HMO Health Insurance

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>
>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>> personal
>> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
>> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking in
>> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
>> uneven
>> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for example
>> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive disadvantage
>> largely
>> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't deserve
>> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy. We're
>> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency room
>> care,
>> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>
> Not to mention victim compensation.
> A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty bad
> but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to admire
> him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>
> He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
> about it for help with the hospital bills.
>
> THAT is a program I can get behind.

So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my money
to pay for it.

Your philosophy intrigues me, and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

David

In article <fd7h0e$ajf$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> > "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
> >> personal
> >> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
> >> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking in
> >> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
> >> uneven
> >> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for example
> >> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive disadvantage
> >> largely
> >> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't deserve
> >> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy. We're
> >> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency room
> >> care,
> >> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
> >
> > Not to mention victim compensation.
> > A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty bad
> > but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to admire
> > him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
> >
> > He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
> > about it for help with the hospital bills.
> >
> > THAT is a program I can get behind.
>
> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my money
> to pay for it.
>
> Your philosophy intrigues me, and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.
>
> David

People who are criminal victims are not at fault like the majority of
the lazy, obese public that bring most of their chronic health problems
on themselves.

I don't mind having some of my tax dollars go for victim compensation,
specifically to those that don't have health insurance so can't afford
it.

I know our local SANE program (medical help for rape victims) is
certainly one I don't mind paying for either.

Would you have some financially challenged rape victim be forced to bear
a rape child and die from an STD she caught from her rapist just because
she could not afford health insurance?

I try to maintain at least a modicum of fairness in my otherwise cynical
attitudes.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down." -- Steve Rothstein

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Lucas Buck wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:27:53 +0100, Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Lucas Buck wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:28:02 +0100, Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> This is most likely what would happen if Hillary's health care
>>>>>>>> package is voted in:
>>>>
>>>> I really don't get why so many Americans are so violently opposed to an
>>>> NHS-type system. It's comprehensively proven, by decades of experience
>>>> in countries across the developed world, to be something that reduces
>>>> costs and improves care. Why are Americans so attached to paying more
>>>> for less? I just don't get it!
>>>
>>> Well, of course you don't. You've apparently never needed an MRI or
>>> other high-tech treatment, for which English and Canadians of means flee
>>> to the U.S....
>>
>> Funny. My grandmother's had more brain scans of different types than i can
>> shake a stick at, all without leaving Wales. I don't accept that we have a
>> shortage of high-tech medicine here.
>>
>>> even MoP's:
>>>
>>> http://info.detnews.com/weblog/index.cfm?blogid=10560
>>
>> A rehash of:
>>
>> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...75093998182089
>>
>> Which flatly contradicts the actual studies,
>
> Change the subject all you like, but address the point in the article
> first...

Sure.

> or are you saying that the article is false and that Member of
> Parliament did NOT flee to the US for better treatment, although she had
> to pay out-of-pocket for it?

No. I have no reason to think that story's not true.

Now, you can address the point in my post: are you saying the studies are
wrong, and cancer survival rates in the US are actually significantly
better than in Canada?

>>> 2) paying for most R&D of new drugs and treatments, which subsequently
>>> are provided to other countries' national plans at reduced rates.
>>
>> Don't buy that in the slightest.
>
> I don't care whether you "buy it" or not -- it's simple fact

Oh, well if you say so.

> -- major pharmaceuticals are PRICE CONTROLLED in other countries.
>
> Why is WHY many Americans in border states travel to Canada to buy meds.

Okay. Another advantage of the Canadian style of healthcare, then.

tom

--
Formal logical proofs, and therefore programs, are *utterly
meaningless*. -- Dehnadi and Bornat

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>> > "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>> >> personal
>> >> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
>> >> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking in
>> >> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
>> >> uneven
>> >> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for
>> >> example
>> >> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive disadvantage
>> >> largely
>> >> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't
>> >> deserve
>> >> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy.
>> >> We're
>> >> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency room
>> >> care,
>> >> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>> >
>> > Not to mention victim compensation.
>> > A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty bad
>> > but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to
>> > admire
>> > him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>> >
>> > He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
>> > about it for help with the hospital bills.
>> >
>> > THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>
>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my
>> money
>> to pay for it.
>>
>> Your philosophy intrigues me, and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.
>
> People who are criminal victims are not at fault like the majority of
> the lazy, obese public that bring most of their chronic health problems
> on themselves.
>
> I don't mind having some of my tax dollars go for victim compensation,
> specifically to those that don't have health insurance so can't afford
> it.
>
> I know our local SANE program (medical help for rape victims) is
> certainly one I don't mind paying for either.
>
> Would you have some financially challenged rape victim be forced to bear
> a rape child and die from an STD she caught from her rapist just because
> she could not afford health insurance?
>
> I try to maintain at least a modicum of fairness in my otherwise cynical
> attitudes.

So, it's OK to steal my money to satisfy YOUR concept of "fairness".

I understand.

When the armed robber sticks a gun in your ear and tells you to hand over
your wallet, because he needs the money and he thinks it's unfair that you
have more than him, please do keep this little thread in mind.

David

In article <fd874c$aja$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, it's OK to steal my money to satisfy YOUR concept of "fairness".
>
> I understand.
>
> When the armed robber sticks a gun in your ear and tells you to hand over
> your wallet, because he needs the money and he thinks it's unfair that you
> have more than him, please do keep this little thread in mind.
>
> David

Point taken. ;-)

But I'll still blow his head off if I'm fast enough on the draw.
He/she may _think_ I'm reaching for my wallet...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down." -- Steve Rothstein

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd7h0e$ajf$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>>> personal
>>> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
>>> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking in
>>> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
>>> uneven
>>> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for
>>> example
>>> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive disadvantage
>>> largely
>>> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't
>>> deserve
>>> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy.
>>> We're
>>> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency
>>> room care,
>>> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>>
>> Not to mention victim compensation.
>> A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty
>> bad
>> but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to
>> admire
>> him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>>
>> He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
>> about it for help with the hospital bills.
>>
>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>
> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my
> money to pay for it.

Living in our democracy requires compromise on everyone's part,
including but not limited to things like taxes. Think of it like
marriage, only on a bigger scale. I think the taxes I pay to the
town I live in are obscenely high, but if I don't want to pay them, I
can move, and so can you. Is there a place on earth with a health care
system more to your liking and, if so, why don't you go there instead?

All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things, but
it's not that.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> Your philosophy intrigues me, and I want to subscribe to your
> newsletter.
>
> David
>

Y'all need to see the Micheal Moore movie 'Sicko' which explores the
American health 'system' of how we got to where we are and how other
countries handle theirs in comparison. Americans have been spoonfed a
bunch of crap. Sure other 'systems' will have some flaws, in some
cases, but the US healthcare is spiralling out of control and needs to
be leashed in, overhauled, and or scrapped. I work in medical billing
and its a constant challenge to get insurances to pay. The movie looks
at it all, so pick it up if it ever gets to dvd.


joni

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>>>> personal
>>>> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
>>>> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking in
>>>> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
>>>> uneven
>>>> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for example
>>>> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive disadvantage
>>>> largely
>>>> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't
>>>> deserve
>>>> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy.
>>>> We're
>>>> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency room
>>>> care,
>>>> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>>>
>>> Not to mention victim compensation.
>>> A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty bad
>>> but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to admire
>>> him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>>>
>>> He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
>>> about it for help with the hospital bills.
>>>
>>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>
>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my
>> money to pay for it.
>
> Living in our democracy

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. Problem
is, the "constitutional" part has been widely ignored for a very long time.
Particularly the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states, "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or
to the people."

Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the Federal
Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or health and human
services, or education, or housing and urban development, or alcohol, or
tabacco, or firearms, or...or health care?

> requires compromise on everyone's part,

Yes, Comrade. It seems kettlebells aren't the only thing you've adopted from
Pavel's Motherland.

> including but not limited to things like taxes. Think of it like
> marriage, only on a bigger scale. I think the taxes I pay to the town
> I live in are obscenely high, but if I don't want to pay them, I can move,
> and so can you. Is there a place on earth with a health care system more
> to your liking and, if so, why don't you go there instead?

I thought that argument went out in the 1970's. Apparently not.

> All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things, but
> it's not that.

When a mugger sticks me up at gunpoint, it's a crime.

When OJ conspires with 6 other guys to stick somebody up at gunpoint, it's a
crime.

When a gang of 30 rap star wannabes run through the streets, mugging old
ladies and knocking over gas stations, its a crime.

When an organized crime syndicate with 10,000 members appoints one guy to go
and rob somebody at gunpoint, it's a crime.

When millions of people vote to send armed representatives to take my money,
at the point of a gun if necessary, it's known as a cri...no, wait, that's
taxation. Sorry. Almost made a mistake there.

David

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message ....
.....
> Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the Federal
> Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or health and human
> services, or education, or housing and urban development, or alcohol, or
> tabacco, or firearms, or...or health care?....

Commerce clause. Yeah, I know you don't like the way it's been interpreted
but, like it or not, that's largely the basis for the fed's regulation in
these areas. (Oh, and that pesky supremacy clause in the const. puts a
damper on things, too,) The perceived breadth of the commerce clause ebbs
and flows (google "Wickard v. Filburn" for a really broad interp) but
they're all far too expansive top fit your agenda.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, David Cohen wrote:

> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my
>>> money to pay for it.
>>
>> All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things, but
>> it's not that.
>
> When millions of people vote to send armed representatives to take my
> money, at the point of a gun if necessary, it's known as a cri...no,
> wait, that's taxation. Sorry. Almost made a mistake there.

Presumably, you have a better idea. I'd love to hear it.

tom

--
Formal logical proofs, and therefore programs - formal logical proofs
that particular computations are possible, expressed in a formal system
called a programming language - are utterly meaningless. To write a
computer program you have to come to terms with this, to accept that
whatever you might want the program to mean, the machine will blindly
follow its meaningless rules and come to some meaningless conclusion. --
Dehnadi and Bornat

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd8pff$shv$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>>>>> personal
>>>>> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
>>>>> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking
>>>>> in
>>>>> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is
>>>>> the uneven
>>>>> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for
>>>>> example
>>>>> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive
>>>>> disadvantage largely
>>>>> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't
>>>>> deserve
>>>>> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy.
>>>>> We're
>>>>> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency
>>>>> room care,
>>>>> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention victim compensation.
>>>> A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty
>>>> bad
>>>> but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to
>>>> admire
>>>> him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>>>>
>>>> He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
>>>> about it for help with the hospital bills.
>>>>
>>>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>>
>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal
>>> my money to pay for it.
>>
>> Living in our democracy
>
> We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
> Problem is, the "constitutional" part has been widely ignored for a
> very long time. Particularly the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of
> Rights, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States
> by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
> for the States respectively, or to the people."
>
> Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the
> Federal Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or
> health and human services, or education, or housing and urban
> development, or alcohol, or tabacco, or firearms, or...or health care?
>
>> requires compromise on everyone's part,
>
> Yes, Comrade. It seems kettlebells aren't the only thing you've
> adopted from Pavel's Motherland.
>
>> including but not limited to things like taxes. Think of it like
>> marriage, only on a bigger scale. I think the taxes I pay to the
>> town I live in are obscenely high, but if I don't want to pay them, I
>> can move, and so can you. Is there a place on earth with a health
>> care system more to your liking and, if so, why don't you go there
>> instead?
>
> I thought that argument went out in the 1970's. Apparently not.
>
>> All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things,
>> but it's not that.
>
> When a mugger sticks me up at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>
> When OJ conspires with 6 other guys to stick somebody up at gunpoint,
> it's a crime.
>
> When a gang of 30 rap star wannabes run through the streets, mugging
> old ladies and knocking over gas stations, its a crime.
>
> When an organized crime syndicate with 10,000 members appoints one guy
> to go and rob somebody at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>
> When millions of people vote to send armed representatives to take my
> money, at the point of a gun if necessary, it's known as a cri...no,
> wait, that's taxation. Sorry. Almost made a mistake there.

David, that we have a government doesn't make us communists or even
Democrats. Your examples wouldn't pass anybody's Civics 101 course,
even one you'd design yourself, I'm afraid.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> David
>
>
>

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my
>>>> money to pay for it.
>>>
>>> All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things, but
>>> it's not that.
>>
>> When millions of people vote to send armed representatives to take my
>> money, at the point of a gun if necessary, it's known as a cri...no,
>> wait, that's taxation. Sorry. Almost made a mistake there.
>
> Presumably, you have a better idea.

My "better idea" would involve a change in basic societal philosophy which
is not going to happen, so, as I have already stated, there is no solution.
Just trying to protect me and mine and watching society self-destruct.

> I'd love to hear it.

Sorry, I gave up discussing basic philosophy years ago. Just not worth the
energy any more. Nothing personal, really.

David

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>>>>>> personal
>>>>>> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
>>>>>> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking in
>>>>>> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
>>>>>> uneven
>>>>>> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for
>>>>>> example
>>>>>> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive disadvantage
>>>>>> largely
>>>>>> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't
>>>>>> deserve
>>>>>> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy.
>>>>>> We're
>>>>>> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency
>>>>>> room care,
>>>>>> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention victim compensation.
>>>>> A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty bad
>>>>> but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to
>>>>> admire
>>>>> him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>>>>>
>>>>> He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
>>>>> about it for help with the hospital bills.
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>>>
>>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my
>>>> money to pay for it.
>>>
>>> Living in our democracy
>>
>> We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
>> Problem is, the "constitutional" part has been widely ignored for a very
>> long time. Particularly the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which
>> states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>> Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the
>> States respectively, or to the people."
>>
>> Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the Federal
>> Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or health and human
>> services, or education, or housing and urban development, or alcohol, or
>> tabacco, or firearms, or...or health care?
>>
>>> requires compromise on everyone's part,
>>
>> Yes, Comrade. It seems kettlebells aren't the only thing you've adopted
>> from Pavel's Motherland.
>>
>>> including but not limited to things like taxes. Think of it like
>>> marriage, only on a bigger scale. I think the taxes I pay to the
>>> town I live in are obscenely high, but if I don't want to pay them, I
>>> can move, and so can you. Is there a place on earth with a health care
>>> system more to your liking and, if so, why don't you go there instead?
>>
>> I thought that argument went out in the 1970's. Apparently not.
>>
>>> All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things, but
>>> it's not that.
>>
>> When a mugger sticks me up at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>
>> When OJ conspires with 6 other guys to stick somebody up at gunpoint,
>> it's a crime.
>>
>> When a gang of 30 rap star wannabes run through the streets, mugging old
>> ladies and knocking over gas stations, its a crime.
>>
>> When an organized crime syndicate with 10,000 members appoints one guy to
>> go and rob somebody at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>
>> When millions of people vote to send armed representatives to take my
>> money, at the point of a gun if necessary, it's known as a cri...no,
>> wait, that's taxation. Sorry. Almost made a mistake there.
>
> David, that we have a government doesn't make us communists or even
> Democrats. Your examples wouldn't pass anybody's Civics 101 course,
> even one you'd design yourself, I'm afraid.

You missed my point, but I didn't state it clearly. Our Federal Government
has the legitimate right to perform the functions the Constitution allows,
such as SOME of the functions now performed by the Departments of State,
Defense, Transportation and Commerce, and it can be argued that they have
the right to tax to perform those functions, but ONLY those functions.

The rest is armed robbery.

David

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd95j4$n0p$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange
>>>>>>> their personal
>>>>>>> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk
>>>>>>> taking in
>>>>>>> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is
>>>>>>> the uneven
>>>>>>> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive
>>>>>>> disadvantage largely
>>>>>>> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who
>>>>>>> don't deserve
>>>>>>> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our
>>>>>>> economy. We're
>>>>>>> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through
>>>>>>> emergency room care,
>>>>>>> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention victim compensation.
>>>>>> A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up
>>>>>> pretty bad
>>>>>> but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to
>>>>>> admire
>>>>>> him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted
>>>>>> him
>>>>>> about it for help with the hospital bills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to
>>>>> steal my money to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> Living in our democracy
>>>
>>> We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
>>> Problem is, the "constitutional" part has been widely ignored for a
>>> very long time. Particularly the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of
>>> Rights, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States
>>> by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>>> reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
>>>
>>> Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the
>>> Federal Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or
>>> health and human services, or education, or housing and urban
>>> development, or alcohol, or tabacco, or firearms, or...or health
>>> care?
>>>
>>>> requires compromise on everyone's part,
>>>
>>> Yes, Comrade. It seems kettlebells aren't the only thing you've
>>> adopted from Pavel's Motherland.
>>>
>>>> including but not limited to things like taxes. Think of it like
>>>> marriage, only on a bigger scale. I think the taxes I pay to
>>>> the town I live in are obscenely high, but if I don't want to pay
>>>> them, I can move, and so can you. Is there a place on earth with a
>>>> health care system more to your liking and, if so, why don't you go
>>>> there instead?
>>>
>>> I thought that argument went out in the 1970's. Apparently not.
>>>
>>>> All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things,
>>>> but it's not that.
>>>
>>> When a mugger sticks me up at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>>
>>> When OJ conspires with 6 other guys to stick somebody up at
>>> gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>>
>>> When a gang of 30 rap star wannabes run through the streets, mugging
>>> old ladies and knocking over gas stations, its a crime.
>>>
>>> When an organized crime syndicate with 10,000 members appoints one
>>> guy to go and rob somebody at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>>
>>> When millions of people vote to send armed representatives to take
>>> my money, at the point of a gun if necessary, it's known as a
>>> cri...no, wait, that's taxation. Sorry. Almost made a mistake there.
>>
>> David, that we have a government doesn't make us communists or even
>> Democrats. Your examples wouldn't pass anybody's Civics 101
>> course, even one you'd design yourself, I'm afraid.
>
> You missed my point, but I didn't state it clearly. Our Federal
> Government has the legitimate right to perform the functions the
> Constitution allows, such as SOME of the functions now performed by
> the Departments of State, Defense, Transportation and Commerce, and it
> can be argued that they have the right to tax to perform those
> functions, but ONLY those functions.
>
> The rest is armed robbery.
>
> David

I don't think it's a big stretch to argue that "life" is pretty
difficult to achieve if you're dead due to lack of medical care. I know
that's the declaration of independence and not the constitution, but
still ...

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:32:49 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <fd7h0e$ajf$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>> > "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>> >> personal
>> >> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
>> >> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking in
>> >> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
>> >> uneven
>> >> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for example
>> >> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive disadvantage
>> >> largely
>> >> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't deserve
>> >> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy. We're
>> >> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency room
>> >> care,
>> >> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>> >
>> > Not to mention victim compensation.
>> > A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty bad
>> > but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to admire
>> > him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>> >
>> > He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
>> > about it for help with the hospital bills.
>> >
>> > THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>
>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my money
>> to pay for it.
>>
>> Your philosophy intrigues me, and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.
>>
>> David
>
>People who are criminal victims are not at fault like the majority of
>the lazy, obese public that bring most of their chronic health problems
>on themselves.

Is that anything like the lazy, obese public that hires illegals for cash under the table
without paying payroll taxes, workers' comp, or health premiums and tries
to foist those costs onto other taxpayers?

>I don't mind having some of my tax dollars go for victim compensation,
>specifically to those that don't have health insurance so can't afford
>it.

That sentence makes no sense.

>I know our local SANE program (medical help for rape victims) is
>certainly one I don't mind paying for either.
>
>Would you have some financially challenged rape victim be forced to bear
>a rape child and die from an STD she caught from her rapist just because
>she could not afford health insurance?

Aside from the silliness of your rant here (what STD are you seeing as *fatal*?
Hep C? HIV? Tertiary syphilis? What women is FORCED to bear any child?)...

But you'd have some financially-challenged arson victim who lacks insurance
be forced to bear those losses himself.

Point being: insurance, or self-reliance, is a basic part of BEING A FUCKING _ADULT_.

>I try to maintain at least a modicum of fairness in my otherwise cynical
>attitudes.

"fairness" = everybody else pays for what I want them to

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:06:25 -0700, joanne <jgrrl2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Y'all need to see the Micheal Moore movie 'Sicko' which explores the
>American health 'system' of how we got to where we are and how other
>countries handle theirs in comparison.

Better yet, see:

http://sicko.ncpa.org/

>Americans have been spoonfed a bunch of crap.

Indeed.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, David Cohen wrote:

> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal
>>>>> my money to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> Living in our democracy
>>>
>>> We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
>>> Problem is, the "constitutional" part has been widely ignored for a
>>> very long time. Particularly the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of
>>> Rights, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States
>>> by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
>>> for the States respectively, or to the people."
>>>
>>> Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the
>>> Federal Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or
>>> health and human services, or education, or housing and urban
>>> development, or alcohol, or tabacco, or firearms, or...or health care?
>>
>> David, that we have a government doesn't make us communists or even
>> Democrats. Your examples wouldn't pass anybody's Civics 101 course,
>> even one you'd design yourself, I'm afraid.
>
> You missed my point, but I didn't state it clearly. Our Federal
> Government has the legitimate right to perform the functions the
> Constitution allows, such as SOME of the functions now performed by the
> Departments of State, Defense, Transportation and Commerce, and it can
> be argued that they have the right to tax to perform those functions,
> but ONLY those functions.

Hey, you said something i agree with!

I'm not convinced the way powers are apportioned in the US constitution is
the way i'd do it, but apportioned they are, most explicitly, and from
what little i know, it does seem that the federal government has
dramatically exceeded its apportionment. This 'commerce clause' stuff in
particular is completely bonkers. How did they get away with that?

But David, does that mean that if the states decided to implement a pinko
healthcare system, you'd be happy with it?

tom

--
.... the full attack expands into an unusual pseudosteganographic
strikeback methodology against peer to peer networks. -- Dan Kaminsky

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd78os$h6h$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> "Zen Cohen" <atu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Lotta diffrence between getting adequate health care and getting
>>>>>> emergency
>>>>>> care.
>>>>>
>>>>> The important difference is between health care purchased with the
>>>>> results of work by productive members of society, and health care
>>>>> stolen by non-productive parasites who believe they are entitled to
>>>>> the same level of health care that I buy, from people willing to sell
>>>>> it to me, with money I honestly earned.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone is "entitled" to health care.
>>>
>>> We agree.
>>>
>>>> But the current system is inefficient
>>>
>>> We agree.
>>>
>>>> and only serves the insurance industry well.
>>>
>>> Well, that gets a lot more complicated, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> Since everyone agrees that a huge amount of money goes INTO the current
>>> health care system, it has to come OUT somewhere.
>>>
>>> Insurance companies? Sure. But one could argue, although I'm not, that
>>> if anyone doesn't like paying premiums to insurance companies and
>>> receiving the service they get, then don't. Self insure. Stay healthy.
>>> Pay for your own medical care. Whatever.
>>>
>>> Hospital corporations? Sure. Similar argument could be made as above.
>>>
>>> Doctors, nurses, others employed in the health care field? Well, I'm not
>>> complaining about my pay, and most doctors are doing ok, but most of us
>>> aren't getting rich. The "huge amount...into" isn't going "into" us.
>>>
>>> Our health care system is a stereotypic example of how a mixed economy
>>> fails. When you combine socialism and capitalism, you get a fatal mutant
>>> monster that can not help but fail. Health care is a perfect example of
>>> an industry that would function effeciently under a true free market
>>> system, but the more Government regulation moves it toward socialistic
>>> medicine, the more problems arise, which the Politicians blame,
>>> ironically, on the free market remnants of the system, instead of their
>>> own socialist meddling.
>>>
>>> Since this country won't be switching to a free market economy, the
>>> solution to the health care system problems is:
>>>
>>> THERE IS NO SOLUTION.
>>>
>>> There ya' go, argument over. How do you stop an earthquake? Simple: you
>>> don't.
>>>
>>> You just try to arrange your personal economy so that you and your loved
>>> ones don't suffer too much damage. And sit back and watch the fiasco.
>>> Think of it as a disaster movie with extremely realistic special
>>> effects.
>>>
>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>> personal economy so that their family is covered by health insurance,
>> which effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking
>> in general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
>> uneven playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for
>> example Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive
>> disadvantage largely due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure
>> some who don't deserve it, but the overall effect would help our society
>> and our economy. We're already paying for most of the costs indirectly
>> through emergency room care, public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>
> Then we get "average" medical care, by averaging the care Bill Gates gets,
> the care I get, and the care the AIDS riddled crack whore gets. The
> non-productive parasites get better medical care by stealing it from me
> and Bill, and Bill and I (well, me...Bill buys his own hospital) my
> medical care becomes the awesome British/Canadian model, where the wait
> for critical tests is months, surgeries are rationed out by the oh, so,
> efficient, Government, and everybody...hard working citizen and parasite
> alike...all get the best The Government can produce.
>
> Yeah, good times ahead.
>
> David
Or you have some level of basic care covered and people are free to
supplement through work or by buying additional insurance. Aren't crack
whores considered productive citizens in Nevada?

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:09:54 -0700, "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange their
>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance, which
>>>>>>> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk taking in
>>>>>>> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is the
>>>>>>> uneven
>>>>>>> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive disadvantage
>>>>>>> largely
>>>>>>> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who don't
>>>>>>> deserve
>>>>>>> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our economy.
>>>>>>> We're
>>>>>>> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through emergency
>>>>>>> room care,
>>>>>>> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention victim compensation.
>>>>>> A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up pretty bad
>>>>>> but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to
>>>>>> admire
>>>>>> him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted him
>>>>>> about it for help with the hospital bills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal my
>>>>> money to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> Living in our democracy
>>>
>>> We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
>>> Problem is, the "constitutional" part has been widely ignored for a very
>>> long time. Particularly the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which
>>> states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>>> Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the
>>> States respectively, or to the people."
>>>
>>> Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the Federal
>>> Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or health and human
>>> services, or education, or housing and urban development, or alcohol, or
>>> tabacco, or firearms, or...or health care?
>>>
>>>> requires compromise on everyone's part,
>>>
>>> Yes, Comrade. It seems kettlebells aren't the only thing you've adopted
>>> from Pavel's Motherland.
>>>
>>>> including but not limited to things like taxes. Think of it like
>>>> marriage, only on a bigger scale. I think the taxes I pay to the
>>>> town I live in are obscenely high, but if I don't want to pay them, I
>>>> can move, and so can you. Is there a place on earth with a health care
>>>> system more to your liking and, if so, why don't you go there instead?
>>>
>>> I thought that argument went out in the 1970's. Apparently not.
>>>
>>>> All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things, but
>>>> it's not that.
>>>
>>> When a mugger sticks me up at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>>
>>> When OJ conspires with 6 other guys to stick somebody up at gunpoint,
>>> it's a crime.
>>>
>>> When a gang of 30 rap star wannabes run through the streets, mugging old
>>> ladies and knocking over gas stations, its a crime.
>>>
>>> When an organized crime syndicate with 10,000 members appoints one guy to
>>> go and rob somebody at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>>
>>> When millions of people vote to send armed representatives to take my
>>> money, at the point of a gun if necessary, it's known as a cri...no,
>>> wait, that's taxation. Sorry. Almost made a mistake there.
>>
>> David, that we have a government doesn't make us communists or even
>> Democrats. Your examples wouldn't pass anybody's Civics 101 course,
>> even one you'd design yourself, I'm afraid.
>
>You missed my point, but I didn't state it clearly. Our Federal Government
>has the legitimate right to perform the functions the Constitution allows,

No, No, NO.

It has specific POWERS in specific areas where said powers are granted by
the Constitution. NO LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT HAS _RIGHTS_.

>such as SOME of the functions now performed by the Departments of State,
>Defense, Transportation and Commerce, and it can be argued that they have
>the right to tax to perform those functions, but ONLY those functions.
>
>The rest is armed robbery.
>
>David

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:09:34 -0400, "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fd95j4$n0p$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The worst part is that too many people are forced to arrange
>>>>>>>> their personal
>>>>>>>> economy so that their family is covered by health insurance,
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> effectively rules out self-employment and discourages risk
>>>>>>>> taking in
>>>>>>>> general. The other bad effect I see on the economy in general is
>>>>>>>> the uneven
>>>>>>>> playing field, with certain firms hobbled by medical costs, for
>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>> Detroit auto makers, which are suffering a competitive
>>>>>>>> disadvantage largely
>>>>>>>> due to this issue. Universal coverage would insure some who
>>>>>>>> don't deserve
>>>>>>>> it, but the overall effect would help our society and our
>>>>>>>> economy. We're
>>>>>>>> already paying for most of the costs indirectly through
>>>>>>>> emergency room care,
>>>>>>>> public clinics, safety net programs, etc..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to mention victim compensation.
>>>>>>> A good friend of mine got mugged last Monday. Got beaten up
>>>>>>> pretty bad
>>>>>>> but he managed to pin the guy until the police got there. (Had to
>>>>>>> admire
>>>>>>> him for that as the mugger was younger and more agile).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He spent a day and a half in the hospital and someone contacted
>>>>>>> him
>>>>>>> about it for help with the hospital bills.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to
>>>>>> steal my money to pay for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Living in our democracy
>>>>
>>>> We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
>>>> Problem is, the "constitutional" part has been widely ignored for a
>>>> very long time. Particularly the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of
>>>> Rights, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States
>>>> by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>>>> reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the
>>>> Federal Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or
>>>> health and human services, or education, or housing and urban
>>>> development, or alcohol, or tabacco, or firearms, or...or health
>>>> care?
>>>>
>>>>> requires compromise on everyone's part,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Comrade. It seems kettlebells aren't the only thing you've
>>>> adopted from Pavel's Motherland.
>>>>
>>>>> including but not limited to things like taxes. Think of it like
>>>>> marriage, only on a bigger scale. I think the taxes I pay to
>>>>> the town I live in are obscenely high, but if I don't want to pay
>>>>> them, I can move, and so can you. Is there a place on earth with a
>>>>> health care system more to your liking and, if so, why don't you go
>>>>> there instead?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that argument went out in the 1970's. Apparently not.
>>>>
>>>>> All this because you used the word "steal" - it may be many things,
>>>>> but it's not that.
>>>>
>>>> When a mugger sticks me up at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>>>
>>>> When OJ conspires with 6 other guys to stick somebody up at
>>>> gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>>>
>>>> When a gang of 30 rap star wannabes run through the streets, mugging
>>>> old ladies and knocking over gas stations, its a crime.
>>>>
>>>> When an organized crime syndicate with 10,000 members appoints one
>>>> guy to go and rob somebody at gunpoint, it's a crime.
>>>>
>>>> When millions of people vote to send armed representatives to take
>>>> my money, at the point of a gun if necessary, it's known as a
>>>> cri...no, wait, that's taxation. Sorry. Almost made a mistake there.
>>>
>>> David, that we have a government doesn't make us communists or even
>>> Democrats. Your examples wouldn't pass anybody's Civics 101
>>> course, even one you'd design yourself, I'm afraid.
>>
>> You missed my point, but I didn't state it clearly. Our Federal
>> Government has the legitimate right to perform the functions the
>> Constitution allows, such as SOME of the functions now performed by
>> the Departments of State, Defense, Transportation and Commerce, and it
>> can be argued that they have the right to tax to perform those
>> functions, but ONLY those functions.
>>
>> The rest is armed robbery.
>>
>> David
>
>I don't think it's a big stretch to argue that "life" is pretty
>difficult to achieve if you're dead due to lack of medical care. I know
>that's the declaration of independence and not the constitution, but
>still ...

If you define taxpayer-funded medical care as a "right", then certainly
free food, water, shelter, heat, etc. would become "rights" as well, since
those are even more basic needs.

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote
>>>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT is a program I can get behind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if it's a program YOU like, it's OK for The Government to steal
>>>>>> my money to pay for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Living in our democracy
>>>>
>>>> We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
>>>> Problem is, the "constitutional" part has been widely ignored for a
>>>> very long time. Particularly the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights,
>>>> which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>>>> Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the
>>>> States respectively, or to the people."
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind pointing out to me where in the Constitution the Federal
>>>> Government is delegated the power to regulate energy, or health and
>>>> human services, or education, or housing and urban development, or
>>>> alcohol, or tabacco, or firearms, or...or health care?
>>>
>>> David, that we have a government doesn't make us communists or even
>>> Democrats. Your examples wouldn't pass anybody's Civics 101 course,
>>> even one you'd design yourself, I'm afraid.
>>
>> You missed my point, but I didn't state it clearly. Our Federal
>> Government has the legitimate right to perform the functions the
>> Constitution allows, such as SOME of the functions now performed by the
>> Departments of State, Defense, Transportation and Commerce, and it can be
>> argued that they have the right to tax to perform those functions, but
>> ONLY those functions.
>
> Hey, you said something i agree with!

Hell has frozen over

> I'm not convinced the way powers are apportioned in the US constitution is
> the way i'd do it, but apportioned they are, most explicitly, and from
> what little i know, it does seem that the federal government has
> dramatically exceeded its apportionment. This 'commerce clause' stuff in
> particular is completely bonkers. How did they get away with that?
>
> But David, does that mean that if the states decided to implement a pinko
> healthcare system, you'd be happy with it?

If a State implemented a system that 1) had the approval of a majority of
its citizens, 2) did not violate the State's own Constitution, and 3) did
not violate the US Constitution, then, I would vote against it, but
recognize it as valid.

David