moneymakers Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Me thinks Healthcare is okay. Maynot be perfect but its the best thing going. Leave it alone Didnt Al use to wear diapers . Lets put him in charge Edited September 9, 2009 by moneymakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 What I'm not seeing here is the middle ground. Some fixing is a FAR cry from handing over control of some 17% of the US economy to fedgov. And yes, the way this bill is written that is exactly what is going to happen. There are things that can be done that are between leaving it alone and going to single-payer. How much of the GNP/GDP does the military-industrial complex eat up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 How much of the GNP/GDP does the military-industrial complex eat up? What is the point of this question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 How much has the Republican led Iraqi welfare program cost US taxpayers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 How much of the GNP/GDP does the military-industrial complex eat up? less than 6% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 How much of the GNP/GDP does the military-industrial complex eat up? I have no clue but that's an actual enumerated power of fedgov. Not that it shouldn't be streamlined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 How much has the Republican led Iraqi welfare program cost US taxpayers? The one that had almost complete bipartisan support when congress authorized it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 How much of the GNP/GDP does the military-industrial complex eat up? i dont trust any number that comes from the usg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I have no clue but that's an actual enumerated power of fedgov. Not that it shouldn't be streamlined. +1 Unless you are willing to allow me to have nukes to protect us, I think we need a government controlled military. I don't need the government involved in my knee replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 +1 Unless you are willing to allow me to have nukes to protect us, I think we need a government controlled military. I don't need the government involved in my knee replacement. +1 The government might bug or brainwash your knee. No one wants that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 less than 6% My numbers actually came in around 7%, which is actually SIGNIFICANTLY less than 17%. So, NM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 What is the point of this question? wv seemed to be objecting to the fed gov controlling large chunks of the economy. While 7 < 17 by a long shot, I think it still qualifies as "large" - is there a probelm with that? THAT was the point of the question, you don't have to answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 What I'm not seeing here is the middle ground. Actually you ARE seeing the middle ground. Leaning to the left, but still in the middle. The far left wing wants a complete single payer like Canada. The right wants to keep their wealthy donors in the medical industry happy and keep costs rising at around 10% every year. The middle ground is offering a choice of coverage so that not only are people insured that are not right now, but it SHOULD ease the burden of the rest of us alreading paying for people to use the emergency room as a free clinic check up for a cold. I am still anxiously awaiting this fabled middle ground and ANY substantiative info from the Repubs AT ALL. It is obvious that something needs to be done, and it has to have bi-partisan support to pass. I really really wish that the right wing would actually do some work to FIX the problem instead of sniping from the sidelines and not helping the situation whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I have no clue but that's an actual enumerated power of fedgov. Not that it shouldn't be streamlined. Perhaps a streamlined health care system* shrinks from 17% of the economy to, oh, 10%. Would that be "good"? * - I don't believe Obama has trotted out a plan that is streamlined enough to accomplish this; he's engaging in half-assed half-measures which means he'll prove his critics right - even if passed, it'll fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 wv seemed to be objecting to the fed gov controlling large chunks of the economy. While 7 < 17 by a long shot, I think it still qualifies as "large" - is there a probelm with that? THAT was the point of the question, you don't have to answer. The answer is that protecting us definitely falls under the responsibilty of the gubment. Providing healthcare is debatable. The other isssue is that when you add the 17% nearly 50% of the economy is now driven and controlled by the gubment. There is your France. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 wv seemed to be objecting to the fed gov controlling large chunks of the economy. While 7 < 17 by a long shot, I think it still qualifies as "large" - is there a probelm with that? THAT was the point of the question, you don't have to answer. Yes but as WV noted, providing a military is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, I have yet to find where health care is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Yes but as WV noted, providing a military is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, I have yet to find where health care is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Well they didn't expect GDubb to tank the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Well they didn't expect GDubb to tank the economy. Let say for the sake of argument you're right, and the "tank" is ENTIRELY the fault of shrub. WHAT IN THE SAM HILL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION, MORAN? Dear God in heaven, if you could at least come up with INTELLIGENT non sequitors then maybe someone would occasionally listen to you. As it stands now you're a worse schtick artist than skins or h8tank ever thought about being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Yes but as WV noted, providing a military is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, I have yet to find where health care is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Couldnt it be interpreted as "Life liberty and the pusuit of happiness"? Or "provide for the general welfare"? Making sure everyone has healthcare to prolong or save their "life"? Just like you include yourself as part of a "well organised militia" as part of your interpreted right to bear arms, why cant these be interpreted to provide for the "general welfare" of the citizenship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I wish Al Franken would take a page from Sara Palin's op-ed in the WSJ: WSJ is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Still sticking with the death panels thing... Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Perhaps a streamlined health care system* shrinks from 17% of the economy to, oh, 10%. Would that be "good"? * - I don't believe Obama has trotted out a plan that is streamlined enough to accomplish this; he's engaging in half-assed half-measures which means he'll prove his critics right - even if passed, it'll fail. I don't think any government does anything well, efficiently or expediently. That being said, some things it DOES have to handle. Looking at medicare, does anyone really thing the government option won't turn into a bloated mess that costs way more than anyone ever estimated? The way it's set up some businesses will gladly dump their HC plans and pay the fine. The fine in the bill (for the info I saw) was equal to 8% of payroll - compared to an average of 12% of payroll being the cost of employer provided HC. This will place those who continue private insurance at an average of 4% disadvantage in payroll costs. In addition to rationing, removal of choice as to types of plans, and other bugaboos. Here is where my info is coming from. Relevant actual sections of HR 3200 and everything. From a professor at that bastion of libertarian ideology, Duke University, no less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Couldnt it be interpreted as "Life liberty and the pusuit of happiness"? Or "provide for the general welfare"? Making sure everyone has healthcare to prolong or save their "life"? Just like you include yourself as part of a "well organised militia" as part of your interpreted right to bear arms, why cant these be interpreted to provide for the "general welfare" of the citizenship? Life, liberty, etc are in the D of I, NOT the constitution. The general welfare is also in the preamble. You can stretch general welfare to the point that no law means anything. Is that what you really want? BTW - right to life means I own me and YOU cannot take it from me, NOT that I have the right to live a certain number of years or in a certain state of health. NO ONE can guarantee that. If that's the case (that I have the right to HC) the the obamessiah will have to limit his rhetoric on how we're spending too much on the elderly. A right is not something that can be granted you at the expense of another. To have a "right" to HC then the providers and manufacturers of HC products and services OWE each american some percentage of their life for free, right? I'm so entirely sick and tired of people twisting the constitution to support whatever BS scheme you're trying to cook up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I wish Al Franken would take a page from Sara Palin's op-ed in the WSJ: WSJ Still sticking with the death panels thing... Really? stupid people believe the first thing they here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 stupid people believe the first thing they here. an' thay tipe lak this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 . You can stretch general welfare to the point that no law means anything. Is that what you really want? That is the whole point. The framers of the consistution were specifically vague where they wanted to be. You interpret it one way, some can interpret it another way. It isnt a matter of what I want, but a matter of how crowing about assigned powers in the constitution is just stupid. There also were amendments that altered and added to the assigned powers after the fact as the country and populace changed over time. What if the country added an amendment that specifically granted health care coverage for all citizens? Would you secede? The US govt has been, and will be, wrong on issues and have added amendements to ALTER certain rights as society has changed. Abolishing slavery is one, prohibiting AND THEN REPEALING production and consumption of alcohol is another. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was specifically contradictory as indians and other races were not included under "all men are created equal". Hell, women were not allowed to vote either! I find it odd that instead of asking themselves what might be the morally correct thing to do, people that only use the Consitution as their "rulebook" only care about what the bare minimum of what they are legally obligated to do, and F@#$ the rest. Kinda sad really . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.