Operation Health Freedom

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

The other health care threads are a bit tiresome, so I thought I'd start a new one. How's this for an alternative health care reform plan?

Operation Health Freedom (http://www.operationhealthfreedom.com/) (includes H.R. 1495, 2629, and 3217)

[Matt Christianson]

I breezed through Paul's bill probably a little too quickly. I'm wondering how this is ultimately paid for?

[Bob Jentges]

The other health care threads are a bit tiresome, so I thought I'd start a new one. How's this for an alternative health care reform plan?

Operation Health Freedom (http://www.operationhealthfreedom.com/) (includes H.R. 1495, 2629, and 3217)

Carpet cleaners coming this morning so I need to get busy moving furnature and have not had time to review the House Resolutions you cite, other than the brief summaries. But I do see I referenced 2629 & 3217 in my 11-1 post #62 in your "Single-payer..." thread.

2629 was to prevent the federal government from mandating citizens purchase health insurance. I am in complete agreement with that; I think it would be unconstitution.

3217 was to allow health insurance to be sold accross state lines. That was a suggestion I made in the Forum way back when. Some tried to argue that the so-called Commerce Clause brought health insurance back into the enumerated powers of the Constitution as interstate comerce. I said then and I say now (as did Paul Bade in his recent letter to the editor) that is nonsense. If it was already subject to interstate commerce, 3217 would never have been proposed to begin with.

Moreover, there are more than 1500 private companies that sell health insurance now. Allowing them to sell across state lines would almost certainly increase competition and reduce the cost of purchasing health insurance, eliminating the need for the so-called public option that some Democrats claim would increase competition, which obviously is not why they want a public option. Clearly the reason they want a public option is to make it next to impossible for private insurers to compete with the government and eventually drive them out of business, opening the door for single payer. The way I see it if we are ready to rush headlong into government control, rather than trying some adjustments in the present free market health insurance/care system everytime someone thinks something is not ideal, we are not going to remain a free society very long!

With respect to 1495, although I have not studied it, knowing Ron Paul's general philosophy I would expect I would find most of it acceptable. When given the choice between tyranny and liberty and/or between an increase in taxes and a tax credit, I would almost always choose the latter(s).

I have heard the House plans to vote on the Pelosi proposal tomorrow and there will be no amendments allowed. I understand the GOP House members
submitted a 230 page proposal (compare that with the Pelosi 2000+ pages) last Monday. I have not read it. Apparrantly they will be allowed offer that as an alternate to the Pelose proposal. I do not know how many, if any, of the three H. R.'s you list will be included in whole or in part in the alternative, but it probably makes little difference from a practical standpoint. With the overwhelming Democrat majority in the House the alternative has little chance of passing.

[Bob Jentges]

In my previous post I mentioned that Speaker Pelosi had planned to schedule a vote on the Democrat bill today (Saturday), but then it was postponed until Sunday while they try to come-up with the necessary 218 votes for passage. Whether they can make enough concessions to the various factions of the Democrat Party to hold the vote Sunday seems likely, but not a sure thing. Maybe they will switch it back to Saturday if the count reaches 218 later today, or maybe they will postpone it past Sunday if they still do not have the 218 votes by then.

Unfortunatly, from my perspective and I think most of the District One voters, Pelosi getting the vote of our District One Representative Tim Walz is not a problem. (She did not have a problem getting his vote for divisive Cap & Trade Bill either)

I read Mark Fischnich's article in The Free Press this morning which indicated Walz said he will vote for the bill if there are not changes. He did not specify what changes might cause him to change his vote. Maybe that means that any change in the present proposal could leave him a way out to change his position if public opinion opposing the present Pelosi proposal becomes even more overwhelming, or if they never reach the 218 votes necessary for passage and therefore it is not brought to the House floor for debate and vote.

Representative Walz remark in The Free Press this morning: "It's not perfect, but it's better than the status quo" is certainly not origional! I am not aware of very many people who favor the status quo. But they do not want what they consider a bad bill either.

Seems like it did not take Walz long to decide it is more important to represent the Pelosi wing of the Democrat Party than it is to represent the people.

[Dan Conner]

In my previous post I mentioned that Speaker Pelosi had planned to schedule a vote on the Democrat bill today (Saturday), but then it was postponed until Sunday while they try to come-up with the necessary 218 votes for passage. Whether they can make enough concessions to the various factions of the Democrat Party to hold the vote Sunday seems likely, but not a sure thing. Maybe they will switch it back to Saturday if the count reaches 218 later today, or maybe they will postpone it past Sunday if they still do not have the 218 votes by then.

Unfortunatly, from my perspective and I think most of the District One voters, Pelosi getting the vote of our District One Representative Tim Walz is not a problem. (She did not have a problem getting his vote for divisive Cap & Trade Bill either)

I read Mark Fischnich's article in The Free Press this morning which indicated Walz said he will vote for the bill if there are not changes. He did not specify what changes might cause him to change his vote. Maybe that means that any change in the present proposal could leave him a way out to change his position if public opinion opposing the present Pelosi proposal becomes even more overwhelming, or if they never reach the 218 votes necessary for passage and therefore it is not brought to the House floor for debate and vote.

Representative Walz remark in The Free Press this morning: "It's not perfect, but it's better than the status quo" is certainly not origional! I am not aware of very many people who favor the status quo. But they do not want what they consider a bad bill either.

Seems like it did not take Walz long to decide it is more important to represent the Pelosi wing of the Democrat Party than it is to represent the people.Well, the vote was this evening. And the House of Representatives in a selfless manner voted for HR 3962 and healthcare reform for the rest of the country. I sincerely hope the Senate follows suit and does the right thing for the American people and votes for healthcare reform and a Government option. Better yet, this might be an indication our country is turning the page to a new chapter with diminished greed and selfishness. A country where we stand together for each other's welfare. God Bless America!!

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Well, the vote was this evening. And the House of Representatives in a selfless manner voted for HR 3962 and healthcare reform for the rest of the country. I sincerely hope the Senate follows suit and does the right thing for the American people and votes for healthcare reform and a Government option. Better yet, this might be an indication our country is turning the page to a new chapter with diminished greed and selfishness. A country where we stand together for each other's welfare. God Bless America!!

LOL. Explain to me again how forcing people to buy things for other people is selfless? Standing together for each other's welfare involves freely giving, not forcibly taxing.

[Bob Jentges]

LOL. Explain to me again how forcing people to buy things for other people is selfless? Standing together for each other's welfare involves freely giving, not forcibly taxing.

I realize the question was not addressed to me. But if someone has an answer I would be interested in hearing it, because I do not.

I started watching the floor debate on CSPAN, but after watching elected representatives debate a 2000+ page document that few, if any, had read I lost interest. It soon became obvious to me the proponents were placing a liberal, big government agenda ahead of the wishes of a significant majority of interested citizens. To me that is not the "American" way!

There were 220 votes for passage (219 Democrats and the replacement for William Jefferson (D-LA) who is, or soon will be in federal prison) and 215 against passage (176 Republicans and 39 Democrats). I realize a win is a win, but the way I see it this was hardly a resounding win. I am hoping it will be a much different story in the U.S. Senate.

[Matt Christianson]

I highly recommend reading the latest editorial in todays WSJ on the health bill.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574523613159447566.html

[Bob Jentges]

I highly recommend reading the latest editorial in todays WSJ on the health bill.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574523613159447566.html

I read it, Matt. Great post vote article analyzing what can happen to the people they represent (as well as people in general) when some politicians surrender principles for a "deal" for their district or political party.

Here is link to a pre-vote article, analyzing (citing specific provisions in the bill itself) what might happen if enough representatives vote to pass the bill. But either not enough representatives read it (or the actual bill) to understand the ramifications of their vote, or put politics ahead of sound legislating.

http://www.online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html

[Dan Conner]

LOL. Explain to me again how forcing people to buy things for other people is selfless? Standing together for each other's welfare involves freely giving, not forcibly taxing.First, just like me helping repair and maintain roads in front of your home is selfless, so is offering healthcare for all. While polls show the majority to be selfless on this issue, there are some that need to be coaxed along the way. It is probably more simple for me to explain what is selfish. It is the refusal/reluctance to help others carrying dreams of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." While the House majority leader, at the last Washington Tea Party, mistakenly read this sentence as part of what he thought was the Preamble to the Constitution, I thought it was prophetic again establishing human rights in our country. Nearly 45,000 people die each year for the lack of health insurance, which is contrary to the Declaration of Indepence and the Preamble of the Constitution.

It is foolish to "draw the line" at contributing toward the health insurnace of all. After all, we are all forced to contribute to the community we live in, through property taxes, the state we live in through state income and sales taxes, plus others. We all pay for the raods you drive on. We all pay for many and varied community, state, and national services. We are subject to draft in the milistary services, if so decided by Congress, we all pay for weapon systems used in our name, we pay for regulation and monitoring of varying industries. We all contribute taxes toward schools whether we have children in school or not. You know, being selfless is just that requirement that falls on us when living in a community of people. It seems "whiny" and selfish to live and benefit from a community without wanting to contribute to it.

It isn't absolutely required to make contributions to a community, but then it would normally be required to live outside the community and the services it offers. It certainly is selfish not to contribute, simply because that is a service you don't want, but a plurality does. The most startling element of all this is how people who receive so many advantages of living in a communty, take all that for granted and refuse to do their share and contribute to it. To me, selfless means people who are thankful and appreciative of community benefits and willingly offer to do their share to contribute toward community objectives. I think one of the most important of these objectives is life and everyone's right to have it. That is simply a fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Living in a great society means obligations as well as rights. I think those rights and obligations are clearly enumerated.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

First, just like me helping repair and maintain roads in front of your home is selfless

Selfless would be you doing it voluntarily, which you are not. If you would like to, I have some outstanding street assessments which I'd be happy to have covered.

so is offering healthcare for all.

Again, selfless would be you doing it voluntarily.

While polls show the majority to be -/selfless/- compliant on this issue, there are some that need to be -/coaxed/- forced along the way.

Fixed that for ya.

It is probably more simple for me to explain what is selfish. It is the refusal/reluctance to help others carrying dreams of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You say "carrying dreams," I say "legalized confiscation under threat of imprisonment." Tomato/Tomahto, I guess.

While the House majority leader, at the last Washington Tea Party, mistakenly read this sentence as part of what he thought was the Preamble to the Constitution, I thought it was prophetic again establishing human rights in our country.

In the previous section, you quote the Declaration, where it lists the 'certain unalienable Rights' as something 'endowed by their Creator'. But then you go on to say that the Declaration was 'establishing human rights'. If they are in fact natural rights (from the 'Creator' or otherwise innate), then the existence of the Declaration has nothing to do with whether or not these rights exist. As I've said several times on this forum, natural rights cannot be granted by any document. They either exist for all people everywhere in every time, or the exist for no one. Our founding documents set out to protect our natural rights from the encroachment of government, not to somehow grant something that everyone already has anyway.

Nearly 45,000 people die each year for the lack of health insurance, which is contrary to the Declaration of Indepence and the Preamble of the Constitution.

First, I'm pretty sure I've never seen "Lacked health insurance" among the leading causes of death in the U.S. It's usually things like cancer, heart disease, and car accidents.

Second, according to this site (http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html), 16,000 kids die every day from hunger-related causes around the world. Don't they have a right to come and help themselves to whatever's in your pantry? Or maybe only the ones living in the U.S., since they had the good sense to be born into the land of the Declaration? And if that poor family in Ethiopia had just access to your car, they could drive to the city for clean water! They have a right to your car, because without it they'll get dysentery from their polluted water supply and die. Give them your car! It's their right, right?

Life is a right, Dan, but the things necessary to sustain that life are not rights -- they are the responsibility of the living individual (or his/her parents or legal guardians).

It is foolish to "draw the line" at contributing toward the health insurnace of all.

I have a feeling you don't want the line drawn anywhere.

After all, we are all forced to contribute to the community we live in, through property taxes, the state we live in through state income and sales taxes, plus others. We all pay for the raods you drive on. We all pay for many and varied community, state, and national services. We are subject to draft in the milistary services, if so decided by Congress, we all pay for weapon systems used in our name, we pay for regulation and monitoring of varying industries. We all contribute taxes toward schools whether we have children in school or not.

No, we do not all pay. Less than half of us pay any net income taxes at all, and there is a significant percentage that pays no or negative taxes. There is a large and growing segment of the population that comprises the parasite class. I can't recall the source, but I've heard that over 1,000 people a month move to Minnesota to enroll in our welfare programs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that that isn't going to last forever. You can only bleed the "rich" for so long before they a) are no longer "rich" or b) move away for greener pastures.

Federal taxes are only about social engineering and paying off the lobbyists and special interests anyway. Why, exactly, should the U.S. government bother to collect taxes when it can simply print whatever it needs in magical fresh money?

You know, being selfless is just that requirement that falls on us when living in a community of people. It seems "whiny" and selfish to live and benefit from a community without wanting to contribute to it.

As I discussed at length in another thread (and you ignored), "public goods" (those things which would not provided by the free market in the absence of government provision) are few and far between, and these things should be provided at the most local level of government possible so that people can vote with their feet as cheaply as possible in order to create inter-government competition so that only actual public goods (rather than vote-buying entitlement programs) are paid for provided via taxation.

It isn't absolutely required to make contributions to a community, but then it would normally be required to live outside the community and the services it offers. It certainly is selfish not to contribute, simply because that is a service you don't want, but a plurality does. The most startling element of all this is how people who receive so many advantages of living in a communty, take all that for granted and refuse to do their share and contribute to it.

If taxation is local, government is local, control is local, and services are local, then I am FINE with it. A "community" is local! A health care bill longer than War and Peace with over 300,000,000 people under its shadow has absolutely nothing to do with community. It is a massive testament to the power of the monied special interests in bed with the Federal government set to benefit at our expense. Seriously, even if you are insistent that the government should be in the business of helping everyone get the health care they need, the sheer size of the House bill should make it obvious that campaign donations and favors are being paid for and a pork-storm is on its way. Would it be too much to ask that this at least be done at the state level where it would be plausibly Constitutional?

To me, selfless means people who are thankful and appreciative of community benefits and willingly offer to do their share to contribute toward community objectives. I think one of the most important of these objectives is life and everyone's right to have it. That is simply a fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Living in a great society means obligations as well as rights. I think those rights and obligations are clearly enumerated.

To me, selfless means freely, voluntarily giving to others. It does not mean voting other people's money into my pocket under threat of imprisonment and asset seizure. Putting a ballot box between myself and the person I wish to rob does not magically make it ethical, and it certainly doesn't make it selfless.

[Dan Conner]

Selfless would be you doing it voluntarily, which you are not. If you would like to, I have some outstanding street assessments which I'd be happy to have covered.

Again, selfless would be you doing it voluntarily.

Fixed that for ya.

You say "carrying dreams," I say "legalized confiscation under threat of imprisonment." Tomato/Tomahto, I guess.

In the previous section, you quote the Declaration, where it lists the 'certain unalienable Rights' as something 'endowed by their Creator'. But then you go on to say that the Declaration was 'establishing human rights'. If they are in fact natural rights (from the 'Creator' or otherwise innate), then the existence of the Declaration has nothing to do with whether or not these rights exist. As I've said several times on this forum, natural rights cannot be granted by any document. They either exist for all people everywhere in every time, or the exist for no one. Our founding documents set out to protect our natural rights from the encroachment of government, not to somehow grant something that everyone already has anyway.

First, I'm pretty sure I've never seen "Lacked health insurance" among the leading causes of death in the U.S. It's usually things like cancer, heart disease, and car accidents.You just need to read more.

Second, according to this site (http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html), 16,000 kids die every day from hunger-related causes around the world. Don't they have a right to come and help themselves to whatever's in your pantry? Or maybe only the ones living in the U.S., since they had the good sense to be born into the land of the Declaration? And if that poor family in Ethiopia had just access to your car, they could drive to the city for clean water! They have a right to your car, because without it they'll get dysentery from their polluted water supply and die. Give them your car! It's their right, right?

Life is a right, Dan, but the things necessary to sustain that life are not rights -- they are the responsibility of the living individual (or his/her parents or legal guardians).

I have a feeling you don't want the line drawn anywhere'

No, we do not all pay. Less than half of us pay any net income taxes at all, and there is a significant percentage that pays no or negative taxes. There is a large and growing segment of the population that comprises the parasite class. I can't recall the source, but I've heard that over 1,000 people a month move to Minnesota to enroll in our welfare programs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that that isn't going to last forever. You can only bleed the "rich" for so long before they a) are no longer "rich" or b) move away for greener pastures.I believe this to be more paranoia, blaming others for our lack of civility. You don't want to pay taxes because others don't? Is this the "two-wrongs-make-a-right rule? I think you should desist from calling others "parasite." It is a disgustingly bigotted term. Also, the above philosphical position seems to ascribe to that disgusting term. I think you best evaluate yourself before you name-call a "class" of people. The rich will manage to scrape by..even with elevated taxes, especially since their tax burden has greatly diminished over the years. However, if it will make you feel better I will shed a very very small tear for them.

Federal taxes are only about social engineering and paying off the lobbyists and special interests anyway. Why, exactly, should the U.S. government bother to collect taxes when it can simply print whatever it needs in magical fresh money?This is a silly emotional hyperbole based on fear and paranoia.[B]

As I discussed at length in another thread (and you ignored), "public goods" (those things which would not provided by the free market in the absence of government provision) are few and far between, and these things should be provided at the most local level of government possible so that people can vote with their feet as cheaply as possible in order to create inter-government competition so that only actual public goods (rather than vote-buying entitlement programs) are paid for provided via taxation.[B]Do you realize this rambling paragraph is one sentence? Again it is hyperbole and a conclusion without support or facts. I read it and almost got dizzy. I don't care to muddle through it anymore. It's kind of a rant without reason



If taxation is local, government is local, control is local, and services are local, then I am FINE with it. I really don't care what you are fine with. I only care what the plurality of people think is "fine." A "community" is localA community can be anything. Haven't you heard of the "community of nations?" It depends on what you are grouping when you use the word "community." ! A health care bill longer than War and Peace with over 300,000,000 people under its shadow has absolutely nothing to do with community. You really obsess about the length of the law. Is this another rule of yours? [U]War and Peace[U]was a great book and also very long. Are you making a point about the length of the law? If so, what could it be? It is a massive testament to the power of the monied special interests in bed with the Federal government set to benefit at our expense. More paranoia hereSeriously, even if you are insistent that the government should be in the business of helping everyone get the health care they need, the sheer size of the House bill should make it obvious that campaign donations and favors are being paid for and a pork-storm is on its way. Would it be too much to ask that this at least be done at the state level where it would be plausibly Constitutional?While it is perfectly Constitutional to enact healthcare reform at the Federal level, it could also be enacted at the state level. In fact, there is legislation proposed to do exactly that at the state level. You might even be more rabid about those proposed changes. So, hold onto your seat. You might be in for a bumpy ride.



To me, selfless means freely, voluntarily giving to others. It does not mean voting other people's money into my pocket under threat of imprisonment and asset seizure. Putting a ballot box between myself and the person I wish to rob does not magically make it ethical, and it certainly doesn't make it selfless.Well, then for the few like you it's important that you compy whether you need to or not. If it is the will of the people, so it shall be for you. Try it. Who knows you might like it. If it becomes the law of the land, then do it whether you're a happy camper or not.

Certainly, it is preferred that selfless would suggest a certain amount of volunterism, but for the selfish, there's always the law and its consequences.

Great, I see you have some assessments. Now, you can be a bonafide contributor to the community. It's good for you, but you can always locate outside the community, if you don't like its rules.

Your paragraph ablout rights, the creator, and unalienable is jibberish and without a point, but you go ahead and complain all you want. The sentence is as it says. I don't think it takes too much reasoning ability to interpret it, no matter how prejudiced one might be. I interpret it to mean that you, nor anyone else, can deprive another's right to live because it is a god-given right. The Declaration of Independence (DI) called them unalienabl rights. You go ahead and call them what you want. Since you seem to have a fetish for "natural" you call it natural. However, the DI cals them unalienable rights. Maybe you need to stick to the words of the DI, instead of inventing your own replacement words. I would certaily classify the right of life as a "human right." What do you call it?

You're right, everyone has a right of life, but we first must deal without own citizens. Life does not exist everywhere, if it doesn't exist here. Yes, things necessary to sustain life are necessary. It starts with healthcare.

You make points without any distinction. "socialism" is OK with you at the local level, but not national? Is that another rule you invented? What is the rationale for that? "Socialism" is "socialism" there is no distinction by level of government. Instead, it is a rationale of people who haven't thought out their anti-tax position. Your position is more understandabl when you say you want to use and benefits from local, state, and Federal services, but you don't want to pay for them.

You are right. Selfless to me connotes voluntarism, as well. However, I believe it must be a conditioned behavior for some, like teaching manners to young people. It's part of the growing up and "learning-to-share" part of life. Some have to be made to give in order to appreciate it. I don't feel sorry, one bit, for people who need to be forced to give. It's like I have said before, you need to give to get. And I don't feel sorry for those you begrudgingly have to because they have an alternative. If they don't like the rules of the club, they can cancel their membership and move on. You know you shouldn't speed or you risk getting a ticket. THe police officer doesn't ask if you prefer to pay a ticket, or if you want to pay the ticket. You just pay it. It's like a lot of things in life...tough. There are thing everyone has to do that they don't want ot do. Whining doesn't make it go away. Hey, you can feel comfortable that I will be voting mine and your money for others. It'll depend on the final vote whether I or you win. So, just hold on and wait.

[Matt Christianson]

You seem to be rather fast and loose with the term 'Socialism'.

Selfless to me connotes voluntarism, as well. However, I believe it must be a conditioned behavior for some, like teaching manners to young people. It's part of the growing up and "learning-to-share" part of life. Some have to be made to give in order to appreciate it. I don't feel sorry, one bit, for people who need to be forced to give.

This comment is astounding! Volunteerism isn't exactly volunteerism if one needs to be forced to do it. Certainly, some parents may force their kids to volunteer but your equating ones parents to the federal government is exactly why people like Jonathon, Bob and myself oppose the Leftist agenda and others like you when this absurd rationalization is propogated.

Jonathon: In the previous section, you quote the Declaration, where it lists the 'certain unalienable Rights' as something 'endowed by their Creator'. But then you go on to say that the Declaration was 'establishing human rights'. If they are in fact natural rights (from the 'Creator' or otherwise innate), then the existence of the Declaration has nothing to do with whether or not these rights exist. As I've said several times on this forum, natural rights cannot be granted by any document. They either exist for all people everywhere in every time, or the exist for no one. Our founding documents set out to protect our natural rights from the encroachment of government, not to somehow grant something that everyone already has anyway.
Dan: Your paragraph ablout rights, the creator, and unalienable is jibberish and without a point, but you go ahead and complain all you want. The sentence is as it says. I don't think it takes too much reasoning ability to interpret it, no matter how prejudiced one might be. I interpret it to mean that you, nor anyone else, can deprive another's right to live because it is a god-given right. The Declaration of Independence (DI) called them unalienabl rights. You go ahead and call them what you want. Since you seem to have a fetish for "natural" you call it natural. However, the DI cals them unalienable rights. Maybe you need to stick to the words of the DI, instead of inventing your own replacement words. I would certaily classify the right of life as a "human right." What do you call it?


In terms of natural rights, this republic was founded on those rights. It is the basis for what we believe in and for all we fight. There's no need to criticize vernacular when words are synonyms. If you feel that Jonathon's paragraph was jibberish then I guess Thomas Paine's Common Sense, The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the D of I, and the Bill of Rights are jibberish. Jonathon hit the nail on the head with that paragraph.

[Bob Jentges]

You two guy's are posting at a time of night when I am getting ready to watch the news and "hit the hay", as my Dad used to say, and sometimes long after I had retired for the day. But I am happy you do because
I enjoy waking up in the morning with a hot cup of black coffee and reading the logical, well reasoned thinking in your Forum posts eg. today's #11 &
#13. It starts me off in a good mood knowing there are "30 something" (I think) people out there who seem willing to take the responsiblity for bring our country back to what the founders had in mind, and putting an end to the "entitlement" mentality.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher: What will the liberals do when they run out of other peoples money to spend?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Anyone who is not a liberal before age 30 has no heart and anyone who is not a conservative after age 40 has no brain. I think you two are ahead of the game; stay with it; your numbers are growing; a recent poll showed their are significantly more who consider themselves conservative than that consider themselves liberal!

To quote Thomas Sowell PhD: "No statement is more unnessary than the statement that the government should 'do something' about some issue. Politicians are going to 'do something' whether or not something needs to be done, and regardless of whether what they do makes matters better or worse...".

Back to healthcare reform for a few brief observations:

First, even though I do not often pay a great deal of attention to opinion polls because they can be easily munipulated by how the questions are posed even if those polled understand the issue involved, opinion poll after opinion poll show significantly more people oppose the House proposal than support it eg. Gallop, Rasmussen, Pew.

Second, federal government intervention is and always has been much more expensive than estimated when progams are proposed eg. Social Security, Medicare to mention two.

Third, the way I see it government-run health care is more about power over/control of people than it is about health insurance for all.

[Dan Conner]

You two guy's are posting at a time of night when I am getting ready to watch the news and "hit the hay", as my Dad used to say, and sometimes long after I had retired for the day. But I am happy you do because
I enjoy waking up in the morning with a hot cup of black coffee and reading the logical, well reasoned thinking in your Forum posts eg. today's #11 &
#13. It starts me off in a good mood knowing there are "30 something" (I think) people out there who seem willing to take the responsiblity for bring our country back to what the founders had in mind, and putting an end to the "entitlement" mentality.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher: What will the liberals do when they run out of other peoples money to spend?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Anyone who is not a liberal before age 30 has no heart and anyone who is not a conservative after age 40 has no brain. I think you two are ahead of the game; stay with it; your numbers are growing; a recent poll showed their are significantly more who consider themselves conservative than that consider themselves liberal!

Back to healthcare reform for a few brief observations:

First, even though I do not often pay a great deal of attention to opinion polls because they can be easily munipulated by how the questions are posed even if those polled understand the issue involved, opinion poll after opinion poll show significantly more people oppose the House proposal than support it eg. Gallop, Rasmussen, Pew.

Second, federal government intervention is and always has been much more expensive than estimated when progams are proposed eg. Social Security, Medicare to mention two.

Third, the way I see it government-run health care is more about power over/control of people than it is about health insurance for all.Maybe that is a problem with conservatives. They consider writing in a "blog" as "bringing our country back...". I prefer to think of it as a narcissistic indulgence in reading your own"profundities". One, they accommplish nothing, and two they are't profound. They are words of extremely selfish people who feel it is more important to hoard what they have, regardless of what affect it has on others. Many times, the words of people who have not had to share enough in society.

The bottom line is you will adhere to the laws of society. You can whine here all you want. In then end you will "just do it."

I choose to say these are community and society RESPONSIBILITIES. Instead, I hear too much of a spoiled whininess from people who feel "picked-on" when asked to do their share. If you don't like it, then you can always find another society of your choosing. Meanwhile, I have not been paying my subscription to listen to the childish rants of spoiled people ranting about paying taxes to help others desperately needing help. Maybe the table will be turned someday and then we'll see if the attitudes are the same. Until then, you will comply with the laws of the land. If you feel victims of transgressions, I will offer my pocket for you to cry in. I'm done wasting time endlessly discussing issues and semantics with selfish people who have no compassion.

It is particularly hard to understand people who want Medicare benefits taken from others, while they stick their noses far into that trough themselves. I choose to spend my energy trying to effect change, not waste time endlessly talking about it. At present peoiple are far along in a state effort to accommplish what you so endlessly rail agaist. You will be able to thank us for adding countless hours to your reactionary "pontifications." So, keepa writin'

Your endless drone of worrying about your "rights" seem so entrenched in a narcisstic selfishness. Well, I'm going to work to give you more to whine about.

[Dan Conner]

You seem to be rather fast and loose with the term 'Socialism'.

Selfless to me connotes voluntarism, as well. However, I believe it must be a conditioned behavior for some, like teaching manners to young people. It's part of the growing up and "learning-to-share" part of life. Some have to be made to give in order to appreciate it. I don't feel sorry, one bit, for people who need to be forced to give.

This comment is astounding! Volunteerism isn't exactly volunteerism if one needs to be forced to do it. Certainly, some parents may force their kids to volunteer but your equating ones parents to the federal government is exactly why people like Jonathon, Bob and myself oppose the Leftist agenda and others like you when this absurd rationalization is propogated.

Jonathon: In the previous section, you quote the Declaration, where it lists the 'certain unalienable Rights' as something 'endowed by their Creator'. But then you go on to say that the Declaration was 'establishing human rights'. If they are in fact natural rights (from the 'Creator' or otherwise innate), then the existence of the Declaration has nothing to do with whether or not these rights exist. As I've said several times on this forum, natural rights cannot be granted by any document. They either exist for all people everywhere in every time, or the exist for no one. Our founding documents set out to protect our natural rights from the encroachment of government, not to somehow grant something that everyone already has anyway.
Dan: Your paragraph ablout rights, the creator, and unalienable is jibberish and without a point, but you go ahead and complain all you want. The sentence is as it says. I don't think it takes too much reasoning ability to interpret it, no matter how prejudiced one might be. I interpret it to mean that you, nor anyone else, can deprive another's right to live because it is a god-given right. The Declaration of Independence (DI) called them unalienabl rights. You go ahead and call them what you want. Since you seem to have a fetish for "natural" you call it natural. However, the DI cals them unalienable rights. Maybe you need to stick to the words of the DI, instead of inventing your own replacement words. I would certaily classify the right of life as a "human right." What do you call it?


In terms of natural rights, this republic was founded on those rights. It is the basis for what we believe in and for all we fight. There's no need to criticize vernacular when words are synonyms. If you feel that Jonathon's paragraph was jibberish then I guess Thomas Paine's Common Sense, The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the D of I, and the Bill of Rights are jibberish. Jonathon hit the nail on the head with that paragraph.Matt go ahead and waste time and space talking about words. They're just words. I'm going to work at affecting change, not complain about it. This is really a waste of time. I have work to do. While I thought you too had much work to do, you are fortunate to be able to spend countless hours wasting time writing in this "blog." I empathize with those who are too busy working to be able to write in this blog. If you worry about "going broke" I think there is some more time, spent here, that you could devote to relieving your financial distress. I choose to do something productive.

[Matt Christianson]

Matt go ahead and waste time and space talking about words. They're just words. I'm going to work at affecting change, not complain about it. This is really a waste of time. I have work to do. While I thought you too had much work to do, you are fortunate to be able to spend countless hours wasting time writing in this "blog." I empathize with those who are too busy working to be able to write in this blog. If you worry about "going broke" I think there is some more time, spent here, that you could devote to relieving your financial distress. I choose to do something productive.

Stop Dan. You're making my laugh out loud. It's true if I were in any real financial distress I wouldn't be making many contributions here. I'd be working 2 jobs leaving myself with little free time. But luckily, I'm not at that point anymore in my life and I hope I never will. I forbid you to make any generalizations about my life. It's personal and its none of your damn business how I spend my time. Don't make baseless assumptions about me.
I'll let you get back to affecting change. I'm sure you're making a huge impact in national policy just as I am. And, by all means, please do us all a favor and stop wasting your time on here. Maybe we could gain some more participants who choose now not to repsond because of your bullying and attempted intimidation.
Your cavalier attitude about 'rights' and your discounting of those who defend their rights is quite telling. You obviously feel if that someone's rights are violated then it's A.O.K. to forceably strip the rights/income of the majority to cater to their needs. I suppose you subscribe to the belief..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..." I wonder who said that?
That's not OK with me. Like I said before, thats why we have charities. The government was not intended to be a philanthropic endeavor.

[Bob Jentges]

Stop Dan. You're making my laugh out loud. Don't make baseless assumptions about me. I could do the same about you...like spending your entire day scanning for responses to your posts your can make sure you have the last word. I'll let you get back to affecting change. I'm sure you're making a huge impact in national policy just as I am. Please do us all a favor and stop wasting your time on here. Maybe we could gain some more participants who choose not to repsond because of your bullying and attempted intimidation.
Your cavilier attitude about 'rights' and your discounting of those who defend their rights is quite telling. You obviously feel if that someone's rights are violated then it's A.O.K. to forceably strip the rights/income of the majority to cater to their needs. That's not OK with me. Like I said before, thats why we have charities. The government was not intended to be a philanthropic endeavor.

Matt, I am quoting your reply to Dan because I do not want people to overlook it!

A friend from California sent me this link.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/omterview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html

I think Jake Tapper might be the most objective of the mainstream media White House reporters.

The nonsense spewed out by our President sounds like it could have appeared in this thread, and many others, in the Forum. To begin with it is not analogus! Car insurance is controlled at the STATE level. I know of no state that requires a car owner to carry material damage coverage to insure against damage to their own car. Was the teleprompter out of order?

We personally have health insurance and insurance on both our cars, including material damage coverage, but that is irrelevant to whether or not the Federal Government can force citizens to buy anything. If this federal mandate to buy health insurance or pay a fee/penalty or go to jail constitutional violation proposal is ever signed into law, I have my doubts many American people are ready to tolerate the Federal Government telling them they must buy something simply because they exist.

[Matt Christianson]

That last link you posted didn't work, Bob. I think this is the one you wanted to post. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

I have posted to The Free Press web site, a good, understandable summary of the House-passed health care bill, CBOs cost estimate, and the roll call vote for the Minnesota delegation if these would be useful resources to the debate. http://is.gd/4RUEm

[Matt Christianson]

Thank you for that, Joe. I am at a loss at how one can justify the cost of this bill. I'm not speaking of the supposed budget neutrality, but rather, the effect it will have on a nationwide level as well as a very local level. This WILL cost jobs or at the very least minimize new job creation. This WILL increase medical costs with the cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals who will pass the costs onto the rest of us. The government run exchange will have exactly the same effect. I guess we will know how to say 'thank you' to Congressman Walz in 2010. More appropriately it will be 'thank you and goodbye.'

[Bob Jentges]

That last link you posted didn't work, Bob. I think this is the one you wanted to post. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html

Thanks Matt.

The abreviated link in my post in my post #18 seemed to track with yours in post #19. I must have errored on one or more of the digets in between the abreviations. A too consistant malody of mine my kids refer to as "fat finger"! But the other remarks in my #18 still stand, from my perspective.

I tried three different times to pull-up the link Joe provided, but it took so long each time I gave up. Maybe it is very busy. I will try again later.

Until then I will just say, as I said in an earlier post, I am aware of how the MN delegation voted. No surprises to me. Colin Peterson seems like a true Blue Dog, and Tim Walz might be to liberal for District One (outside of Greater Mankato and other college cities) considering his votes on Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade.

Although cost is very important to me the surrender of Freedom and Liberty in the health care issue, and abiding by the Constitution in all aspects of governing is even more important. To me, a Federal Government intent on being all things to all people means that freedom and liberty are no longer!

Personally, I am not so much interested whether a congress person or president has an "R" or a "D" after their name. I consider myself a conservative; I disagreed with many of the Bush Administrations domestic policies.

I would consider changing my registration to "C", "L" or even "I" if I was certain I would still be allowed to vote in the Republican Primaries, since the way I see it now (right or wrong) Republicans are generally closer to my conservative philosophy of less spending and limited government than Democrats. And I prefer not to have the media select the Republican candidates because, at least for the immediate future, it seems to me only an "R" or a "D" has a chance of winning. The media selected the Republican candidate in the general election last year and look what happened to a country whose population is still center right.

[Dan Conner]

Thanks Matt.

The abreviated link in my post in my post #18 seemed to track with yours in post #19. I must have errored on one or more of the digets in between the abreviations. A too consistant malody of mine my kids refer to as "fat finger"! But the other remarks in my #18 still stand, from my perspective.

I tried three different times to pull-up the link Joe provided, but it took so long each time I gave up. Maybe it is very busy. I will try again later.

Until then I will just say, as I said in an earlier post, I am aware of how the MN delegation voted. No surprises to me. Colin Peterson seems like a true Blue Dog, and Tim Walz might be to liberal for District One (outside of Greater Mankato and other college cities) considering his votes on Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade.

Although cost is very important to me the surrender of Freedom and Liberty in the health care issue, and abiding by the Constitution in all aspects of governing is even more important. To me, a Federal Government intent on being all things to all people means that freedom and liberty are no longer!

Personally, I am not so much interested whether a congress person or president has an "R" or a "D" after their name. I consider myself a conservative; I disagreed with many of the Bush Administrations domestic policies.

I would consider changing my registration to "C", "L" or even "I" if I was certain I would still be allowed to vote in the Republican Primaries, since the way I see it now (right or wrong) Republicans are generally closer to my conservative philosophy of less spending and limited government than Democrats. And I prefer not to have the media select the Republican candidates because, at least for the immediate future, it seems to me only an "R" or a "D" has a chance of winning. The media selected the Republican candidate in the general election last year and look what happened to a country whose population is still center right.Your conservatism simply masks selfishness. Too bad for you and our country. Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong and obscured by selfishness.

[Bob Jentges]

Your conservatism simply masks selfishness. Too bad for you and our country. Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong and obscured by selfishness.

I have never tried to "mask" anything with my "conservatisim". It is based on my principles which, FYI do not include "selfishness". Even if they did, it is none of your business.

Regarding "selfishness", or selfless I refer you back to Jonathon's post #11 to which you did not respond, presumably because you could not, and to Matt's post #13 to which you did respond in a fashion that made him (and me) "laugh out loud"!

I see you did not respond to my post #18 either. I am not asking you resopnd to any of my posts. The way I see it, it might be better if you did not unless you have something substantive to say. Ridicule, misrepresenting what I (and others post) and emotion do not add anything to a discussion, in my opinion!

[Dan Conner]

I have never tried to "mask" anything with my "conservatisim". It is based on my principles which, FYI do not include "selfishness". Even if they did, it is none of your business.

Regarding "selfishness", or selfless I refer you back to Jonathon's post #11 to which you did not respond, presumably because you could not, and to Matt's post #13 to which you did respond in a fashion that made him (and me) "laugh out loud"!

I see you did not respond to my post #18 either. I am not asking you resopnd to any of my posts. The way I see it, it might be better if you did not unless you have something substantive to say. Ridicule, misrepresenting what I (and others post) and emotion do not add anything to a discussion, in my opinion!

It is my business. And you are selfish when it comes to others.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

And you are selfish when it comes to others.

And you are a thief when it comes to others.

[Dan Conner]

And you are a thief when it comes to others.In order to be a thief the event has to occur. Hopefully it will in the future. It would give me a certain satisfaction to take from the selfish for those in need. They have such a way of wailing like a small child who was told to share their firetruck.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

In order to be a thief the event has to occur. Hopefully it will in the future. It would give me a certain satisfaction to take from the selfish for those in need. They have such a way of wailing like a small child who was told to share their firetruck.

My point, Dan, was that you approve of the state (and by state I refer to all governments) forcibly taking literally whatever it likes from whomever a plurality of voters chooses at its target. Until you come to the realization that the democratic* state is, at its root, a violent and totalitarian organization, you will not be able to see that what you are advocating is theft.

*I do not refer here to the political party, but to democracy as a form of government.

[Dan Conner]

My point, Dan, was that you approve of the state (and by state I refer to all governments) forcibly taking literally whatever it likes from whomever a plurality of voters chooses at its target. Until you come to the realization that the democratic* state is, at its root, a violent and totalitarian organization, you will not be able to see that what you are advocating is theft.

*I do not refer here to the political party, but to democracy as a form of government.One, I don't have all the fear you have. Two, the Government has a long history of NOT taking whatever it wants. In fact, I have found the Government to be far more considerate of the minority than any capitalist. Benefits have been added at many different times over the last 70+ years in an effort to protect the widows, children, and spouses, to prevent poverty in old age or disability. Violent and totalitarian? Come on. Your freedom to speak your mind is an illustration of the freedom you have. You come and go as you wish. You have the ability to work for your living.

Yes, we have fought many wars. I think you need to acknowledge that some of those wars have enabled you to have the freedoms you have. And others have been the ones who have died so you could have those freedoms. I think you owe them gratitude for preserving your freedoms. Many times I think we are spoiled as a nation, not having to sacrifice anything to maintain our freedoms. Some people take those freedoms for granted without sacrificing for others. It has been said that we stand on the shoulders of giants, who dedicated much to ensure our freedoms. I think it is only fitting that we all be willing to return some of our blessings and allow others to stand on our shoulders to preserve our nation for posterity.

[Bob Jentges]

My point, Dan, was that you approve of the state (and by state I refer to all governments) forcibly taking literally whatever it likes from whomever a plurality of voters chooses at its target. Until you come to the realization that the democratic* state is, at its root, a violent and totalitarian organization, you will not be able to see that what you are advocating is theft.

*I do not refer here to the political party, but to democracy as a form of government.

Don't hold your breath, Jonathon.

I read Dan's two sentence post #25 this morning in which he quoted my post #24. As anyone who read his second sentence would see he provides no supporting evidence; he can not; there is none.

But what I think would concern people most that read his post #25 (if they believe in freedom and liberty) should be his first sentence: "It is my business." Add to that his post #27 which says, in part: "...Hopefully it will in the future. It would give me a certain satisfaction to take from the selfish for those in need." I think there might be words that describe/define an attitude such as Dan has expressed in those short quotations and they do not fit with democracy, or a representative republic form of government!

Personally I do not approve of people being concerned chiefly with their own personal profit, or wealth, or pleasure i.e. selfishness. But if someone chooses not to voluntarilly share, in a free society it is none of my business!

[Dan Conner]

Don't hold your breath, Jonathon.

I read Dan's two sentence post #25 this morning in which he quoted my post #24. As anyone who read his second sentence would see he provides no supporting evidence; he can not; there is none.

But what I think would concern people most that read his post #25 (if they believe in freedom and liberty) should be his first sentence: "It is my business." Add to that his post #27 which says, in part: "...Hopefully it will in the future. It would give me a certain satisfaction to take from the selfish for those in need." I think there might be words that describe/define an attitude such as Dan has expressed in those short quotations and they do not fit with democracy, or a representative republic form of government!

Personally I do not approve of people being concerned chiefly with their own personal profit, or wealth, or pleasure i.e. selfishness. But if someone chooses not to voluntarilly share, in a free society it is none of my business!

Bob, the last sentence of your above post applies to you. You are the person chiefly concerned with yourself (i.e., selfishness). As I understand it, you have never even devoted any service to your country, but you sure demands rights not even enumerated in the Constitution. That seems to be chiefly concerned about yourself.

Also, I thought it strange that you never included my entire post, especially when you are so concerned about quotes out of context. No you quote only phrases? Now you're starting to work like FOX news coverage of Bachmann's rally.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

One, I don't have all the fear you have.

Principled policy disagreements have nothing to do with fear, so please stop accusing me of being fearful every other post you make.

Two, the Government has a long history of NOT taking whatever it wants. In fact, I have found the Government to be far more considerate of the minority than any capitalist. Benefits have been added at many different times over the last 70+ years in an effort to protect the widows, children, and spouses, to prevent poverty in old age or disability.

"Benefits have been added"

Dan, you still haven't followed the money trail all the way through. Where on earth do you think the money for the "benefits" comes from? It is forcibly taken from others. I am working toward a voluntary society where we can demonstrate our unselfishness by giving to those in need.

Violent and totalitarian? Come on. Your freedom to speak your mind is an illustration of the freedom you have. You come and go as you wish. You have the ability to work for your living.

Our freedoms have been eroded at the hand of government for over a century. We are actually much less free now than the first Americans were.

Yes, we have fought many wars. I think you need to acknowledge that some of those wars have enabled you to have the freedoms you have. And others have been the ones who have died so you could have those freedoms. I think you owe them gratitude for preserving your freedoms. Many times I think we are spoiled as a nation, not having to sacrifice anything to maintain our freedoms. Some people take those freedoms for granted without sacrificing for others. It has been said that we stand on the shoulders of giants, who dedicated much to ensure our freedoms. I think it is only fitting that we all be willing to return some of our blessings and allow others to stand on our shoulders to preserve our nation for posterity.

I'm also tired of you calling me "spoiled" every other post. Do you think I don't realize the greatness that has made this country what it is? I am trying to preserve that greatness and not let us downward spiral into some variant of socialism as we continually vote other people's money into our pockets.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Dan, you still haven't followed the money trail all the way through. Where on earth do you think the money for the "benefits" comes from? It is forcibly taken from others. I am working toward a voluntary society where we can demonstrate our unselfishness by giving to those in need.

Also, the track record of "benefits" actually helping the poor is rather pitiful. We've dumped trillions of dollars into the War on Poverty since the 60s and have not reduced the poverty level. To the contrary, we have created inter-generational poverty where people are not only not improving their lot in life, they are passing along their welfare dependency to their children.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, the last sentence of your above post applies to you. You are the person chiefly concerned with yourself (i.e., selfishness). As I understand it, you have never even devoted any service to your country, but you sure demands rights not even enumerated in the Constitution. That seems to be chiefly concerned about yourself.

Also, I thought it strange that you never included my entire post, especially when you are so concerned about quotes out of context. No you quote only phrases? Now you're starting to work like FOX news coverage of Bachmann's rally.

In the event you choose to resopnd to Jonathon's posts #32 & #33 I alert you to the fact they exist herin.

Apparrently you did not understand the "last sentence" in my post #30 you reference so I will repeat it: "But if someone chooses not to voluntarilly share, in a free society it is none of my (my emphasis) business!" Your saying that sentence applies to me is obvious; I said it did! If you need your dictionary you often refered to in your exchanges with Matt to define my, get it out. That last sentance also in my post #30 also applies to you.

Another unfounded statement you made in your post I quoted above was: "As I understand it, you have never even devoted any service to your country..." FYI I am not like your favorite whipping boy (Dick Cheney) with respect to military deferments, nor have I devoted service to my country in elected or appointed federal government positions, like Cheney has. More than one member of this Forum has chasticized you for getting personal, and although it will go right over your head as it has in the past---STOP IT!

Getting back to your above quoted post #31, your post #25 was a two sentence post. In my reply I quoted the entire first sentance (four words) because it is what I chose to specifically address in my post addressed to Jonathon. As for the second sentence, I addressed it but did not quote it because I thought anyone interested in reading such unfounded nonsense could easily scroll back to your post #25 and do that.

What I quoted from your post #27 were not phrases. They were the final two sentences of your three sentence post. Another chance to get out your trusty dictionary to help you understand the meaning of very basic words i.e. sentence & phrase!

I am embarrassed for you; your ineptitude in understanding plain English is dizzying!

[Dan Conner]

In the event you choose to resopnd to Jonathon's posts #32 & #33 I alert you to the fact they exist herin.

Apparrently you did not understand the "last sentence" in my post #30 you reference so I will repeat it: "But if someone chooses not to voluntarilly share, in a free society it is none of my (my emphasis) business!" Your saying that sentence applies to me is obvious; I said it did! If you need your dictionary you often refered to in your exchanges with Matt to define my, get it out. That last sentance also in my post #30 also applies to you.

Another unfounded statement you made in your post I quoted above was: "As I understand it, you have never even devoted any service to your country..." FYI I am not like your favorite whipping boy (Dick Cheney) with respect to military deferments, nor have I devoted service to my country in elected or appointed federal government positions, like Cheney has. More than one member of this Forum has chasticized you for getting personal, and although it will go right over your head as it has in the past---STOP IT!

Getting back to your above quoted post #31, your post #25 was a two sentence post. In my reply I quoted the entire first sentance (four words) because it is what I chose to specifically address in my post addressed to Jonathon. As for the second sentence, I addressed it but did not quote it because I thought anyone interested in reading such unfounded nonsense could easily scroll back to your post #25 and do that.

What I quoted from your post #27 were not phrases. They were the final two sentences of your three sentence post. Another chance to get out your trusty dictionary to help you understand the meaning of very basic words i.e. sentence & phrase!

I am embarrassed for you; your ineptitude in understanding plain English is dizzying!

The truth hurts doesn't it! Poor Bob. I sense an even greater heightening of your fear, hate, prejudice, and selfishness. Too bad.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

The truth hurts doesn't it! Poor Bob. I sense an even greater heightening of your fear, hate, prejudice, and selfishness. Too bad.

Any chance you're going to make a substantive comment any time soon, Dan? Or perhaps you are finally beginning to realize the depravity of using government force to steal from others, and the unethical nature of the concept of 'charity by majority'?

[Dan Conner]

I thought there was a very informative and interesting article in Monday's (11/16/09) The Free Press entitled, "Physicians Increasingly Fed Up With Insurers". These physicians are where the "rubber meets the road." They are getting tired of insurnace companies denying patients too.

[Dan Conner]

I thought post #37 was very interesting about the failure of insurnace companies to appropriately serve the people of our country.

[Bob Jentges]

The title of this thread is "Operation Health Freedom", and I think a USAToday/Gallop poll released today gives some insight of what the general public thinks about the law so far. The poll was taken March 26-27, 2010 after passage on March 21, 2010.

---65% of those polled say the reforms cost too much.

---64% of those plolled say the reforms bring too much government into the
private health care industry.

---58% of those surveyed say the reforms do not do enough to curb rising
health care costs.

Looks like the after the passage sales campaign needs to continue. But maybe President Obama should delegate that to someone else so he can concentrate on other things.

[Dan Conner]

The title of this thread is "Operation Health Freedom", and I think a USAToday/Gallop poll released today gives some insight of what the general public thinks about the law so far. The poll was taken March 26-27, 2010 after passage on March 21, 2010.

---65% of those polled say the reforms cost too much.

---64% of those plolled say the reforms bring too much government into the
private health care industry.

---58% of those surveyed say the reforms do not do enough to curb rising
health care costs.

Looks like the after the passage sales campaign needs to continue. But maybe President Obama should delegate that to someone else so he can concentrate on other things.Great! I think you are making the case for single-payer here. It will significantly reduce cost.

[Bob Jentges]

Great! I think you are making the case for single-payer here. It will significantly reduce cost.

Dream on!

Medicare, which I believe is a "single payer", is broke. What is the Democrat's solution---$538B in Medicare "cuts" to help pay for the latest entitlement---Health Care Reform, and after about 8 day's of review no one seems to know exactly what was passed. I guess Pelosi was correct---we will need to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it. And from what I have been reading what we are finding out is not good. To bad the MSM did not dig in to the contents/details of the bill until after it was passed!

[Dan Conner]

Dream on!

Medicare, which I believe is a "single payer", is broke. What is the Democrat's solution---$538B in Medicare "cuts" to help pay for the latest entitlement---Health Care Reform, and after about 8 day's of review no one seems to know exactly what was passed. I guess Pelosi was correct---we will need to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it. And from what I have been reading what we are finding out is not good. To bad the MSM did not dig in to the contents/details of the bill until after it was passed!Medicare is not broke. However, it is looming ahead. Why would you care anyway? I think national health care is great. It is about time to incorporate Medicare adjustments in with that reform. Again, you seem to be raising an awful big stink about a program you want abolished. Maybe we'll get single=payer in Minnesota. Dreams are really nice, especially when they come true.

[Bob Jentges]

...Dreams are really nice, especially when they come true.

If you are still dreaming, take a minute or two and read: "Obamacare spells dister for Americans".

http://clarionadvisory.com/?p=2267

[Dan Conner]

If you are still dreaming, take a minute or two and read: "Obamacare spells dister for Americans".

http://clarionadvisory.com/?p=2267I thought you were a little smarter than this. The author was from the Heritage Foundation, an extremely conservative group. I hardly accept it as unbiased, or even truthful. The one element that is conspicuously missing from any Republican concern is covering everyone with health care. There will be 31 million additional people covered via health care reform--not that you care.

I've heard, like a broken record, all the reasons conservatives are against health care....we'll see. Frankly, I believe the American people should even pay more to have all covered. I believe it to be a moral imperative. Too many people have died not having what you have.

[Bob Jentges]

I thought you were a little smarter than this. The author was from the Heritage Foundation, an extremely conservative group. I hardly accept it as unbiased, or even truthful....

Do you think I did not know the article was from The Heritage Foundation?

I am glad you at least checked past the name of the cite in the link to find the author was with the Heritage Foundation. If you took the next step and actually read the article, what did you disagree with and why?

Yes, The Heritage Foundation is considered a conservative think tank, just like The Brookings Institute is considered more liberal and CATO is considered Libertarian. I read each of them on occassion because I think most open minded learned people, or people that prefer to consider all sides of an issue before reaching their own conclusion, consider each of them reputable.

[Bob Jentges]

...Frankly, I believe the American people should even pay more to have all covered. I believe it to be a moral imperative. Too many people have died not having what you have.

I have read previous comments by Representative Tim Walz suggesting Democrats did a poor job of "selling" health care reform. I thought that was rather amazing since President Obama had given in the neighborhood of 50 speeches promoting the Democrat proposal, and that he continues even now after the Democrat bill has been signed into law. I doubt it was that us rubes did not understand what was in the Democrat health care reform proposal, now law, but rather that we did and were not buying.

But when I read an article in this todays Star Tribune quoting Walz I was amazed even more. The quote was: "It was a false dichatomy, that if you were against reform you didn't care about what happened to people. That's nonsense..."

I agree with Walz recent quote in the Star Tribune. Maybe now we will stop seeing posts in this Forum claiming those who favor the Democrat law have the high ground with respect to caring for others, and the rest of us are just "selfish"!

[Bob Jentges]

I have read previous comments by Representative Tim Walz suggesting Democrats did a poor job of "selling" health care reform. I thought that was rather amazing since President Obama had given in the neighborhood of 50 speeches promoting the Democrat proposal, and that he continues even now after the Democrat bill has been signed into law. I doubt it was that us rubes did not understand what was in the Democrat health care reform proposal, now law, but rather that we did and were not buying.

But when I read an article in this todays Star Tribune quoting Walz I was amazed even more. The quote was: "It was a false dichatomy, that if you were against reform you didn't care about what happened to people. That's nonsense..."

I agree with Walz recent quote in the Star Tribune. Maybe now we will stop seeing posts in this Forum claiming those who favor the Democrat law have the high ground with respect to caring for others, and the rest of us are just "selfish"!

After this post we may soon learn whether Tim Walz admonition quoted above has been taken seriously.

In Wednesday's "Now They Tell Us" segment of the New York Times David Leonhart suggested "ObamaCare" will be the start of saying "no" to people who want more health care.

There are at least two ways to look at that comment: 1) It will be referred to as compassionate rationing. 2) The "no" will be to people that abuse the system because they think it's free.

But in either case, other than for an increase in various taxes and insurance premiums to pay for full implementation in 2014, not much will happen until after the 2010 & 2012 elections.

[Bob Jentges]

The House Republicans recently put forth a bill to repeal HCR, but most likely will go nowhere because of the large Democrat majority in the House.

About 20 States have lawsuits pending to declare HCR unconstitutional, but they will most likely not be heard for sometime.

Oklahoma will vote on a constitutional ammendment this November that has very strong bipartisan support in their legislature, and is expected to pass. It's a start!

[Bob Jentges]

A 6/24/10 Rasmussen Reports poll showed: "48% See Government Today As a Threat to Individual Rights" Although the poll did not speciffically address health care reform, I expect many considered it when responding.

In a free society like the USA, and considering we are a Constitutional Republic, I think it is a travesty that such a percentage would have that opinion!

[Bob Jentges]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_on_bi_ge_us_med_er_ crowding_8

Associated Press article: "Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits, crowding" I do not recall this as one of the selling points.

Here's another article (Health law risks turning away sick) saying what we were promised would not happen i.e. rationing and "death panels", could very well happen.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/106887-health-law-risks-turning-away-sick

Looks like the administrations expensive, tax payer funded dog and pony show attempting to convince the public something they did not want but was passed and signed into law anyway is really a good thing. The old "We're from the government and we're heat to help you" stich!

[Bob Jentges]

Article: "Dem Baucus joins GOP in blasting Obama recess appointment"

This Mr. Brewick is the same guy who has been giving speechs about redistribution of wealth through health care. But don't worry, certainly he will not promote rationing!;)

Recess appointments were designed to fill critical vacencies while Congress is out of session---but not out of session for a week, like the 4th of July Holiday.:mad:

Do you suppose Berwick will resign at the end of the present Congress, or that the Democrats will schedule confirmation hearings (if they are still in the majority) at the end of this Congress?:rolleyes:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implimentation/107417-mcconnell-berwick-recess-appointment-is-truly-outrageous

[Bob Jentges]

New York Times article: "Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care"

I have read in this Forum how wonderful some think the British Socialized Medicine system is, and that we should copy it. Over the objections of all Republicans in Congress and against the will of the majority of we the people, the Democrats passed ObamaCare and the president signed it into law.

Apparrently, after years of trying to make it work, the Brits have decided it does not work and are planning to change it. Will we learn from them, or will it be necessary for us to learn the hard lesson on our own?:confused:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?_r=2&hp

[Bob Jentges]

New York Times (8/04/10): In Missouri, Health Law is Rejected by voters.

Probably does not mean a great deal because Obamacare seems headed for the Supreme Court, and federal law will supercede state law however the court might decide. But it does seem to be a much better gauge of how the voters in the State of Missouri feel about the law than any poll. Other states have similar bills and referandums pending, and this decision will probably give them encouragement as they proceed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/us/politics/04midwest.html?_=1&ref=todayspaper

[Bob Jentges]

Senator Ron Wyden (D WA) who voted for HCR now asks his State to "opt out"!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467592717163602.html