Why ObamaCare is sinking

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not ABOUT tort reform
OR emergency room-as-primary-care
OR the uninsured
OR the underinsured
OR Medical lobbyist
OR end of life care
OR spiraling insurance costs
OR Prescription Drug Prices
OR Medical Research
OR overburdend medicaire/medicaid
OR chronic/critical illness
OR medical bankruptcies
OR switching primary care physicians
OR Cobra
OR Cancer Treatment
OR the working poor
OR Pre-existing conditions
OR the cost of a medical degree
OR lack of providers
OR public health disease outbreaks
OR Illegal Aliens
OR confusing billing systems
OR Electronic Patient Records
OR preventive care
OR infant mortality rates
OR prescription drug prices
OR the power of deciding who gets what, when
OR Veteran care
It's about ALL OF THAT and more.
Don't you get it?

Judged:

1

Clark kent wrote:

<quoted text>
I so, so agree with you! But we cannot forget that we need to come up with solutions to all of these things and maintain the rights and freedoms of all! We need to come up with solutions that are in line with the laws of our republic and thus our Constitution. If we sacrifice our Constitution for health care, the health care will have no value.

Judged:

1

1

1

Clark kent wrote:

<quoted text>
I so, so agree with you! But we cannot forget that we need to come up with solutions to all of these things and maintain the rights and freedoms of all! We need to come up with solutions that are in line with the laws of our republic and thus our Constitution. If we sacrifice our Constitution for health care, the health care will have no value.

Judged:

2

2

1

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not ABOUT tort reform
OR emergency room-as-primary-care
OR the uninsured
OR the underinsured
OR Medical lobbyist
OR end of life care
OR spiraling insurance costs
OR Prescription Drug Prices
OR Medical Research
OR overburdend medicaire/medicaid
OR chronic/critical illness
OR medical bankruptcies
OR switching primary care physicians
OR Cobra
OR Cancer Treatment
OR the working poor
OR Pre-existing conditions
OR the cost of a medical degree
OR lack of providers
OR public health disease outbreaks
OR Illegal Aliens
OR confusing billing systems
OR Electronic Patient Records
OR preventive care
OR infant mortality rates
OR prescription drug prices
OR the power of deciding who gets what, when
OR Veteran care
It's about ALL OF THAT and more.
Don't you get it?

Judged:

3

2

2

Eighthman wrote:

The Canadian health minister Admits that their socialized medicine is a complete and utter failure. Why is this stinking piece of Sh!t president and the retarded horde of democrats still pushing it? Are they mentally retarded?

Judged:

1

1

1

Odinga wrote:

<quoted text>
The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is NO focus on preventing health care need whatever.
The same warning notice must be placed on The Obamacare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: Consuming this product will be hazardous to your health......

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
And free, you forgot free.
However you justify healthcare reform as being unconstitutional, more than likely also encompasses just about all of the legislation passsed in the last 100 years which is why it's a non-starter. Whether or not you define *this* or *that* as "correct" protocol for, or "intended purpose" of our Republic, it doesn't boil down to how you, or I or most any single person defines it, It simply matters how it is defined by it's usage by those who use it. i.e. to say that the internet wasn't intended for blogs or comercial retail or that phones weren't invented to play music or watch video, is simply a non-argument.

Judged:

2

2

2

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not ABOUT tort reform
OR emergency room-as-primary-care
OR the uninsured
OR the underinsured
OR Medical lobbyist
OR end of life care
OR spiraling insurance costs
OR Prescription Drug Prices
OR Medical Research
OR overburdend medicaire/medicaid
OR chronic/critical illness
OR medical bankruptcies
OR switching primary care physicians
OR Cobra
OR Cancer Treatment
OR the working poor
OR Pre-existing conditions
OR the cost of a medical degree
OR lack of providers
OR public health disease outbreaks
OR Illegal Aliens
OR confusing billing systems
OR Electronic Patient Records
OR preventive care
OR infant mortality rates
OR prescription drug prices
OR the power of deciding who gets what, when
OR Veteran care
It's about ALL OF THAT and more.
Don't you get it?

Judged:

2

1

1

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
a) rationing and denying of care, be it self-rationing due to economics or even access, or rationing due to insurance guidelines or medicare or medicaid guidlines is already going on. It's no secret that the wealthier you are the better care health care you get, if there were no "rationing or denying" of care of any kind then EVERYONE with some type of medical coverage would be getting the same type of care.
b) being that the prescription drug abuse levels in this country are off the meter there probably NEEDS to be some damn rationing and denying of care. You ever watch A&E Intervention? These addicts are consumng mass quantities of presciption drugs, on a daily basis. They go to multiple doctors, up to twenty at a time, and hundreds over time, to get their multiple prescriptions. But here's the kicker, unlike illegal drugs, these drugs are not manufactured from raw materials or grown, or being "stolen" or EVEN supported with illegal enterprises - these people overwhelmingly do not work and their prescriptions worth $100's of dollars and the doctor visits to acquire them are being subsidized by YOU, either through high insurance premiums or tax dollars.

Judged:

1

1

1

Clark kent wrote:

<quoted text>
Much legislation sense 1913 was indeed un-Constitutional. But there have even been court rulings (posted on the last page) that have ruled federal control of the health care system as un-Constitutional.
Look, I'll be as straight forward as I can, I'm pro the idea of "enhanced interrogation methods" used under the Bush administration... But I also recognize it as un-Constitutional. Therefor, for the benefit of our United States in the long run, I cannot support such methods.
It doesn't boil down to how it is used, in this case, it boils down to what it is and what it is intended to be and intended to provide. The Constitution does (as you mentioned) provide freedom. It provides people freedom from our own government.
Unlike an object thats uses can be expanded upon, our Constitution is a restriction on government. It would be like if someone got a job to paint a picture. They do a crappy job of painting the picture and on their own decide to write a book and they for some reason expect to be paid for both.
We have a nation of laws. We elected to people to uphold and support those laws. We elected people to keep our nation safe. The Constitution lays out a pretty specific job description. Those we elected should stick to their jobs and not seek recognition for work that is beyond the scope of their assigned job. They should let others do their jobs instead of trying to take over.
And last, I'm not saying all reform is un-Constitutional, I'm just saying that much of what is being proposed, including pubic "options" is un-Constitutional.

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
a) rationing and denying of care, be it self-rationing due to economics or even access, or rationing due to insurance guidelines or medicare or medicaid guidlines is already going on. It's no secret that the wealthier you are the better care health care you get, if there were no "rationing or denying" of care of any kind then EVERYONE with some type of medical coverage would be getting the same type of care.

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>b) being that the prescription drug abuse levels in this country are off the meter there probably NEEDS to be some damn rationing and denying of care. You ever watch A&E Intervention? These addicts are consumng mass quantities of presciption drugs, on a daily basis. They go to multiple doctors, up to twenty at a time, and hundreds over time, to get their multiple prescriptions. But here's the kicker, unlike illegal drugs, these drugs are not manufactured from raw materials or grown, or being "stolen" or EVEN supported with illegal enterprises - these people overwhelmingly do not work and their prescriptions worth $100's of dollars and the doctor visits to acquire them are being subsidized by YOU, either through high insurance premiums or tax dollars.

Clark kent wrote:

<quoted text>
Much legislation sense 1913 was indeed un-Constitutional. But there have even been court rulings (posted on the last page) that have ruled federal control of the health care system as un-Constitutional.
Look, I'll be as straight forward as I can, I'm pro the idea of "enhanced interrogation methods" used under the Bush administration... But I also recognize it as un-Constitutional. Therefor, for the benefit of our United States in the long run, I cannot support such methods.
It doesn't boil down to how it is used, in this case, it boils down to what it is and what it is intended to be and intended to provide. The Constitution does (as you mentioned) provide freedom. It provides people freedom from our own government.
Unlike an object thats uses can be expanded upon, our Constitution is a restriction on government. It would be like if someone got a job to paint a picture. They do a crappy job of painting the picture and on their own decide to write a book and they for some reason expect to be paid for both.
We have a nation of laws. We elected to people to uphold and support those laws. We elected people to keep our nation safe. The Constitution lays out a pretty specific job description. Those we elected should stick to their jobs and not seek recognition for work that is beyond the scope of their assigned job. They should let others do their jobs instead of trying to take over.
And last, I'm not saying all reform is un-Constitutional, I'm just saying that much of what is being proposed, including pubic "options" is un-Constitutional.

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
How exactly are "enhanced interrogation tactics" unconstitutional?

Judged:

2

2

1

Alz wrote:

<quoted text>
It's none of the government's business.
Most of the problems we have are BECAUSE of government. Just about everything related to government is BANKRUPT. Medicare is an area where the government controls the system and guess what? It's bankrupt.
We can solve the problems by minimizing government.

Clark kent wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, there will likely always be rationing of some kind when it comes to health care. The question comes to this... A. What is Constitutional. And B. Who should be the rationing body? Many, and I would argue the majority, would say that it shouldn't be the government. There is too much potential for a conflict of interest in the future. Simple as that.
<quoted text>
Hey not all illegal drugs come from raw materials or are grown... Anyway, yes these practices need to be stopped... The government isn't exactly doing a great job of that, what makes you think them controlling the entire system is going to solve that problem?
Medicare and Medicaid have higher fraud levels than any medical insurance company and in fact higher than any credit card company. The private sector does a much better job at preventing fraud than the government.

Clark kent wrote:

<quoted text>
Well at very least water boarding is an unusual form of punishment...
8th Amendment.

Clark kent wrote:

<quoted text>
Well at very least water boarding is an unusual form of punishment...
8th Amendment.

Judged:

1

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
I love the way that America is always great "in spite of" our government. Most of what we HAVE is because of our government, even if that includes the problems. Plenty of countries have capitalism and free markets or whatever it is you all are always going on about, and have for centuries yet they're not America. The only difference between America and other peoples/society on Earth is our government.

Judged:

3

2

2

Robin The First wrote:

<quoted text>
I love the way that America is always great "in spite of" our government. Most of what we HAVE is because of our government, even if that includes the problems. Plenty of countries have capitalism and free markets or whatever it is you all are always going on about, and have for centuries yet they're not America. The only difference between America and other peoples/society on Earth is our government.