You Lie....

[Ion01 1]

"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter," Obama said.

But there's also the matter of a YouTube video from June 2003, when Obama was a state senator in Illinois and a longshot candidate for the U.S. Senate. Back then, he plainly indicated he supported a single-payer system.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," Obama said.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/

This is, or course, only one of many lies told by the president.

[TrophyHusband 0]

everyone knows this and his supporters don't care that he's changed his story. i believe that he still wants a single payer system, but knows it just isn't possible to do right now, but he wants to get the ball rolling that direction. his supporters know that as well and don't care because they want the same thing. so yes, he lied, but it really doesn't matter.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[idrankwhat 0]

There's a good argument for a single payer system and it's too bad that it's been eliminated from the debate. The multi payer system we use results in 25-30% of health care expenses going to administrative costs. Single payer systems typically have that overhead down to below 5%. As a result of the current system, our doctors often spend 40% of their time dealing with servicing the insurance company overhead instead of servicing their patients. That's likely why most doctors would like to see a public option.
I think that including the pros and cons of a single payer system in the health care debate would probably bolster the position for a robust public option. I'm also pretty sure that's why it was excluded from debate, well.....that and $3 million/wk in lobbyist efforts.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

There's a good argument for a single payer system and it's too bad that it's been eliminated from the debate. The multi payer system we use results in 25-30% of health care expenses going to administrative costs. Single payer systems typically have that overhead down to below 5%. As a result of the current system, our doctors often spend 40% of their time dealing with servicing the insurance company overhead instead of servicing their patients. That's likely why most doctors would like to see a public option.
I think that including the pros and cons of a single payer system in the health care debate would probably bolster the position for a robust public option. I'm also pretty sure that's why it was excluded from debate, well.....that and $3 million/wk in lobbyist efforts.

Or, maybe it is because of little things like this many of us oppose the whole concept of gov run health care. Cause the lies just keep coming for a politcal/power gain???

From AP found on NewMax!!!

Quote

Obama's Healthcare Mirage: $2 Trillion in Dubious Savings

Monday, September 21, 2009 3:10 AM


WASHINGTON -- It was a watershed moment in the healthcare struggle: Leaders of the insurance, hospital, and other medical industries stood with President Barack Obama at the White House and promised steps to save $2 trillion during the next decade.


Whatever happened to those savings, announced with much fanfare well before Congress had written any of the costly health overhaul bills now in play? Industry groups say they're a work in progress. Many health analysts say they're largely speculative.


"We should have cashed the check in May," said Joe Antos, a health expert for the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Those numbers never had any great significance then and there's little now."


The White House event on May 11 clearly had political significance. It was an early sign that the same interest groups that helped derail President Bill Clinton's drive to reshape the nation's health system in the early 1990s were willing to give it a go this year. That helped create momentum for Obama's effort.


"The value is it showed the interest groups were trying to be at the table this time," said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan group that studies health issues.


The promised savings, however, are a different matter.


For starters, the $2 trillion in reduced costs for care, administrative work and other medical expenses were supposed to be savings for the entire economy, not just the government.


That means that even if the savings were realized, much of it — no one knows exactly how much — would not be available to help Congress pay for its health overhaul bills. Those measures have ranged from an $856 billion bill by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to House Democrats' $1.5 trillion version, both covering 10 years.


The pharmaceutical and hospital industries have agreed to cuts that would total $235 billion in 10-year savings for the government. That's a fraction of both the cost of health legislation and the $2 trillion in promised reductions.


Healthcare executives say their effort to produce the savings is real and ongoing. They say they continue to talk, within the industry and with government officials, about initiatives to produce the money. Some would require federal approval, while providers could adopt others on their own.


"We're committed to getting rid of unnecessary costs," Dr. J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, said in an interview.


Industry officials also cite a 28-page letter they sent Obama in June, following up on their May announcement that described steps they were advocating.


In it, drug makers proposed improvements in assuring patients follow doctors' orders on taking prescriptions. Insurers wanted to streamline administrative work such as submitting claims, while the AMA said it has begun studying ways to reduce unneeded medical procedures.


The American Hospital Association said it is seeking ways to reduce hospital infections, while medical device manufacturers said they are looking for ways to reduce medical errors. Another participant, the Service Employees International Union, representing hospital and other healthcare workers, suggested savings through moving more patients from nursing facilities to their homes.


"We've been working with members of Congress to honor our commitment," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry trade group.


Analysts, though, say there are no assurances the proposals will become reality. The plans lack detail, could take years to perfect and implement, and in some cases could be resisted by practitioners inside and outside the medical profession who don't want to lose money, they say.


The AMA, for example, says money could be saved by forgoing unneeded procedures if doctors could be protected from malpractice lawsuits as long as they followed specified treatments. Trial lawyers vehemently oppose limits on such suits, however, and it is unclear what Congress will do when these two well-funded lobbies clash.


Experts also cite the uncertainty of measuring how much money the proposals would save because it would be hard to calculate what medical spending would have been without them. In addition, it would be difficult to enforce the new rules. A medical company, for example, might lose income in one area but raise prices in another to earn the money back.


Robert Reischauer, a former head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office who now is president of the Urban Institute, put it this way: "There's no way they could make it a number you could write down on a deposit slip for a bank."



© 2009 Associated Press.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

You might find this commentary interesting Marc. Health care cost increases are on an unsustainable trend. Something has to be done. The market won't do it on it's own (because its reason for existence is quarterly profit reports) and so long as campaign donations are considered legal, and not bribery, then we're going to be stuck with compromised legislation and oversight. But, back to the subject; something needs to happen to fix this broken health care system. Putting all information on the table for discussion (single vs. multi payer, government option, tort reform, drug marketing regulation...etc.) is the best way to come up with solution that is best for the country and not simply best for the donor class.


From the above link:

DAVID FRUM: Last week, the Census bureau delivered its report on American incomes in 2008. We can put this report together with the seven previous to reach a final verdict on the economic record of President George W. Bush. It's not good.

In terms of income growth and poverty reduction, Bush performed worse than any two-term president of the modern era. Even in the best year of his presidency, 2007, the typical American household still earned less after inflation than in the year 2000. The next year, 2008, American households suffered the worst income drop since record-keeping began six decades ago.

In my Republican party, there is worryingly little discussion of this damning trend. We do criticize ourselves for over-spending in office. But economic management gets much less, almost zero, internal discussion.

So, what went wrong? Liberals criticize the Bush tax cuts, but it's impossible to see any causation between lower taxes and the failure of incomes to gain ground. All three of the previous major tax cuts in U.S. history -- in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s -- were followed by very strong income growth.

The more plausible culprit is the surge in health care costs. Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price employers paid for labor rose handsomely: on average, 25 percent. Yet for the typical worker, none of that extra cost translated into higher wages.

Between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average health insurance policy for a family of four doubled, from about $6,000 to over $12,000. That took a big bite out of the gains available for wage increases. More than a bite: the health-care system gulped down every morsel, and forced employers to raise co-pays and deductibles for good measure.

Conservatives and Republicans need to keep this history in mind and remember that when we are debating health-care costs, we are also debating wages, incomes, and by the way, explaining the true reasons for the disappointing economic record of the Bush years.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

You might find this commentary interesting Marc. Health care cost increases are on an unsustainable trend. Something has to be done. The market won't do it on it's own (because its reason for existence is quarterly profit reports) and so long as campaign donations are considered legal, and not bribery, then we're going to be stuck with compromised legislation and oversight. But, back to the subject; something needs to happen to fix this broken health care system. Putting all information on the table for discussion (single vs. multi payer, government option, tort reform, drug marketing regulation...etc.) is the best way to come up with solution that is best for the country and not simply best for the donor class.


From the above link:

DAVID FRUM: Last week, the Census bureau delivered its report on American incomes in 2008. We can put this report together with the seven previous to reach a final verdict on the economic record of President George W. Bush. It's not good.

In terms of income growth and poverty reduction, Bush performed worse than any two-term president of the modern era. Even in the best year of his presidency, 2007, the typical American household still earned less after inflation than in the year 2000. The next year, 2008, American households suffered the worst income drop since record-keeping began six decades ago.

In my Republican party, there is worryingly little discussion of this damning trend. We do criticize ourselves for over-spending in office. But economic management gets much less, almost zero, internal discussion.

So, what went wrong? Liberals criticize the Bush tax cuts, but it's impossible to see any causation between lower taxes and the failure of incomes to gain ground. All three of the previous major tax cuts in U.S. history -- in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s -- were followed by very strong income growth.

The more plausible culprit is the surge in health care costs. Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price employers paid for labor rose handsomely: on average, 25 percent. Yet for the typical worker, none of that extra cost translated into higher wages.

Between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average health insurance policy for a family of four doubled, from about $6,000 to over $12,000. That took a big bite out of the gains available for wage increases. More than a bite: the health-care system gulped down every morsel, and forced employers to raise co-pays and deductibles for good measure.

Conservatives and Republicans need to keep this history in mind and remember that when we are debating health-care costs, we are also debating wages, incomes, and by the way, explaining the true reasons for the disappointing economic record of the Bush years.

Yes, and there a simple ways to make a big difference. I have (as have others) stated it. And it does not include the simple fact that the gov should NOT BE THE HELL INVOLVED IN IT ANY MORE THAN THEY ARE TODAY!!!

But then, you drift the thread as it is about the lies Obama is telling us about "his plan" (of which HE has none, another lie) and those he has specifically be caught on. But I know, he is the great Obama. Sometimes the end justifies the means (if you agree with him)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

But then, you drift the thread as it is about the lies Obama is telling us about "his plan" (of which HE has none, another lie) and those he has specifically be caught on. But I know, he is the great Obama. Sometimes the end justifies the means (if you agree with him)

I see. No rational discussion allowed in this thread.

Bye.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

But then, you drift the thread as it is about the lies Obama is telling us about "his plan" (of which HE has none, another lie) and those he has specifically be caught on. But I know, he is the great Obama. Sometimes the end justifies the means (if you agree with him)

I see. No rational discussion allowed in this thread.

Bye.

Cant defend him huh!!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Just for the sake of clarity:

<> Utilization is pretty much constantly rising. (Utilization is the measure of how often people seek health care).
<> Cost trends are constantly rising, and are just now showing signs of leveling off, that is, at least the pace of increases is not increasing.
<> Eliminate competition and you eliminate the single most significant (maybe the only significant) pressure on pricing.

People need to come to grips with the fact that services keep getting more expensive, and people keep using them more often. Regardless of who is insuring, paying, administering - it is an unsustainable trend.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Ion01 1]

Quote

There's a good argument for a single payer system and it's too bad that it's been eliminated from the debate. The multi payer system we use results in 25-30% of health care expenses going to administrative costs. Single payer systems typically have that overhead down to below 5%. As a result of the current system, our doctors often spend 40% of their time dealing with servicing the insurance company overhead instead of servicing their patients. That's likely why most doctors would like to see a public option.
I think that including the pros and cons of a single payer system in the health care debate would probably bolster the position for a robust public option. I'm also pretty sure that's why it was excluded from debate, well.....that and $3 million/wk in lobbyist efforts.

So that must be why we have the best healthcare in the world....why people come here from all over the world for the best medical.....Its so broken I am not sure we can even fix it!

[Ion01 1]

The real point is that whether or not you think or current system is good or not, are you really willing to put it in the hands of a blatant lier. To put in the the hands of people who have an agenda and will do whatever it takes to reach thier goal, such as lie about thier intentions! Are you really willing to put in in the hands of poeple who are truely greedy? They, unlike a business, actually take your money and you have no choice but to give it to them.....its called taxes. In a free market you only pay for what you want. They have gotten rich off of your hard work and then they do this with it: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
And you want to turn over to them one of the biggest industries in the US? And you think they will be trustworth and responsible? Get real!
And lets remember.....they have no right to do it under the constitution!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So that must be why we have the best healthcare in the world....why people come here from all over the world for the best medical.....Its so broken I am not sure we can even fix it!

The US is far from being the only (or most popular) destination for medical tourism. Americans have been known to go abroad to obtain better medical care, also.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skymiles 3]

Quote

Quote

There's a good argument for a single payer system and it's too bad that it's been eliminated from the debate. The multi payer system we use results in 25-30% of health care expenses going to administrative costs. Single payer systems typically have that overhead down to below 5%. As a result of the current system, our doctors often spend 40% of their time dealing with servicing the insurance company overhead instead of servicing their patients. That's likely why most doctors would like to see a public option.
I think that including the pros and cons of a single payer system in the health care debate would probably bolster the position for a robust public option. I'm also pretty sure that's why it was excluded from debate, well.....that and $3 million/wk in lobbyist efforts.

So that must be why we have the best healthcare in the world....why people come here from all over the world for the best medical.....Its so broken I am not sure we can even fix it!

It's the best only if you can afford it. And if you can't, it doesn't matter how good or bad it is.

[Ion01 1]

Lets see US national debt is 11,800,000,000,000 dollars or 38,448 per citizen!
The three largest budget items are defense/war $576,968,000,000 Social Security $464,993,000,000 and medicare/medicaid $450,518,000,000
then liabilities of Medicare/Medicaid $39,766,527,000,000 social security $10,727,046,000,000 and prescription drug $8,596,508,000,000
the total liability per citizen is 192,158
Do you really thing the government can be responsible for every individuals healthcare!?!?!?!?
We are supposed to be free and I want the freedom to do what I want even if that means not have healthcare! I should be fined for not having healthcare....its my choice! I am supposed to be free!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The real point is that whether or not you think or current system is good or not, are you really willing to put it in the hands of a blatant lier. [sic]

Do you believe that insurance companies are inherently honest?

Quote

To put in the the hands of people who have an agenda and will do whatever it takes to reach thier goal, such as lie about thier intentions!

You do realize that private insurance companies typically have an agenda, right?

Quote

Are you really willing to put in in the hands of poeple who are truely greedy?

That's the status quo, the reason so many are calling for reform.

Quote

And lets remember.....they have no right to do it under the constitution!

That's not true. See United States v. Butler. I posted in more detail here.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Do you really thing the government can be responsible for every individuals healthcare!?!?!?!?

Explain how Canada does it and their dollar is beating ours. The big draw is the military and military pensions.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

everyone knows this and his supporters don't care that he's changed his story. i believe that he still wants a single payer system, but knows it just isn't possible to do right now, but he wants to get the ball rolling that direction. his supporters know that as well and don't care because they want the same thing. so yes, he lied, but it really doesn't matter.

It's not a lie to work in your direcction and hope for more later. Does he want single payer or at least an additional option? Sure. Amazing that people act as if it's an odd system considering we now have the odd system.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

everyone knows this and his supporters don't care that he's changed his story. i believe that he still wants a single payer system, but knows it just isn't possible to do right now, but he wants to get the ball rolling that direction. his supporters know that as well and don't care because they want the same thing. so yes, he lied, but it really doesn't matter.

It's not a lie to work in your direcction and hope for more later. Does he want single payer or at least an additional option? Sure. Amazing that people act as if it's an odd system considering we now have the odd system.

It is a lie when you lie about your position.

But again, the ends justify the means for you and yours

and your Canada example shoots your point down......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Do you believe that insurance companies are inherently honest?

Unlike the government you can change insurance companies if they aren't honest. That give the people in a free market total control. You can take your money wherever you want but when the government gets invovled you have no choice. They take it and do whatever they want with it! Its not like the insurance companies CEO's are lying like this. If they did thier stocks would plummet and they could crumble over night. We can't do that to the government.

Quote

You do realize that private insurance companies typically have an agenda, right?

And that agenda does nothing compared to the governments. They can only have an impact on one aspect of your life and even then, as explained earlier you can go to one who has a positive impact. With the government can have total control and you cant get out from under it! And that is thier agenda! total control!

Quote

That's the status quo, the reason so many are calling for reform.

The reform should be reforming the government. Once again the people who got rich by taking your money are saying those who provide you something in exchange for your money are the greedy.....get real! Do you not see how rediculous that is? At least a company fulfils its supposed greed through honest means and provides millions with good jobs and good pay and provides its customers who choose to use them a service in return!

Quote

That's not true. See United States v. Butler. I posted in more detail here.

I suggest you read the constitution and federalist paper 41 for starters. Also, are you claiming the courts are perfect and are never wrong? That everything the government has done up to this point is totally within the bounds of the constitution because of some court decision...as if the judges are perfect?

According to James Madison, "the most important and fundamental question" he ever addressed was the meaning of and relation between the general welfare clause and the enumeration of particular powers. This question is the most "fundamental" because the answer determines the very "idea" or "nature" of the U.S. Constitution. Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. The thesis of this essay, however, is that, contrary to the commentators' claims, Madison argued that the clause was a substantive grant of power for the generally stated end and that the primary purpose of the ensuing enumeration was to define more particularly the ends alluded to by the phrase "general welfare." Hence, the meaning of the general constitutional government in the American federal system is a government oriented to a limited number of limited ends.

The term welfare it self comes from the middle english word wel faren or to fare well....or a more commonly well-being. The original idea is that the government provides for this through protecting your freedoms to obtain such things. One word even used today in the definition of welfare is happiness. Well, it makes over half the country very unhappy to have public healthcare! So that means that are not living up to that if you want to take it that way. It is simply saying the are to look after our well-being by protecting, through such things as the military, our freedoms!
Also, notice the use of the term general....meaning not everyone gets this "welfare" or well-being or even health if you want to got their. They "promote" it, as used in the preamble, by protecting our free market and the "general" person has healthcare and everyone can choose to pay for it or not have it! Also, by using the term "general" it prevents the use of it in specific terms such as congress providing for the health of people. Welfare can only be used in a general sense as a result meaning through the methods I have already talked about, such as protecting our freedom and free market!

From federalist 41:
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

What this simply means is if everything congress had the power to do was included in the quote you provided why would the constitution them go on to define each power congress had? The quote you provided is a general statement that is then expounded upon with specifics later......and later we find nothing about providing healthcare or any such thing. We do however find the tenth amendment. Why then if what you quoted tells us all we need to know about the power congress has in this matter is it followed by all of this:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

What you quoted is a small general statement to encompass all of the above..... therefore if it is not defined in the above it does not fall into the generalization or summary which you quoted. It is not a grant to provide healthcare!

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Health care cost increases are on an unsustainable trend. Something has to be done.

And giving it to the government to run and control is a good answer? Hell, those self-serving idiots have already bankrupted social security, the two "Medi's" are in trouble - hell even the stinkin' post office is on track to loose $7 billion this year alone!

Everything the government does - with the possible exeption of runnig a military - is f*cked up. Our healthcare system is damned expensive, but it's also some of the best in the world. Even leaving it alone would be better than letting the government run it.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Unlike the government you can change insurance companies if they aren't honest.

The US is not a dictatorship. The power to change the government lies primarily with the people. It is much more difficult to change private insurance companies.

Quote

Its not like the insurance companies CEO's are lying like this. If they did thier stocks would plummet and they could crumble over night.

As has happened.

Quote

The reform should be reforming the government.

There is enough need for reform to go around.

Quote

Quote

That's not true. See United States v. Butler. I posted in more detail here.

I suggest you read the constitution and federalist paper 41 for starters.

It doesn't matter what Federalist paper 41 says. The SCOTUS has interpreted Hamilton's, not Monroe's interpretation of the general welfare clause to be the correct interpretation. SCOTUS decisions trump Federalist papers.

Quote

Also, are you claiming the courts are perfect and are never wrong? That everything the government has done up to this point is totally within the bounds of the constitution because of some court decision...as if the judges are perfect?

The Article III of the US Constitution makes the SCOTUS the ultimate authority w/r/t interpreting the Constitution. From United States v. Butler:

Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one.

Quote

Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content.

Hamilton and, more importantly, the SCOTUS, disagreed with Monroe on that point. The opinion of the SCOTUS trumps the opinion of Madison. Incidentally, Hamilton wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Well, it makes over half the country very unhappy to have public healthcare.

A recent poll indicates that three out of four people support having the choice of a public option. Two out of three doctors have the same view. (take out the word "choice" and results will vary)
I'd link it but it's everywhere. Just search.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

The US is not a dictatorship. The power to change the government lies primarily with the people. It is much more difficult to change private insurance companies.

I can call right now and change my insurance company.....however I can't change anything the federal government has or is doing right now.

Quote

As has happened.

So you admit that the capitalist system works?

Quote

There is enough need for reform to go around.

However no one is talking about reforming the governments current involvement and the massive debt it brings or the fact that thier current involvement is actual a major cause of higher healthcare costs. And the government does is not supposed to have the power to reform a private business.

Quote

It doesn't matter what Federalist paper 41 says. The SCOTUS has interpreted Hamilton's, not Monroe's interpretation of the general welfare clause to be the correct interpretation. SCOTUS decisions trump Federalist papers.

So if some guy in a black robe says it then it must be true.....the black robe means he can't possibly be wrong...
Besides, if you wanted to know what Augustus Caesar thought about something would you read some modern day writers "interpretation" or would you read what , Augustus Caesar had to say?

James Madison[1] (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and political philosopher who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817), and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", he was the principal author of the document.

Sotomayor said that judges legislate from the bench which we all know that is not what they are supposed to do yet she, and others do it anyway.

What does Obama think about the constitution?

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

First, Obama is wrong, it is not negative liberties but positive. The constitution chiefly describes what the government can do and that, in turn, means that if the constitution doesn't say the government can do something then they can't. But thats a side point. The real point here is he sees the constitution as flawed, and many around him do to. Do you really think that someone who sees the constitution as flawed will follow it or search for the true and correct meanings of the constitution? Let me help you out here. The answer is no. They will twist and manipulate things in order to get what they want.
The ultimate point here is that the ultimate authority is the constitution which the government sees as restrictive and something they have to get around in order to achieve thier goals. Thus the interpretations of the courts can and sometimes are wrong and we should not jump headlong into the hole that the courts have dug for us! We should stand up for our rights and the constitution! The government was established by the people for the people!

On another note, why should the vast majority of people be punished with worse healthcare in order to reward those who are either exercising thier freedom or have chosen to be irresponsible? Just like the "bail out" of those who were behind on thier house payments. Its rediculous.... but its what people like our president calls "social justice" or "redistribution of wealth" (lets just call it what it is: communism) and that is what the government healthcare system is really about!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, it makes over half the country very unhappy to have public healthcare.

A recent poll indicates that three out of four people support having the choice of a public option.

Ding ding ding!

However, this point will be lost on most, as it's not a sound-byte that makes the knees go all a-wobbly.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So if some guy in a black robe says it then it must be true.

If that "guy in a black robe" is delivering the opinion of the SCOTUS, and that opinion gives an interpretation of law, then yes, that makes it true.

Quote

Besides, if you wanted to know what Augustus Caesar thought about something would you read some modern day writers "interpretation" or would you read what , Augustus Caesar had to say?

Feel free to read what Hamilton, Constitutional Convention delegate and primary author of the Federalist Papers, had to say about the topic. The SCOTUS' interpretation is consistent with his.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!