Moon's Graden

>>> Let me get this straight . . . .

>>> We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
>>> plan we are forced to purchase and
>>> fined if we don't,

>>> Which purportedly covers at least
>>> ten million more people,
>>> without adding a single new doctor,
>>> but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

>>> written by a committee whose chairman
>>> says he doesn't understand it,

>>> passed by a Congress that didnt read it but
>>> exempted themselves from it,

>>> and signed by a President who smokes,

>>> with funding administered by a treasury chief who
>>> didn't pay his taxes,

>>> for which well be taxed for four years before any
>>> benefits take effect,

>>> by a government which has
>>> already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,

>>> all to be overseen by a surgeon general
>>> who is obese,

>>> and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

>>> What the _____ could
>>> possibly go wrong?

>> ROTF! good one...

>> But shouldn't that be "what the _____ ELSE could go wrong?"

> May not much matter if it can't get past the Constitutional legalities
> it faces.

>>> May not much matter if it can't get past the Constitutional
>>> legalities it faces.

>> Clearly it IS _unconstitutional_.  What concerns me is just how the
>> SCOTUS will rule on the case as its inevitably headed there.
>> Remember the assinine ruling it made just a few short years ago on
>> Emminent Domain?  That should have been a slam-dunk too, but they
>> broadened that too as being Constitutional.

>> This ain't no slam dunk, either...

> Nor should it be.  Both sides should be heard and a reasoned ruling
> should be made.  There are things about the current health plan which
> I find to be absurd and likely unconstitutional, but I can see where
> they are gray areas (pretty much a new tax has been added).

> What is clear is that our current health care plan where HMO red tape
> and paper pushers act as "death panels" - to use the absurd
> terminology of the right wing - is just stupid.  Beyond stupid.  The
> private sector has completely and utterly failed to be able to
> provide reasonable health care options - and given that their goal is
> to make money and not to provide for the common welfare of the
> nation, that makes sense.  If only there was an organization tasked
> with promoting the general welfare of the nation.

> Hmmm....

>>> 1/9/11 1:16 AM:

>>>>> May not much matter if it can't get past the Constitutional
>>>>> legalities it faces.

>>>> Clearly it IS _unconstitutional_.  What concerns me is just how the
>>>> SCOTUS will rule on the case as its inevitably headed there.
>>>> Remember the assinine ruling it made just a few short years ago on
>>>> Emminent Domain?  That should have been a slam-dunk too, but they
>>>> broadened that too as being Constitutional.

>>>> This ain't no slam dunk, either...

>>> Nor should it be.  Both sides should be heard and a reasoned ruling
>>> should be made.  There are things about the current health plan
>>> which I find to be absurd and likely unconstitutional, but I can
>>> see where they are gray areas (pretty much a new tax has been
>>> added).

>>> What is clear is that our current health care plan where HMO red
>>> tape and paper pushers act as "death panels" - to use the absurd
>>> terminology of the right wing - is just stupid.  Beyond stupid.
>>> The private sector has completely and utterly failed to be able to
>>> provide reasonable health care options - and given that their goal
>>> is to make money and not to provide for the common welfare of the
>>> nation, that makes sense.  If only there was an organization tasked
>>> with promoting the general welfare of the nation.

>>> Hmmm....

>> And just *whom* do you propose be the 'tasked organization', and just
>> 'whom' does the 'tasking'?.

> Well, in the US is there any organization that is already tasked with
> promoting the general welfare?  Hmmm...

>> Furthermore, show me where exactly in the Constitution >anyone< has a
>> "right" to healthcare, _period_?  And if healthcare is a >right<,
>> perhaps we should amend the Constitution to include "guaranteed
>> happiness" a >right< while we're pipe-dreaming....

> How do you guarantee happiness?  You seem a bit lost.

>> Look, if healthcare is to be a _right_, the way to go about it is
>> already provided by means of the Constitutional _amendment_ process,
>> not some power grabbing maneuvers of elitist power monger
>> progressives who try everything in the book to push through their
>> agenda like Pelosi's famous 'go around, under, pole-vault over'
>> tactics which should in itself mandate a death sentence for her -
>> preferably a death by injection of a Botox overdose in her case.

> We already largely have free health care... hospitals cannot turn
> patients in great need away.  And who do you think pays for that?

> If you need to do some research I understand.  :)

>> ...

>>>>> And just *whom* do you propose be the 'tasked organization', and
>>>>> just 'whom' does the 'tasking'?.

>>>> Well, in the US is there any organization that is already tasked
>>>> with promoting the general welfare? Hmmm...

>>> Uh, it was a rhetorical question.

>> Yes, mine was. I assume most people know the organization that is
>> tasked with promoting the general welfare.

>> Many will not say it though. :)

>>>>> Furthermore, show me where exactly in the Constitution>anyone<
>>>>> has a "right" to healthcare, _period_? And if healthcare is
>>>>> a>right<, perhaps we should amend the Constitution to include
>>>>> "guaranteed happiness" a>right< while we're pipe-dreaming....

>>>> How do you guarantee happiness? You seem a bit lost.

>>> It was sarcasm, guy... sarcasm.

>> Lovely. Now get back to the topic at hand.

>>>>> Look, if healthcare is to be a _right_, the way to go about it is
>>>>> already provided by means of the Constitutional _amendment_
>>>>> process, not some power grabbing maneuvers of elitist power
>>>>> monger progressives who try everything in the book to push
>>>>> through their agenda like Pelosi's famous 'go around, under,
>>>>> pole-vault over' tactics which should in itself mandate a death
>>>>> sentence for her - preferably a death by injection of a Botox
>>>>> overdose in her case.

>>>> We already largely have free health care... hospitals cannot turn
>>>> patients in great need away. And who do you think pays for that?

>>>> If you need to do some research I understand. :)

>>> No reasearch needed. Taxpayers do

>> Right. So why not streamline the system and make it more fair and
>> equitable?

>>> - but at least there ARE ERs and doctors to staff them.

>> Well, sometimes. There are very ling lines at ERs all too often...
>> and huge doctor shortages.

>>> Under Obamacare, even these will be severely diminished in that
>>> doctors will leave the practice due to overburdening an already
>>> overburdened system.

>> Cite.

>>> For the past 10 years in this state, we've already seen a mass
>>> exodus of MDs just because of the exponential liability insurance
>>> rate hikes for MDs.

>> Which is not tied to any proposed changes.

>>> You think Obamacare *mandating* heavier caseloads without first
>>> addressing tort reform, insurance company practices, and big pharma
>>> is really going to solve a stinkin blessed thing? Yeah, right...

>> The insurance companies are already pushing insane case loads. I do
>> not support that.

>> The main points of the new health care plan:

>> * Let kids stick with parents insurance until they are 26.
>> * Provide free preventative care.
>> * Ban insurance from rescinding coverage.
>> * Easier appeals on insurance decisions.
>> * Remove lifetime limits on insurance.
>> * Modify annual limits on insurance.
>> * Remove pre-existing condition clauses.
>> * Make it easier / cheaper for small businesses to provide insurance.
>> * Resolve the Medicare "donut hole"
>> * Make insurance companies reveal how much is spent on overhead.
>> * Work to reduce fraud and waste
>> * Funding for new therapies, etc.

>> Overall these are pretty good things.

> Too bad the  gov't can't yet mandate that someone must operate an
> insurance business, huh?