Can someone shutup Jimmy Carter?
by CmdrFenix on Sep.16, 2009, under Political Discussion
OK, sorry for the lack of posts. Work has been extremely busy lately and it has been taking my time on the weekends too. I finally got my first vacation in about 4-5 years last week and I just vegged out and took day trips. I will be posting more though now that I’m back in the swing. Have about 5 draft posts I need to finish. 
So anyway, Rep Wilson was an idiot who hollered out “Liar” to the Pres Obama. Now I do not support a gov’t run health insurance plan because of reasons of funding and their lack of mandate to do so, but his comment as directed at the President’s statement that “illegal immigrants wouldn’t receive any benefits” was (as the bill is written) false. Now the question of if this bill if this is followed if it gets passed is another topic all together. How will they determine legitimacy is relevant discussion, but another topic. Now we all know everyone congress has a habit of not reading bills (*cough* stimulus *cough*), but even I was irked by this statement because in HR 3200 it says this explicitly.
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
I have no problems calling him a liar where it’s warranted. As written this was a true statement. I still do not support it and will continue to fight it, but please… can the people who are elected to positions of power PLEASE PLEASE read the fraking bills?
Now how does Jimmy Carter fit in all this? Does any of this at all sound like racism? No. Jimmy Carter seems to think so…
Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act “based on racism” and rooted in fears of a black president.
How the hell… Are you kidding me? Just because he can’t convince people this is a good idea, our disagreement it’s because “he’s black”. We all know he has a great history in regards to racially charged issues too, but I think I can safely say this isn’t one of them.
September 16th, 2009 on 10:20 am
Two questions: Since I know you like to take .. very specific .. interpretations of not-too-specifically-worded sections of the constitution (second amendment comes to mind), what exactly do you feel that “to promote the general welfare” and “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” means in practice as a power of the federal government?
Before you answer, use this as an opportunity to read up on what 200 years of constitutional scholars (who know more about this then either of us) say about the topic, and what “mandate” they feel it gives the federal government…
Second question, and I ask out of curiosity not out of any disagreement with anything you said, what do you feel -would- be a clear sign of racism against the president? I’ve also been kindof irked at how fast everyone blames “racism” for any time people don’t support him, but at the same time from having lived in the south for a year .. well .. I don’t find it hard to believe that at least some portion (10%? 5%? 20%?) of the angry-white-folks really are simply scared that The Man is going to take revenge for slavery 150 years ago or something like that. I think it’s interesting to think about, and at the same time I think it’s a -very- good thing that we have like .. zero .. racial nonsense up here in NH (at least comparatively).
September 16th, 2009 on 3:01 pm
I’ll start with this definition for “welfare” as it’s stated in the Merriam Webster dictionary:
To start, I think common defense is fairly straight forward, so that rather than each state having it’s own Navy, Army, etc… The federal gov’t is mandated to provide those services to all states as central means of organization. God knows that Texas probably would have already declared war on Mexico…
Now for “general welfare”… I found a good article here that explains my point and saves me typing.
The discussion about the meaning behind “general welfare” has been going on for 150 yrs. IMHO, “general welfare” has to do with free enterprise, limited gov’t interference, and giving people the opportunity to prosper for themselves. Now I believe we need Federal departments like the SEC to watch dog against illicit behavior, regulations to protect consumers, but those departments need to actually work! Right now they don’t for many reasons. /me points at Bernie Madof.
I agree, I am not a constitutional scholar by any means, but a good book I have been reading online, since you brought up this point, on the subject is this piece of work. It is a book titled “To provide for the general welfare: a history of the federal spending power” by Theodore Sky.
It discusses much of the questions around such a broad statement in the constitution that the founders didn’t really expand upon and could easily trump any other amendment on a whim.
Now does this mean the Federal Gov’t has a right to bail out any major company like GM? Create a nationalized health care plan? Disarm citizens? Make you brush your teeth? Make you wear your seat belt? Tell you what kind of car to by? Where is the line drawn? You could argue that anyone of those “promotes the general welfare”, but from the reading I’m seeing, this has been a long standing debate in general. I do not see it in such a broad meaning. I mean, they explicitly laid out the powers of gov’t… and oops, we left this statement in that let’s them do whatever they want under the guise of “promoting the general welfare”?
On your second question… That is a tough one. I too have traveled as far south as VA, and northern NC. No, not the deep south, but still. I think it (racism) needs to be checked on a case for case basis. Unfortunately, every time we see a case now that involves something that is white on black or black on white, it seems to be instantly assumed to be racism, like the case of that fight on the bus we talked about the other day. (I can’t find the link, if you could IM it to me, I’ll link it here) Pres Obama jumped on the Cambridge Professors arrest and said there was a problem with racism there. Up here in the North were you and I both agree that it’s not very common place. I agree, I am sure there is some percentage of the populace who is racist. People will hate for whatever reasons they want. We’ve been doing it for thousands of years. You will never change that, but each case needs to be looked at from a critical eye.
I agree, I mean… other than the case in Cambridge, I am glad to see we do not have as many problems like they do in other areas of the country. I am making a note about this as a good discussion point over a beer or two.
September 16th, 2009 on 3:05 pm
in order:
on the general welfare,
/facepalm
Ok, let me try another angle .. do some reason on what the supreme court has said (through its rulings) about the subject.
on the racism front,
I’m waiting for the outcry about obama’s blatant racism in calling some gay fish named “kanye” a jackass …. obviously he was just picking on a black guy
September 16th, 2009 on 3:12 pm
The book I linked discusses the rulings in question. It also discusses a little why there wasn’t a constitutional amendment push when the “New Deal” was going in. I disagree with their rulings, so /facepalm all you like, you’re the one with the red face.
Like I said, they seem to jump on the race card if it’s, “white on black or black on white”. I didn’t watch the VMA, but many would agree that “rapper” was a jackass. I have no reason why anyone who called him a jackass could be considered racist since people on both sides agree he was a jackass. *laugh*
September 16th, 2009 on 3:33 pm
It amazes me to no end sometimes how some people are just SO stubborn, that even when the law disagrees with them .. even when common sense disagrees with them .. even when -all available data- disagrees with them .. ideology wins the day. In a way, sometimes I wish I could see things as so black and white.
All I know is, that kanye person reeeeeeally likes fish sticks.
September 18th, 2009 on 7:44 pm
The term welfare was used for the welfare of the state, not of the individuals inside the state. The founders did not give blanket abilities for the federal government to do whatever it wants based on the word welfare. Just because there is 100 years of horrible judgements by SCOTUS doesn’t make it ok. The SCOTUS has had 200 years of making horrible mistakes. Just one example, Dred Scott. The individual had no standing to even present a case before the court because he was black, and therefore not a human being. The founders did not intend, with all their fear of the federal government getting out of control (read article 10), that the commerce clause and the general welfare would enable the congress to do and regulate whatever it wanted to. You can read writings by Franklin and others where they talked about transfer payments and the dependancy and laziness they caused in London. You can read from the same people how collectivism is UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our system of government. You are using language and terminology as it is understood today, and the founders expected that the SCOTUS would look at their intentions and language at the time. If you think that government run health insurance is good for the general welfare, you are absolutely wrong.
Even the 2nd Amendment was well understood at the time. Every able bodied male from age 16 to 60 was a member of the militia. In NH it was required by law that they own a firearm, powder, shot, and acutrements to drill. They were required by law to drill 2x per year. NH didn’t have a 2nd ammentment (article 2) untill 1974 because it was understood that owning a firearm was a requirement. You cannot look at the constitution as it is read with today’s language.
September 18th, 2009 on 8:00 pm
I’m sorry but you have a very fantastical view of US History that is at odds with a very very high majority of historical opinion, again from individuals who have studied it far more then the both of us.
That being said, you’re arguing the wrong issue – again. You can get all obsessed over somebody’s interpretation of minutia in a 200 year old document (and you clearly can’t be convinced, it’s obvious from your commentary that you’re as informed as I am about the subject, but ideology is winning over the facts of the matter for some reason for you) but you’re arguing the wrong thing.
What you should be discussing, or trying to discuss, isnt minor wording and interpretation of parts of the NH state constitution or even the US constitution. You should be talking about what the right way to do things is. If that way isnt reflected in whatever constitution, town charter, magna carta, or article of incorporation you think it should be in try to figure out how to get it in there.
If you can’t see that, then I’m sorry but it’s a lost cause.
September 19th, 2009 on 7:23 pm
They’re not minor parts of obscure historical documents. They’re the supreme law of the land. I hold these documents in high regard. They were designed to limit the power of government, not enable it. They were also not intended for use to determine what the right way to do things are. The right way to do things is different for everyone. At one point, the right thing to do was to own slaves, to place people in jail for disagree with WWI, to imprison people for their Japanese heritage. It was clearly not the right or constitutional thing to do in any of the above cases. The folks that wrote the 200 year old document did not intend to enable congress to do only what was specifically enumerated (you know, article 10), and then whatever else they wanted to do. It may have been popular at the time to imprison people during WWI for violating the sedition act of 1917(congress shall make no law concerning free speech, seems simple to me…), but it was not constitutional. It may be popular now to create a national health care coordinator, but it’s simply not constitutional.
Here’s an example of Presidents doing the constitutional thing. President James Madison (one of the people who helped write and ratify the constitution) in 1817 vetoed something called the Bonus Bill. This bill would use the interest payments collected by the Bank of the United States to help create interstate roads and canals. Using the money to create roads and canals would arguably be good for the “general welfare”. In his veto message to congress, he stated
“The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.”
He also stated in that message,
“To refer the power in question to the clause ‘to provide for the common defense and general welfare’ would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper.”
Also,
“A broad reading of the general welfare clause would have the effect of giving to congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms ‘common defense and general welfare’, embracing every object and act within the purfiew of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the constitution and laws of the several states in all cases not specifically exempted to be superceded by laws of Congress.
Just so you know, President James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce (from NH!) and James Buchanan vetoed a total of 19 bills that involved internal infastructure improvements. Not until 1916 did congess get away with internal improvements and interstate roads that were before then unconstitutional.
Congress should not be doing things that feel good (unless it’s a state congress). I realise that history has shown that they do whatever they want. It helps them send lots of other people’s money to their state and then get the legislator re-elected, and that’s about it.
September 19th, 2009 on 7:32 pm
I would also like to point out that had I called Kanye a “jackass”, I would certainly be called a racist.
I also agree with you on fixing the problem, as long as you use the provisions withing the supreme law of the land. If the several states want to have a constitutional convention and then add a new amendment that allows the federal government to force people to purchase insurance, the several states should go right ahead and do it. Better yet, if the individual states want to start health insurance programs funded by the people in their state (like Hawaii and Massachussets), they should certainly be allowed to do so. Breaking the supreme law of the land is not the proper way to fix this suposed problem.
September 19th, 2009 on 9:26 pm
You’re post was chock full of post hoc ergo propter hoc problems, as well as cum hoc ergo propter hoc problems. The example you gave with public works bills getting vetoed … you make the assumption that “the gubmint didnt get away with breaking the constitution until the 1900s” because the public works bills were vetoed … you make the assumption that A) the bills somehow were unconstitutional but passed by the senate anyway, and B) that they were vetoed -BECAUSE- they were unconstitutional rather then ANY other reason. I don’t know where to begin on this.
As for all the “intent” crap, I wish I was psychic too and knew what people who have been dead for 200 years “intended” when writing something that uses language which has mostly fallen out of the common parlance of today. I especially wish I was -SO- confident in my psychic powers that I’d be stubbornly willing to disagree with people who had made their life’s work studying those same people who had been dead for 200 years…
The “supreme law of the land” by the way is called the US Code. I’m sure you’re convinced (again, out of ideology rather then reality) that the US Code is illegal, or otherwise invalid based off of your own not-shared-by-the-experts interpretation of the enabling act of 1802 or whatever else, but the fact remains it’s at the very least the de-facto “The Book” for modern American society. Read it sometime. Then cry.
September 19th, 2009 on 9:29 pm
If you called Kanye a jackass, you’d be a racist against donkeys for dragging them down to that level.
In reality I barely know what “kanye west” even is, I just think the south park episode about him was funny shit.
September 19th, 2009 on 9:34 pm
Just out of curiosity … why are you so obsessed with -state- level “powers” ?
Why NOT federal level? why NOT county level? why NOT town level? why NOT just-my-street level? We’re the only country in the world that still has regular political arguments about what level of gub’mint some particular responsiblity-or-power sits at, and I still havent gotten a good answer from a conservative as to why the “state” level is the golden-egg gem of truth and all other potential levels of “final authority” can go suck ballsack.
I want my county to have its own air force, use its own currency, and not recognize drivers licenses issued in the state of Maine. Argue that that’s stupid (it OBVIOUSLY is, on all 3 fronts, I just want to hear why from the “state level” perspective.)
September 20th, 2009 on 8:41 am
I’m all for the just my street level of government. I’m also for a limited federal government that provides an army, navy, and airforce, and one that issues a currency (I believe the constitution requires the federal government to issue gold and silver currency). I’m a former Marine and thought then and now that there’s a need for those things.
There is no need for the central planning that we’ve been heading towards. Central planning does not work, it’s been tried and failed repeatedly. I like the 50 independant and sovereign and states. Those states should do what’s best for their people. What’s best in CA is not what’s best in NH. People are free to move between states to find the one that suits their beliefs and interests. Again, I give you an excellent example of a POTUS vetoeing a bill (a president that wrote the constitution I might add) because it was in his opinion (and mine) unconstitutional.
Again, I would like to point out that just because the senate passes a bill does not make it constitutional. I can give unlimited examples of unconstitutional bills (I gave you several, the sedition act of 1917 which imprisoned numerous people for speaking out against the war ( again, I mention the first amendment CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW….ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH). Politicians do what is in the interest of their pocket books, careers, and in some cases their constituents, not in the interest of limited government.
September 20th, 2009 on 3:14 pm
You didnt answer my question. WHY is the “soverign state” level the golden egg?
If you lived in europe where the individual nations were smaller in geographical size (think france and spain) would you be a federalist there? or would you want to subdivide down to provinces the size of a “American County”?
I’m just trying to understand the thought process. To me, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but I dont get why the state-level seems to be where the conservatives determine the outer-limit of the gander to be.
September 20th, 2009 on 3:56 pm
I don’t think it’s just conservatives. It’s simply the way our system was set up, and it works well. We had 13 independant and sovereign states, now we have 50. We have a federal government in place to help with security and defense of the entire 50 states, to help settle disputes between states, and help settle international trade issues. The states were supposed to be experiments in government, each doing what it and it’s citizens felt was right for them. If one state wanted to have an established religion (many did when the federal constitution was ratified) you could move toward or away from that state. If you didn’t like Massachussets mandatory insurance, you could move to Rhode Island. If you had issues with the freedom to keep arms in NH, you could move a state with more fire arms restrictions. If you state was financially insolvent (CA) you could move away. You can’t do that any more because there are no longer any free, independant and sovereign states. They are mostly run by the fed, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, firearms restrictions, etc. We might as well abolish the several states and just have one nation run by DC. Just look at the Freestate project, people moving in fairly large numbers to go to one of the freer states.
Why do you persist in the central planning model? Why not have independant and sovereign states? Do you have a better idea? The federalist idea works well if the federal government doesn’t get out of control. Each state doing what it’s citizens think is good for their state, and the federal government helping keep them in a union that doesn’t dissolve into small squabbling nations with little or no protection against outside forces. Read the federalist papers.
September 21st, 2009 on 11:45 am
You again didnt answer the question .. I understand the background behind why you feel the state level is “on paper” where most of the power should be, but im asking from a theoretical standpoint why state? why not county? why not billie-joe-bob’s 3 acres of land? why not complete anarchy?
I don’t neccessarily advocate the “central planning model” as you describe it, rather I advocate more universal norms. You mention whats good for CA isnt whats good for ME or whatnot. I ask why? Why on earth should, say, a car title from one part of the SAME DAMNED COUNTRY not be valid in another part? That kindof defeats the point of being one country, so fuck that. That’s not to say every school district nation wide should spend the same amount of money on the football team, but for the larger macro-issues of society I feel pretty strongly that some level of uniformity is needed. Your NH concealed weapons permit should be recognized nation-wide, rather then you having to do exhaustive research just to do a cross-country road trip to try and find out what states you have to leave the pistol in plain sight and which you dont. That’s silly. I went through that first-hand (at least, my mom did, with me as a passenger) when driving from NH to FL and it was a stupid exercise in stupidity covered in stupidsauce. Furthermore, I disagree with your view about “you can just move”. You make it sound easy or trivial, and it’s not. You may have the legal freedom to move to kentucky, and that’s wonderful. But try it a few times, just pick up from your job/career/family/whatever and just go. Maybe you have a few times, I dont know, but I feel that it simply presents too many economic difficulties to be practical as a frequent occurance, and I further submit that the vast vast -vast- majority of people don’t have the time, resources (social, monetary, otherwise, or know-how to DO the kind of “pick your state” exercise you talked about. The so-called “free state project” is a travesty, as what they support doing is concentrating a large number of self-admitted fringe radicals into a medium size area and to “ram through” their batshit political agenda on other people. Go “freedom”.
Don’t assume that I (or anyone else) is for “big” government. Don’t assume that government needs to be “big” in order to be “effective”. We seem to have a unique problem here in the US that doesn’t exist in the rest of the world in that we seem to need three times the amount of beurocracy to accomplish the same end-result through government as is the case in other countries. I wish we’d solve that problem, maybe then the conservatives would STFU and let us feed the poor, educate children for free thus not punishing them if their family is poor, and so on.
I have read the federalist papers by the way, and have a copy not far from my desk actually.
But again, you didn’t answer my original question.
September 21st, 2009 on 7:01 pm
I did answer your question. I believe because that’s the way the country was set up, and it works well. If your asking me to put an exact acreage down, I can’t. If your so obsessed with uniformity, why not have one single global government with a seat somewhere and everyone goes by the exact same rules. Better yet, we can all wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, and live in houses that all look the same.
The problems we have with car titles, insurance, and firearms permits are failurs of the federal government. My drivers license, pistol license and insurance would be legal in all 50 states if the fed would do its job. Some things should not be the same in each state, after all, they are each sovereign and independent states, not a single nation. I don’t need an agent from washington coming to my house to ensure that I have seat belts and airbags in my.
I will STFU as soon as you decide to feed the poor with your money, and not have an agent of the government come to my house with a firearm and take me and put me in a cage if I disagree with your methods of feeding the poor. The federal government wastes the vast majority of every dollar it takes in in beaurocracy. I believe it is over 75% goes to feed the beaurocracy instead of the poor. You seem to think that the government is the only way to accomplish your goals, and further more, if I don’t agree, I should be taken against my will and placed in a box with my property and liberty taken away from me. When I give to charity, I do so carefully. I do not want my money wasted. Government is not charity, it is violence and force. By the way, I will be educating my children for free, and I won’t be taking a single penny from you or anyone else to do so. It doesn’t take a beaurocracy to educate a child.
If you don’t want to move, it’s not because you cannot, it’s because you don’t want to. I know it’s not easy to pack up and move, but people do it all the time for economic and liberty reasons. There is a massive movement of people leaving CA because of the absurd taxes and regulations (there is also a very large influx of people moving for “free” health care, welfare, and education, lets see how long it works out). There are large numbers of people moving into New Hampshire, Colorado, and Montana and other states because of the limited regulation and few limits on freedom. Guess which states have the lowest unemployment and lowest tax burdens.
I’ve not once said we don’t need a federal government. We just need one that obeys the rules that were set up for it. I also believe that people should govern themselves on the smallest possible level. Some amount of government is always necessary because most people are incapable of governing themselves.
September 22nd, 2009 on 8:05 am
I think the federal government needs to start defending the laws it was setup to do so originally and then I will have more confidence in it. It seems to decide which amendments to the constitution it feels are convenient to defend. Sure your right to free speech is protected, but that second one? Nah… we don’t agree with that, so we’ll let Washington D.C., the state of MA, and the state of IL walk all over it’s citizens rights. You’re sorta protected from search and seizure in your home.
I do know we need more uniformity in our laws, but right now, the way the federal gov’t has been performing, I am highly suspect on their ability to do so. Just look at the SEC and ATF…
September 22nd, 2009 on 9:51 am
No, you havent answered the question. Let me rephrase, I may not have asked correctly.
I understand why/how you feel that the center of power -IS- the state-level government. I’m not asking you to interpret some piece of paper to say that’s where it should be from a legal standpoint.
I’m asking you to defend that position from an implementation/practicality/efficiency/etc standpoint. Why is that the best way to do it? Saying that “thats how it was setup and its working well” is a non-answer since clearly a lot of you folks think it isnt working well, and it provides no specifics. If you’re going to advocate that federal government bad and that we should defy common wisdom and allow NH to decide not to recognize birth certificates from the state of florida, defend why that’s a good thing?
September 25th, 2009 on 3:07 pm
I just want to point out to CmdrFenix, that the bill of rights only forbid the federal government from violating them. The states can and should pass laws that suit them (well, if the 14th amendment hadn’t been abused). When the US constitution was ratified, many states had established religions and other restrictions. The states were considered independant and sovereign nations that could still do what they wanted for the most part (as long as it didn’t violate the provisions in the federal constitution that were restrictions on the states).
For Tim, if the constitution were followed properly, it would work well. It is clearly not working now because the federal gov’t has been violating the consitution for 100 years or more. NH does recognize florida birth certificates.
September 26th, 2009 on 7:34 pm
Yeah but .. WHY is the whole “soverign state” thing better? Is it more efficient? Does it create less net-levels-of-beurocracy? Is it better for national defence? Does it provide people with better educational options? Do the roads get paved faster? I mean .. what’s so great about it? The question isnt weather-or-not NH recognizes a FL birth certificate, the question is WHY is a model that would allow NH to not do so a better model?
Explain why it makes more sense, not why you interpret it to be the law.
September 26th, 2009 on 8:30 pm
I don’t interpret it. Its clearly in the supreme law of the land. I’ve already explained it. The states were to be experiments in government. The federal govt is supposed to prevent them from harming each other and from outside harm. The roads do get paved faster in my state, the education is cheaper and much better, and we have less taxes, beaurocracy, and I like it that way. I don’t want to live in a state like CA where the rules change constantly, there is massive taxes, deficit spending, and cities that give sanctuary to illegal immigrants. I can choose which state I want to live in, and furthermore, I can see which experiments fail. California’s model of not allowing people to drill for oil in the state is not working as well as the people of Alaska where they are paid each year based on the oil profits. Texas, New Hampshire and a few other states that have no income taxes have much lower unemployment. I dont need an elitist beaurocrat in DC telling me what’s best for me. I’d rather it be my neighbor, at least I can tell him to screw off or move away. If every state had CA’s model, this country would have already collapsed. Why are you so obsessed with beating me down for believing that local government is better than central planning? I can prove that the central planning fails, and that at least I have some control over my local governments failures. Prove to me something would work better and I’ll be quite content to come on board with you.
September 28th, 2009 on 10:50 am
You are absolutely interpreting it, since your views contradict several hundred years of expert opinion. But that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinions regardless. You again failed to answer the question but thats ok too, we can move on since you obviously have no actual rationale beyond gut-instinct and “cuz this paper says so!” as to why your anarchistic society model would provide better for people’s needs. However you clearly would -NOT- “be quite content to come on board” if you were shown how something could work better. Go back and read the thread on healthcare. 100%, literally -all-, of the actual data and facts indicate that a public run (or at the least not profit-based) health care model provides better results. You don’t care, because your ideology trumps reality. You either ignore the information available, or deliberately seek out incorrect information even if you KNOW it to be incorrect in advance, to support your ideological standpoint. You argue about “but, but, this piece of paper can be interpreted to say they cant do that!” rather then even admit that the data supports “doing that”. Sorry man, it’s a shame, and im sad to say – there’s simply no hope.
September 30th, 2009 on 7:39 am
Exactly we are all entitled to our opinion, and that is the most important point here. We’re way off topic here, but I will say it again… overhaul healthcare regulations. Clean up the system we have rather than adding another bureaucracy to the mix, one that I feel the gov’t shouldn’t be doing in the first place. Now, if they said, we have a “voluntary” system that was non-profit, nobody but the subscribers would pay for it (i.e. no taxes on anyone to cover its costs, yes I understand there might be start up money), and nobody would be fined if they didn’t buy into it because they couldn’t afford it then I would reconsider my position. I and about 85% of American’s are happy with their health insurance. Why in my right mind would I support possible additional taxation (because they haven’t clearly outlined how their paying for this) when I already have to pay for my own health insurance?