Time to celebrate moderation on health care

See my prior article. It is not "moderate" at all, it is unconstitutional just as the entire focus of this matter in its current form is. And results in an "unlawful seizure" of American's wages and property for governmental purposes in a "redistribution of the wealth" plan geared toward mandating that Americans must have coverage, which is against the Bill of Rights freedoms over your own choices and health care provisions. Many religions prohibit medical treatment in any manner, and those individuals would be forced then to fund the insurance industry against all their religious beliefs. And I know that is hard for the socialists, especially those that live in California that have messed up their own state with their demands and high taxation as a result, is hard to understand - which is why there are few real Americans at all living in California at the present time.

There is no "teeth" whatsoever in the mandates for the industry, none whatsoever, nor major employers that do not provide coverage - which is what should be mandated once they go "public" and are funded purely by public and private investors. And of course, the AMA and other organizations would be backing this for their profits most of all. They don't want to have to post fee schedules or do any of that other disclosure regulation that would put the choice and competition where it should be and maybe lowering some of of those $200 office visit bills for a ten minute visit at this point for a routine checkup.

The fines are all directed to the citizens. Not the industries. And the Democrats are just as "big business" focused on these measures, actually more so, since Obama and Gates are planning that great new "Patriotic Act II" in now putting your health care records on a huge national database, when that "science based" technology is not at all "secure" in any manner whatsoever.

And once again, Mike, you are quite unbelieveable in your continuing to attempt to differentiate anything whatsoever between the two parties and their "global socialism" outlook. But apparently as a socialist clearly yourself, I guess that "error" of "ommission" at this point is understandable.

Since it does take one to know one. And apparently your "liberal" definitions as has been proven clearly needs some work. Since both of your "designated" parties are liberal, or hadn't you noticed, since I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that this is a federal function.

Could you point that out to me, please?

Would it be unconstitutional for the federal government to loan the states money if they vote individually to institute health-care plans of their own, like single payer or subsidised, if the states took a consensus that there was reform required on a state by state basis?

Would it be unconstitutional for the federal government to loan the states money if they vote individually to institute health-care plans of their own, like single payer or subsidised, if the states took a consensus that there was reform required on a state by state basis?

And does that Massachusetts cartoonist and also "liberal socialist" that writes also for this site as regularly as you do with your shared philosophies and beliefs design that cartoon?

And, again, just which newspaper did you formerly write for, since I don't think you had answered that since you have represented that you were a "former" reporter with the mainstream media.

Would it be unconstitutional for the federal government to loan the states money if they vote individually to institute health-care plans of their own, like single payer or subsidised, if the states took a consensus that there was reform required on a state by state basis?

and where is your birth certificate?

and papers.

I worked 29 years for seven different newspapers, spending the last 18 years of my career in suburban Los Angeles at the Daily Bulletin in Ontario, CA, as a columnist and later as business editor.

I worked 29 years for seven different newspapers, spending the last 18 years of my career in suburban Los Angeles at the Daily Bulletin in Ontario, CA, as a columnist and later as business editor.

And once again, doesn't the State of California already have a catastrophic plan for the uninsured, or those that cannot obtain private coverage. Since I am quite sure that it does. In fact, it is bankrupting that state also due to the amount of coverage it is also providing for even non-resident non-citizens at both the state and federal levels.

So just who is it in this country that cannot RIGHT NOW get medical treatment if they are either unable to afford it, or have a condition that makes it impossible to find coverage - since there are groups and foundations now privately also that cover every disease known to man at this point.

Are you really serious? That you are that unaware as a reporter of the amount of both publicly and privately funded health care in this country at the state level, and that this is simply another move to centralize more power in Washington at its core, and also in order to create more and more roadblocks and bureaucracy in the process?

And that this is absolutely nothign but the "Health Insurance Industry Stimulus Package" at its core?

All I know is that the government need to do something about this health care for the benefit of the people and they have to put their thoughts into action as early as possible.

I'm actually done wanting the public option, and I definitely do not want this Baucus bill. I'm done with compromising on this issue as well. This bill doesn't even cover everyone. There's nothing in it that lets me know that prices will go down for healthcare. It does nothing to make sure people don't go bankrupt. It makes it mandatory to buy insurance, by penatly of a crap load of money and/or jail time. It reads like a bill a lobbyist wrote, the only thing it looks like it does do is get rid on the whole preexisting conditions thing. Which really isn't good enough for me.
screw this plan, screw public option, I want single-payer. I voted for single-payer and I want that. This thing has become so watered down, I no longer support this reform. Unless this thing changes once on the floor, there is no way, just no way I will support.
As bill moyers said, "you can't feed the public with half a loaf". I rather have nothing, and try againfor a full loaf later than get this crap passed.
You water down something sooo much and it still doesn't please the otherside, that's just stupid.
This thing doesn't add a penny to the deficit, there is no public option, just a bunch of private companies that get to have all these new customers and then will just start raising premiums down the line and will start rationing care, as they do now already.
I'm all for scraping this bill and starting over, beginning with single-payer and if anyone wants to actually start compromising then we'll start compromising, otherwise grab all the Democrats and let them know their careers are on the line if they do not vote for single-payer and get it passed.
This proposal is just a win win for the insurance company and loss loss for all the other Americans.

True. Single-payer would be for the best, and a public option would be a compromise.

Nice Article.
Hazel
real estate

Trust me, unless Obama plays hardball, nothing will get passed.
We won't get but need a single - payer health plan, because the need of the many, outweigh the GREED of the few.
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

you're right jerry, unless Obama pushes hard, nothing will be passed.

Unfortunately, Obama can't play hardball; if he pushes for the use of reconciliation, he's opening up a can of worms that may come back to haunt him very quickly, especially if the control in Congress changes in a little over 13 months. If the Republicans gained back control, they would use reconciliation for their own agenda, with no possibility of a filibuster, and the Democrats couldn't complain about it, because they did it first. Basically, it's the reason the Republicans never used the "nuclear option". They threatened and bluffed, but were afraid to use it for the reasons above.

For all the talk, the Republicans really aren't likely to win back Congress, and even if they did, there's the veto in the White House.

I'm talking about compromise here, not about jamming through a leftist program.

What's crazy to me is how did the insurance companies gain control of the entire health care industry in the first place? There's no sense to it! They don't do anything but act as middle-men.

It makes about as much sense having insurance companies running the health care industry as it would be putting them in control of the food industry- everything from agriculture and livestock to packaging, distribution and trucking, on to the food served in restaurants and fast-food joints, on to what we buy at the grocers and take home to cook and eat. Everyone could pay them a "premium" before they're permitted to eat.

Same difference.

It started during World War II. Wages were controlled, so employers created a health insurance benefit instead of paying bigger wages.

No one's answered my question yet. Would it be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to loan the states money in order to build or start their own single payer health care systems, and ask the states to ratify the need for reform individually?