a law, we can show our true colors!


          • You are laughing at your own children’s future. They are saddled in debt before they are even born. Very f’n funny

            • Anita, you are very pessimistic. I have great faith in the resilience of people. My children will be fine. Your children will be fine. Their children will be fine.

              I was born saddled with debt, I’ll die saddled with debt. My life is just fine.

              THINGS ARE NOT SO BAD.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              CBO report says that this bill will reduce the deficit by $1.3 Trillion.

              • I’m going to have to throw the BS flag on that.

                But I still don’t think it’ll be nearly as dire as Anita et al.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Oh I agree, only time will truly tell. But this report remains the best indication we currently have of costs.

              • Dale Albrecht says:

                I thought Polosi was touting a 118 Billion reduction.

    • Shortly after the President appointed the Surgeon General, his office instituted the first “Charitable Foundation for Cure and Institutional Care”

    • I’m all for this. In fact, though, I don’t think you should have to be incurable before you may commit suicide-by-physician. I think anyone who wishes to die humanely should be able to have a doctor take care of it for them (provided they can find a willing doctor and are of sound mind to make such a decision). I always considered it a shame that people have to die slowly and painfully when euthanasia is such a viable option.

      It’s my life? OK, then who are you to tell me I can’t end it in a manner of my choosing?

      • I'm learning! says:

        My father in law believed that. He researched what foreign countries he could travel to and some places that would take care of it and send you back home, etc. But when he virtually could not breath anymore, more than once he called 911 to get him to the hospital. So when push came to shove…

        But realistically, if a person has something terminal and just don’t want to deal with it anymore, they should have the right to end it.

        • If I had Parkinson’s (disclaimer, my grandfather had Parkinson’s), and my mind started to turn to mush, I would certainly want to die rather than be a massive financial liability to my family and a constant reminder of their loss. I would want them to move on and they can’t do that while I’m around. So, morphine OD, or jumping from the roof, either way. But I’d prefer to be calm and surrounded by my loved ones. It’s a shame the law restricts this.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        If YOU choose to avoid prolonged pain and suffering through medical euthenasia, who am I to stop you?

        However, if you attempt to mandate that _I_ must take medical euthenasia because my own pain and suffering has become “too expensive”, there is a MASSIVE difference there, no?

      • Mathius

        I am Society and I have determined you Can’t kill yourself.

        We need to keep you in the insurance pool as long as possible.

        P.S.: Your last premium payment for your USG Health Insurance is late.

  30. 6 months later, Action Plan T4 was started by the authority of the Presidential memo.

    An orderly round up of the terminally sick and mentally ill was made.

    • Within the next 4 years, 275,000 people are executed under Plan T4.

      It is later used as the model for the Final Solution.

      As my trap caught Mathius – exactly as I knew it would.

      Everything about this short story is true (minus the date and President).

      Bouhler and his deputy, Dr. Brandt are real men who instituted the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of “unworthy” humans.

      The memo is the exact text as per Hitler.

      The place was really called “Charitable Foundation for Cure and Institutional Care”

      The wording, the names – all innocent and profound.

      The evil they unleash is unimaginable and unbelievable except that it was real.

      If there is no wake up call to the extent and evil embedded in this bill and the future of Health Care – your future will be decided by men like Bouhler in places like “Charitable Foundation for Cure and Institutional Care”

      • TexasChem says:

        “You got your talkers and you got your doers. Most people are just talkers, all they got is talk. But when all is said and done, it’s the doers that change this world, and when they do that; they change us. That’s why we never forget them.”

        “So which one are you? Do you just talk about it or do you stand up and do something about it because, believe you me, all the rest of it is just coffee hours bulls**t.”

      • Sneaky, sneaky, Mr. Flag. But I’m not authorizing forced euthanasia. I only advocate for the availability of voluntary euthanasia. As, I’m pretty sure, you do as well.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          YOU are not advocating nor authorizing FORCED euthenasia. Fine, I get that. However, what guarantee do you provide that the government will not do so once they have total control of the healthcare system???

          • ERROR: Slippery slope argument does not invalidate premise.

            • Mathius,


              It ain’t a slippery slope if it happened.

              • Per the good folks at Wikipedia: A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact[.]

                Read that again:
                A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact[.]

                Got it?

              • I guess the slaughter of 275,000 (then an addition few million) isn’t enough of an impact?

                The use of violence on non-violent people ALWAYS LEADS TO MASSIVE DEATH AND TYRANNY

                There has never been a case otherwise.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Not exactly certain how your ‘trap’ caught Mathius.

        He wasn’t advocating for the forced killing of those terminally ill by government fiat. Rather, he was advocating for permitting the patient the CHOICE to choose end of life as opposed to a slow, suffering, miserable death.

        • Buck and Mathius,

          Of course I don’t believe you guys are like Bouhler.

          My point though is clear.

          There is nothing in Hitler’s memo that foretold the slaughter.

          There is nothing in the Foundations name that would scare a mouse.

          But the memo legally authorized a wholesale slaughter.


          Because of its embedded power. That MEN can determine for OTHER MEN what is right and wrong and FORCE it on non-violent people to their death.

          As soon as some declares someone else is ‘competent’ to judge another to the point of justify violence on them – all is lost.

      • Well done, Pirate!

        Never mind the slippery slope. You’ve just demonstarted there is precedent. Sadly, most people will never understand. They are betting their lives that it will be different this time….

  31. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I want to point out to everyone that the topic of healthcare and insurance is quite near and dear to my heart.

    You see, my oldest son, who is now 6, has a rare genetic malformation (called a Chiari type I malformation). Due to this malformation, at age 2 he required extensive neurosurgery, and since then he has required physical, occupational, and speach therapy to catch him back up to where he should be for his age.

    Luckily, he is young, and therefore very resilient, and is almost to the point where they will discharge him from all therapy.

    Equally luckily, I have always had jobs which provided (at considerable expense to me) the insurance which I needed. The total medical costs for my 6-year old are nearing $200,000.000 (and he is only 6!!!).

    When he was 2, within a few days of his episode of mild paralysis due to this malformation, he was in pediatric neurosurgery at one of the best children’s hospitals in the country.

    It will be interesting to see if such timely care is given to children in similar situations as our “healthcare system” evolves or not….

  32. I'm learning! says:


    How would you categorize health care then?

    [Right / Privilege / Responsibility / Other]

    I would like the right to choose whatever method of health care I would like to utilize. Be able to be the person responsible to make that decision. I also would like to be able to afford the privilege to donate to the wonderful organizations that help people in difficult situations. And to choose insurance that best fits my situation. Unfortunately, those dreams will soon no longer exist. I will owe my livelihood to our government and the causes that they choose.

    When given the opportunitiy, people want to help. Just this weekend a friend with a baby who has a rare disease and will probably die by the time she is 3 because there is no cure received well over $20,000 in a benefit that was done for her family. This happened in a town of about 1800 people, during a recession. They stay at Ronald McDonald house when she is hospitalized. Yes, she has insurance to cover the major things, but gets private help also. No government agency told us what to do to help!

  33. Lessons from Sweden

  34. All programmers have a “God complex”.

    They create their little universes and play God all day.

    Some days are better than others. On the bad day, you delete the Universe.

    • Dale Albrecht says:

      Your comment reminds me of a jab at programmers from years ago.

      “If carpenters built houses the same way that programmers write programs, the first woodpecker that comes along would destroy civilization.”

      • Dale

        Now that my friend is damn funny. ROTFLMAO.

        And I think so very true. Come to think about it I had a contractor like that once.

        Always coming back to “fix” something that in turn caused something else to fail needing more fixing, etc etc.

  35. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    I haven’t read anything about the problems this will cause with supply and demand, and what a nightmare it will become for everyone. The demand will be forced upon the sullpy, which is short already, and likely to get shorter. This will cause prices to rise, to the point that only the wealthy can afford insurance. As of now, 10% more of the population will have insurance in 2014. The demand has increased, but the supply, at best remains the same. Waiting for a doctors appt will increase, specialist visits are already a 3 month wait, might as well wait six months.

    The quality will suffer as workers become exhausted, retire, quit the profession. Government will step in and with one quick scoop, will provide insurance to everyone who can’t afford the high costs, then dictate payments to the healthcare industry, which will collapse due to lost wages mandated by government. Great news, everyone has insurance, just what the Progressives wanted. Bad news, very few doctors and nurses left to get the job done.

    So Matt and Buck, who do the progressives get out of this mess, hold a gun to all the doctors and make them work?

    I needed that rant 👿


    • Something to ease the argument alittle. Cool video

      • In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one
        useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or
        more is a congress.–John Adams

      • G-Man,

        When I was training, a bunch of us “newbies” went on a proving range where a squadron of fighters were playing around.

        We hunkered in a ditch watching them – and they saw us.

        The formed up, and flew over nice and calm, waving their wings, turned behind a hill and disappeared.

        While we continued to search for them “over there”, they shucked around behind us.

        Suddenly we saw them fly over head from behind us … in utter silence.

        For that couple of seconds of dead silence, our brains kicked in – supersonic against the deck!

        …then the BLAST came! … and pulverized us! But we didn’t care – it was just too cool for words!

        • Flag,

          My memory of flying in an F-15 in 1992 is so fresh in my mind I can still remember ever detail. From the vertical takeoff to the 7.8 high G turn with full Afterburners (and my hand on the stick and throttle), to the three flyovers around the base upon return. All I wanted was to experience what the pilots did during their twice weekly airobatic shows at Langley AFB, I got my monies worth that day, and then some. The power is remarkable. I’ll never forget pushing that throttle full forward and pulling the stick full right, waiting to be told to go straight, only to go to far left and barrel roll twice. OOPS! was all I could say. Thank you for reminding me of that day, it’s the first time I’ve had good thoughts in two days! Now I’m smiling again 🙂


  36. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Amendment 9 –
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    From The Declaration of Independence >
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    I take the above Amendmant 9 of the Bill of Rights combined with the Declaration of Independance to mean, forcing someone to buy health Insurance is an infringement on their unalienable rights.

    Am I warped?

    • What about simple taxation without respresentation? When 78% of the country says “NO” – how could this bill be upheld?

      Sunday night set our country back hundreds of years. Why have people forgotten the USA was the shining bright hope of the world? This so diminished us.

      I’m very depressed and headed for the lager before they raise the tax on my beer and my Big Macs. Peace!

  37. From the web..


    I know what is going to happen.

    1. Cost overruns
    2. Fraud
    3. Additional coverage extended to groups
    4. Rising deficits in the program
    5. Lower payments to physicians
    6. Lower payments to hospitals
    7. Delays in payments
    8. Rising taxes on the rich
    9. Rationing by doctors, hospitals, government
    10. Delays in treatment
    11. More HMO care: assembly line medicine
    12. A search for scapegoats

    Obamacare will lead to an expansion of these forms of medicine:

    1. Concierge
    2. Wal-Mart
    3. ER
    4. HMO
    5. Mexican

    CONCIERGE. The rich and very rich hire their own physicians. They pay top dollar. The physicians do not take third-party payments, either from the government or insurance companies. They are independent practitioners. They make house calls. The houses they call on are very large.

    For the upper middle class, there are fee-for-service physicians. They take no third-party payments. They do not make house calls.

    WAL-MART. These are the walk-in clinics. They are price competitive. They treat minor ailments. They sell services on a one-time basis. They take credit cards. They may or may not cater to the Medicare crowd. They are assembly-line clinics. There are no major surgeries or other high-cost, high-risk services.

    ER. Large hospital emergency rooms are mandated by law. The poor get treated there. In a life-and-death emergency, they work. People who would otherwise die in a couple of hours are saved. For walk-in patients, the ERs ration by time.

    Patients demonstrate their patience.

    Lots of patience. People will trade time for the cost.

    Time cost of patients is measured in dimes per hour, doctors time is measured in hundreds of dollars per hour. You can use this to measure how long you will expect to wait for a doctor. There is no free lunch.

    You pay one way or another – with a low value currency (time) or a high value currency (money).

    HMO. This style of medicine is efficient. It cuts costs by cutting services and cutting time. You see the physician on duty. You may not have seen him before. His job is to get you in and out as fast as possible. Time is monitored by the company. Computers make this easy.

    MEXICAN. This is off-shore medicine. In Canada, when you can’t get treated for months or years, you come to the United States and pay. This will not be possible for Canadians much longer, except for rich ones. Mexico will serve upper middle-class Americans as the USA has served Canadians.

    It is possible to get very good surgical care in Asia and Latin America. You have to know who the good practitioners are. Asian hospitals sell for 25% the same level of services. There is less regulation there. Plane fares are cheap. A stay in a hotel is cheap.

    There will be entrepreneurs who set up Websites off- shore that direct Americans to practitioners abroad. The Web allows this sort of advertising.

    Physicians who practice alone or in small limited liability corporations will find that they cannot compete under the new payment system. Assembly-line medicine will replace the traditional doctor-patient relationship.


    Most physicians are trapped. They cannot sell their practices. The price of pracyices has been dropping.

    Foreign-trained physicians who can pass the U.S. tests are coming to America. They are competitive.

    Technical Services that can be digitized are being outsourced to India and other Asian nations.

    Young American physicians begin with a lot of debt. They need income fast. They will be hired by the HMOs and clinics. They will not reach the salary level of this generation of physicians. They will be upper-middle-class income-earners.

    There will be specialists, of course. Plastic surgeons who specialize in making rich women better looking will not be part of the new system. They will be able to do well. But for the typical practitioner, his career options have been dramatically restricted by the new law.

    I think most physicians will stick it out until they retire at age 67. They owe money. They need the income. The law’s most restrictive provisions will not kick in until 2014. They will adjust.

    Residents of Detroit also adjusted. Then, without warning, the economy changed. Those who were still living in the city saw their capital disappear.

    People put up with the devils they know. They do not look for a lifeboat when they hear the ship’s scrape the iceberg. They assume that it will be business as usual.

    Then, one fine day, it isn’t.


    You had better decide which kind of medical care you can live with. Then you had better locate a practitioner soon. This is especially true if you want a fee-for-service physician. People with money will go to them. They are already hard to find. They charge more. It’s not easy to become a patient. They are booked up.

    If you have an existing physician, do what you can to become an above-average patient.

    You had better start getting into shape. You can no longer afford to be vulnerable to the diseases and afflictions of a flabby lifestyle. ObamaCare has changed the risk-reward ratio. Risk has just gone up. It will continue to go up.

    There will be no roll-back of this law. It is going to be enforced for as long as the U.S. government has money.

    That may not be as long as Obama thinks.

    Are you REALLY prepared for National Health Insurance?

    by a Doctor.

    I feel the need to provide a first hand description of my experiences with true national health insurance in light of all the discussion regarding a government option. Many believe that the government taking over health insurance would be a reasonable thing to do but more than any other issue today this falls under “you really don’t have a clue.”

    First, let me preface this with the fact that I was raised in a northern European country that had national health insurance and experienced it first hand for many years. Secondly, I have practiced medicine and surgery for more than 3 decades in the U.S., so I have some insight as to current health care systems and reimbursement policies. Lastly, I do not pretend to have all the answers except that a government-run plan is a certain prescription for disaster to the uninformed and unprepared. If you disagree, ask the well-off Europeans why so many have very expensive private health insurance policies.

    First off, when a national health insurance plan is in place, by definition the doctors and hospitals will get lousy reimbursement. So bad in fact that no doctor will voluntarily accept a fee for service plan (where you get paid for each patient you see – it also implies the more patients you see the more money you make.)

    So in order to prevent wholesale boycotting of the plan by all physicians and hospitals, they will come up with some program that each doc gets a stipend based on a certain number of patients they must be responsible for. If this sounds familiar it was called capitation in the 80’s and 90’s and failed miserably in the U.S. But it will probably be legislated and the states will be required to tie participation into the doc’s license. The key to this is you get your money whether you see the patient or not.

    Back to the European experience. So, you are sick and need to see your doctor. Notice I said “your doctor” because you have no choice — you are assigned a doctor and good, bad or indifferent this is the guy you MUST see, no exception.

    So you call for an appointment — oops, there are no appointments. You have to to his office and see him when he is available. So assuming he is available you go in and register. You now sit on the bench and wait for your turn, no matter how sick you are. Now, remember that there is no incentive to see lots of patients? So the doc is relaxed, takes his time, takes care of minor problems for the patient he is seeing such as wart removals, counseling etc. no matter how many patients are waiting. Then, when he is good and ready, he calls for the next patient. Lunchtime rolls around and the doc leaves. Still patients in the waiting room? Feel free to leave if you don’t like it – gamble that things will be better after lunch. Or else keep your place in line and wait though lunch.

    So, you have been waiting all day, and it’s about 4:00. The doctor has had a hard day and is going home; he tells the nurse he is leaving. If there are still patients in the waiting room, they are told to come back tomorrow, or else you may go to the local hospital. If you choose this option, you are treated by the “house physician” who generally was not considered competent enough to have his own practice. Need urgent care? Let’s see if you have “the will to live” until morning. Need an imaging study to diagnose your problem? Sorry, only 2 CAT scans are allotted per day — the next opening is in 5 weeks. Are we having fun yet?

    The last piece of the puzzle will be true liability protection for the docs. In other words, in order to get buy-in from the medical associations, the docs will all get the same protection as a military doc, who cannot be sued personally for medical malpractice mistakes — you only have the right to petition the government for relief. So, now you will truly get to discover what the term “practice of medicine” will mean — the docs practice on you until they get it right. So, very little oversight: let’s try this new procedure I read about, let me prescribe this drug off-label and see what happens — you get the picture.

    This is a preview of the personal experience with national health insurance. I have not even begun to discuss the legislative fallout. For example, although there may be outrage about the “death committees” and rationing, anybody who thinks they will get otherwise is living over the rainbow. Over 60 and need a kidney transplant?

    Sorry, we have determined it is not cost effective to give transplants to you after age 60. Need the latest expensive chemotherapy because standard regimens have failed. Sorry, the drug is not on the approved national pharmacy list. Need a total hip for mobility due to advanced arthritis? Sorry, the limit has been reached for total joint surgeries (it IS March already you know) so here is a cane and some Motrin — feel free to join the queue, as it is only three years out so far. Want curative surgery for your localized cancer? I’m sorry, we have determined it is more cost effective to give radiation for most cancers of this type.

    These are not theoretical issues; these are actual examples for health care standards in many countries such as England, France, Canada, and Australia.

    This is what is in store for the unprepared who believe the government will take care of them. In a pen stroke Medicare and Medicaid will be rolled over into this system. The current uninsured will be required to avail themselves of this option under penalty of legal reprisals.

    So, if you have any ability at all to qualify for private health insurance, do so and hang on like grim death to that policy. Do not trust employer policies as these will also be rolled over into national health care (“I’m sorry the guv-mint says I have to do this!”) Try to establish a personal relationship with a local family practitioner and his staff – be the wonderful patient who never complains, pays their bills and brings small gifts for the staff from time to time. You may be the one who gets in off the books when you need it the most.

    OR we will all start utilizing the Eastern European system of “tipping” the doctor for medical care, where a “tip” may frequently be a week’s wages or more.

    Forewarned is forearmed.

    • I very much question the validity of this article, a few points:

      “First off, when a national health insurance plan is in place, by definition the doctors and hospitals will get lousy reimbursement. So bad in fact that no doctor will voluntarily accept a fee for service plan (where you get paid for each patient you see – it also implies the more patients you see the more money you make.”

      Rubbish, British GP’s make more money on average than US GP’s. They are also not running on $250k of medical school debt.

      “Back to the European experience. So, you are sick and need to see your doctor. Notice I said “your doctor” because you have no choice — you are assigned a doctor and good, bad or indifferent this is the guy you MUST see, no exception.”

      Absolute nonsense, I can select whichever GP, go to any hospital and decide which surgeon performs any operation on me. I have far more freedom than someone in the US who has to use a list of doctors the insurance company gives them.

      “So you call for an appointment — oops, there are no appointments. You have to to his office and see him when he is available.”

      Rubbish again, there has been one time in my life where I was unable to make a same day doctor appointment.

      “Sorry, we have determined it is not cost effective to give transplants to you after age 60. Need the latest expensive chemotherapy because standard regimens have failed. Sorry, the drug is not on the approved national pharmacy list. Need a total hip for mobility due to advanced arthritis? Sorry, the limit has been reached for total joint surgeries”

      My 80 year old Grandfather got a knee replacement and very recently my wifes 74 year old Grandmother had 4 brain surgeries due to an aneurysm. According to the person who wrote this article they should have been left to suffer and die right?

      I very much doubt the person who wrote this article has any experience whatsoever with a UHC system, I would even doubt he is a doctor with the level of misinformation in this article. Think you have been suckered on this one BF.

      • Dale Albrecht says:

        The business I work for is a global business. It costs us 4.3 times more to do the same task in the EU as it does here in the United States. And that is no joke or from any third party blog. It is from our own cost analysis.

        • What has that got to do with the price of fish?

        • If you are trying to imply it is due to health care then I would seriously suggest you invest in new calculators, American health care costs are double per person compared to most European spending per person. I work for the biggest bank in the world we have offices all over, American health insurance costs are far more than what the bank pays in national insurance in the UK.

  38. Judy Sabatini says:

    Democrats Say Shut Up and Pay Up — Here’s What Conservatives Must Say

    By Christian Whiton

    Here’s how conservatives and moderates can turn Sunday’s vote into the modern left’s final chapter rather than its ultimate triumph.

    Conservatives and moderates can turn Sunday’s vote into the modern left’s final chapter rather than its ultimate triumph.

    Sunday’s vote to expand massively the role of government in health care is a hopeful turning point in America—but not the kind President Obama and his Democrats think. Instead, this could represent the best chance since before the 1930s to restore America to its founding principles and reverse the growth of government. The challenge will be in channeling anger at Washington and a likely victory for Republicans in midterm elections into pathways to evolve America’s political dynamic for good.

    Since the birthing of Obamacare began, Americans have used every tool at their disposal to signal displeasure at the Democrats’ plans. This included spontaneous protestations at town halls, the formation of the new Tea Party political movement, electing Republicans opposed to Mr. Obama’s plans, and expressing overwhelming disapproval in polls. The message should have been clear: that even though voters fired Republicans in 2006 and 2008, the mandate given to Democrats was not to expand government deeper into every corner of American life. That Democrats proceeded with an attempt to reorder the economy against the wishes of the American people is an act of elitism unparalleled in modern history. Democrats’ message to voters: shut up, pay up, we know better than you.

    Revulsion at this—plus a lousy economy that can no longer be blamed on Mr. Obama’s predecessor—are likely to result in Republicans gaining control of one or both houses of Congress this November. There is peril and promise in this. Republicans ought not to play it safe, and instead should advocate a positive agenda, rich in ideas, which accounts for voters’ concerns, including:

    1) Replacement of Obamacare with a free-market system that empowers consumers, not bureaucracies.
    2) Reform of Congress to make it a citizen legislature, including term limits and an end to gerrymandering congressional districts.
    3) Enactment of a flat income tax to revitalize the economy and end Congress’s micromanagement of the economy via a complicated tax code.
    4) A requirement for a balanced federal budget.
    5) Ending job-killing taxes on investment, including capital gains and dividends taxes.

    All of these are unified by a theme of restricting government and expanding the private economy. Each capitalizes on broad disgust at Washington, including polls showing an average 75% disapproval of Congress. They require sustained action at the federal and state level, including amendments to the Constitution.

    Why not play it safe and focus solely on repeal of the law passed on Sunday? Direct repeal attempts should go forward on principle, but will be foiled by Mr. Obama’s veto even if the GOP controls Congress after November. Republicans need to offer a set of sharp alternatives that will improve people’s lives and build a sustained political movement. They should go on the offensive against not only Democrats but the assumptions that underlie their policies.

    Doing so involves risk. It is always safer to oppose the unpopular than to detail alternatives that will be critiqued. But 2010 offers an opportunity unlike any other before. Analysts looking for comparable elections have invoked the strong Republican years of 1994 and 1978. Instead they should consider 1932. It was in that year of economic depression and perceived capitalist failure that the collectivist, redistributionist dynamic of American politics in the modern era was firmly set. Despite the success of Republican revolutionaries like Reagan and Gingrich, this dynamic has more or less persisted over the long term.

    The dynamic holds that government can and should address virtually every problem in society. It also maintains that taking wealth from the more productive and giving it to the less productive is virtuous and effective—all evidence from the past century to the contrary. Ayn Rand best described the apostles of this way of life as “moochers and looters.”

    Even though the American people have never endorsed the dynamic when it has been put to them directly, it gained comprehensive acceptance in the media, academia, law, and parts of both political parties. As a result, it justified the move of government into more and more sectors of life. Candidate Obama demonstrated his allegiance to the dynamic during the 2008 campaign when he said he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”

    Ironically, the Democrats’ conduct has put this dynamic at risk like never before. Conservatives and moderates can turn Sunday’s vote into the modern left’s final chapter rather than its ultimate triumph. The year 2010 can be looked back upon as our 1932—a new era in America, not just a new chapter.

    But doing so will require a complex effort at the federal, state and local level. Congressional Republicans and candidates should pivot to advocating ideas like those above. States should sue the federal government when Congress exceeds the power granted to it by the Constitution. New citizen groups should spring up and object when a state or city council attempts to take on new duties. Efforts to use government to redistribute wealth should be exposed as power grabs at the barrel of a gun—not the acts of virtuous charity they are made out to be. Through steps like this, the collectivist dynamic can be undermined.

    Make no mistake, this requires a complex, decentralized effort. It means gambling certain gains in the coming elections for a less certain reordering of America’s political dynamic. But the upside is a republic restored to its original principles and a new prosperity. It is difficult to see how a better opportunity to achieve this will arise.

    Christian Whiton was an official in George W. Bush administration from 2003-2009. He is a principal at D.C. Asia Advisory and president of the Hamilton Foundation.

  39. USWep and others,

    A short new blog on my site:

    You can add it to the Open Mic.

    The TED video highlights what I believe is the undercurrent of this (and plenty of discussion in the past) regarding determining right and wrong.

  40. Had to leave for some work today so missed the afternoon discussion.

    I just wanted to thank Mathius and Buck for hanging in there and explaining themselves.

    It still amazes me that after being here so long they have not moved an inch and simply dismiss true logical thinking as “well thats your opinion”. But that is what it is I am afraid. Perhaps some day the light will come on as it did for me.

    But Matt and Buck a special thanks to you for keeping it civil and thoughtful. I am sure you feel just as frustrated with where I and others come from. But after having spent many days at HuffPo and its connections the past couple of weeks I was very nice to discuss the underlying philosophy used to justify government health care without being called some kind of name or accused of just wishing sick people would die so I can get there money.

    I think you both explained quite well the Altruistic philosophy that underlies your belief system. I can only hope that some day you realize what an abomination against civilization it really is.

    Best wishes gentlemen.
    I tip a glass of the Irish Whiskey to you both this evening.


    • JAC,

      I will concur with your post and also thank both Matt and Buck for hanging in there! 🙂

      While I’m not in agreement with them, at least they provide some thought provoking comments that are well worth discussing.

      Good post my Friend!


      • G

        You as well. Especially the fly by’s. I am jealous of your F15 flight.

        Was once on top of mountain working when out of nowhere a B52 appeared flying just a few hundred feet above the tree tops, in the canyon several thousand feet BELOW where I stood. A few minutes passed as it flew up a canyon and seemed to rise just enough to clear the mountain, when another appeared in the same place, then another.

        It was quite a sight.

        Live free my friend


  41. The Vladiator says:

    USW – thanks for an enlightening wake up call – I read often but do not post hardly at all. This grand theft is not the beginning of the end – the beginning was long ago. Its another nail in our national coffin. I am overwhelmed with disgust that anyone should think it is reasonable to escalate the ‘legalized’ theft of my earned money to force me into helping others, some of whom do not want my help, some of whom do not deserve my help and some I just dont give a crap to help. The bottom line, the truth here is that it should be my choice to, on one hand to literally or figuratively watch a Ray or a Mathius or a Buck or a Charlie die in need of help, gasping pathetically their last uninsured socialist breath while I pop a buttery kernel of popcorn in my mouth OR on the other hand me opening my wallet and paying for their drugs, doctor visit or chemo. IT SHOULD BE MY CHOICE DAMMIT! The Constitution took enough of my choices away from me. This I did not need for more of the same. America has lost her way. Please come back.

    • Vlad,

      Sorry, but America is off the cliff already. Gravity will have its way with her and anti-gravity does not exist.

      It is the shock at the end that will give a chance – a slim chance.

      It will prove the Elite and the Progressives were totally and absolutely wrong.

      For those that have been saying the truth – they will be finally believed – for about 5 minutes.

      In that window of 5 minutes (geopolitical-time, of course) Freedom has everyone’s ears.

      What is the message?

    • Don’t let Charlie die! He’s almost one of us now!

  42. A little something to conclude our discussion on the health care pill.


    Like I told others supporting this quack, if you believe this bill will reduce costs and the deficit I have some waterfront property I want to sell you in Death Valley.

  43. v. Holland says:

    Heard on TV tonight that if the Dems. Lose the Senate in November that the new majority could refuse to fund the bill-What say you guys?

    • V.H.

      They could but in the end they won’t.

      They could simply not fund any of the govt programs for that matter.

      Gingrich tried this with Clinton and the boy from Arkansas somehow managed to put the blame of shutting down the govt and stopping grandma’s SocSec check on the Republicans, even though Clinton vetoed the bill that caused the problem. Don’t remember all the details anymore but I am guessing the Repub leadership hasn’t forgotten the lesson.

      If they pass a budget without funding Obama will veto. Congress then has to let govt fail or pass continuing resolution, which holds spending at prior year levels. They will eventually have to pass a budget acceptable to the President because holding budgets flat will not allow cost of living adjustments to social programs or govt personnel.

      Again, Could but Won’t. Not without a major shift in cultural values and a veto proof congress.

  44. Unlike PeterB, health care is not near and dear to my heart. It is, in fact, an incredibly low priority. I have no medical issues, I have had no health insurance for more than 10 years, and my total health care expenditures have been out of pocket. That total expenditure in the last 10 years, not including getting glasses and contacts, has been less than $1000. Under $100 per year. This bill will cost me. I will lose more per year than I have spent in the last 10. Why on earth would I support it? What good is there in this bill for me? NONE.

    I know the arguments. What is something does happen and you need health care? I don’t care about that crap. I am an entrepreneur, risk is a way of life for me. I don’t care about what bad things might happen, if I did I would never be able to start a business. In fact, I depend on an attitude of “what good might happen” to survive.

    I do not fit the system. Even if I were willing to accept government benefits, I do not qualify. I will end up being forced by law to pay for something I do not want and will not use. One month it may be a cost I can bear, another month it won’t be. I don’t get standard paychecks, I don’t receive a W-2, I have good months and bad ones, but I get by. There is no way I would be able to qualify for the government assistance because I cannot prove my income or lack of it very well, and I have no reason to go through the job seeking rigmarole that those on the dole go through because I work for myself, I have a business, its just that its still struggling. When it gets going well, I may look at health insurance. Till then, it is my choice to skip that expense and put my resources into tools and advertising where it should go.

    I know the other argument of “responsibility”, that I am bad for society or greedy because I am healthy and not paying into insurance that others may need. I am the reason insurance costs so much, because there has to be more money coming in than is payed out, meaning healthy people have to pay in because the unhealthy cannot cover the costs of their health care alone. The whole reason people are being forced by law to get insurance is to offset the cost for others. The people who are uninsured by choice are having a direct increase to their cost of living. This is a tax, and it will hit me, and I make under 30k a year right now. So much for no taxes on those making under 200k. Besides that, I don’t buy the societal responsibility. I like helping my neighbor, but I am not just healthy because of my good genes and good luck. I live healthy, I live smart, I don’t live in fear and stress, I maintain a good attitude about my health and immune system, and I don’t baby myself so much that my system can’t handle a rough time. I do what most could do. I know there are those whose gene’s don’t allow this, or who have had catastrophic things happen to them, accidents, environmental exposure, etc., but I don’t think that I owe them, certainly not those who make bad health decisions (keep in mind that some of the worst health decisions are following the latest health advice, people are all different, the science of health is not exact or universal).

    Finally, accepting government paid health care that I cannot afford on my own is wrong according to my own beliefs. It is a violation of my belief system to steal or to accept stolen money. Since I consider forced redistribution of wealth theft, then I would be legally held to violate my own beliefs or face financial ruin trying to buy insurance or be fined for not being able to do so. I am all for charity and caring for those in need, but forcing me to violate my beliefs should not be part of that.

    Sorry USW, there is nothing good in this bill, even the good points are an abomination.

  45. This is the bottom line behind the health care bill that was passed. The Democrats don’t give a crap about what happens to this country. They care about their agenda and their attempt to “leave their legacy” at the expense of the well being of our nation. Our country was built on freedom and democracy and we have now taken a huge step in the direction of socialism.

%d bloggers like this: