I certainly hope so

February 11th, 2010

viagra generic recipe 0, cialis 4463819.story?obref=obnetwork”>Clinton-era staffers worry Dems will never again attempt health care overhaul if Obama fails.

Not to say health care isn’t broken, I just don’t believe the Democrats are the ones to fix it.

Entry Filed under: Observations

14 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  February 12th, 2010 at 12:09 am

    Democrats aren’t the ones to fix it and Republicans don’t want to fix it.

    So who does that leave?

  • 2. David Casper  |  February 12th, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Maybe it’s not within the duty of either party to fix it.

  • 3. Debunked  |  February 12th, 2010 at 10:59 am

    So you advocate we stick with a broken system where far too many people have no health coverage and the rest spend way too much?

  • 4. Billiam  |  February 12th, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    While there are problems that need to be addressed, it should be the individual States that address it. I know, that pesky Constitution. It’s not the Feds job to fix it. Also, if we had enough people of good character, in BOTH parties, maybe people would be a little more willing to try. Yet, when they look closely at what the dems hammered through with virtually no input from the other side, they balk, and rightly so. They voted the repubs out in ’06 because they got arrogant. They’re going to do the same to the dems later this year, and for the same reason.

  • 5. Debunked  |  February 12th, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    How is providing for the general health of US Citizens not specified in the role of the Constitution again?

  • 6. Billiam  |  February 12th, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    Please. Are you seriously going to put forth that as allowing the Federal gov’t to do health care? That’s as much a canard as using Jefferson’s letter for the bogus ‘Separation of Church and State’. It’s the same as (mis)using the Interstate Commerce Clause the way they do. Then again, That seems to be the method used today. Before long, we’ll just ignore it altogether. If we don’t like what it says, we’ll make something up out of whole cloth. Read the Enumerated Powers, rather than the preamble. That’s where the meat is.

  • 7. David Casper  |  February 12th, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    So you think that only a Republican or Democrat is capable of solving the problem?

  • 8. David Casper  |  February 12th, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    And to answer your question, YES, I would much rather stick with a broken system than anything being proposed today.

  • 9. Debunked  |  February 12th, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    So you think that only a Republican or Democrat is capable of solving the problem? And to answer your question, YES, I would much rather stick with a broken system than anything being proposed today.

    This topic was not discussing a specific method for fixing health care, so that argument is moot. My statement was merely that Republicans are not interested in fixing health care properly and the original topic said Democrats aren’t the ones to fix it.

    Since we have a two-party government I maintain that it will require one of those two parties to fix it, unless we get a viable third-party.

    Please. Are you seriously going to put forth that as allowing the Federal gov’t to do health care? That’s as much a canard as using Jefferson’s letter for the bogus ‘Separation of Church and State’.

    Yes, I will put that forth as a reason why the constitution supports government controlled health care. I’m not going to ignore those things written by the widely heralded “Founding Fathers” and only use those statements they made which support my claims. That’s called hypocrisy.

  • 10. Billiam  |  February 13th, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Amazing. You’re willing to give that much control to the Federal Government? The Preamble was not intended as a legal statement. As to the term ‘general welfare’ use in it, as well as Article 1 sec 8, there were some, Hamilton for instance, who thought it allowed the Federal Gov’t to spend a lot on anything they considered helpful. The danger of that, in my view, is that it would allow for unlimited interference in everyone’s life because almost anyone can stretch things enough to make a general statement like that seem true. That’s a dangerous road to walk. I’m not that trusting of DC. What else are you willing to give up to them?

  • 11. John Foust  |  February 13th, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I would much rather stick with a broken system… Wow. I wouldn’t. I can imagine that a system can get screwed up, overgrown, taken over by entities who favor their own benefit over mine to the point of fraud, driven by forces exploiting loopholes… I can imagine that for a private industry. I can imagine that for a government agency. Giving up? That’s like saying you only want progress that’s clean and perfect. Or even saying you wish to return to some idyllic and imagined better state of nature that existed at some point in the past… Really? And how do you plan to get from today’s coruption to that new-old position with a minimum of injustice? Is that any different than wishing for a better future in a new direction?

  • 12. Dan  |  February 15th, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I don’t like the current system so much but it is not totally broken and doesn’t need a huge overhaul.
    If the Democrats kept it noce and simple, we could have had some healh care reform. But they, the Dem’s, overeached and blew it and they know it.
    Just ask yourself why the have not a single vote on health care since Brown was elected? To me, it shows the dem’s just were not that intertested in reform.

  • 13. neomom  |  February 15th, 2010 at 10:19 am

    The Dems aren’t interested in “reform” of healthcare – zero interest in improving anything as shown by the bills that passed the Senate and House where new burocracies are created, costs continue to skyrocket and then we get to ration medicare and pay more taxes for all that “benefit”.

    What they want is power and making us all dependent on the state.

  • 14. Debunked  |  February 15th, 2010 at 10:55 am

    So tell me, what is it you do not like about the Democratic plan – other than “it’s big” or “it’s bloated”?

    Or, better, what general changes do you propose to keeping health care reform simple? And keep in mind, eliminating preexisting conditions as a reason to deny coverage is one of the major goals for any health care reform.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta