Actually, I think one person said "death panel" (on Twitter no less) and then the left and the state run news agencies jumped on it completely. Since then, the debate has turned away from socialized medicine vs privitized medicine...and now the only thing we read about is how idiotic the right is, and how they are lying through their teeth about everything, and how they have no real concerns, and how they fake outrage, how scary the right-wing protester is, and blah, blah, blah....same stupid left-wing bullshit that comes up during every debate and gets puked all over the AP, Reuters, CNN, MSNBC, and in newspapers.

In any event, the left own the Executive branch, both houses of Congress, a vast majority of the newspapers, TV, and get great press from the AP, Reuters and hell, even Hollywood. And if you can't make shit happen because of "the right" then my guess is the left is run by a bunch of lunatic morons, but we know the left-wing leaders are much to coy for that and the reality is that you really are trying to push a platform that is way too far to the left.

Do we need to get to quotes from Reps and Senators, because it's a hell of a lot more than one person. Even McCain today wouldn't categorically say there are no death panels.

I'll agree that the Dems should just write the best bill they can and jam it through reconciliation and then deal with the fallout.

been out of town.

Agreed if you dont trust the verbiage than you cant debate either side of it. You can debate Figment though.

no

theyre both almost as impossible to watch as CNN...

Just Sayin'

Oh, see MBBF woke up, read the headline on his GOP talking point memo and regurged it on here with his typical entry line. There you go, now you know where the 'outrage of the day' comes from.

Terry Schiavo had nothing to do with religion.

Are you guys reading the same information that I am? Where do you find this stuff that says that people will even advise others to kill themselves? I see absolutely nothing about that. I see stuff that discusses what options individuals have and the best way to ensure that everyone knows your wishes.

It's essentially advising someone to write a will. Doing so doesn't mean you're advocating their death. How fucking off is reading comprehension these days.

:+1:

at most it's saying "make sure you address in writing what steps you want to be taken to prolong your life in case you're incapacitated so that people don't go against your wishes."

I just don't see the massive liberal media bias. I think it's a convenient crutch and great marketing by the GOP. Any negative article can be chalked up to liberal media bias. Same went for Clinton and the right wing conspiracy.

The media loves Obama but I think it was more of a national vibe that they went with. The public didn't want to see negative stories about him at the time. I do think each network did heavily cover the Rev. Wright issue as well as other negative marks on his resume.

But I also think the media fell in love with many on the right. Bush got a free pass for many years after 9/11 and many in his cabinet like Rumsfeld were media darlings for awhile. If you watch an old press conference with Rumsfeld back in the day, you'd think him and the press were best friends.

News should ultimately be about news. There shouldn't be a bias in news. You report on an event that happened. There are outlets that spin that news and that is wrong. I do think Fox has been the biggest culprit of this over the years though. Every story on Obama gets negative spin. I can't think of a network out there that has given Obama positive spin on every story. I guess I just don't view them as a news source anymore but an entertainment channel that is very tight with a particular political party.

Can you describe how it's selling out the constitution? I don't understand this argument.

And since when did implementing social programs become against the law?

You tell me where they have the power to do what they do...

- Provide for the common defense
- Raise, fund and regulate the Army and the Navy
- Borrow money on the credit of the United States
- Declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal
- Approve treaties, Cabinet and Supreme Court appointments
- Regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- Impeach (House only) and try (Senate only) federal officers
- Introduce Constitutional amendments, call a convention
- Override presidential vetoes
- Regulate commerce with foreign countries and between the states
- Establish rules for citizenship
- Coin money and regulate the value thereof, determine punishment for counterfeiting
- Define and punish crimes committed at sea
- Establish federal courts
- Create all bills for raising revenue (House only)
- Levy and collect taxes, duties
- Pay all debts
- Organize and arm the state militias
- Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia
- Establish post offices and postal roads
- Create bankruptcy laws
- Regulate patents and copyrights
- Assemble at least once in every year on the first Monday in December
- Establish times for elections
- Discipline it's own members
- Oversee all federal property and possessions (what few there should be)
- Fill a vacancy in the Presidency in cases of death or inability
- Receive electoral votes for the Presidency
- Keep and publish a journal of its proceedings
- Conduct a census every ten years

And when something doesn't fall to one of those things, it is specifically set aside for the state to decide what to do.

The single best thing the government should do in regards to health insurance is allow competition within states. It would drive down prices, allow for competition, etc. People would get the same coverage if not more for the same prices if not less. Plus, it would actually be constitutional.

You are really for abolishing the FDA, CDC, EPA, FAA, NTSB, OSHA, and all other governing and regulating bodies in the government. As well as tearing up all the national highways that are not used for postal services. Seceding ownership of all national parks. Dissolving emergency groups such as FEMA.

Must say it would make for an interesting daily life.

Do you have any clue what the purpose of the national highways are?

To transport from one place to another?

Indirectly yes but not who you might think. The interestate system was built as a national defense system to get troops, etc. from one major city to another as quickly as possible. It had nothing to do with a citizen going from one place to another. That's how the funding was passed through for it.

As for your questions about the other agencies -- yes, I would get rid of most of the ones you mentioned and if each individual state wanted to develop a similar agency for their state then it would be okay. Just as working on a state insurance plan would be acceptable.

But I'm lost here. Last time I was on one of these national highways, there were non-military people on the roads (including myself-GASP!). Surely these roads should only be used for military personnel according to the constitution. I'm assuming our fine military doesn't need an 8-lane superhighway with signs for the next rest stop and Hardees posted along the way. I'm also assuming you refuse to drive on these roads since you stand for the strong principles of the constitution. As well as call for the removal of all non-military personnel from these highways.

You would really feel better having 50 seperate Centers for Disease Control? Because God knows that if Illinois has a great one, there is no way that deadly diseases could ever spread from poorly funded states to mine. It also makes a lot of sense for major food and drug companies to be approved 50 seperate times and abide by 50 seperate sets of rules when it comes to what they can and can't sell to the public. I also know it'll be a ton of fun flying places across country and having our pilot deal with 15 seperate aviation administrations. Definitely won't be confusing or a big hassle.

Why did you conveniently leave off the last part of the sentence? :)

Doesn't congress have the authority to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"?

To me that would include social programs.

I cut and paste it from another site without doing more than glancing at it to be honest. The general welfare clause is used often as a defense for most things the government passes. They never follow the rest of that part though where taxes/duties are uniform throughout the country.

As for your other two pieces...

1. I have no problem with the CDC (national defense in my opinion) or the FAA (commerce between states)

2. The military allows the citizens to use the interstate highway system and I certainly drive on it. It's legal. However, the military is in total control of the system and could stop people from driving on part or all of it with a declaration of such.

See response to rainmaker about the taxes not being uniform throughout the United States with almost all government programs.

The income tax amendment allowed Congress the leverage they wanted to do the crap they wanted and get around that little part the founding fathers were smart enough to include.

No. They are owned and operated by the states and/or toll authorities. It would take a declaration of martial law to remove civilian traffic.

Yes, the states own the roads but at least in my mind, the group that has the final word has ultimate control.

You're doing the same thing you're criticizing, you just have fewer things you'd permit that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Where does it say all taxes have to be uniform in that clause? I'm under the impression that duties, imposts, and excises are uniform.

See my previous statement.

Fair enough...eliminate them too then.

You don't think it's a tad convenient that they just so happen to cut off something in mid-sentence. Surely they aren't trying to hide something that would discredit their point.

Constitutionality of something is up to the courts. If he passes something that is felt to be unconstitutional, people are more than welcome to challenge it in court.

I have no problem if you're against the bill for a number of reasons. But trying to take some antiquated approach to the constitution is just silly. Technology and transportation has made things fluid between people throughout the country. There are too many things that need to be done on a federal level for not only easy but overall safety. You don't want to see organizations like the FDA running on a state level.

Trying to make these statements about how our highway system is strictly made for the military and post office is just silly. We all know what it's there for now and we all approve of the spending on it. Society and government works in shades of grey. If you think one is too dark or too light, than comment on it. But you are speaking in terms of black and white. Might be nice on paper but is certainly not realistic in the real world.

It's 2009, not 1776. The Founding Fathers also didn't want women to be able to vote and didn't mind bringing blacks over from Africa to work as slaves.

It's different eras in time. We can't keep harping back on them. They wrote their beliefs down when they couldn't possibly comprehend the advancement in technology. They had no idea I could fly across the country in 4 hours or have real time conversations with people across the globe. It's unrealistic to expect their beliefs be relevant in today's society.

Which statement? The one that makes no sense or the one that is flat out wrong?

There is nothing in the constitution about taxes being uniform.

Both of the things you mention came to be because the country grew into them and passed amendments to make sure they came to pass. The Constitution is designed to allow the country room to grow. It's in there. They realized they wouldn't anticipate where things would go but they made sure to allow a way for things to be change. So, if the people wanted to grant Congress the authority to institute a national healthcare system then it could go to the process and the people could decide if they wanted to approve it. If not, well then the people have spoken but the law was followed. If it passes, Congress gets a power not originally given to them. If it doesn't, then they don't.

People will say the amendment process is too difficult and time consuming to be used in modern times. It'll take too long, too much discussion, etc. That's by design...so that the people really make sure they want something and don't give power to a government in haste.

It is unconstitutional when it court says so. So far the Supreme Court has not overturned Medicare and other benefits for the needy.

The bill on the table is also not a national healthcare system. Not even close.

and this is why we are where we are, nothing more nothing less....at least you were honest about it.

Had we not bailed out the banks, unfortunately, we would be living in an utter nightmare IMO. Luckily for me my support of said bailout has begun to come around where we're seeing the money come back (some of it anyways) plus interest, and the warrants we hold when they are optioned up to 10 years from now I think will be worth more than they were when we dealt.

Bailing out the car companies gets a little more blurry and cash for clunkers simply brought up sales from next year which is why when this expires AND the Frist time homebuyer tax credit expires we'll be staring straight down the barrel of a double dip recession.

Regarding the health care debate from both ends, unless youre debating the verbiage of the bill it's all crap spun by the want to "win". That hasnt changed but the players, the big players, continue to use rhetoric and lying to move the arrow.

my $.02

I don't even have to say anything anymore - it's like you say exactly what i'm thinking in this case!

That's not some crazy modern day federal bureaucrat. That's a Supreme Court opinion from 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland).

Either way, it authorizes doctors to provide the service at particular intervals. That means doctors can get paid to do it, that means they will do it. Connecting the dots, the legislation going to make these consultations happen.

During the consultations, the doctor MUST explain the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care, hospice and the government benefits available to pay for the services. Hospice and Plliative care are basically, don't do anything, just try to make me as comfortable as possible as I die. This is also in a section on reducing health care costs.

How about you just leave that out of the bill? What qualifies legislatures and then gov. employees (who will ultimately decide what consultation will get paid via insurance) to decide what should be in an advance care planning consultation? I think most people feel more comfortable letting a doctor and their patient have this type of talk without the government dictating what needs to be in the conversation.

Now, I would not call this "death panels" and I also think it has no business in a health care bill.

why? because doctors shouldn't explain to a patient what all of their options and what the pluses and minuses of all of the options are??

isn't that what doctors should be doing anyways?

If you don't define the procedure it's ripe for abuse. A doctor could say, you should have living will and get paid by Medicare. There's nothing coercive in the language of the bill, it's just a definition of what qualifies for payment.

But like I told Molson earlier, if there are specific problems, look to change the language of the bill to fix those concerns. There's no good reason to accept the current bullshit spray as legitimate debate.

Bingo. They are spending the money they are Constitutionally allowed to collect from the general population. In addition to...


Universal Health Insurance (commerce between states)

Of course this probably isn't "universal" (no mandate, unfortunately).

If doctors are doing it anyway, why do you have to put specific language ragarding what MUST occur in this bill?


Sure, but that is the problem with government option health care. You can't afford to pay for everything, so you have to figure out how to cut costs. Which means rationing services. As for your first point, every service or procedure provided by a health care practioner is not defined in this manner. Another reason why you should just take it out of the bill.

That and some other changes would allow you to get the bill passed, then you can start making all the details and it will be much harder for people to fight it. Of course I don't want government run health care, so I hope it crashes and burns.

By the way, you should read "Welcome to The Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. It is fantasy and certainly not spot on with this death panel conversation. But it will give you an extreme view of why many people think this whole thing is bad.

LOL - THERE IS ALREADY RATIONING OF CARE BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!!

Not to the extent that people fear would happen under the reality of government-controlled health care (whether we get there with this bill or the next one or the next one).

I mean, that's a standard fear of government, I don't think it's unreasonable in any context. With corporations and the private industry, things are polluted by profits. With government, things are polluted by politics.

fear is an interesting word choice there and I wonder where this fear is coming from, could it be.....mmmmmmmmm

I'm trying to wonder how this bill is even close to "government-controlled health care"? It seems like a Swiss system. Private insurance companies, lots of government regulation, mandated health insurance coverage and government assistance for the poor to buy health care.

Maybe I just think that people who believe that regulation = government controlled are just nuts.

Right, any concern with anything the government does must be influenced by Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews. If we weren't so tainted by that media we'd all be 100% loyal subjects. Maybe we'd even obtain the one-party system it seems like many posters here would prefer.

Some early indicators of what could happen next year if Obama and the Democrats in Congress don't start working together. Harry Reid is currently trailing beyond the margin of error against both Republican candidates opposing him. Nevada is a state that swung to Obama in the last election, but is now suffering from one of the largest unemployment rates in the country.

2010 SENATE CAMPAIGN: Polls show potential GOP challengers would beat Harry Reid - News - ReviewJournal.com

The only reason why it's not close yet is the resistance being put up against it. This isn't something we should sail into recklessly (when was Obama's original deadline for getting this done? Last month?) Dissension and the airing of concerns is a positive thing. I agree that the concerns about government involvement in end-of-life decisions should be debated in the context of the bill itself instead of what we have, but at least there's still a strong check on anything that goes through. That check should involve more Democratic disagreement and less Republican involvement, because that's the Congress America has decided on, but as long as everybody wants to just settle up into two teams, I guess that's better than one team.