Sen. Johanns on cap and trade, health care

Bring on the reconciliation. Republicans don't want bipartisanship, they want to kill health care reform completely. Just because you scream louder doesn't mean you are the majority. Let the people that voted this government in have their majority ruled health care reform.If Bush can use reconciliation with his Republican controlled congress, then the Democrats have every right to do the same.

Johanns needs to grow a pair and contribute to the cause of finding ways to reform the health care industry instead of standing back on the sidelines complaining about some other party's ideas.

Relax Fred, the Dems hold a majority in both houses. They don't need a single GOP vote to pass anything they want.

Vent your anger on those few Dems who see this legislation for what it is... further erosion of individual American's freedom of choice.

Ah yes, the old freedom of choice and liberty argument. Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere and never see another human being.....there are very few freedoms you have either of choice or liberty. You have the illusion of it and most people would rather have the amenities government, be it local or national, provides. When the founding fathers started this country, their interpretation was from living under the Church of England and the monarchy. Those who wish to live on their own and take care of their own should be allowed to do so, but not expect anything from the gov't they hate. There are many, many ways to right some of the wrongs, but only if citizens align together and demand that people we vote in do their job for all of us. Every four years there is more money spent on people stumping for the next election. No wonder nothing gets done! Voters are pitted against each other. I have done lots of grassroots organization and know what is possible.

I don't know what you've got against individual freedoms Katie, but I think people should have freedom regardless of where they live.

I don't think most people in this country want a nanny state. They want to live free of government intrusion. I still believe the majority do anyway. Sure there are some spineless wonders out there who want things handed to them and are afraid of the responsibility that comes with individual freedom.

They are unworthy of the legacy of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and all those other brave men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to give us a free and just society.

I went to this meeting. I felt like I was told the truth, If this bill is as bad as it looks we need to stop this from passing. If it does pass then next election we need to vote out any offical who votes for it.

I agree with you whole heartedly. There are people out there (more than you think) that want someone to tell them what to do and how to do it because they can't on their own. The post above yours is one of those people. But they sure think they can talk when it comes to standing up for the ole' mighty one who's thumb they want on their head's to make sure they are making choices that they can't make on their own accord. SAD!!!!

How does keep your insurance if you like it = Government control or nanny state? It's pretty simple, if your against gov run health care, then buy insurance, don't deny others coverage just because your against it or claim the gov is trying to run anyones life, that is a complete crock. Johanns is just another example of a do nothing senator catering to go nowhere people.

"Jefferson, Madison, Franklin"
Jefferson and Madison were slaveowners. If all you wanted was access to the healthcare that was available in 1776 we would not have any problems.
We travel on public roads, we have public libraries, we have a public fire department and we certainly pay enough taxes that we should have public healthcare. Nobody is asking for free healthcare. Most are willing to pay for affordable healthcare or health insurance.
However, there are somethings a free market can not do.

Tim........I have absolutely nothing against individual freedom. I was only stating the reality of how little we do have. We have govt laws and rules, we have state laws and rules, city or village etc etc. And, yes, even Gods laws. And, maybe that is where the reaction against it all comes from. It all depends on where you live too. If you live in a small community, you feel differently than someone living in a big city, where you need lots more services from transportation on down to healthcare for thousands. Sometimes millions. I haven't had to take any govt "handouts" thank God, but I know plenty who have, and were glad for the safety net. Like my husband always said.....everyone is two paychecks away from homelessness. I will be glad for any govt help if I ever am.
My post was not made in anger but from reality. Mine might be different from yours. The reality that is.

The to tim poster.....I hope you are never in that position. But I hope you do not mean that you would never help anyone who is. I know lots of people who have no choices, and not because they are lazy. How sad to feel like that. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan.
As for healthcare.....my company has shifted options many times. I have had to change doctors three times in ten years. At least the dialogue is going on, crazy as it is. Fortunately, not craziness everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXBCFnhsUc

I hate to see government come to be regarded as first resource rather than as a first resort.

Frankly, I think government is terribly, terribly inefficient, incompetent and corrupt. What programs administered by the federal government operate at their projected budget?

I work in both private and public (VA) hospitals and have done so for quite some time. I KNOW which one I'd go to if I had a choice.

I watch people, who have the choice, come to the US for quality medical care. They're not going to Canada or the UK or other socialized medical care countries. Canada is building privately run clinics as people up there are tired of waiting and dying in line.

Sure, go for the government sponsored socialized medical care. I'm warning you all now, in a matter of years, it WILL be mediocre healthcare.

There's no way around it.

OF COURSE it will be mediocre health care. The point is, it's better then no health care at all. For those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to afford insurance one would have to scoff at the idea of public health care. Nothing wrong with that. But to deny care to people who simply can't afford it, is morally wrong. What I hate seeing is all the misinformation commercials on TV, Like the chick doing the promo for IWF saying a she's against it because she doesn't think she would have gotten treatment like she needed for her breast cancer... My only rebuttal for her is... "HEY YA STUPID B$#@H, What part of IF YOU LIKE YOUR INSURANCE, KEEP IT, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND". Obviously a public option is not made for insured people like her, she has no business coming on a TV screen complaining about it not being right... SHE ALREADY HAS INSURANCE. Then you have the other misinformation, lobbyist payed for commercial with the balloon inflating, talking about taxes being raised and this and that... MORE LIES. America's health care system is NOT as great as some like to make it out to be. Sure, it's fine for those who can buy insurance, but for the millions of people who can't, it's a big disaster. Hell were paying for it anyway. For every person that goes into the emergency instead of a clinic visit, we the tax payer pay for that, we just don't see it in our checks so we think we don't. What's the price difference between an ER visit .vs a clinic visit? Take that times all the people who do it, and we would save billions right there alone with a public option. We use 15% of our GDP for health care, Canada uses 10%. Our GDP spending.. as in US TAX PAYERS, is predicted to go up to 18%. THEN what are we gonna do? More people in the ER, HIGHER premiums on our own insurance, and more insurance companies dumping us all. After all that, we'd still have the same damn mess, and we would STILL be paying for it. Bottom line solution..

MEDICARE FOR ALL...

WERE PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY.

:) Medicare is slated to be bankrupt in a few short years as well as SS. Both are terribly expensive now, both are government run.

What makes ANYONE think .gov can take on "health care reform" and make it cheaper? Given past performance of government programs, I expect the results of this "reform" to be no different.

Isn't the definition of insanity, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?"

Now, if they're talking about real reform, like tort reform, then count me in.

I TOTALLY agree with Tim. His posts were well written, to the point, and left out the unpunctuized rantings that the others included. Other than Tim's posts, the rest were just another case of people trying to sound smarter than they really are. Do any of you REALLY understand universal healthcare and what it means for our country and its people?
Medicare is a joke and so are most of the people using it. I go to the doctor and pay the bills when I get them. If this means I go without something else for that month than so be it. That is what it means to take responsibility for yourself and your family. Just go sit out at East Central Health District for 5 minutes and you will see where your tax dollars are going. Yes you will see the people out there that really need the help, but it is frustrating when there are women out there taking their children to see a doctor for little to no cost yet they have their nails done (approx $40 per time), hair highlighted (approx $100 per time) and they are doning a "glowing tan" that you know cannot be maintained in December in Nebraska. It just gets real hard to feel sorry for these people who aren't helping themselves. Let's keep the government out and start making people be accountable for their actions and the paths they choose!

if you are in favor of more government YOU pay for it. as far as gov. assistance there was a time when i needed help. awnser too white for there cause. big gov doesnt work there is no diff between demo-rats and republi-cons. it is freeking hillarious to watch these "grass-root" orgs cryin there eyes out for their movement. washington doesnt care about any of us. do you realize washington should be able to turn this to a profit within 10yrs. not sayin they will but hey! the only thing gov should be responsible for is highway and roads national defence+ police and rescue and the funding of education. STATES shouldd be responsible for EVERYTHING else. TORT reform is the only viable option but the majority of DEMO_RATS dont want that because they are on the books of pharmacuticals and hospital unions. why not hold people accountable for their own actions. do a line by line audit. start with questions like why can you not afford healthcare but you have $1200 worth of jewelry on, a car with $3500 rims on it, big screen tv, designer clothes, playstation 3, ect. ect. ect. my health care costs are ridiculus but tort reform would solve that. i have a running balance with my doctors office and with the hospital. but i also PAY MY BILLS. all on 20K a year. i dont have much but my 2 kids are clothed and feed with a roof over their head. bills are paid (barely) but hey ITS CALLED LIFE.

To right said fred: look into the future (and it wouldn't take real long), and tell us who is going to pay for this. If you are legal and employed, your taxes will and they will grow accordingly as the costs do unless the country go backrupt (a very real possibility by the way). Money still does not grow on trees, regardless of what Obama evidently thinks.

There are other forms of insurance reform that are needed that will help.
The biggest is to stop the fraud and abuse, the freebies if you are not a legal citizen or too lazy to work.

Another is combining numerous entities together under one umbrella company to have one medical billing instead of 10 or 12. Then there is only one entity making a profit instead of 10 or 12 of them raising their prices so each one makes a profit. Those of us who remember those days also know it made more sense and the costs were alot less and in control.

If the government is going to be so involved, why don’t they put a cap on what the medical companies and drug makers can charge? Why not? Because it will take a lot of money out of their own deep dirty pockets if they do. They would rather screw the American citizen that pays taxes.

How about the members of Congress and Senate having to buy and pay for their own health insurance? Wouldn’t that be fun to watch!!

Greed is first and foremost the problem and it is not just with the medical entities, including the insurers. It is also with the many that believe they deserve a free lunch, whether they contribute or not.

Before our borders were so porous, this was not the out of control problem it is now. The government steps in and sets up all of these programs and handouts and the companies set up their tents to take advantage of government billing and payouts and we know that one hand does not know what the other is doing there. Not too difficult to see but with the people we have in DC, difficult to get fixed.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

Look at the above link! Then look at the LIABILITY PER CITIZEN Then ask yourself...How can we afford this. I go to the VA Lincoln atleast once a month that is a government run health facility I have to set aside one day for something that should take 15 minutes. Anyone that has been treated at a VA facility will tell you it is scary. Do you really want this for your kids or your parents? Do you really want someone telling you what treatments you can and cant have? Wake up your freedoms are slowly being taken away. Now its Cap & Trade(higher taxes and regulation) and government health. All you can see is the government handouts...the nanny state well just like parents that are supporting their children they will also tell you what you can and cant do and what you will think and not say. Turn off Dancing with the Stars it is rotting your brain. Get informed and stop being sheeple...our government is not in-charge we are!

Here's a great example of your TORT reform, and your stereotype colored hair and nail jobs and the Republican solution.... hit up your neighbor to help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3jwhLcW_c8

tort reform is nessicary to stop frivilous litigation which drives up cost due to inflated insurance costs. no longer will someone get to sue for 10m for spilling hot coffee on their lap. on a side note that insident cost the consumer and estimated extra 3.7 cents on their cost of Mccoffees due to the additional caution hot stamp on the lid. that tort will drive the cost of healthcare down an estimated 30% which would make it affordable to over 70% of the uninsured pending that they make the life decessions and actually buy the insurance themselves. pre existing conditions clause regulation i'm all for it. no way they should be able to decline you because something is wrong. i am not even going to watch your you tube thing. its probably a left wing hackjob video. i focus on statistics you can want to live in a 300m house all you want but if you cant afford to pay for it....oh wait we already went...down...that...road. i'll give the republi-cons 1 thing--they know business and i'll give the demo--rats one thing-- they know compassion. both are blind to the others cause. WE NEED MULTIPLE PARTIES NOT 2. States need to be in more control of the issues at hand
NOT THE FED

udontnome-Well said!!
phreakwars-It is a "HACKJOB" I fell for it!
Please check out this link:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
The numbers should help!

alright phreak i had to watch it and it proves my point. the reason the lady cant get coverage is because of the limits of liablety involving trama to the head. tort reform wouldsolve that. now what i dont agree with is the pre existing conditions clause these companies use. tort reform would solve that by limiting malpratice suits that increase insurance premiums which raise your price at the office which could bankrupt the insuranceco i cant find the website but it breaks down the percentage of malpratice suites and what was involved. if you take out huge insurance premiums paid by clinics you and your insurance co payments go down. i am open for all discussions on health care weve only been hearing one side and the other side either has no say or is being shoved undre the carpet. what about the independant thinkers. havent heard from them. as far as another government program. 110% against it. i want less (A LOT LESS) govermnent, not more. i'll thread jack for a second it kinda protains to this. remember the time BEFORE the green movement. i use to turn in cans for a little spare change, turned off my lights when not in use because the utillity bill would be higher. ect ect ect. now the government wants to get involved and tell me this and that acting like the parent and i am the child. i'm a grown man government is the child and it needs spanked back into obediance.

TORT reform isn't gonna do jack for anybody. It's just a cop out notion being spread around by Republicans. Sure you have frivolous lawsuits, but the payouts for them only make up 1% of health care costs. The reason the lady in the video couldn't get coverage is because her insurance company is more then likely one of those that uses 25-30% of the premiums they get for administrative overhead (A.K.A. bonuses for themselves and their wall street buddies). Nobody wants .gov to take care of them, people just want .gov to ensure they get adequate care from the people who are supposed to be caring for them. The health of all of us is not, and should not, be a commodity traded on Wall street.

What was that famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence that America is supposed to stand for?

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

What part of "LIFE" do people not get?

Obviously the woman in the video has a husband who is being denied the freedom of the life of her husband, by an insurance company's bureaucracy. When situations like that arise, we have NO CHOICE but turn to our Government for help. Who else is gonna help her?

Let's simplify

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A

People need to stop getting sick so we can keep these health costs down. More fruit and fiber and a few vegetables, less junk food.

To simplify it even more:

"Government is not compassion ... Government is nothing more than structured, widespread coercion ..." -- Glen Allport

phreak--nice grade school presentation you had there. 2 things wrong with your presentation. 1. fire and police are subsidized with more local and state money than federal. there are plenty of problems in those sectors so the efficient comment in the video is inaccurate. 2. medicare....its going broke, you have tons of paperwork it also has ppo's and at 2 cents of ever dollar you would even remotely come close to a 1% gross margin which on national average labor and admin costs average 15% of total costs so that means that it is realitivly 25% of total cost for the government (most gov employees are paid on avg 8-10% more than the national avg according to a msnbc report)so that means only 75% of that "BIG POOL" is only going to the patient vs the 80% of the private insurance money going to their customers. Who's getting the better deal. +1 tidbit do you know that it is vertually impossible to be denied medicare or medicade if you fit within a certin criteria? just so happens that that certin criteria is the same criteria that this fringe group of politicians want to give this new program to. this is not reform it is another program. you need to add rules to the game not change the gameboard just because some people dont want to play the game. yes there should be hardship clauses and in most states there are unfortunatly they happen to be mostly in red states. i truely understand every case is different but i also see alot of abuses going on with the social programs going on today. i dont feel we need another. it needs to be a stricter policy going forward on all social programs and hopefully they vanish all togeather except in certin instances and only for limited time. we never needed a water department until they found they had a money making machine. there also use to be a day when all the court house was for was marriage licences, land transactions and jail. look at all the offices we have now that we didnt need before. phreak ive seen alot of your posts and i really respect your oppinion, but the government has turned into a business(a really poorly run business) the same kind of business you seem to hate. demo-RAT republi-CON THEYRE ALL THE SAME BRO. you spoke of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. no matter what you do in life these days you are going to step on someones LLP. If you pull profits from a business owner you stopped their persuit, if you require someone to register a firearm you have stopped their liberty. if you do not have health insurance it does not impose on life. insurance is one of those things that is not a nessesity whether its home auto or health. you can get by without it so basically you are betting to lose in life anyway so whats the big deal.JUST A JOKE. ive said my piece. nce debating with you phreak.

To udontnome: There is one thing very very morally wrong with your argument. Your going on an assumption that YOU would be the one participating in a public option.

Your against it because of inefficiency's? No prob. But why be against someone else getting help? That's like saying your against ADC because one doesn't get enough money to live off of, so lets turn around and not let people have that program.

Hey as long as it's not you personally being affected, it doesn't mattter what the outcome is for someone else, right?

As for the percentage of money that does go to medicare and not overhead, got any data to back up the claim "only 75% of that "BIG POOL" is only going to the patient vs the 80% of the private insurance"?

Your also wrong about medicare requirements. Once you reach retirement age, you are eligible. MEDICAID is a different program though part of medicare, yes there are restrictions for MEDICAID as their should be. For instance, MEDICAID will cover a persons children if they are on welfare but it won't cover adults. Just a small example of where MEDICAID is restricting, not MEDICARE. Also, Medicare wouldn't have the problem it does if Bush wouldn't have signed Medicare part D into law without having a way to pay for it first. He took the money for it from our surplus and not any other source, effectively screwing us all because war or not, the surplus was not intended to be used forever, and forever is the promise that Medicare part D makes.

Getting back to what I was saying about you being morally inaccurate. A public option would be nothing more then a pool of health care insurance separate from what insurance providers now provide. I have always said, a government run plan would NOT be as good as an insurance providers. But what do you do with the 47 million who don't have insurance? Let them suffer? Let them keep being a burden on our own tax dollars via high emergency room costs that we all have to pay for in our own premiums? The hospitals gotta make that money up somehow, and they do it by sticking that cost onto those of us who have insurance. We just don't notice because most of us get a large majority of our insurance paid for by our employers. We get money taken from our checks for our insurance and we think... well MY INSURANCE IS JUST FINE. Meanwhile, our employers get slammed with the high dollar cost of keeping us healthy. Like I stated before, our GDP cost for health care is at 15% and expected to go higher... THEN what are we gonna do? We are ALL gonna pay higher insurance premiums, and the insurance companies are still gonna have money to burn and buy yachts with on our dime, and we will STILL be paying for those who are not insured. And the worst part... we will still have people uninsured. IMHO, insurance companies should not even exist except for car insurance, home insurance and other material type things that are of value. Human life is not a material possession. You can't treat human life like a car and expect to be able to get a new one if you total out the old one.

You can rattle off numbers about inefficiency's in the government all day long and it still doesn't take away from the fact that you are talking about REAL PEOPLE who are affected when it comes to health.

What would I personally expect to gain from a public option.... nothing, I already have insurance, I could care less how inefficient it is, or how mediocre it would be. But it would lower my own personal premiums. My insurance company wouldn't be getting slammed with the burden of people who aren't insured and raising my premiums.

We are morally, and Constitutionally obligated to look after one another, unfortunately, that is not something anybody wants to do because it requires the government to be the median between those who can afford to care for themselves, and those who can't. But then what other median is there? What other option is there? If we don't have that median, it actually costs us all more in the long run. Currently, that median is used to give care to ONLY those who are not contributing back into the system... very sloppy and easy to see why Medicare/Medicaid is going broke. For every $1 that seniors have put into the Medicare system, we are spending $3.

Seniors, are of course, saying "DON'T TOUCH MY SOCIALIST MEDICARE"... Well hell, why not? They have already exhausted their money. Then on the other end of the spectrum... you have the younger people saying "DON'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" Well you can't have it both ways. I sincerely hope those who are against a public option now take that same attitude into their retirement years and forfeit their Medicare.

There's a great idea, lets just cut off eligibility for Medicare next year, finish out with the people who are on the program, but don't allow anyone else to receive it.

Tell the ones who were once eligible that they now have to buy health insurance for the rest of their retiring lives and that government is not the answer.

Who needs death panels when we already have rationed health insurance via insurance companies? If grandma gets too feeble to pay the premiums, then kick her out of the plan and let her fend for herself. It's the same thing were doing now to the 47 million who don't have insurance so what difference does it make? What's with this entitlement crap just for being old? Don't these people have family's to turn to for care? It shouldn't be my problem if all the people in nursing homes need medicine, why should my tax dollar go to keeping them alive? I have my own mom to worry about when she gets old, and Depends aren't cheap.

But see, that goes back to MORAL OBLIGATION. Obviously you can't expect the elderly to pay insurance premiums for their well being. Just the same, you can't expect someone working a minimum wage job supporting their family to do the same either. I don't buy that cop out excuse of "WELL THEY CAN ALWAYS GO GET A BETTER JOB AND BUY INSURANCE" either... just how many "BETTER JOBS" are there for the 300 million citizens of America anyway? That is a very unrealistic expectation because of the pay scale we force onto job titles.

What if we all pooled that to care for each other? What if the same percentage was taken out of the high income jobs as the low income jobs to go towards our health care? Like say 5%. 5% of your McDonalds check, 5% of my wife's Camaco pay, 5% of popcorn Joe's wages, and etc, all pooled together to cover each other. It sure makes more sense then paying the unsustainable 1.5% (+ 1.5% employer match), we all do to provide care to the elderly, whom aren't contributing anything into the medicare system. NO WONDER IT'S GOING BROKE!!

phreakwars; ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE NOT MICHAEL MOORE?

You make about as much sense as he does not. You do put off alot of heat though...

I hope I live long enough to see what you say when you are older when hopefully a little maturity and experience will have opened your eyes to reality, provided we are all still around that is.

no i do not think phreak is M.M.
but the statistics i got are from a dept of labor report from 2008 comprised of 2007 data. its a little dated but they havent done a report since. it is published in the NAM report jan 2008 issue. the govt figures on costs was don on a keith o. report on the cost of govt. done during the 2nd bush abomination.25% of govt is spent on administration and ect. and that leaves you with 75% vs the 80% from your video. 2ndly there are excemptions and hardship clauses imbedded in medicare and medicade that allow the applicant to recieve partial benifits based on income regardless of age. my brother in law recieved them himself. it doesnt cover all of the cost, which it shouldnt it is based on your ability to pay. pathfinders of nebraska has a simmilar program. the programs are out there and differ state by state.3rdly i do not know you and udontnome(nice play on words) so please do not judge my morals or character and i will not judge yours. i do not want anyone to suffer but what is your definition of suffering? they cant afford that $150000 house and might have to sell it to pay for the fair share of the med bills? what are their priorities? i have health care, i work my tail off to get it and keep it. yes the un insured are driving costs up, but now i have to double and possibly triple pay to cover them? NO WAY. i dont trust any polichicken that says my taxes will not go up i just believe there are too many taking advantage of govt hand outs and i think there needs to be a WAY more strickter approach to these programs. adding another one is not going to fix health care your just bandaiding the problem. fix it thru tort reform, regulation, abolish the state line clause and increase compitition. 47 million uninsured take out the 20 million plus illeagal aliens my friend and we have a very managible number to work with.

Please ignore all that the FREAK has been saying, because as you will read, he makes absolutly no sense just like our President. All we have to consider is how much government involvment in our lives we want. I for one want the bare minimum. I have seen the failure of other gov-run-healthcare. With the Gov. it is always going to be the bottom line instead of LIFE. Get off of the whole slave owner thing too, that is way over-used and unimportant. The point is that these men wanted the freedom to make dcisions without one being telling them what they were to do. Our Gov has become that one being, unfortunatly by our own ignorance and neglect. We need to stand up not as Demos, Repubs, or Indepens...but as Americans who still believe that we have the rights and we are not to be told what we are going to do. If anyone has ever spent time at a hospital because your child, spouse, or parent needed a life-saving proceedure, you would realize how blessed we are in America. And I work hard everyday to pay for the insurance that enables my child to live. He is on a neccessary med that he could not live without. So I don't want anyone telling me that he can't have it anymore. These thoughts are not scare tactics, they are actually in this plan...please read it b4 you make your assumptions.

We are morally, and Constitutionally obligated to look after one another?

Forcefully taking from the haves, to give to the have nots, is no more moral than the other way around. It is called theft.

Constitutionally obligated? Cite the article, and section. The Constitution is the rule book for government, not individuals, and it does not even remotely mention health care.

To Fredric:

Article 1, section 8

To Fight for your freedom:

Practice what you preach.

You obviously have NOT read the plan, and are parroting something you heard somewhere else (probably Glen Beck). I have read it. So tell me, if it's in the plan, what page, what section? I must have missed it somewhere. And same question to you. What part of "if you like your insurance, keep it" do you not understand? Who is trying to tell YOU what to do.

Back up your absurd claims, here, I'll help you out

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

It's good to know there are still compassionate Nebraskan's who don't treat the issue as a numbers game or a partisan complaint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPV94JdiAoE

To help promote his political philosophies Phreak is running a koolaid stand this weekend. Go have some of the same koolaid he's drinking.

Since the government is morally and Constitutionally obligated to provide for my health, where's my big screen TV? Where's my Escalade?

I have to have these things for my continued good mental health.

And while we're at it, why not a bigger house?

I need help here Phreakwars. Where in article 1, section 8 does it state that we are obligated to look after one another?

To Fredrick:

It's the general welfare clause, it's been used time and time again. If you don't see it then you don't know how to read.

The supreme court has ruled over and over again that it can be used to collect taxes for a persons well being.

In United States v. Butler (1936). The courts ruled this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare.

Later however, it was modified in Helvering v. Davis (1937). Thee, they maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare.

Welfare
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare

–noun
1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization;

Now lets translate Article 1 section 8

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general **good fortune, health, happiness, & prosperity** of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Pretty dang simple to interpret. You'll find it not only in Article 1 section 8, but the Preamble, and among other things, the Articles of Confederation.

Even Alexander Hamilton wrote "spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other."

You can reference this in the Federalist papers. The opposing view was by James Madison, but again, the courts have consistently sided with Hamilton's interpretation.

Way too many examples here to site.

Accuse me of drinking kool-aid, but one things for sure, I subscribe to what our constitution reads and how it was interpreted by the kool-aid drinking courts and the kool-aid drinking founding fathers. If you have issue with my kool-aid, take it up with them, it's their recipe.

Well, there ya have it. In light of Phreak's astounding revelations, a person has to be pretty damn stupid to continue to work if the government is Constitutionally and morally obligated to provide for our welfare.

I'm resigning come Monday AM and will visit my mailbox regularly waiting for my checks to start arriving from Uncle Sam.

I'm not sure how we'll fund it all though. Maybe just print more money?

The whole idea behind it, was that taxes, although they suck, are a necessary part of a society. These were people being taxed and oppressed by Britain to make the higher monarchy more wealthy. So when they wrote article 1 section 8, they tried to make it clear what any tax could, and should be used for. And that would be to keep EVERYBODY in America, safe, secure, healthy, and able to prosper. It's why you also see the wording in the same line that the tax collected has to be a uniform benefit for all, not just an individual state.

IMHO, that makes Medicare, specifically Medicaid unconstitutional. Because that tax is being used for the benefit of a select few,(those who can't pay), as opposed to being used for everyone.

So if you wanna quit your job because you don't support our Constitution and the system setup in it to benefit all Americans, go right ahead. Just don't expect more then what you get from working, your only promised "GENERAL" welfare, not a free ride. If you wanna make an issue out of health care, then you obviously believe health and well being is an entitlement and not a basic right.

I wonder if they had health insurance companies in 1787, and how medical treatment was handled then. Hmm, I'm gonna have to look that up.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

"Of the United States", is the section you quoted, but missed. So which colony are you Phreakwars? You said, "We are morally, and Constitutionally obligated to look after one another?" Are you speaking as a human being, or as a Colony?

Through all of your scholarly efforts, you also missed the purpose of the Constitution. It is an agreement between what are essentitially separate countries, to create a more perfect union. The Federal government is to provide what the State governments cannot do for themselves, or do well, such as defense.

That is why we have the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, how are you Constitutionally obligated to look after me? An even better question; would I want you to?

Fredric, are you REALLY that dense? We are obligated on a Federal level even though yes, each state can set it's own laws. What exactly does the 10th amendment even mean to you, are you even reading what you copy and pasted? It basically says, if the power has not been given to congress for whatever it is, then it is up to the states to decide.

Unfortunately for you, the power to tax for someone else's well being IS given to Congress.

Just look at things like the Marijuana laws, which are (more like were) illegal under the Federal level. California went ahead and legalized it at the state level, which they were within their rights to do, but anyone growing the stuff was STILL subject to prosecution under a Federal level. Just like one can't use the defense in a Federal court that the State says it's OK, One can't bypass a FEDERAL tax because the state said no. I like how you wanna conveniently twist around the wording to escape obligations. Can Nebraska pass a law saying they are NOT gonna participate or pay taxes for something like Medicare or Social Security and get away with it? Uh... NO. It doesn't work that way. If a State were to try that, they might as well secede from the union.

Also Fredric, to answer your question "would I want you to"

Matthew 25:31-46

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

35"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

36"I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?

38"When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?

39"When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42"For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43"I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Am I dense? You believe that a vague, subjective, and open ended phrase like "general welfare" was put into the Law of the Land, giving carte blanche to the Federal government!

The first clause you keep referring to, is specifically addressing the collecting of monies, NOT spending. That is why it vaguely refers to common defense, and later clauses, address defense in DETAIL. A vague reference to general welfare, and later clauses, very specific DETAILS, the writers hoped would lead to the general welfare of the States of the Union.

Haven't you ever wondered, why they just didn't leave it with the first clause? It pretty much covers everything, wouldn't you say? The Founding Fathers, intended this to be a very limited government, and did not envision the government subsidized purchasing of new cars, windows, and air conditioners, for citizens!

There is a reason the Union is spending trillions of dollars a year, and is trillions in debt. Most of the Federal government is unconstitutional.

Thanks for the Bible verses! Could you point out which one says that forcible taking from one family, to give to another, is the Christian thing to do?