Do what is right and pass health care bill

Posted by realchange (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You sound like a jealous "have not" and want the people that have worked hard on their education and work to pay for the people who haven't. We have no right to expect anyone else to pay for anything for us. America is not a socialist country, you have to actually work for what you want, that is what made us great.....
We already have Medicare and Medicaid to help those who can't get insurance.

You keep forgetting that Seniors have to buy supplements to make their insurance decent. Are you going to be able to afford that? Or will you be complaining that it isn't fair that you can't and expect us to pay for that too? We need to fix what we have and not socialize America against the wishes of the majority.

Posted by bornFree (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike "GIVE ME" Lee.

Posted by Warhog (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He feels comfortable in picking MY POCKET and giving it to someone else, he is a socialist, plain and simple, here is a suggestion move to Cuba and enjoy the benefits they provide.

It's people like this a "man child" that wants everything, but when it comes time to pay, somebody else can foot the bill. Another suggestion pay extra on your income taxes, say 3000/4000 grand extra, as a donation to pay down the national debit, they I may have some respect for you, until then...................... MAN UP.

Socialism works until you run out of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY and we have run out of money along time ago.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again the song is the same. It is a right. Show me Mike where is it a right. You want to fix healthcare so do we but this bill does not fix healthcare. Heck it doesn't even insure everyone. It leaves 1/2 of the uninsured out in the cold. This is about redistribution of wealth. It is about over whelming the system. It is about stripping Americans of those rights Mike claims to admire.

You want a plan Mike? Let us buy our healthcare over state lines. End state mandates. End employer based healthcare. You are part of that 38% who support this. That is not anywhere near a majority. If this is forced on the American people there will be an uprising. Those who vote for it will be out of their jobs. The party who pushes it will find it thrown into the dust bin of history. I know many many people who have never giving money or knock on doors who are now doing both. I use to keep quiet but this is bigger than just the small differences this time. We will see the country you and I once known destroyed.

There is a reason why the President is telling us to get use to 10+% unemployment because this bill will make it the norm. In order to do what he wants he has to ruin the country to rebuild it into his socialist, progressive, welfare state.

You tell us to support a bill that provides tax payer abortions. You tell us to support a bill that will tax us to death. You tell us to support a bill that will cut medicare. You tell us to support a bill that will cause rationing of healthcare. You tell us to support a bill that pays off Senators to vote for it. I can not support this kind of corruption. Not for me, my kids, or my grandchildern. Not on my watch.

Posted by Truth (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like most out-of-control government programs, Medicare began with the best of intentions: to assist senior and retired citizens with medical expenses.

There are several different parts of Medicare, but only 3 of them have the potential to contribute to our economic downfall: Medicare Part A, which pays for hospital admissions and visits; Part B, which covers doctor visits; and Part D, which covers perscription drugs. Unfortunately, like Social Security, Medicare is nothing but a massive Ponzi scheme where the number of those who've been promised benefits greatly exceeds our ablity to pay for them.

Medicare Parts A and B have combined unfunded liabilities of $68 trillion. Despite knowing that Medicare was already hemorrhaging, politicians passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. In less than 3 years that Act has run up an additional unfunded liabilities of $17.2 trillion.

For anyone keeping track, our politicians have committed future generations to pay a combined $99.2 trillion just for our unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations. Add in our national debt and interest payments and you will easily exceed the capability of most calculators.

Now you want to add a new entitlement. How are you going to pay for it?

Posted by cabinman (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Warning, do not have a different opinion then these guys or you will be called names!

Posted by GH2ORepub (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What world does Mike lee live in?

Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. Both of these programs could have been designed better. My retirement program is far better than Social security for instance.

Anyone can get free care at any hospital, etc

There is no such item as a right to health care.

What is being proposed was done behind closed doors. I am scared to death of it. I

Posted by 1155co47 (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great letter Mike! Pay no attention to the likes of no dfl, truth, gh2repub, and the like. They are the the same old farts you see and hear pissin' and moanin' about any, and everything that goes on in the world down at the donut shop every morning. A thousand bucks could drop in their laps and they would complain about the weight. Anyways have a good holiday with your family. I know you, as I will have a happy thanksgiving.

Posted by Warhog (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1155co47 Have you SERIOUSLY LOOKED at the FINES this will impose? The guberment will IMPRISON ME for non-compliance. We cannot imprison illegals for breaking the laws, but they will stick me in jail, better start building bigger jails NOW, this will not go well.

Have you SERIOUSLY looked at the costs, somebody has to pay it's not free, have you looked into the power guberment will get over you?You won't be making your healthcare decisions a bureaucrat will, enjoy your "quality of life".

I think you are the party faithful, look around it's NOT working but yet the spin machine beats it drum and the sheeple are asleep.

These are "man-made" disasters TARP, Stimulus, Healthcare, Immigration, Globullcrap warming, see a pattern here ?

Open your eyes, and free your mind, the truth will set you free ,this is NOT about party, it's survival of a nation.

If guberment was the answer, somebody asked the WRONG QUESTION.

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They are people with opinions and viewpoints. Is there a reason you feel the need to name call?

I am not old and I am concerned with this. I cannot support this for many reasons but the first and foremost is the cost. How can we afford this? And why the rush? We have had the same system in place for YEARS and now it is suddenly a crisis???

Oh, anyone else think it is a coincidence that now the government is saying we only need to give women mammograms at 50+ and says no to self exams? Oh, and they also changed cervical cancer screening guidelines. Hmmmmm...

Taxpayers have every right to be concerned.

Truth - nice post!

Posted by trifid (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A huge portion of healthcare costs are spent during end-of-life proceedures. Other societies avoid these huge costs.
Our fear of death is costly.

Posted by Warhog (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well......................................... trifid would you care to cut costs when you are the ONE that is involved ? I guess life IS relative to cost effectiveness, quite a few people in for a surprise, how do you propose to "value life" what is your criteria ?

Please elaborate........................Please, this ought to be good.

Would you volunteer to "do you part" and check out early, to save money for "the greater good" when it is your time, I don't think so.

I don't think most liberals have the testicular fortitude to make decisions like this, they would rather pass the buck and let a bureaucratic system do the dirty work.

How would you value somebody's life when they are willing and able to fight illness and live longer ? Is that not the time to try revolutionary new treatments and procedures to make new discoveries in medicine or should we go back to using leaches and herbs.

As always trifid, please provide proof to what you have posted, show me the numbers, please I would like to see them.

I have rung the bell, schools open, explain it to me, your student awaits.

Posted by Truth (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Warhog,

I think what trifid might be talking about is this. Now I could be wrong but I don't think so. Mike should look at this and really question his support of this bill. Also isn't it funny how the only one calling anyone names are the people who post no facts?

Anyway enjoy.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

This is the man who met with Reid and Nancy P behind closed doors to craft this monster. Look at the details of this plan and you can see the "complete lives system" at work.

Posted by Truth (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also I wonder if Mike will be sitting on one of these "God committee" or would he let a family member face one?

"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe Mike, cabinman, lefts2221, and 1155co47 would be proud to call themselves Progressives. What do you think of when you hear the word progressive? Some immediately think of liberals or Democrats but they're not synonymous. Progressivism has less to do with the parties and more to do with individuals who seek to redefine, reshape, and rebuild America into a country where individual liberties and personal property mean nothing if they conflict with the plans and goals of the State.

If the Progressive cancer were limited to defined political systems, it would be fairly straightforward to isolate it, treat it, and eventually be free from the disease. But it's not. It's infiltrated both political parties and the entire political class. The bureaucrats, lobbyists, trade unions, and corporations that all look at the government as their own personal ATM machine. The Progressives weren't interested in taking over the political parties, because that kind of thinking was too small; they wanted their movement to engulf the entire country.

One of the hallmarks of Progressive thought is the concept of redistribution: the idea that your money and property are only yours if the State doesn't determine that there is a higher or better use for it.

Like today early Progressives loved to rely on "experts" and used them as an excuse for expanding their power. When Progressives brought America the Federal Reserve System, it was so that our banking and financial industries could be regulated by experts. When they brought us increased government interference in the classroom, it was because education experts knew better than parents how best to teach our kids. When they brought us land conservation, it was because experts had figured out that we were abusing the land. And when the first waves of the Nanny State began to appear, it was because experts had decided that we were drinking too much (Prohibition), not paying enough taxes (introduction of the progressive income tax), and spending our money on the wrong things (redistribution through the tax code). And it hasn't ended yet. Progressives have successfully moved our country toward more government contol and less personal freedom. They're still pushing the envelope. This healthcare bill is proof of that. It is time to take a stand and reclaim your birth right. Personal Freedom must live and grow if we want our childern to have a better life.

Posted by mankind (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What do I think of when I hear the word progressive. I think of a people who favor a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. I think of a group of people that are out in society promoting progress.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mankind,
It is interesting that you would use these words " political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" Why would you use these words? Food for thought. I never once said it was one party or the other. I think both parties have fallen under the control of progressive cancer.

I would say the Progressivies view the Constitution as a living organism that evolves with time and changes depending on the circumstances. Both the Progressives and the Founding Fathers view the Constitution as a set of handcuffs but the difference is that our Founders believed that it was the power of the State that was to be cuffed, while Progressives believe it is the individuals who must be cuffed for the greater good of the group. One of these two positions will eventually win out and that will dictate how future generations live their lives.

The battle between these 2 philosophies is taking place right now in all areas of our lives, but there are a few key issues that Progressives are using to drive their agenda forward they are the environment, gun control, education, religion, and healthcare.

James Madison warned us about this well before Progressivism had even been given a name.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the article Truth.

I wonder if Dr. Emanuel is behind the breast and cervical cancer screening changes?

And if over 40 is "old" to him, a lot of us are in trouble. Today, many people are having babies for the first time at 40! If they get sick, do their babies not deserve their parent?

I know there are criteria applied to transplant lists, for example. There simply have to be due to limited supply. But it is a very slippery slope when this starts crossing into all areas of health care and if the government is running it, they ultimately become the decision makers. Unless you are extremely wealthy and can pay cash out of pocket, you could be in trouble...

Posted by Warhog (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well................school was in session, and I am a smarter person for for it, thanks. I wish more people would look at the government with a more skeptical eye instead of being the "blind party faithful"

Both parties have failed miserably, and we pay the price for their failure. We have to blame ourselves for this as well we keep sending the same types of people back to Washington expecting a different answer.

Once again, if government was the answer to the healthcare question we asked the wrong question. All one has to do is look at Europe and Canada and see it is NOT FREE, look at the taxes, and services provided and bureaucratic nightmare they have, and ask yourself this question is this what I want to FORCE UPON my fellow Americans?

Socialism will always fail, where has it succeeded?

Why should we lose freedom of choice?

Why should we be taxed at an astronomical rates to be provided a substandard service?

Who is really going to benefit form this fiasco it won't be anybody reading this, look to D.C. where the backroom deals are being cut and voted on in the middle of the night.

It's not about us, it is all about them.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A good question was asked at my turkey day dinner. Does it matter? and what can I do about it? I had a hard time with this. I respect the person who asked me those questions. They said to me why should I call. They don't listen to me and will do what they want. They thought the deal was done the fight was out of them. I began to question my own resolve. I spend time learning about this, I have read the words of the Founders and yet society has left me behind. It is what will the government give me. I wonder if we will take a stand. Why do we feel a need to stay quite? More people are against this yet the squeeky wheel gets the press.

It is at this point that we must have a call to arms. We must fight the good fight. We can not do this to our kids and grandkids. I don't care if you are political or not but now is the time to stand with us. You are not evil because you don't support this bill. Many of you are good honest hard working people. You don't care about the parties. You care about the country, your family. Many service men will tell you that they do not fight for flag or country when the bullets start to fly. That they fight for the guy next to them and their family at home. The bullets are flying and I will fight for you. Are you willing to stand up and fight next to me? It is time to make our voice heard. Don't fear them. Hold your ground. We will win this fight.

Posted by nphilbro (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Access to healthcare is not a right. It is a privilage. Owning a car is not a right. It too is a privilage. There are times in one's life where owning a car might be out of the realm of possibility. There are times in one's life where illness is not an option.

If you don't have the means to own a car, then you just don't drive - you walk or take the bus. If health insurance is too expensive, you just deal with what ails you or your children on your own. It's not my fault my company covers me and yours doesn't. Get a better job, loser!

This conservative objection to healthcare reform is exactly what this country needs. It will "cull the herds." Hitler did the same thing but took an active approach. We can get rid of the immigrants, the poor, the disadvanteged, the handicapped, and disabled - especially the vets- because they contribute nothing to this country anymore as they're bleeding us dry with their needs now too.

We are in this world for ourselves - nothing else matters. "It's me against you." Let's take the tablet down from the Statue of Liberty, as it no longer applies to us.

Sleep well and may you not catch cancer in your sleep or grow old.

-Former resident

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just because you are opposed to this particular bill does NOT mean that you don't think something needs to be done. Or that you are elitist, etc.

I think something needs to be done to make coverage available to the working poor. I say that because if you are on welfare, you can get Medicaid already. I think we need to help those with pre-existing conditions. I think we need to help those who are facing catastrophic illness, such as cancer, that are up against their life time max.

But why do we need to add another public option to do it? There are other options. Capping medical malpractice suits, increasing medical fraud detection, reducing administrative paperwork by investing in better technology, etc. You could even expand the Medicaid program to offer subsidies to people who are employed full time but can't afford coverage. But to create a whole other public plan? Too expensive right now.

This bill also includes some hidden costs such as funding to any wellness business. Apparently they don't have to meet any credentials. There is concern about illegal immigrants being able to get this coverage. It funds abortions, which is upsetting to many. I am also upset at the change to the breast cancer guidelines, which coincidentally are coming out as they are pushing a public option. Hmmmmm....

As a taxpayer, I have the right to be worried about how my money is being spent. I have the right to ask the questions and voice my concern. In no way is that being selfish or elitist. In other words, I sleep just fine at night.

Posted by meeker (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nphilbro, Healthcare not only is not a right, it is not a privilege either. To phrase the debate in terms of it being a right or a privilege is what logicians call a false dichotomy, or a false dilemma. That is a tactic to con people into accepting the notion that healthcare is a right, because they don't see it as a privilege. Actually, healthcare is neither. It is a service that only exists due to the mental and physical effort expended by those who provide it. A right to healthcare means that you have the right to the mental and physical efforts of those who provide it--i. e. slavery. The rest of this post is not a logical argument but is a long sneer, an attempt to verbally bully people who hold a different view. Unless you can do better, we can only assume that you have no logical position and only hold that position because of emotionalism or you want strangers to pay for your health care.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Our health-care system is far from perfect. But when politicians yell “46 million” without context, they do it for only one reason: to make you think about a gigantic group of nameless, faceless Americans and ignore all of the subtleties that make their claim ridiculous. That way, you’ll feel like it’s not only a problem, but also one that only the government can solve.

This makes universal health care the perfect issue for those who want to grow the government. It relies on compassion, has billions of dollars at stake, and is the last great issue standing in the way of all Americans, regardless of economic status, becoming reliant on Washington. After all, once you give the government control over whether your heart is beating or not, you’re destined to also become dependent on them for just about everything else.

Now you are going to say no one should be without health care for even one day. I would say most people agree with you on principle, but it’s hard to have an honest debate on this topic when people are so intent on manipulating the numbers for their own benefit. For example, let’s assume that you have health insurance through your job. One day you hit the lottery for $300 million and quit. While you’re waiting for the first lotto check to cash, you let your insurance lapse for a month. Then once the check clears you buy the greatest heath insurance policy in human history. Given that scenario, how do you think you should get categorized? Well, if it’s up to the major advocacy groups (and some on this site) you’re now one of the “millions of uninsured” in America.

More than half of those who are considered to be “uninsured” are in that state for less than a year as they move between jobs or deal with other temporary changes in their lives. Yes, that opens them up to a short period of risk, but the overwhelming majority of those people never have an issue. Insurance is suppose to manage risk, but different people have different ideas about how much of it they are willing to take on at any given point in time. Close to two-thirds of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 18 and 34. They’re overwhelmingly young, healthy people who consciously decided that it’s worth the relatively small chance that they get very sick. Many also figure, correctly or not, that their parents will back them up if worst comes to worst. As you would expect, most of them are simply playing the odds and the usually win. Many insurance companies offer basic youth-oriented heath insurance plans for around $50 a month depending on what state you are in. (Allowing us to buy insurance across state lines would go a long way to fixing this problem).

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is all part of the idiocy that is the idea of universal health care. When you give “free” insurance to someone who can afford it, but instead choose to spend their money on other things, you are in effect paying for those other things. We all know by now that just one person who can’t get access to health care is too many, but, outside of a complete government takeover, there is no way to get everyone covered it’s just not practical. Remember, about 15% of drivers have no auto insurance despite the fact that it is required in 48 states and cost less than health insurance, and despite the fact that jail time is a possible punishment. You can use all the scare tactics and say over and over again it is a right but it comes down to. Do you have the right to take my property and give it to someone else? Do you have the right to force me to pay for abortions? Do you have the right to ration care? Do you have the right to tell someone they should die because they have lived a good life. At some point we all need to be responsible for ourselves.

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What blows me away is that people think universal health care is free. Someone is paying for it. It's a little something called taxes.

NoDFL - good points in clarifying the uninsured mythology. Many people opt out of their employer coverage. If they want to take the risk, that is their choice and it shouldn't be my problem.

So if we have a public option, do we as the taxpayers footing the bill get to vote on what is covered and what is not? If I don't want abortions covered, for example, can I vote no on that? I also don't want to pay for Viagra. Heck, I don't want to pay for any elective procedure or drug. But do I get a choice? It's my money - shouldn't I get a say?

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep dreaming MissIndependent. What I can't see is how this ends well. We will be in debt and have a worse system. I would like to know how will they pay for it and how they cover all these people without rationing care. Can any of you explain it?

Posted by mankind (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Miss Independent, It is our problem because of higher healthcare cost that are being passed on to us by the medical providers because of the uninsured. About picking and choosing coverage from some type of public option. Do you have the right to pick and choose what you want to be covered for now in your health care plan? In your health insurance can you choose if you want to be covered for only certain dieses like cancer but not heart dieses? Also in your healthcare plan do you not pay a co-pay for your healthcare insurance. In some sort of public option there will be a co-pay as well.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mankind,

The problem is with having your health insurance with your employer. People who have employer paid health care are stuck with the plans offered by their companies. Most employees have no clue what the real cost are. They have a co-pay but no clue that the office visit cost $200+. As far as covering the uninsured you do that with your car insurance (read your bill) and the same goes for home insurance. Insurance is based on risk. You want to let me buy over state lines and let me carry it from job to job then put it in the bill. I would support that. Give the choice to the consumer not the government.

Now if you would like (I would) to choose your coverage than build the system to let us do it. This would be better and cheaper than this bill. Heck you could put everyone who is denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions in a pool and have them pay their own premiums. It it is still cheaper than this bill. Also please show me where in either the house bill or the Senate bill where the co-pays for the government run plan are. I do not think it is in there because it would cause people not to be covered. But again this bill has nothing to do with fixing the system and everything to do with overwhelming the system.

Posted by rk4n3 (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Lee

I find your ideology offensive, as supported in
these responsive segments:

> In the Declaration of Independence it is
> stated that all men are
> created equal.

The sentiment and context around this precept,
in both the very document you cite, as well as
the Constitution of the US, is that:

1. No man should rule another
2. All men are endowed by this equality with
unalienable rights
3. Among these rights: life, LIBERTY, and the
PURSUIT of happiness

In no way is it intended that all men are
GUARANTEED happiness by any government !
BUT - primary among the unalienable rights
that ARE specified, is the right to enjoy the
fruits of one's OWN LABOR. The idea that a
"Robin Hood" government should, by force of
law, take from some to give to others, is the
antithesis of the LIBERTY outlined by the
document you so perversely cite in favor of
collectivist bill that you endorse.

I only have 3000 characters here, so you can
view my full rebuttal in the Nov 27 entry at:

http://www.samudio.net/~matt/blog.html

... and you might also want to view the
Nov. 21 entry "Collectivism and Poverty", for
an even more in-depth examination of the
topic.

Matt Samudio

Posted by meeker (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mankind--The only reason costs are passed on to us is that government requires hospitals to treat anyone who walks in their emergency room. Their only choices are to pass those costs along to others who use the hospital or go out of business. Passing those costs along to some other group (the taxpayer) doesn't solve the cost problem. All you have done is been suckered in by a shell game.

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mankind,

I understand that with employer based coverage same things apply. I also agree that our costs are up when people have unnecessary ER visits, for example. But why do we need an additional, expensive public option to "fix" health care? And why when a majority of Americans are opposed to this do our politicians ignore us and push this anyways?

meeker & NoDFL - thanks!

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt - I just read your full blog. Very well written piece! I agree 100% on the concept of free market versus government run. And you make a good point on life and car insurance versus health.

Nicely done!

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that some truths are self-evident, and one of these is the fact that all men are created equal. Yet everyone knows that no 2 human beings are exactly alike in any respect. They are different when they are born. They plainly exhibit different natural skills. They acquire different tastes. They develop along different lines. They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, in their opportunities for self-fulfillment, and in scores of other ways. Then how can they be equal?

The answer is, they can’t except in 3 ways. They can only be treated as equals in the sight of God, in the sight of the law, and in the protection of their rights. In these 3 ways all men are created equal. It is the task of society as it is with God, to accept people in all their vast array of individual differences, but treat them as equals when it comes to their role as human beings.

John Adams wrote: “ That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has but to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, by priest of the immortal Lama, or by the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution. (The American Enlightenment, p222)” The goal of society is to provide “equal justice”, which means protecting the rights of the people equally: At the bar of Justice, to secure their rights. At the ballot box, to vote for the candidate of their choice. At the public school, to obtain their education. At the employment office, to compete for a job. At the pulpit, to enjoy freedom of religion. At the podium, to enjoy freedom of speech. At the meeting hall, to peaceably assemble. At the print shop, to enjoy freedom of press. At the store, to buy the essentials or desirable things of life. At the bank, to save and prosper. At the probate court, to pass on to their heirs the fruits of life’s labors. And at the tax collector’s office to pay no more than their fair share.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So as you see what the Founders were saying is we are equal in that we all have inalienable rights that no government can take. That these rights give us the tools to create a life for ourselves and our heirs. It is not the role of the government to provide for you. To make all things fair. What you do with your God given talents are up to you. You are safe in the knowledge that your property is yours and is safe. This is what is at stake. We are giving up our rights because we refuse to take the responsibilities that go with them. Government is merely filling the void left when people want something for nothing. They have no problem giving up their rights because they don’t want to be responsible. Not for me give me my rights and I will take the responsibility for my life.