[Toby]

Then I suppose you are a big advocate of Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

If a health care bill passed by Congress isn't thrown out for being unconstitutional, they don't have that option. There's this concept called incorporation to contend with.

[davidra]

I'm more interested in facts, but since that clearly isn't your interest, go ahead.



See, you can't even begin to be a reasonable person--you simply cannot avoid trying to insult me, by fabricating things. I didn't say people shouldn't have an education education did I? You are addressing me, by responding to my post, so if you were reasonable you would acknowledge that we haven't discussed education and if you want to accuse someone else, you should address them directly. But instead you are making things up and attributing them to me. I find that to be quite dishonest. How weak is your argument that you must continually keep throwing out these distracting falsehoods. I'm not sure what world you live in where this sort of nonsense works, but it sure doesn't work with me.

A market for healthcare PRODUCES a reasonable option. You simply refuse to consider that, and therefore (according to your "logic") are the one standing in the way of Reform, and hence are responsible for denying people care. Its too bad you are so dedicated to a system that is failing and denying people reasonable opportunity to medical care. Unfortunate, that you are advocating handing more and more control over to the same entities that have destroyed our medical care system--because that's where it is according to "reformers" right--we have a "Crisis" right? Well, that crisis is here, BECAUSE of the system that you want to expand.



Is anyone required to take part in the Medicare Drug benefit? Do seniors choose to use it, and find it useful? Apparently they are using it, so apparently they think it is a viable choice. If that's a big handout to "big pharmacy" then is general medicare a handout to "big medical." How many doctors do you know of who happily write our prescriptions for every thing under the sun--benefiting these big drug companies? Certainly you don't believe that doctors aren't every bit as much of a problem in this whole drug industry. People aren't getting prescription drugs (legally) without doctors participation.



Yes, you say "screw the politicians" but you advocate this "reform" which endangers us all (the poor and elderly are already in danger in government hands) by expanding failed systems, and continuing a system that is not sustainable--putting more and more control in the hands of these politicians. Your view is very contradictory.

You keep on claiming that you care about the people, and while I'd like to believe you, I doubt your sincerity, because you've displayed such an eagerness to blatantly fabricate things. I'd like to think you are just misguided and don't realize that the "reform" you support is an expansion of a system that has already failed and is CAUSING the problems you claim to want to solve.

You mentioned "options" but this "reform" is designed to eliminate options, and incrementally funnel people into a non-option system. It is designed to eliminate competition, and without options things will get worse--just like they are with medicaid and medicare--both going broke.

We are told that the United States spends more on healthcare than any other nation (per capita I assume). Where is that money going? President Obama says that doctors are performing unnecessary procedures for profit. You've already told me that hospitals and Doctors are intentionally overcharging me, because they are making up for those who aren't paying. I guess they are making sure they get paid--not caring that it is breaking the middle class and Insurance companies. Of course I don't have too much sympathy for insurance companies, because they enable the medical industry and help them perpetrate this fraud via indirect payment schemes.

You've described your own industry as engaging in fraud (which I find unethical), and yet you keep on talking about this as if people like me are somehow to blame. YOUR side of the equation is the problem, and the side receiving massive amounts of money, not mine. My side--the patients are the victims of the corruption in the medical industry. Now, please keep in mind, I am not attempting to blame you individually for the actions of your industry, because I know nothing about you. You may or may not be guilty--I don't have information to make that judgment. I have no idea if you personally overcharge patients to insure you get paid at their expense, but I'd be interested in knowing. Only you know whether you are guilty of what you claim is common practice or whether you are the exception.

Are your rates for services significantly lower? Naturally, they would be if you aren't overcharging like you've stated others do. Are you charging patients only for the service/material they directly receive? Are you absorbing the costs for any patient who doesn't pay, or are you passing it along to someone else? I'm guessing an self-described idealist like you is making sure that you charge only for what the paying patient receives and aren't marking things up at all. You stated earlier that you believe for-profit systems are a problem (that increases medical errors and sometimes results in death), so I'd expect that you don't actually receive profit from your work. Is that correct?

You'll notice that I'm asking you--giving you an opportunity to speak for yourself, rather than follow your example, accusing and attributing things to people that you have no knowledge of.

You can answer whether you are part of the problem, or if you are the exception.

KAM

Exactly as I stated. You have a completely different world view, and frankly, your questions are not worth answering, because you don't listen. I was not responding to you alone when I raised the issue about education, but the generally held belief by conservatives that there should be no federal involvement in education.

For you to say that the current system failed because of government contribution to the system is laughable, and just proves that you are uninformed. The current system failed because health care costs have gone up and up with no end in sight. I'm pretty sure I never said a thing about doctors being innocent in all this; in fact, they are a major impediment, especially the ones who aren't interested in reform. Everybody can take credit for screwing this one up, including the demanding of patients who want care they read about on the web and in advertisements that has not been proven effective....but they want "the best".

If you don't see that Medicare Part D is a ruse that takes your money and pays full price....full price, mind you....with no possibility of negotiation...and gives it to pharmaceutical companies, and you don't find anything nauseating about that, then how would you describe your reaction to it? You think it's a good way to run a business? How can you expect Medicare to be solvent when this kind of crap is forced on it?

Opponents to the current plans for reform seem to think that by doing nothing to control costs, and mouthing some platitudes about the marketplace, that corporate business will be the answer to this problem. That's a very sad joke. There is only one way to control costs in this situation, and that is by rigorous management of care. And guess what? You won't like it, whether it's private, as it was in the early '90's, or public as it might be with Medicare. Your private insurance will need to use gatekeepers. You will not be able to just go to an orthopedist whenever you want; you will have to be referred. You cannot get any medication you want if a lower-cost alternative is demonstrated to be just as effective. You may need to wait an extra week to get your hip replaced, and you might even have to have that exercise test that you wanted "just to be on the safe side" disapproved. And these controls need to take place not in the public option alone, but in all insurance plans everywhere. That is the ONLY way to control costs. Most doctors won't like it either. Reimbursement decreased? Fine. Works for me, as long as I can support my employees and put my kids through school, and go fishing every now and then. But it won't support yachts and Porsche Cayennes for most primary care docs, but they don't get those most of the time anyway. Rather it's the insurance company executives that drive those vehicles.

I just don't know how to say it any more clearly. You simply don't see things like I do, and you're not ever going to understand what I'm saying, any more than I'm going to agree with you that private enterprise is the solution to this problem. They were the cause of the problem, along with lack of appropriate controls over reimbursement and the lack of any kind of organized system. There's plenty of blame to go around, from patients to doctors to hospitals to pharmaceutical companies to private insurers. The question is what do we do about it, and I just don't think that most republicans even identify the problem....because they don't have it. I'm longing to find one person who has no insurance and had to actually pay for their own care, or who has been denied by a plan they have paid a lot for, who will come out strongly against health care reform. Try facing bankruptcy, and it's amazing how fast your perspective and politics can change.

[KAM1138]

Exactly as I stated. You have a completely different world view, and frankly, your questions are not worth answering, because you don't listen. I was not responding to you alone when I raised the issue about education, but the generally held belief by conservatives that there should be no federal involvement in education.

We do have a different world view, but that's not the problem. You constantly seek to deflect and blame instead of engaging in conversation. You are blaming me for not listening, but I'm here specifically listening I asked you direct questions related to claims you've made, and you don't want to answer. Why not just be honest and say you don't want to answer, and stand by it instead of trying to fabricate some blame you can project on me. Can't you take responsibility for your refusal to answer questions without blaming me? Answer the question or don't, but don't hand me this "You don't listen" nonsense.

For you to say that the current system failed because of government contribution to the system is laughable, and just proves that you are uninformed. The current system failed because health care costs have gone up and up with no end in sight. I'm pretty sure I never said a thing about doctors being innocent in all this; in fact, they are a major impediment, especially the ones who aren't interested in reform. Everybody can take credit for screwing this one up, including the demanding of patients who want care they read about on the web and in advertisements that has not been proven effective....but they want "the best".

Oh yes, that's right--anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed.
I believe my point was that the system has failed--that's what everyone is saying right? Well, what system is in place? It isn't a free market system. It is a system where government is the single largest payer (correct?) You've just said the costs have gone up and up--right. Why? The existing system has led us to where we are, and that is a system in which the government is heavily involved, so it is entirely reasonable to question whether or not they are part of the problem. You refuse to consider this and seem to support government's attempt to gain more control over it. Their involvement has NOT led to lower costs or more efficiency. You say it is laughable that their involvement has led to failure. Why? Why do you seek to excuse their involvement and hold them blameless?

They are the ones failing to provide services to the poor despite spending 300 billion a year. What should we do? Just say "ok, that's fine." Or should we actually seek to REALLY reform things?

Another thing that I need to remind you of apparently "Government contribution" is really taxpayer contribution. I'm not sure if you realize that all of that "public" money is really taxation of private money.

As far as Doctor's part in this--no, I don't believe you said they are innocent, but you choose to point fingers at Drug companies. You point out part of the problem which forwards that notion and omits the other. You choose to emphasize what you do, so you can't blame me for bringing up other elements.

If you don't see that Medicare Part D is a ruse that takes your money and pays full price....full price, mind you....with no possibility of negotiation...and gives it to pharmaceutical companies, and you don't find anything nauseating about that, then how would you describe your reaction to it? You think it's a good way to run a business? How can you expect Medicare to be solvent when this kind of crap is forced on it?

I never said I supported it or wanted it. I noted that apparently some people find it beneficial, or they wouldn't use it. As a general note, I'm not generally in favor of government taking my money and wasting it. Again, you are really eager to assume things and draw conclusions that aren't based on what I've said. You on the other hand seem to be in favor of government taking money from individuals and using it to pay for others (in this case medication), so I'm not sure what the root of your opposition is, if it provides things to others.
You, who have noted how poorly government handles things (this prescription drug benefit) want to expand government (this same, inefficient, mismanaging government) and increase their involvement. Again, your views seem contradictory.

Opponents to the current plans for reform seem to think that by doing nothing to control costs, and mouthing some platitudes about the marketplace, that corporate business will be the answer to this problem. That's a very sad joke.

You claim they seek to do nothing to control costs and that the market will be ineffective. I think you are wrong. You don't define reality, but apparently you think you do. Just because you say opponents of current plans for "reform" have no ideas doesn't make it true. You insist on holding onto your perspective, and you can feel free, but I have no reason to agree with you, because I think you are wrong. You have a problem with free markets for healthcare (as you stated earlier) and I don't. I actually advocated a reduction in "corporate" involvement and an increase in individual involvement, but you don't seem to realize that or you oppose it (not sure which).

It seems you distrust corporations, and the individual, so you turn to the government. I disagree with that idea and think it will be harmful. That path is one of cost controls which is a flawed philosophy. It rarely if ever works. Free markets on the other hand very often do work, and I think have a very good chance of working with healthcare. At a minimum it is an idea worth considering.

There is only one way to control costs in this situation, and that is by rigorous management of care. And guess what? You won't like it, whether it's private, as it was in the early '90's, or public as it might be with Medicare. Your private insurance will need to use gatekeepers. You will not be able to just go to an orthopedist whenever you want; you will have to be referred. You cannot get any medication you want if a lower-cost alternative is demonstrated to be just as effective. You may need to wait an extra week to get your hip replaced, and you might even have to have that exercise test that you wanted "just to be on the safe side" disapproved. And these controls need to take place not in the public option alone, but in all insurance plans everywhere. That is the ONLY way to control costs. Most doctors won't like it either. Reimbursement decreased? Fine. Works for me, as long as I can support my employees and put my kids through school, and go fishing every now and then. But it won't support yachts and Porsche Cayennes for most primary care docs, but they don't get those most of the time anyway. Rather it's the insurance company executives that drive those vehicles.

I'd be really interested in hearing how much profit is gained by all insurance executives and how much total is gained by doctors. Somehow I'm guessing doctors own plenty of yachts. They're all profiting at my expense beyond what is reasonable for the services I'm provided. I'm trapped in the system that doctors, insurance companies and government has orchestrated. I want to stop being victimized by all of them, but I have to fight people--these so-called reformers who wants to hand complete control over to the government so I have ZERO choice, rather than limited choices I've got now.

Again, as you should be aware if you are listening, I'm advocating a reduction in big government and big corporate involvement. You are right--I don't like insurance companies or government being a middle man. I want to deal with my doctor directly, and if he won't provide services in a fair and reasonable manner, he won't remain my doctor for long. Currently, the existing insurance system blocks this, as does government where they are the middle man. Both are indirect payment systems and I want to reduce that as much as possible. You seem to be (as a supporter of "reform) advocating a reduction in corporate involvement, but a massive expansion of government involvement. What you advocate is frying pan into the fire as I see it.

I just don't know how to say it any more clearly. You simply don't see things like I do, and you're not ever going to understand what I'm saying, any more than I'm going to agree with you that private enterprise is the solution to this problem.

Apparently, you aren't even aware of what my position is. You keep saying I don't understand what you are saying. You are wrong, I just disagree with you, but your arrogance apparently doesn't enable you to comprehend that.

They were the cause of the problem, along with lack of appropriate controls over reimbursement and the lack of any kind of organized system. There's plenty of blame to go around, from patients to doctors to hospitals to pharmaceutical companies to private insurers. The question is what do we do about it, and I just don't think that most republicans even identify the problem....because they don't have it. I'm longing to find one person who has no insurance and had to actually pay for their own care, or who has been denied by a plan they have paid a lot for, who will come out strongly against health care reform. Try facing bankruptcy, and it's amazing how fast your perspective and politics can change.

We believe there is plenty of blame to go around.I believe that insurance companies and government--as indirect payment schemers are to blame largely for the skyrocketing costs. It was never a sustainable scheme and won't be made sustainable by shifting it totally to the government. It seems that you believe that if you merely shift the manager of the inherently failed system, that it will suddenly work. That's not true. You are advocating delving further into failure.

You seem to have convinced yourself that this current "reform" will improve things. I think you are wrong. I think you are demanding we "reform" ourselves deeper into a system that is bankrupting people. You aren't advocating reform or changing any of the inherent problems--you are just seeking to change the manager. Government involvement in health care has not improved things, but you seem to want to put all our eggs in that basket anyway. Non-free market, non-competitive, cost manipulated systems are what we have now. This is the system in which a crisis has occurred. I advocate getting away from this system as much as possible, so we have a chance to stop repeating the same failures.

You don't like that idea--fine. In my view, it doesn't make you a reformer--it makes you a willing participant in the problem, seeking to protect one of the major culprits and expand their role, while blaming others. You are ignoring a major problem, and hoping it will all turn out ok.

If all you've got to say is "You don't understand" then don't bother replying. I understand what you've said--I don't agree with you. If you can't accept that others disagree with you, and deal with them honestly, then that's your issue.

KAM

[Bujin#IM]

I get so tired of this arguement.....education isn't in the Constitution and is therefore handled by the states! THE STATES. 85% of education comes from state taxes. So please stop using this example, it is a horrible example.

Education is a perfect example of why your "not in the Constitution" argument doesn't represent legal reality. Your opinion aside, education is considered as falling under the "implied powers" of the Constitution. Many would argue that health care falls under that as well.

I realize that this is an area that not all agree, but it's simply inaccurate to make an over-simplified statement that items such as education aren't under federal authority.

[Micael]

Education is a perfect example of why your "not in the Constitution" argument doesn't represent legal reality. Your opinion aside, education falls under an "implied powers" of the Constitution. Many would argue that health care falls under that as well.

Arguable. That's the problem with the elastic clause. Liberals don't know when to leave it alone.

[Micael]

I realize that this is an area that not all agree, but it's simply inaccurate to make an over-simplified statement that items such as education aren't under federal authority.

It's a wonder that everything isn't under federal authority. There's this thing called states, you may remember. They're supposed to have a say in things as well.

[davidra]

Quite simply, you're right. I disagree with you. And so does every other western country in the world. I bet you think this country is different, that France and Germany and Italy and other countries that are far ahead of us in terms of the clinical outcomes of our patients are all socialist, or philosophically flawed in some way. The variety of national plans is stunning, from heavily privatized plans like Germany and Italy to more centralized plans like Canada and especially the UK. But the one thing they all agree on is that they are going to provide health care to their citizens. Yes, it's expensive. Yes, they pay more taxes, and yes, in some of those countries the costs are a challenge. None of them are perfect. They are just more perfect than we are, because they don't have people dying because they can't get care. It may not be the concierge care that many think they deserve, but it's care.

Yep, you're right. Not worth discussing with you. The government is not the primary cause of the health care crisis. Government control of health care has improved things, especially Medicare. Health care for the elderly was miserable before 1964. Do you really think the VA has not improved health care for veterans? That Medicaid has not improved health care for the poor? I accept that you disagree with me. I just know that you are wrong, because I've actually seen what I"m talking about....and you haven't. Arrogant? Fine, if that's what you want to call it. But informed. And there isn't any rational being that would say I'm serving my self interest, when the fact is that physicians are doing just fine as things are. They will be controlled to a much greater extent by what I propose.

When I start telling you what's best for your business, whatever it is, you can call me uninformed, OK? Until then, I reserve the right to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss how government medicine hasn't made a difference and has made things worse.

Seeya. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over, because you don't understand.

[clemgrad85]

Education is a perfect example of why your "not in the Constitution" argument doesn't represent legal reality. Your opinion aside, education falls under an "implied powers" of the Constitution. Many would argue that health care falls under that as well.

Hey Bujin! No use going back and forth on this with you as I said in a previous post there is simply 2 views on this and you and I disagree. I'm not planning on budging from my view, I doubt you will. So that's cool. I think it is fine for us to have a different opinion on it. By the way, did you read that link I posted before regarding Social Security appearing before the Supreme Court back in 1937. It seemed to back you up, but, it also appears there might have been others reasons for the court to see it the way they did. I think it was clear that it could have easily gone the other way had FDR not threatened to expand the number of Justices (via an Amendment) and basically force the judges to vote as they did. WOW, it would have been interesting to see how this would have gone had it gone the other way, but alas, it went the other way and here we are some 70 years later and I will possibly never see a dime out of my contributions.

You know what's interesting about Social Security? It almost meets the definition of Ponzi Scheme to a "T". From Wikipedia:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually offers returns that other investments cannot guarantee in order to entice new investors, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.
The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments.

Anyway....just thought that was interesting!

[KAM1138]

Education is a perfect example of why your "not in the Constitution" argument doesn't represent legal reality. Your opinion aside, education is considered as falling under the "implied powers" of the Constitution. Many would argue that health care falls under that as well.

I realize that this is an area that not all agree, but it's simply inaccurate to make an over-simplified statement that items such as education aren't under federal authority.

I'd like to ask your opinion based on what you've said here. Where is the line drawn with "implied powers." Can't you justify almost anything with this line of reasoning? Doesn't that essentially say that we do not have a limited government (which was very clearly the intent and goal of the Constitution).

I don't agree with that line of thinking. I think implied powers extends as far as things not listed which are required to run the government. We established a Federal system for a reason, but unrestricted or nearly unrestricted "implied powers" goes against that notion that there is a separation where States and the government share power.

I'd say there is strong evidence in the 10th Amendment that the States or the people reserve these (implied) powers, not the federal government. This is in addition--an underscoring reiteration of the notion held by the Framers that the Government is limited, which is talked about in the Federalist papers.

I don't believe that the Framers anticipated every single function that the Federal Government would ever perform, but they certainly didn't intend to state that they can or should have powers for everything they can conceive of either. In that, I think we are generally very far to one side--opposite what the original intent was, and what the Constitution and its supporting arguments (original) state.

KAM

[Micael]

I don't believe that the Framers anticipated every single function that the Federal Government would ever perform, but they certainly didn't intend to state that they can or should have powers for everything they can conceive of either. In that, I think we are generally very far to one side--opposite what the original intent was, and what the Constitution and its supporting arguments (original) state.

KAM

Yet you can blame every bloated socialist program we have on the "implied powers" clause - the DOE, Postal Service, Medicare/caid, all the New Deal stuff, etc. I'm struggling as to how it's use has been limited as far as it has.

[clemgrad85]

Kam....I basically stopped trying to explain it to the doc as well. I don't agree with his fixes, but then again, I can see his point about dealing with health issues every day and seeing people that can't get proper health care. Good for doc for caring (said sincerely). He does what I think should be done, help others, without government intervention, so again, good for him!

All we can do is try and voice our opinions, try and explain the concerns to people, and hope our representatives listen for a change. Otherwise, we just vote the SOBs out. As Obama's approval ratings continue to decline, I think those representatives on the fence will start to listen a little more to the concerns out here. Wow....saw a poll this morning where even young voters have started to lose faith in the "almighty" one. I believe they are seeing that they are the ones that will have to pay for all this debt and they are concerned by it. Good for them! The doc and I will be gone when they are still paying this debt.

[clemgrad85]

Yet you can blame every bloated socialist program we have on the "implied powers" clause - the DOE, Postal Service, Medicare/caid, all the New Deal stuff, etc. I'm struggling as to how it's use has been limited as far as it has.

Pssssst.....the Postal Service is covered under Article 1, Section 8, Powers of Congress: To establish Post Offices and post Roads.

[Micael]

Pssssst.....the Postal Service is covered under Article 1, Section 8, Powers of Congress: To establish Post Offices and post Roads.

Yes, I know Clem. That's what we were just talking about. It's called 'the elastic clause'. Here's more on the subject.

[KAM1138]

Quite simply, you're right. I disagree with you. And so does every other western country in the world. I bet you think this country is different, that France and Germany and Italy and other countries that are far ahead of us in terms of the clinical outcomes of our patients are all socialist, or philosophically flawed in some way. The variety of national plans is stunning, from heavily privatized plans like Germany and Italy to more centralized plans like Canada and especially the UK. But the one thing they all agree on is that they are going to provide health care to their citizens. Yes, it's expensive. Yes, they pay more taxes, and yes, in some of those countries the costs are a challenge. None of them are perfect. They are just more perfect than we are, because they don't have people dying because they can't get care. It may not be the concierge care that many think they deserve, but it's care.

People don't die from lack of health care anywhere else in the western world? That's an interesting claim.
They've all agreed they are going to provide healthcare to their citizens? Are you saying that the United States doesn't already provide healthcare to its citizens? Exactly what is medicaid and medicare? We spend Billions upon billions of dollars a year to provide healthcare to those who cannot pay. We provide healthcare for people who come to hospitals regardless of whether they can pay--isn't that what you said? Get your story straight.

Yep, you're right. Not worth discussing with you. The government is not the primary cause of the health care crisis. Government control of health care has improved things, especially Medicare. Health care for the elderly was miserable before 1964. Do you really think the VA has not improved health care for veterans? That Medicaid has not improved health care for the poor? I accept that you disagree with me. I just know that you are wrong, because I've actually seen what I"m talking about....and you haven't. Arrogant? Fine, if that's what you want to call it. But informed. And there isn't any rational being that would say I'm serving my self interest, when the fact is that physicians are doing just fine as things are. They will be controlled to a much greater extent by what I propose.

Well, genius you are here discussing it with me. You are very irrational. You say this is a pointless discussion, yet you continue. You say it isn't worth discussing and then proceed with discussing (at least your version of discussion). I think you are serving your self interest right now--because you are enjoying strutting around declaring how right you are about everything, despite having stated it is a waste of time. I think you are either incredibly irrational or very much serving your own arrogance.

So, if these government health programs are working so well, why is there a need for change? Right, because they are heading towards bankruptcy. Why? If Government is doing such a great job, why is there a problem? In reality, these government programs are breaking the backs of the taxpayer, making it increasingly more difficult for us to pay for our own medical care. Yet, you want to expand this failing system.

When I start telling you what's best for your business, whatever it is, you can call me uninformed, OK? Until then, I reserve the right to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss how government medicine hasn't made a difference and has made things worse.

Is your business government? Economics? Free market business? Or it is providing Medical CARE? You are a doctor, not an expert at these other things, so you have no more expertise or basis for your opinion than I do. You keep trying to use your qualifications as a doctor as a means of denying other people's right to have a view, but that's not valid.

If I were to tell you about diagnosing a patient or treating a wound, then perhaps you'd have a valid point. You don't. In my view you haven't demonstrated enough reasoning to justify being a dog-walker, let alone a doctor, economist or politician. You've merely expressed your opinion, which I have no problem with. Where I disagree with you is when you keep trying to forward the idea that your opinion is valid and others are not. It's not atypical for people without an ability to rationally discuss things to attack those who disagree with them, when they can't tolerate the existence of opposing views. That's what you've been demonstrating.

Part of my "business" is being a citizen, and we are dealing with a government issue here, one which happens to involve medicine, but remains a government issue. If you don't understand that citizens can and should be active in their government then I can understand how you arrive at your nonsensical conclusion.

There is a common thread here--and that is that you simply cannot tolerate other ideas. When you fail to make sense you fall back on "you don't understand" or other nonsense reasoning. People will agree or disagree with what I say, and your little declarations won't change that, but it might demonstrate to them the type of person you are.

Seeya. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over, because you don't understand.

Not only arrogant, but childish as well.

KAM

[clemgrad85]

Yes, I know Clem. That's what we were just talking about. It's called 'the elastic clause'. Here's more on the subject.

Yes, I understand.....the "elastic clause" is about extending the power of Congress for certain things such as social security or healthcare even though not explicitely mentioned. I was just saying that the Post Office wouldn't fall under this as it is specifically mentioned as being under the control of Congress. Otherwise, I'm right there with ya!

[clemgrad85]

Well....I busted on the doc initially for this, but I think he does suffer a little from the "god syndrome". At first I thought it was just because he was a doctor, but then found out he also graduated from Chapel Hill and that was all I needed to know. Being from the south myself, we just know what to expect from UNC grads. If a guy is acting like he knows it all, we just say.."I think he's a Tarheel", and everyone just laughs and says "ooohhhh....nuf said". He really can't help it.

Just playing with ya doc.....though....kind of true to.

[KAM1138]

Kam....I basically stopped trying to explain it to the doc as well. I don't agree with his fixes, but then again, I can see his point about dealing with health issues every day and seeing people that can't get proper health care. Good for doc for caring (said sincerely). He does what I think should be done, help others, without government intervention, so again, good for him!

Caring about people (if that's what's driving this) doesn't make your views rational, nor will it result in a system that helps people.

All we can do is try and voice our opinions, try and explain the concerns to people, and hope our representatives listen for a change. Otherwise, we just vote the SOBs out. As Obama's approval ratings continue to decline, I think those representatives on the fence will start to listen a little more to the concerns out here. Wow....saw a poll this morning where even young voters have started to lose faith in the "almighty" one. I believe they are seeing that they are the ones that will have to pay for all this debt and they are concerned by it. Good for them! The doc and I will be gone when they are still paying this debt.

Well, I've said (to others not here) that I believe this "reform" bill will pass, largely intact. I think our government doesn't care how many people it will help (or hurt) or how unsustainable it will be. This doctor here, who is supposedly speaking from a standpoint of wanting to help people apparently cannot conceive of the possibility that politicians AREN'T out to help people...wait, if it is a Republican, then I'm guessing they assume that, but if its a Democrat, then they are all for helping people. RIIIGHT.

If people would raise their heads out of the ideological pool for a moment, they might consider that the promises of these massively expensive programs are not being fulfilled. "Oh they have helped people" is the claim--and I'm sure some people have benefited...but how many people are being harmed by it as a side-effect? When you're engaging in such myopic dishonesty, you've got almost no chance at finding a solution.

There has been some reference to my business. Well, my business, literally is to take a problem, and find a solution. That's my business, and to do that, you need to look at things objectively, properly identify the problems and then create a solution. Someone who has thinking badly muddled by empathy (being generous), idealism, etc--they aren't able to even get to the starting line. That's why we end up with failing systems with a lot of unintended side effects.

I can't say that I'm right about these things, and I'm not here to declare that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm here to discuss some things I think are viable. When you've got people who aren't willing to discuss things honestly, who insists that they are right, regardless of what you say--especially one with such a narrow, close-minded view, its unlikely to end well.

The American people are at least awake on this issue, and aware that the promises of big government solutions don't have a great track record. I hope that this boondoggle can be stopped so reasonable people can take over and deal with the issues in a logical manner, instead of trying to rush through a mess with unknown consequences. If we take this one step at a time, and make good decisions, rather than use it as a launch pad for yet another massive expansion of government, we can make actual progress and reform our health care system.

KAM

[Micael]

Yes, I understand.....the "elastic clause" is about extending the power of Congress for certain things such as social security or healthcare even though not explicitely mentioned. I was just saying that the Post Office wouldn't fall under this as it is specifically mentioned as being under the control of Congress. Otherwise, I'm right there with ya!

The principle of implied powers has significantly affected the development of the U.S. system of government. Implied powers have allowed the federal government of the United States to levy income taxes, conscript armies, and organize a national postal system. Every power granted to the branches of the national government by the Constitution has been expanded through the principle of implied powers, resulting in a strong, centralized federal government.

[Toby]

Education is a perfect example of why your "not in the Constitution" argument doesn't represent legal reality. Your opinion aside, education is considered as falling under the "implied powers" of the Constitution.

I'd appreciate a citation of the legal case which established this.

Many would argue that health care falls under that as well.

I think that many of those who would argue it didn't pay very good attention in American History class.

I realize that this is an area that not all agree, but it's simply inaccurate to make an over-simplified statement that items such as education aren't under federal authority.

It's more accurate a position than stating that Federal involvement in education is justified by the Elastic Clause. Obviously IANAL, but the only major case dealing with education that comes to mind was Brown v. Board of Education. That one was a 14th amendment case. Seems there's another one from 1973 where the SCOTUS decided that education was not explicitly or implicitly protected in the Constitution (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez).

[clemgrad85]

I can't explain it.....go to here:

Historic Documents - The Constitution of the United States of America

Then scroll down to Article 8, the 7th item listed is:

To establish Post Offices and post Roads

Maybe "Post Offices" back then are different from what know as post offices? Otherwise, I think your link is wrong. LOL We need Bujin to clarify this for us.