sonicbphuct says:
"I'm with bataillian - whether it's the government or private insurer's is missing the point; Private means profits [gasp!] and profits in health care mean that some people will not get it. Since Government was and is primarily a vehicle to provide "essential services" to the constituency, then it stands to reason that the Government should be the one to provide that "essential service". To say that the DMV is what we can expect from Government is just like saying that Enron is what we can expect from private firms. It's a false analogy, red herring and a host of other logical fallacies. Government is capable of providing excellent service - when the people hold them responsible for that. They are not, by their nature of being "The Government" incapable of doing a decent job with something.
"
Wow, where should I start, my dear sweet misguided child? I could go after any sentence here, but lets take this one... "Since Government was and is primarily a vehicle to provide "essential services" to the constituency..." Yikes!!! The Communist Government maybe (if you look at Marx's model and not the real world). I mean after all, before you go after the essential Services don't you want to secure all the essential Goods? Where is our government provided food, clothing, and shelter? I know, I know, some of lucky folks get fat on the $162 a month from Food Stamps, but not all of us. The free housing situation is even worse, and you can forget free clothes altogether. Alas, we are stuck in a cold cruel world where things (and services) must be earned (by someone if not you), even the essentials...
Sarcasm aside, who, pray tell, will pay the salaries of those added middle men when you increase the government's role? The problem is not a lack of interference in the system, but too much. Too many insurance company employees, hospital administrators, (your job's) HR representatives, everyone's lawyers, and meddliing government officials in a system that SHOULD be dominated by medical care practitioners and patients.
If you paid for health care like you pay for your food (you do pay for your food, right?), you would demand quality and price in your own measure of balance.
Here is a good idea, it controls immigration plus is eco friendly! It is sarcastically called a moat, but more accurately it is reclaimed wetlands.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080313/lf_nm/usa_border_moat_dc
By Tim Gaynor Thu Mar 13, 8:21 AM ET
YUMA, Arizona (Reuters) - Most plans to gain control of the porous U.S.-Mexico border focus on some combination of fence. But this city in far west Arizona is looking to build a moat.
Faced with high-levels of crime and illegal immigration, authorities in Yuma are reaching back to a technique as old as a medieval castle to dig out a "security channel" on a crime-ridden stretch of the border and fill it with water.
"The moats that I've seen circled the castle and allowed you to protect yourself, and that's kind of what we're looking at here," said Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden, who is backing the project.
Curbing illegal immigration and securing the nearly 2,000 mile (3,200-kilometre) southwestern border are hot topics in this U.S. election year. Washington has pledged to complete 670 miles of new barriers by the close of 2008, despite resistance from landowners and environmentalists.
The proposal seeks to restore a stretch of the West's greatest waterway, the Colorado River, which has been largely sucked dry by demand from farms and sprawling subdivisions springing up across the parched southwest and in neighboring California.
The plan to revive the river, which drains from the Rocky Mountains through the Grand Canyon and runs for 23 miles (37 kilometers) along the border near Yuma, seeks to create a broad water barrier while also restoring a fragile wetland environment that once thrived in the area.
"What you are building is a moat, but it's bringing the life and the wildlife back," said Ogden, an Old West lawman with a handlebar mustache, explaining how the project differs from other plans to fix the border.
"It's innovative thinking. It doesn't take much brainpower to build a 12-foot high fence around something, but this is unique."
more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080313/lf_nm/usa_border_moat_dc
If the issue at hand was explicitly abortion...
ffdesmond says:
"Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. With this reading of the 14th amendment I believe that the argument about protecting a fetus from death is no long applicable. It appears to me that a fetus or unborn child is not covered in the constitution because it has neither been born an American citizen nor has be naturalized."
I think you should go back to the 5th grade and bone up on your language skills. But in the mean time, let's break that Section down like an educated reader should.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Well said... please notice the period indicating a completed statement, and the term "citizens", as these will be useful details. Moving on, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Oh yes, I love that part, and the excitement now is palitable isn't it! But wait, no period here... humm, what does that silly looking symbol mean? Is it a colon, or a semicolon... who really knows for sure. What matters is that it means get ready for more on the subject (of what laws the states may not make or enforce). And the sentence so continues, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Now suddenly it isn't just "citizens", but extending to "persons", those added (and noticably more fundimental) rights and protections from the state... curious indeed.
Did the authors make this destinction on purpose? Oh, sure we can argue all day whether they did or didn't, but don't throw the Constitution at me and think I'll suddenly see abortion as a protected right of the mother. I read a little differently, and I beleive more carefully, what that document says.
If the issue at hand was explicitly abortion...
The facts are clear. Abortion ends a human life, and human life is suposed to be protected by the Constitution. Proof of life - without the abortion, a human life would persist. You can try to argue it hasn't technically started yet, but that is simply illogical. Something clearly has started. If it isn't life, what is it? Does the argument pass the kindergarden test - can the argument for "choice" be understood a preschooler? Children know the bump in mommy's belly is a baby, it is only the less innocent adults who want to call it something else. With enough "education" we all could be so cold. To say it is "no more than a cluster of cells" is like saying the mass between your ears is no more valuable or useful than a turnip. There is huge money in legalized abortion, and it is time we recognized it for what it is, a business. Why does the left protect everything but the unborn? Money, big money...and thanks for the link Mariam... http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#illegal.
Please sonofdad, have the courage to read those whom you believe you must hate... or, if not courage, then the brains to keep silent about that which you know nothing. Ignorance is not a crime, but shouting it until stupidity is proven is painful to watch. I think I have all of Anne's books, and although I certainly don't agreee with everything she believes, I appreciate the enertainment value of her delivery and many of her points are simply dead on. For you I will recommend starting with "Slander", it should strike a cord...
MSNBC's Chelsea Comment Angers Clinton
Rhadamanthine, I couldn't have said it better, so I won't even try.
This "experiment" in popularly chosen leadership is proving to be a slow crawl out from the time of aristocrisies, superstition based power, and simple "strong over weak" hiarchies. Despite the high minded ideals it was founded on, the U.S. is still moving rather slowly toward a truly democratically elected representative government. At the risk of sounding elitist, that may be a good thing. On the surface, the "smoke filed back room" approach to selecting a prez may seem very unfair, but its our heritage, and it wasn't an malicious accident put in place by princes and kings either. Yes, whether you like it or not, it is intentional and openly defended as an appropriate process. Personally, I'm not sure I like it, since it seems a bit insulting to me. However, reality is, some people are less qualified to chose a leader than others (David Duke anyone?), and this is an attempt to keep the uneducated from hurting themselves. Yes, that is an insult to us now isn't it. They (the supers) haven't been in this spot much lately, so will the new infomation rich environment make them less palitable? We'll see. I suspect if the party bosses make their choice in opposition to a popular one, it will damage that candidate's chances in the general election, the party at large, and the administration if the chosen candidate gets to the White House.
