Quoting Ken777 (Reply 345): I think you've been listening to too many TV ads paid for by the health insurance industry.

Have not seen any , don't need commercials to see what they are trying too do. Thanks to opposition the bill will be stripped down to size hopefully .

Sorry , Ken ... I want to control my own destiny . I don't want to have to hope that when I AM 65 the government will have my back. I trust my decision far far more than some bureaucrat in Washington. But Alas , I will paying for your grand-kids health care ... and trying to save for my future needs as well.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 347): FedEx/UPS compete with the Post Office and do fine.

Yes good point . The Post office is so bad at delivering packages that private companies easily beat them . If you need it there guaranteed ... call the post office ? Not likely.,

The problem with health care is that eventually you will not have a choice I am afraid . We will all go to the Post office for health care. Nice .

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 350): The problem with health care is that eventually you will not have a choice I am afraid .

Which is not going to happen. The only way the current plan would eliminate people's ability to choose their health care is if the public option is so overwhelmingly superior to private health care that the market for private health care collapses. And if that happens, if the people vote with their wallets that the public plan is superior, isn't it a good thing for the public plan to "win"?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 351): The only way the current plan would eliminate people's ability to choose their health care is if the public option is so overwhelmingly superior to private health care that the market for private health care collapses. And if that happens, if the people vote with their wallets that the public plan is superior, isn't it a good thing for the public plan to "win"?

So why penalize companies and individuals who do not choose the public option.? If we opt out ..we should not pay higher taxes to pay for those freeloaders who want it free...

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 352): So why penalize companies and individuals who do not choose the public option.? If we opt out ..we should not pay higher taxes to pay for those freeloaders who want it free...

You don't have to. By my understanding of the current plan, you would have to pay somewhat higher taxes to pay for those who cannot afford health care. However, people who choose the public option still pay premiums just like under any other health insurance plan. Those premiums should be lower (hopefully) because the government doesn't have to turn a profit or advertise like private insurers do.

If the public option were paid for entirely through a tax increase and then offered "free" to everyone, I would understand why many people would be against it. But that sort of thing is a single payer system, not a public option.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 353): somewhat higher taxes to pay for those who cannot afford health care.

So when they can afford it do I get my money back ? Yellowstone to me that is the problem , But hey I am different , and lost in America I guess.

good luck man ,

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 354): So when they can afford it do I get my money back ? Yellowstone to me that is the problem , But hey I am different , and lost in America I guess.

You probably won't get your money back, no.

For me, I guess what it comes down to is a belief that health care is right up there with food, shelter, water, etc. on the list of basic necessities for life. In a society as wealthy as ours, I think we have a collective responsibility to provide these necessities to those who cannot obtain them on their own, while at the same time providing them with the training needed to be able to provide for themselves. It's one of the costs associated with living in society, but compared to the enormous benefits we all gain from society (try living on a deserted island all by yourself if you disagree with me) it's well worth it.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 328): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 326): , denying a 64 year old cancer woman the drugs she needs to live And insurance companies have never ever denied what is covered right? Are you feeling sorry for her? Why? Compassion is liberal sentiment, only felt by weak people. The cold hard facts is that an assisted death pill would be more economical. You should be glad that your tax money would not be wasted. That is what the free market would say.

I wonder if you would say that when it comes to someone you love. Or do you love anyone?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 331): Quoting AGM100 (Reply 327): .free-market would take over and there would be insurance companies and providers for all levels of our society . But we already know this isn't true. Without government intervention, the free market will not provide coverage for the poor and/or elderly.

You really are full of BS, aren't you? The free market insurance does not cover any one who does not pay into it. People who have no health insurance now are already provided medical care free of charge. No one in the US is being denied health care when they need it. As I've already said many times before, they can go to ANY county hospital for care, and receive high quality care, at the county tax payer expense. They can do that TODAY.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 332): Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 329): It's pretty sad that you are so devoid of integrity that you would make this kind of garbage up. It's right-bloody-there! Are you blind??? Or are you like the child standing next to the shattered vase with a hammer in his hand, shaking his head saying, "No, Ma, I didn't break nothin'"

No, Dreadnought, FlyPNS1 is an Obama/ACORN plant here on a.net. My guess is he has already reported you, AGN100, me, and many others to [email protected]

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 334): Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 331): But we already know this isn't true Really we don't , the government options have been growing for the past 40 years .... it has landed us just where we are.. So which one has failed ? Free market or Social welfare.

Correct.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 336): Let's just take one example from your list. Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. While true the government insurance will cover family/marriage therapy (as do many private insurers today), NO WHERE does it say government will require marriage therapy. Whether you go to marriage therapy or not will be your choice. The government is not "intervening in your marriage" as you claim. You are simply lying or have poor reading comprehension.

Go to the definations section and look up the word "mandatory"

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 340): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 338): I never said I was against regulation - sorry you don't get to expalin yourself. If you were to have a Town Hall meeting you would be heckled. Regulation is a bad word only spoken by socialists

To bad that you do not understand American politics, my friend. Americans have been debating the US Government since 1775 when we had the Continential Congress. In the US, both Conservitives and Liberals support regulations, but to different extents, and for different reasons. This health care reform package is simply the latest form of protest, fully 62% of the people do not wantthe government touching personal health care, or the personal choices that neede to be nmade because of it.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 341): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 326): The SCOTUS ordered the vote count in FL to be stopped in 2000 because the FL Supreme Court ruled the recount to continue and limited the scope of the recount, that was illegal according to the FL Constitution. Right. So, the activist judges on the right decided to stop everything the State of Florida was doing. The FEDS decided what was best for the state of Florida. You are saying that was fine, but health care by the feds is an abomination.

You have no idea what you are talking about, so, again, you are WRONG.

The SCOTUS decision was 7-2 (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) on an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties. Which is what the FLSC set up.
Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens opposed). Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.
Three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) agreed that the Florida Supreme Court had acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature. Justices Kennedy and O'Connor did not reach this issue.

In other words, the SCOTUS ordered the FLSC to follow exsisting law and FL Constitution statutes, not create new ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_v._Bush

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on December 12, 2000. The case effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted the recount that was occurring in Florida.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 341): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 326): They are doing now with the Oregon Health Plan, denying a 64 year old cancer woman the drugs she needs to live. The state say they will pay for an assisted death pill. Did you read the article? She has only 4 to 6 months to live, even with treatment. The Oregon Health Plan clearly states there is a 5 year, 5% rule; a 5% chance of survival after five years. This woman will die in a year even with the treatment. As CEO of a corporation, is it really in your financial interest to give her $5000 worth of medications when she will be dying soon? I thought you righties were all about the bottom line.

You really are aguing on both sides of thei issue, you are saying it is wrong for an insurance company to deny benefits due to cost, while at the same time saying it is okay for the government to do it?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 342): Quoting AGM100 (Reply 327): We don't need a health care system ... we don't need bureaucracies to run out lives .. If you stripped government rule out of the program ..free-market would take over and there would be insurance companies and providers for all levels of our society . Government is there to insure fair safe practice ..NOT to be the freaking practice. The existing situation is already a giant bureaucracy. And if you stripped government rule out of the program, insurance companies would get to decide that some people weren't worth insuring, basically sentencing them to poverty and/or death.

I am living proof that you are WRONG and have no idea what you are talking about. I cost Blue Cross/Blue Shield more than $300K just two years ago.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 342): I'll have fun going through your list later,

Be sure to invent something good.............

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 342): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): How about reading pages 425 onward, where all seniors will be subjected to an interrogation every 5 years regarding their "end of life", including what the state may or may not provide for them in terms of health care. I'll have fun going through your list later, but let's start here. First, the text of the bill clearly describes the Advance Care Planning Consultation as a series of explanations, not interrogations. The doctor would basically just explain to the patient what their options are in terms of end-of-life care, setting up the appropriate documents so that they receive the sort of treatment they desire, etc. This is, believe it or not, a good idea. Seniors should be informed of these sorts of options.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 342): Second, the portion of the bill you point to is only a definition. Nowhere in that part of the bill is it stated that people must receive that consultation; the consultation is merely defined.

Then define the word "mandatory"

Quoting Dvk (Reply 343): You are cherry picking and placing your own liberal (pun intended) interpretation on many items.

All of those "cherrys" could become the law if the land. So eliminating them now, and defeating these bills is the only option. These bills all throw out the baby with the bath water.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 345): Quoting Dvk (Reply 324): Nobody is going to force euthanasia on the elderly or disabled, despite the lies of Sarah Palin and her ilk. Some people actually believe Palin's crap, no matter how far out in right field it is.

Oh really? Have you scene this? The NY Post is not a conservitive newspaper.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009...lumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm

That story describes exactly what the WH and BHO wants to do.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 346): The private health care industry "cherry-picks" the market for younger people, without health conditions, or family histories of "expensive" diseases such as cancer.

That is illegal now. You do have a recourse with the insurance companies through the courts, and the courts have supported the claimants in most cases.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 346): * Last night in Tampa, Florida, a town hall meeting erupted into violence, with the police being called to break up fist fights and shoving matches. * A Texas Democrat was shouted down by right-wing hecklers, many of whom admitted they didn't even live in his district, and was escorted from the meeting by police. * One North Carolina representative announced he wouldn't be holding any town-hall meetings after his office began receiving DEATH threats. * And in Maryland, protesters hung a Democratic congressman in effigy to oppose health-care reform.

Have you noticed there was no violence before the WH, and Obama himself, issued instructions to union thugs and ACORN to "punch them back twice as hard"?

None of you liberals seemed to care when President Bush was treated like that. None of you complained when a lib produced a movie showing the assination of President Bush. None of you libs queationed the Black Panthers in Philly intimidating voters on the polling booths on the last election day, and then the Obama Justice Department dropping a slam dunk case against the club holding thugs.

But let an conservitive stand up for his or her rights, and your thugs are there, throwing punches, treating people, "visiting" people's homes in the middle of the night (like what happened to the father of a disabled boy in Michigan after he confronted Dingle Berry Dingle about the heatlh care. Dingle told him "an anemdment is attached to care for the disabled", but Dingle couldn't give the anemdment number. Why? Because Dingle LIED, there is no amendment.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 351): The only way the current plan would eliminate people's ability to choose their health care is if the public option is so overwhelmingly superior to private health care that the market for private health care collapses.

WRONG, again. They can simply ligislate private insurance out of exsistance, like they are doing now with these bills, son.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 355): I guess what it comes down to is a belief that health care is right up there with food, shelter, water, etc. on the list of basic necessities for life.

Yes, I agree, but none of them need to be a government provided benefit. People have a personal responsibility to themselves and their families to provide those basics themselves. Why do I need to assure you have food or health care? I do that for my own family.

It is all about personal responsibility, son.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): Yes, I agree, but none of them need to be a government provided benefit. People have a personal responsibility to themselves and their families to provide those basics themselves. Why do I need to assure you have food or health care? I do that for my own family. It is all about personal responsibility, son.

Some people are born into situations in which they cannot provide for themselves (or have great difficulty doing so). Luckily, most of society has evolved past the "I've got mine and the rest of you can all just f*** off" phase, and is willing to help those less fortunate individuals.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): WRONG, again. They can simply ligislate private insurance out of exsistance, like they are doing now with these bills, son.

Yes, they could legislate private insurance out of existance, and they could also legislate that we all have to stand on our heads for 15 minutes at 12:35 pm on alternate Tuesdays. But they don't.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): I am living proof that you are WRONG and have no idea what you are talking about. I cost Blue Cross/Blue Shield more than $300K just two years ago.

I'm going to guess that you were enrolled with BCBS prior to your medical crisis. BCBS insured you because, on average, they could expect you and your fellow customers to pay more in premiums than they would pay in health care bills. Once you are on the plan, you have a contract with the insurer stating that they will pay for your health care; they couldn't refuse care once you fell ill, because you could have sued them for breach of contract.

Now suppose for a moment that you knew for a fact that you were going to have a medical condition costing $300K to treat. In the absence of government regulation, no company would insure you for less than $300K, because there would be no profit in it for them.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): The NY Post is not a conservitive newspaper.

I don't have time to respond to all the other things you've written, but you're not serious about that, are you? What would your definition of a conservative newspaper be?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): How about reading pages 425 onward, where all seniors will be subjected to an interrogation every 5 years regarding their "end of life",

First off, I could not load the web page. Second, I saw this exact format on Ed Schultz last night on MSNBC. He was reporting the lies and half-truths on a web site funded by the pharmacutical companies and right-wingers. The way we understand is: for seniors, doctors are going to talk to them about their living will and end of life requests, but NOT killing them. SImply, if they are in a situation where they can not make decisions, what do they want done? Sounds like Palins' "death squads" doesn't it?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas

So, three right-wing activist judges decided state law from the federal bench.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): You really are aguing on both sides of thei issue,

I am telling you what you are saying is the problem. You don't want government run health care (Medicare and VA, for example) yet you want private insurance companies to turn a profit. Would situations like this acutally turn a profit for private insurance companies? I, personally, think a 5% survival rate in 5 years is a pretty good idea.

As medications and treatments are approved and come into being, that right there is cause enough for pushing more money into R&D to keep people healthy and alive to keep the citizens paying. Wouldn't that make more sense?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): People have a personal responsibility to themselves and their families to provide those basics themselves. Why do I need to assure you have food or health care? I do that for my own family. It is all about personal responsibility, son.

Because that is exactly what Jesus would do. The verse goes "Ask and you shall not get a thing from me. Knock and the door shall not be opened because that is your problem" right? How can you on the right think of yourselves as the Christian party and keep a straight face? Is this really what Jesus had in mind when He went around converting and asking those to follow Him? "Forget everyone else and do what is best and right for you and you alone?" Really? That is not my interpretation of His life. But, that is just me. I must have an outdated copy of the Bible.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): People who have no health insurance now are already provided medical care free of charge

If you are uninsured and go to the hospital, they will treat you and then send you a bill. If you do not pay the bill, they will come after you.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): Go to the definations section and look up the word "mandatory"

The word mandatory does not appear in the section about marriage counseling, so you have no point...as usual.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): I wonder if you would say that when it comes to someone you love. Or do you love anyone?

You missed the point. The free market doesn't love anyone. If you run things purely under free market ideals, that's when you start having insurance companies decide that it's not worth it to treat elderly patients who probably won't live much longer anyways. We do love and care for our elders - that's why we object to a purely free-market system.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): The SCOTUS decision was 7-2

No, it was 5-4 and Souter voted against stopping the recount. He felt there was no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to intervene!

Quoting Dvk (Reply 362): No, it was 5-4 and Souter voted against stopping the recount. He felt there was no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to intervene!

Feel free to expand on that statement with some documentation to back it up.

Quoting DXing (Reply 363): Feel free to expand on that statement with some documentation to back it up

Why don't you look it up yourself? I'm right on this one. But for a few:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

infoplease.com/ipa/A0877961.html

nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/scalia-defends-supreme-courts.html

Look for the section that discussed J.P. Stevens' "savage dissent" with the majority. And if you don't know that Souter voted against stopping the recount, you haven't paid attention to any of the news reports around the time he announced his retirement. His dissent in the 2000 election case was discussed repeatedly.

Do a simple google search on the 2000 election supreme court decision and you'll find lots more yourself.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): I wonder if you would say that when it comes to someone you love. Or do you love anyone?

Love? Are you kidding me? It ALL about profits man. Wall Street rules. If i where you i would cut my losses and invest in Coffin Makers. Let the free market shine!

Love is such a communist/socialst/marxist sentiment. Go back to the 60's!!


PS. I am half kidding of course

Quoting Dvk (Reply 364): Why don't you look it up yourself?

Because I'm not the one making the statement as fact? If you want to issue a statement as fact, back it up. I either do, or qualify my statement. It saves a lot of time down the road.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): The SCOTUS decision was 7-2

Quoting Dvk (Reply 362): No, it was 5-4 and Souter voted against stopping the recount.

According to the wikipedia link you provided:

Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.

That was the Federal part of the decision. KC is right on that part.


Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist,[27] Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer,[28] Ginsburg, Souter[29] and Stevens opposed). Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.

That is to the earlier case of how long the recount could continue. December 12th was State law. The Court voted that to be fair the FL SC had to abide by existing State law.

The BushvGore decision did not end VP's Gore's opportunity to appeal, he decided to drop any further appeals.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 362): He felt there was no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to intervene!

Would you care to provide that quote in a link? None of the three you provide says that. As a matter of fact the closest I can come is:

Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.

This is what upsets conservatives. Liberals just toss out lines like "You get to keep your healthcare if you like it" when their very own plan says exactly the opposite.

With some luck this August Congressional recess will serve at the needed time-out for most Democtrats to realize how big of a lemon these ideas are and how much the 'average' American which they so desperately are claiming to 'protect' has no interest in this trillian Dollar government boondoggle.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 355): You probably won't get your money back, no.

It brings up a good point . So if I am inclined to pay a share of one of my fellow "under privileged" citizens health care bill.... what do I get in return. Not selfish .. but what does this under privileged person plan on doing to move from under privileged class.

Will free health-care help this person enough to drive them towards achieving a better level of income. It goes too what I have said before on here ... affording health-care and security for my family has really motivated me to work hard. My hard work and drive not only benefits myself and my family ...it also creates benefit for the economy as a whole .. This benefits all of my fellow countrymen.

Quoting DXing (Reply 366): This is what upsets conservatives. Liberals just toss out lines like "You get to keep your healthcare if you like it" when their very own plan says exactly the opposite

BS. The Supreme Court final decision was 5-4, period. You're just blowing smoke and refusing to admit that I was right. It was the final decision that ended the recount.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 357): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): Yes, I agree, but none of them need to be a government provided benefit. People have a personal responsibility to themselves and their families to provide those basics themselves. Why do I need to assure you have food or health care? I do that for my own family. It is all about personal responsibility, son. Some people are born into situations in which they cannot provide for themselves (or have great difficulty doing so).

No. it isn't some people, it is EVERYONE here in the US. The only people that don't have a real chance to succeed are those with mantal disabilities or handicaps. EVERYONE else has an oppertunity to succeed, but they have to work for it.

That, son is a concept that is unknown to liberals.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 357): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): WRONG, again. They can simply ligislate private insurance out of exsistance, like they are doing now with these bills, son. Yes, they could legislate private insurance out of existance, and they could also legislate that we all have to stand on our heads for 15 minutes at 12:35 pm on alternate Tuesdays.

The first one Congress is trying to do now, hense the reason for this thread. The second one Congress will exempt themselves (as they always do) because they cannot do that, nor do they kn bow when every second Tuesday comes around.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 357): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): I am living proof that you are WRONG and have no idea what you are talking about. I cost Blue Cross/Blue Shield more than $300K just two years ago. I'm going to guess that you were enrolled with BCBS prior to your medical crisis.

Correct, I haver had continous health insurance since I began my working life at 16.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 357):

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 357): Now suppose for a moment that you knew for a fact that you were going to have a medical condition costing $300K to treat. In the absence of government regulation, no company would insure you for less than $300K, because there would be no profit in it for them.

First, people live in the real world, not a Alise in wonderland world. Everyone has a 1 in 4 chance (25%) of coming down with a major health issue (cancer, heart disease, etc.) within their life span. The insurance companies already know this and have that in the calculated preimums, spread over everyone they insure.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 359): I saw this exact format on Ed Schultz last night on MSNBC. He was reporting the lies and half-truths on a web site funded by the pharmacutical companies and right-wingers

Well, that certainly explains why you are like you are, a numb minded liberal follower.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 359): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas So, three right-wing activist judges decided state law from the federal bench.

Now you made a statement I am going to force you to back up.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 359): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): You really are aguing on both sides of thei issue, I am telling you what you are saying is the problem. You don't want government run health care (Medicare and VA, for example) yet you want private insurance companies to turn a profit.

Medicare and VA are NOT socuial programs. You must pay for it somehow, through your Medicare taxes, or premiums, or, in the case of the VA, military service.

Have you been to a VA hospital lately? While they have "cleaned up their image" they still give less than quality care to our veterans.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 359): I, personally, think a 5% survival rate in 5 years is a pretty good idea.

Some compassion for someone who claims to be both a liberal and a Christian. May God have mercy on your soul.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 359): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): People have a personal responsibility to themselves and their families to provide those basics themselves. Why do I need to assure you have food or health care? I do that for my own family. It is all about personal responsibility, son. Because that is exactly what Jesus would do. The verse goes "Ask and you shall not get a thing from me. Knock and the door shall not be opened because that is your problem" right? How can you on the right think of yourselves as the Christian party and keep a straight face? Is this really what Jesus had in mind when He went around converting and asking those to follow Him? "Forget everyone else and do what is best and right for you and you alone?" Really? That is not my interpretation of His life. But, that is just me. I must have an outdated copy of the Bible.

Don't quote the Bible to me, you just make up what you cannot understand.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 360): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): People who have no health insurance now are already provided medical care free of charge If you are uninsured and go to the hospital, they will treat you and then send you a bill. If you do not pay the bill, they will come after you.

Yes, they get a bill, but no one comes after them for not paying. When they get sick again, and treated at the same hospital, they sytill get cared for, not turned away. You do know that not paying a hospital bill cannot get reported to credit reporting agencies, don't you?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 360): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): Go to the definations section and look up the word "mandatory" The word mandatory does not appear in the section about marriage counseling, so you have no point...as usual.

Nice try, but you failed again. I said look it up in the definations section, I said nothing about the marrage counciling section.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 361): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): I wonder if you would say that when it comes to someone you love. Or do you love anyone? You missed the point. The free market doesn't love anyone. If you run things purely under free market ideals, that's when you start having insurance companies decide that it's not worth it to treat elderly patients who probably won't live much longer anyways. We do love and care for our elders - that's why we object to a purely free-market system.

No, you missed the point (how are you getting through college doing that?). In the free maket, we have these "thingies" called "contracts" and "policies". That is a written agreement, enforcable in court that makes the insurance companies honor their insurance packages.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 362): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): The SCOTUS decision was 7-2 No, it was 5-4 and Souter voted against stopping the recount. He felt there was no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to intervene!

Quoting DXing (Reply 363): Feel free to expand on that statement with some documentation to back it up.

Quoting DXing (Reply 366): According to the wikipedia link you provided: Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties. That was the Federal part of the decision. KC is right on that part. Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist,[27] Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer,[28] Ginsburg, Souter[29] and Stevens opposed). Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards. That is to the earlier case of how long the recount could continue. December 12th was State law. The Court voted that to be fair the FL SC had to abide by existing State law. The BushvGore decision did not end VP's Gore's opportunity to appeal, he decided to drop any further appeals.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 369): BS. The Supreme Court final decision was 5-4, period.

No, it was a 7-2 decision that the FL SC had violated the 14th Anemdment, as well as FL State Law, and the FL State Constitution by attempting to legislate from the bench. The SCOTUS overturned the FL SC.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): No. it isn't some people, it is EVERYONE here in the US. The only people that don't have a real chance to succeed are those with mantal disabilities or handicaps. EVERYONE else has an oppertunity to succeed, but they have to work for it.

But the barriers people must overcome to reach that success vary widely. Yes, an African-American male born to a poor single mother in a bad neighborhood with inferior public school can work his way to success, but he's going to have to work a lot harder than a white male born to two upper-middle class parents in the suburbs with good schools. While the latter individual may just have to be mediocre to succeed, the former individual will have to be exceptional. So what's wrong with the government helping out?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): First, people live in the real world, not a Alise in wonderland world. Everyone has a 1 in 4 chance (25%) of coming down with a major health issue (cancer, heart disease, etc.) within their life span. The insurance companies already know this and have that in the calculated preimums, spread over everyone they insure.

But in the absence of government regulation, the insurance companies will do everything they can to make sure that the one individual in four who will come down with a health issue isn't on their plan, allowing them to make more profit. Today, that takes the form of denying coverage to customers with prior conditions. As genomic medicine advances, what's to stop insurance companies from requiring potential customers to undergo genetic screening, and then refusing to cover them for conditions to which they are genetically predisposed? Answer - the government.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): In the free maket, we have these "thingies" called "contracts" and "policies". That is a written agreement, enforcable in court that makes the insurance companies honor their insurance packages.

You're right that an insurance company can't break a contract once signed, but what about before the contract is signed? In the absence of regulation, what's to keep insurance companies from deciding that all future policies will cease coverage at age 75, if they calculate that that's the age past which the average customer will require more health care than they are paying for in premiums? That would be the free market thing to do, wouldn't it--do whatever is necessary to maximize profit?

Quoting Dvk (Reply 369): BS. The Supreme Court final decision was 5-4, period. You're just blowing smoke and refusing to admit that I was right. It was the final decision that ended the recount.

Sorry, but that simply is not a true statement. Once again, from a link you provided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

The per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead "remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Gore's attorneys therefore understood that they could fight on, and could petition the Florida Supreme Court to repudiate the notion that December 12 was final under Florida law. Gore was not optimistic about how the Florida justices would react to further arguments, and in any event "the best Gore could hope for was a slate of disputed electors", as one of his advisers put it. So, Gore dropped the case. On remand, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 22, 2000 that did not dispute whether December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law.


VP Gore dropped his appeals. VP Gore ended the recount. State law was upheld.

Why is it for some strange reason the left thinks it can just throw stuff up and nobody will fact check it? The President today in NH lied straight to the American peoples faces. Either that or he has not yet read the proposed House legislation.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): No. it isn't some people, it is EVERYONE here in the US. The only people that don't have a real chance to succeed are those with mantal disabilities or handicaps. EVERYONE else has an oppertunity to succeed, but they have to work for it.

I'm not going to argue with the points you are trying to make because it is an exercise in futility. As the old saying goes, there is none so blind as he who will not see. But please, PLEASE, will you take advantage of the spell-check feature built into these forums. It will catch 90% of your spelling mistakes.

Quoting DXing (Reply 372): Sorry, but that simply is not a true statement. Once again, from a link you provided:

From the same link:

Quote: The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.... The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline.

So the 7-2 ruling was on the recount as proposed by the Florida SC, but it was the subsequent 5-4 ruling which held that no form of recount that could be done by the December 12 deadline would be valid. At that point, Gore's only recourse would have been to challenge the deadline itself in the Florida SC, which he chose not to do, since his chances of winning that argument in court would be very slim (the law was quite clear on that being the deadline to certify the vote).

So yes, the Florida recount was stopped by a 7-2 vote, but the more important decision, the one that ruled out any other attempts at a recount, was by a 5-4 margin.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 356): Oh really? Have you scene this? The NY Post is not a conservitive newspaper.

Not conservative or liberal from what I can tell - goes after the big, hot headlines - sort of like The Sun in the UK (thesun.co.uk) except The Sun has the Page 3 girls.   

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): While they have "cleaned up their image" they still give less than quality care to our veterans.

I haven't been in the hospital, but the care I get at the local clinic is first rate - as good as I get when I pay out the nose (or other body orifice) for in the private care world. The prescriptions come in the mail and the new glasses will be ready in about 4 weeks as they are non-urgent.

I would also note that if I have an emergency I can go to any hospital ER and be taken care of with the charges sent to the VA.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 374): So yes, the Florida recount was stopped by a 7-2 vote, but the more important decision, the one that ruled out any other attempts at a recount, was by a 5-4 margin.

I'm sorry but that is simply wrong as you pointed out yourself:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 374): Gore's only recourse would have been to challenge the deadline itself in the Florida SC, which he chose not to do, since his chances of winning that argument in court would be very slim (the law was quite clear on that being the deadline to certify the vote).

The 7-2 voted centered on the 14th amendment. All the rest was up to the FL SC and VP Gore. In the end the FL SC did not dispute that the December 12th date was within the law so the 5-4 decision had no real bearing on the outcome and VP Gore decided to drop any further appeals. The essential decision was the 7-2 vote in BushvGore.

Quoting DXing (Reply 376): The 7-2 voted centered on the 14th amendment. All the rest was up to the FL SC and VP Gore. In the end the FL SC did not dispute that the December 12th date was within the law so the 5-4 decision had no real bearing on the outcome and VP Gore decided to drop any further appeals. The essential decision was the 7-2 vote in BushvGore.

No, you're still wrong.   The Florida SC instituted one particular recount plan. The 7-2 vote ruled that that particular recount plan violated the 14th Amendment. That vote did not preclude the development of a different recount plan that would comply with the equal protection clause. The 5-4 vote ruled that it was impossible to devise a plan that would both comply with the 14th Amendment and meet the December 12th deadline. Ergo, it was the 5-4 vote that mattered, because if only the 7-2 decision had been made, Florida may well have been able to design a Constitutionally valid alternate recount plan that met the deadline. The 5-4 vote eliminated that possibility, sealing Gore's defeat.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): Well, that certainly explains why you are like you are, a numb minded liberal follower.

What? That a web site funded by a pharmacutical company was simply "cut and pasted" onto this thread?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): Now you made a statement I am going to force you to back up.

That three justices inserted themselves into a state issue. It was a state election, where it's citizens were voting for representatives to the electoral college and how those representatives would vote *from Florida* and not from any other state. Activist judges *from the right* decided what is best for the state of Florida.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): Medicare and VA are NOT socuial programs.

Good point. Medicare is single payer. VA is socialist. Government decides who doctors are, government decides who can be treated at VA hospitals. Government decides. Just like in a socialist regeme.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): Some compassion for someone who claims to be both a liberal and a Christian.

I was just pointing out the flaw in "Christian" right-wing thinking.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): Don't quote the Bible to me, you just make up what you cannot understand.

I do understand. Love everyone. Period. No exceptions. Help everyone. Period. No exceptions. Except, what the right wing wants to do is say this, but throw everyone overboard because that line of thinking it WAY too expensive for their CEOs to keep helping everyone.

BTW, the "death commissions" that Sarah Palin and other right-wingers are going off half-cocked about was inserted into health care reform by a Republican from Georgia. He is now a senator. Name escapes me at the moment, but there are only two of them....

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 378): I do understand. Love everyone. Period. No exceptions. Help everyone. Period. No exceptions. Except, what the right wing wants to do is say this, but throw everyone overboard because that line of thinking it WAY too expensive for their CEOs to keep helping everyone.

Yep. Ever since Constantine, conservatives have been conveniently forgetting that Christianity calls for a radical reorganization of social priorities in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with market capitalism. Jesus practically forbade the accumulation of wealth while anyone was still in poverty. Of course, I'm not arguing that the government should set policy based on this--that would be a violation of the separation of church and state. I just find it ironic that many conservatives like to talk about how we are a Christian nation, and then conveniently ignore the inconvenient parts of Jesus' teachings.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 377): The 5-4 vote ruled that it was impossible to devise a plan that would both comply with the 14th Amendment and meet the December 12th deadline. Ergo, it was the 5-4 vote that mattered, because if only the 7-2 decision had been made, Florida may well have been able to design a Constitutionally valid alternate recount plan that met the deadline. The 5-4 vote eliminated that possibility, sealing Gore's defeat.

Nope. As you quoted, Gore could have appealed the 5-4 decision, he could not appeal the 7-2 decision. He chose to drop his appeal process and it was not until Dec. 22nd that the FL SC issued an opinion that did not dispute that Dec. 12th was the final date for a recount as described by State law. Gore could have still appealed that but had decided not too earlier on. The 7-2 vote was the straw that broke the camels back.

Quoting DXing (Reply 380): Nope. As you quoted, Gore could have appealed the 5-4 decision, he could not appeal the 7-2 decision. He chose to drop his appeal process and it was not until Dec. 22nd that the FL SC issued an opinion that did not dispute that Dec. 12th was the final date for a recount as described by State law. Gore could have still appealed that but had decided not too earlier on. The 7-2 vote was the straw that broke the camels back.

No, he could not have appealed the 5-4 decision--like the 7-2 decision, it was a final decision from the Supreme Court, and Supreme Court decisions cannot be appealed. He could have challenged the December 12th deadline in the Florida SC, but that would not have overturned the 5-4 ruling; it would have simply rendered it moot, as the ruling prohibited all recounts completed by 12/12 but said nothing about those that took longer. Gore chose not to challenge the deadline because he had no legal argument for doing so, as the Florida SC agreed after the fact.

To summarize, here's the classes of recounts prohibited by each source, in the order that the rules were made:
FL state law: recounts lasting beyond 12/12
7-2 USSC decision: the particular recount ordered by the FLSC
5-4 USSC decision: all other recounts completed by 12/12

Clearly, it was the 5-4 decision that reduced the set of permissible recounts to the empty set, thus preventing Gore's potential victory.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 381): No, he could not have appealed the 5-4 decision

Yes he could have since that decision gave the Florida SC the opportunity to re-evaluate their ealier decision. The FL SC declined to do so but even at that the Gore campaign could have appealed again but chose not to do so. Again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

The per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead "remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Gore's attorneys therefore understood that they could fight on, and could petition the Florida Supreme Court to repudiate the notion that December 12 was final under Florida law. Gore was not optimistic about how the Florida justices would react to further arguments, and in any event "the best Gore could hope for was a slate of disputed electors", as one of his advisers put it. So, Gore dropped the case. On remand, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 22, 2000 that did not dispute whether December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law.

So your statement is simply wrong.

"The best healthcare in the world -- why fix anything."

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 371): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): No. it isn't some people, it is EVERYONE here in the US. The only people that don't have a real chance to succeed are those with mantal disabilities or handicaps. EVERYONE else has an oppertunity to succeed, but they have to work for it. But the barriers people must overcome to reach that success vary widely. Yes, an African-American male born to a poor single mother in a bad neighborhood with inferior public school can work his way to success, but he's going to have to work a lot harder than a white male born to two upper-middle class parents in the suburbs with good schools. While the latter individual may just have to be mediocre to succeed, the former individual will have to be exceptional. So what's wrong with the government helping out?

But, why does the government need to level the playing field? When ever the government does try leveling the [playing field, all they end up doing is discriminating against a different group. That is just as wrong.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 371): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): First, people live in the real world, not a Alise in wonderland world. Everyone has a 1 in 4 chance (25%) of coming down with a major health issue (cancer, heart disease, etc.) within their life span. The insurance companies already know this and have that in the calculated preimums, spread over everyone they insure. But in the absence of government regulation, the insurance companies will do everything they can to make sure that the one individual in four who will come down with a health issue isn't on their plan, allowing them to make more profit. Today, that takes the form of denying coverage to customers with prior conditions. As genomic medicine advances, what's to stop insurance companies from requiring potential customers to undergo genetic screening, and then refusing to cover them for conditions to which they are genetically predisposed? Answer - the government.

First of all, the insurance companies are regulated, not by thr federal government, but by the states. There are federal laws that do apply to the insurance companies, and the health care industry.

Next HIPPA laws prevent that. We already have the laws we need. That is why people are so successful against the occasional insurance company that fails to honor their policies. The vast majorities of people who have health insurance, get the care they need, withou a hassle from their insurance company. But, we never hear of those cases, only the one case in a hundred thousand cases (or more) where the insurance company failed to cover the costs of care.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 371): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): In the free maket, we have these "thingies" called "contracts" and "policies". That is a written agreement, enforcable in court that makes the insurance companies honor their insurance packages. You're right that an insurance company can't break a contract once signed, but what about before the contract is signed? In the absence of regulation, what's to keep insurance companies from deciding that all future policies will cease coverage at age 75, if they calculate that that's the age past which the average customer will require more health care than they are paying for in premiums?

There is no "absence of regulation", all 50 states have an insurance commission charged with insuring complience with those regulations.

Most people over 65 are on Medicare, and many have supplemential insurance (AFLAC is an example). There are very few US citizens over 65 who still have private insurance as their only coverage.

I don't understand what you were asking when you said "but what about before the contract is signed". Before the contract is signed, you are not covered.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 374): From the same link: Quote: The Supreme Court ruled 7%u20132 that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.... The Court ruled 5%u20134 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. So the 7-2 ruling was on the recount as proposed by the Florida SC, but it was the subsequent 5-4 ruling which held that no form of recount that could be done by the December 12 deadline would be valid.

The reall ruling from the SCOTUS was about a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, the selective use of some of FL's laws, and the ignoring of the FL Constitution by the FL SC.

The 5-4 ruling you, and a few others refer to was the portion to remand (return) the case back to the FL SC, and to formerly end to count of the votes by the selected counties. It was also intended to comply with the (then) current FL State Law, that required the FL SOS to certify the election XX days after the polls were closed, thus ending any and all recounts. As comparison, MN has no such law saying (or didn't for the 2008 US Senate election) setting a "deadline" the election results must be certified on.

Quoting DXing (Reply 376): The 7-2 voted centered on the 14th amendment. All the rest was up to the FL SC and VP Gore. In the end the FL SC did not dispute that the December 12th date was within the law so the 5-4 decision had no real bearing on the outcome and VP Gore decided to drop any further appeals.

Correct

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 378): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 370): Now you made a statement I am going to force you to back up. That three justices inserted themselves into a state issue. It was a state election, where it's citizens were voting for representatives to the electoral college and how those representatives would vote *from Florida* and not from any other state. Activist judges *from the right* decided what is best for the state of Florida.

No, they did not. They enforced the FL laws on the books at the time, the FL Constitution, and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, that was NOT a "state election". The election of the POTUS is the only Federal Election, it just happens to be run by the states. People do not vote for electors to the electroal college, they vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. The members of the electorial college are the 535 sitting members of the current Congress. Their votes are dictated to by the various state election, winner take all system.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 378): VA is socialist

No it is NOT

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 378): BTW, the "death commissions" that Sarah Palin and other right-wingers are going off half-cocked about was inserted into health care reform by a Republican from Georgia. He is now a senator. Name escapes me at the moment, but there are only two of them....

Saxby Chambliss was elected as the US Senator from Georgia in 2002, and reelected in 2008. Before that he was in the US House of Representitives. He sits on:
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (Ranking Member)
As Ranking Member of the full committee, Sen. Chambliss may serve as an ex officio member of all subcommittees.
Committee on Armed Services
Subcommittee on Airland
Subcommittee on Personnel
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Committee on Rules and Administration
Select Committee on Intelligence
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

The other US Senator from Georgia is Johnny Isakson, he was also a US House of representitives member from Georgia. He sits on :
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard
Subcommittee on Science and Space
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee on African Affairs (Ranking Member)
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Select Committee on Ethics (Vice Chairman)

In the US Senate, it is the Finance Committee that is workng on the Senate version of the health care bill, Neither of the two US Senators from Georgia are on this committee, and currently only Finance Committee members can attach amendments to that bill.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): In the US Senate, it is the Finance Committee that is workng on the Senate version of the health care bill, Neither of the two US Senators from Georgia are on this committee, and currently only Finance Committee members can attach amendments to that bill.

Isakson sponsored an amendment to the House bill that provides for end-of-life counseling. I believe that is what Seb146 is referring to.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 385): Isakson sponsored an amendment to the House bill that provides for end-of-life counseling. I believe that is what Seb146 is referring to.

Yes. Thank you. Johnny Isakson, *Republican* from Georgia, proposed that every five years, seniors have end-of-life counseling covered. Doctors and counselors would do this every five years.

Another provision that I don't understand why the right is so upset about is the secure electronic transfer of records. What gets me is the right is so opposed to this but perfectly willing to accept data mining without warrents and wire tapping without warrents. Doctors and specialists across the country can share medical records. So, if you live in PHX and, God forbid, have a heart attack in PWM, records can be shared between health care providers. I would love that! If I am incapacitated to the point where I can not tell docotors I am alergic to ibuprofin, I want that known. I think that is pretty important. Especially if I am alone in an unfamiliar town.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 386): Yes. Thank you. Johnny Isakson, *Republican* from Georgia, proposed that every five years, seniors have end-of-life counseling covered. Doctors and counselors would do this every five years.

Wrong again.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-also-on-house-democrats-bill.html

“This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don’t read the bills," says Isakson in a paper statement. "The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies,” Isakson continued. “My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.”

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 386): What gets me is the right is so opposed to this but perfectly willing to accept data mining without warrents and wire tapping without warrents.

Unless the bank account is located offshore or at least one of the callers is located overseas it is still illegal without a warrant. Nice try but wrong again.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 386): I am incapacitated to the point where I can not tell docotors I am alergic to ibuprofin, I want that known. I think that is pretty important. Especially if I am alone in an unfamiliar town.

Then wear a f--king med tag!!!!!! How about taking at least that much personal responsibility for your life?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 378): VA is socialist.

And all the vets that have served their country?

Are we socialists because we get health care at the VA.

I guess TopBoom is the biggest socialists of us all - 22 years in the Air Force.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): There is no "absence of regulation", all 50 states have an insurance commission charged with insuring complience with those regulations. Most people over 65 are on Medicare, and many have supplemential insurance (AFLAC is an example). There are very few US citizens over 65 who still have private insurance as their only coverage.

Maybe there's a bit of confusion here - I was discussing what would occur if the health insurance market were run entirely by free-market principles, and showing that that would be a very bad idea. I recognize that the market is regulated, and I'm glad you seem to agree those regulations are necessary, even if we disagree on the proper extent of regulation.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): People do not vote for electors to the electroal college, they vote for the President and Vice President of the United States.

No, they vote for electors - your ballot may say "Barack Obama" and "John McCain," but who you're really electing are panels of electors selected by the two parties that have promised to vote for that party's candidate. They have no legal obligation to vote the way they said they would - google the term "faithless elector."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): The members of the electorial college are the 535 sitting members of the current Congress.

Also not true. The Constitution specifically prohibits members of Congress from serving as electors.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): Furthermore, that was NOT a "state election".

From the Constitution:

Quote: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clearly, the matter of choosing electors is left to the state, and as such is a state issue, not a federal one.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): But, why does the government need to level the playing field?

Because no one should be condemned to failure due to the accident of their birth.

Quoting DXing (Reply 387): Wrong again.

How was he wrong? If you read the blog you quoted you'd see the paragraph before the one you quoted says:
"But, apparently Obama did not invoke Isakson with the senator's blessing, and now there is some pushback today from the Georgia Republican who voted against the Senate health reform bill in committee, but did add an end-of-life consultation amendment to it."

So Isakson did sponsor the amendment to the bill, then voted against it.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 385): Isakson sponsored an amendment to the House bill that provides for end-of-life counseling. I believe that is what Seb146 is referring to.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 386): Yes. Thank you. Johnny Isakson, *Republican* from Georgia, proposed that every five years, seniors have end-of-life counseling covered. Doctors and counselors would do this every five years.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 386): Another provision that I don't understand why the right is so upset about is the secure electronic transfer of records. What gets me is the right is so opposed to this but perfectly willing to accept data mining without warrents and wire tapping without warrents. Doctors and specialists across the country can share medical records. So, if you live in PHX and, God forbid, have a heart attack in PWM, records can be shared between health care providers. I would love that! If I am incapacitated to the point where I can not tell docotors I am alergic to ibuprofin, I want that known. I think that is pretty important. Especially if I am alone in an unfamiliar town.

Quoting DXing (Reply 387): Wrong again. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-also-on-house-democrats-bill.html %u201CThis is what happens when the President and members of Congress don%u2019t read the bills," says Isakson in a paper statement. "The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats%u2019 bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies,%u201D Isakson continued. %u201CMy Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.%u201D

Quoting Max550 (Reply 390): How was he wrong? If you read the blog you quoted you'd see the paragraph before the one you quoted says: "But, apparently Obama did not invoke Isakson with the senator's blessing, and now there is some pushback today from the Georgia Republican who voted against the Senate health reform bill in committee, but did add an end-of-life consultation amendment to it." So Isakson did sponsor the amendment to the bill, then voted against it.

Did you read the whole blog? Do you have the ability to understand it? You do seem to have that lack of understanding other things written that many others have pointed out to you.

Either way, both Repubs and Dems have screwed up this country recently. Next year we can replace every House members and 1/3 of the Senate.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 388): Quoting Seb146 (Reply 378): VA is socialist. And all the vets that have served their country? Are we socialists because we get health care at the VA. I guess TopBoom is the biggest socialists of us all - 22 years in the Air Force.

Correct, I do use the VA, and have been fighting with them for benefits I have EARNED.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 381): Clearly, it was the 5-4 decision that reduced the set of permissible recounts to the empty set, thus preventing Gore's potential victory.

First, Gore never had a victory in FL in 2000. That was the soul reason for his constant requests for differing recounts and procedures, so he could over come those few hunderd vote that Bush lead by. He never found the right combination he sought, even with a Gore request NOT to recount absentee ballots submitted by US Military Personnel from FL stationed outside of FL at the time. He knew he could not win that group so he didn't want them counted.

Second, all that 5-4 SCOTUS decision did was uphold the then exsisting FL law requiring all vote counts and recounts be completed by a certain number of days after the election, and the SOS must certify that election on that date. In 2000, that date fell on 12 Dec. That law is also the same as written in the FL State Constitution. The FL SC ignored both the FL Law and the FL Constitution, until the SCOTUS overruled them in the 7-2 decision, then in a seperate ruling, the 5-4 decision critisized the FL SC.

Gore had a chance to appeal back to the FL SC, but choose not to. Read the FL SC decision of 22 Dec. 2000, finally up[holding the 12 December date for the election certification, and end to the recounts.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 389): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): People do not vote for electors to the electroal college, they vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. No, they vote for electors - your ballot may say "Barack Obama" and "John McCain," but who you're really electing are panels of electors selected by the two parties that have promised to vote for that party's candidate. They have no legal obligation to vote the way they said they would - google the term "faithless elector."

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 389): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): People do not vote for electors to the electroal college, they vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. No, they vote for electors - your ballot may say "Barack Obama" and "John McCain," but who you're really electing are panels of electors selected by the two parties that have promised to vote for that party's candidate. They have no legal obligation to vote the way they said they would - google the term "faithless elector." Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): The members of the electorial college are the 535 sitting members of the current Congress. Also not true. The Constitution specifically prohibits members of Congress from serving as electors. Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): Furthermore, that was NOT a "state election". From the Constitution: Quote: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Clearly, the matter of choosing electors is left to the state, and as such is a state issue, not a federal one.

Son, I'm going to give you some homework. Go ahead and read something called the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution. It defines how the eletorial works, and how the US Congress certifies the Presidential Election and Electoral College.

Here is a references for you.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Modern_Electoral_College_mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ngress_and_the_contingent_election

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 389): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 384): But, why does the government need to level the playing field? Because no one should be condemned to failure due to the accident of their birth.

I agree with you on that, however, the only way the government has ever done that is to discriminate against someone else. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 391): Son, I'm going to give you some homework. Go ahead and read something called the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution. It defines how the eletorial works, and how the US Congress certifies the Presidential Election and Electoral College.

One wonders if you read the references you cited.

Quote: Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Each state currently uses its statewide popular vote on Election Day to appoint electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices.

So the voters choose electors; they don't vote for the president. Plus, the states get to decide how they want to appoint electors--all of them choose to use the popular vote, but there's nothing saying they can't use another method. On several occasions, states have chosen their electors by a vote of the state legislature. The federal government's only Constitutional roles in the presidential election (aside from general 14th Amendment considerations) are to a) count the electors' votes and b) settle elections in which no candidate receives a majority of votes.

In other words, all three of your claims - that voters vote for the president directly, that congressmen serve as electors in the Electoral College, and that the election of the Electors (and indirectly the president) is a federal election rather than a collection of 50 state elections - are incorrect.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 388): And all the vets that have served their country? Are we socialists because we get health care at the VA.

Did I say the vets are socialist? When did I say that? What I actually said is the VA itself is socialist and government controlled and run. It is elitist. Only a slect few are available for government selected doctors and government selected nurses at governmetn selected facilites and government selected pharmacies. The people that go to these facilites are not socialist. Just the facilities themselves.

Quoting DXing (Reply 387): Unless the bank account is located offshore or at least one of the callers is located overseas it is still illegal without a warrant.

Are you sure about that? Where is the information on these wire taps and all the datamining that went on?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 391): Did you read the whole blog?

Speaking only for myself: Yes.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 391): Do you have the ability to understand it?

Again, speaking only for myself: Yes.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 391): You do seem to have that lack of understanding other things written that many others have pointed out to you.

Well, no. A senator opposes the house bill. Fine. But, Senator Isakson is not a part of the House anymore. But, how about the last line of the blog:

"But the bill Isakson offered has more similarities with the House Democrats’ bill than it has differences."

And, from Isakson himself:

"My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney."

Yes, I did also read section 1233 of HR 3200 via the link provided in the blog. The section regarding the "death panels" and, to me, it looks exactly like what Johnny Isakson proposed: discussing power of attorney, end of life, living wills, do not recussetate orders and so forth and having those discussions with medical providers. I did not see anything at all about killing grandma or death panels. All I saw is the option to have discussions about DNR orders, power of attorney, living will, end of life and so forth, covered by health care.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 391): Did you read the whole blog? Do you have the ability to understand it? You do seem to have that lack of understanding other things written that many others have pointed out to you.

I read the blog quickly and I was mistaken about whether they were referring to a House or Senate bill. Thanks for the correction (if that was a correction).

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 379): Yep. Ever since Constantine, conservatives have been conveniently forgetting that Christianity calls for a radical reorganization of social priorities in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with market capitalism. Jesus practically forbade the accumulation of wealth while anyone was still in poverty. Of course, I'm not arguing that the government should set policy based on this--that would be a violation of the separation of church and state. I just find it ironic that many conservatives like to talk about how we are a Christian nation, and then conveniently ignore the inconvenient parts of Jesus' teachings.

Oh give me a break. Jesus was neither conservative or liberal. He was compassionate but not a hippie holding up peace signs. He despised stupidity, ignorance, and hypocrisy. Why you're even trying to make the assumption that Christ would be some leftist commie, or the fact you're even politicizing Christ or Christianity is absurd.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 388): And all the vets that have served their country? Are we socialists because we get health care at the VA. I guess TopBoom is the biggest socialists of us all - 22 years in the Air Force.

And I thank you both wholeheartedly for your service. Socialist or not, you both served the country, and that is honorable.   

Quoting Max550 (Reply 390): How was he wrong? If you read the blog you quoted you'd see the paragraph before the one you quoted says: "But, apparently Obama did not invoke Isakson with the senator's blessing, and now there is some pushback today from the Georgia Republican who voted against the Senate health reform bill in committee, but did add an end-of-life consultation amendment to it." So Isakson did sponsor the amendment to the bill, then voted against it.

Yet you conveniently leave out the Senators statement:

Quoting DXing (Reply 387): Isakson continued. “My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney.

H.R. 3200 and the one Senate version Senator Isakson worked on would mandate these end of life counsuling sessions. A sort of "you're getting on so lets discuss how things are going to end" whether or not the person wants to or not. Senator Isakson's amendment makes it a choice of the person to have that counsuling if they so desire.

It is covered in section 1233 of H.R. 3200 which starts on page 424.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 393): Are you sure about that?

Absolutely. It is against the law to wire tap calls made within the United States without a warrant. Any such evidence would be inadmissable in a court. Same with bank accounts.

Quoting DXing (Reply 396): H.R. 3200 and the one Senate version Senator Isakson worked on would mandate these end of life counsuling sessions. A sort of "you're getting on so lets discuss how things are going to end" whether or not the person wants to or not. Senator Isakson's amendment makes it a choice of the person to have that counsuling if they so desire. It is covered in section 1233 of H.R. 3200 which starts on page 424.

It's a mandate of what would be covered in the counseling sessions and how often they can occur, not a mandate that you get a counseling session. It amends the Social Security Act because end-of-life counseling is currently encouraged by the Government but Medicare doesn't pay for it. This section adds Medicare coverage for end-of-life counseling once every five years.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 397): It's a mandate of what would be covered in the counseling sessions and how often they can occur, not a mandate that you get a counseling session.

Incorrect, it is mandated that you will receive the counsuling every five years.

pages 424-425

20 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
21 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
22 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con
23 sultation between the individual and a practitioner de
24 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
25 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
1 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
2 consultation shall include the following:

page 428

‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination
13 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion
14 during such examination, shall not be considered an ad
15 vance care planning consultation for purposes of applying
16 the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

So you can't use a physical where you come out golden as an exclusion to the 5 year death consultation.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 392): In other words, all three of your claims - that voters vote for the president directly, that congressmen serve as electors in the Electoral College, and that the election of the Electors (and indirectly the president) is a federal election rather than a collection of 50 state elections - are incorrect.

So, you did not read the entire 12th amendment? BTW, I never said the POYUS/VPOTUS were directly elected by the voters.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 393): Where is the information on these wire taps and all the datamining that went on?

That is an excellent question, Seb146. Where were all those "illegal wiretaps" done, who did them, and what did they do with that information they got from the datamining?

Quoting DXing (Reply 396): H.R. 3200 and the one Senate version Senator Isakson worked on would mandate these end of life counsuling sessions. A sort of "you're getting on so lets discuss how things are going to end" whether or not the person wants to or not. Senator Isakson's amendment makes it a choice of the person to have that counsuling if they so desire.

An end of life decision should be a personal one between a person, his or her family, and the doctors, ONLY. The government has no business sticking thier nose in such an improtant and personal decision.

But, it seem BHO and the Dems are up to some shaky tactics. Some Dems are no demanding photo IDs to be admitted to town hall meetings. That is funny because these same Dems don't want photo IDs to be presented when people go to vote.

It seems that BarackObama.com is sendong out e-mails to Congressional constituents giving them the wrong time and date of town hall meetings, then stacking the halls with their union thugs and ACORN activists, and not telling the Congresspeople about these e-mails.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...re-plan-push-town-hall-protesters/

When you make attempts to undermine political debate against any subject, you are a NAZI yourself, as that is the tactics Hitler used against his political opponents.

I'll let everyone here decide if BHO is a NAZI, or not.

Then of course, there is Representitive Shiela Jackson-Lee, D, TX is so involved in listening to her constituents in the debate of health care (notice no one is yelling?) that she can take a phone call in the middle of a lady addressing her concerns about health care. If you ask Rep. Jackson-Lee what that lady said, she wouldn't be able to answer.

BTW, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee is from Houston and NASA headquarters in within her district. This is the same Congresswoman who asked NASA, after the Mars Rover landed on Mars to "send it over to take a picture of the US Flag left there by the Astronauts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU