Liberal Dems best take this health-care deal

Barring a sudden change of fortunes — either the taxpayers’ good fortunes or those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — liberal Democrats won’t be able to push through the radical remake of the nation’s health care system as they’d proposed.

Centrist Democrats, the so-called Blue Dogs who represent states and districts where the parties are still competitive, balked. In the Senate, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are working a bill that would drop the government “insurance” option in favor of a “nonprofit cooperative” that would sell insurance.  Gone, too, is a provision that invited large companies to dump medical costs onto taxpayers, though high-dollar benefits may be taxed at 35 percent and companies will be taxed to ”reimburse the government” for the subsidies that would go to those whose income is less than 300 percent of poverty.

Insurance companies would be barred from denying coverage to any applicant and they could not charge higher premiums for those with pre-existing medical conditions.

A commission, something akin the the base-closing commission used to eliminate excess military facilities, would be created to curtail future Medicare costs.

The radicals within the Democratic Party are incensed that the Blue Dogs have denied them an opportunity to overreach.  Frankly, what the six Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are proposing is considerably far-reaching.  It creates a huge new welfare entitlement and, for the most part, hides the cost.  Prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums for pre-existing conditions means that those higher costs are spread among other policy-holders.  The subsidies for those whose income is less than 300 percent of poverty,  $66, 150 for a family of  four,  will essentially establish a welfare base that reaches into the middle class. Everybody will be required to have insurance.

The proposal coming out of the Senate Finance Committee is the best chance liberal Dems have of getting ObamaCare this year.  When members of Congress go home and hear from constitutents who are now getting the word on the full impact of what the Pelosi Democrats are doing, support will soften even further.

Democrats don’t need any Republicans to pass the proposed monstrosity.  But I promise you that they don’t want their party’s legacy to be a complete federal takeover of health care in America.

234 comments Add your comment

Hillbilly Deluxe

July 28th, 2009
4:33 pm

Gas station A has gas for $2.00 and gas station B across the street has gas for $1.50. In order to stay in business, gas station A will have to lower its cost to compete with gas B

Or Gas station A goes and talks to Gas station B and they decide to both charge $2.10. True, it’s not legal, but it can and does happen.


July 28th, 2009
4:59 pm

one of the flaws in the report that says that america has the 37th best healthcare in the world is that there is no way to scale up healthcare costs. look at the countries ahead of us, both in size and in geographic scope, look at the number of immigrants and indigents in those countries, and the influx of new people looking for healthcare.

That is the flaw in this study.


July 28th, 2009
5:10 pm

The real issue: How much do you earn? Because I agree, 40% of your income is an awful lot of tax, but that’s not how much the French pay. You can look yourself up on this table to find out roughly how much income tax you’d be paying now if you lived in france. Bear in mind this only takes into account Federal Income Tax.

Income Fr Tax US Tax % Extra paid by French
$10,000 0.94% 2.57% -1.63%
$30,000 7.80% 10.86% -3.06%
$50,000 14.53% 15.17% -0.64%
$75,000 19.68% 18.45% 1.24%
$100,000 22.42% 20.21% 2.21%
$200,000 31.21% 26.60% 4.60%
$350,000 34.98% 29.35% 5.63%

Average income in France is $44,000.


July 28th, 2009
5:15 pm

What the Big O is attempting to foist on the American public is not insurance. Prepaid health care is a term that comes closest to describing what he eagerly desires except that those who are the leeches on society will be having theirs paid by the taxpayers. Insurance is to guarantee against loss from defined incidents or conditions. When by law you require all to participate regardless of their circumstances for the same amount of premiums(taxes in this case unless you are one of the leeches) it is not insurance. Just consult an actuary if you are ignorant enough to accept that the Big O’s proposals are insurance.


July 28th, 2009
5:24 pm

indthinker: The WHO report didn’t measure costs, only results. So you’re accusing it of not taking scaling of costs into account, when scaling of costs is totally irrelevant.

Also, Canada has a lower population density than the USA, and the EU absorbs more immigrants. Both have publicly run healthcare systems with better results than the USA.


July 28th, 2009
5:43 pm


I lived and worked in England and also had an office in Paris. The income tax rates you show are Fed. taxes only. A seperate social tax is levied for healthcare and pensions. In the UK there is a 10% national health tax. This is paid even if you opt to buy Private Insurance, which anyone with the means chooses to do. The national system is dismal.

Bud Wiser

July 28th, 2009
6:05 pm

Obama and the Democrats proposed health ‘care’ adjustments, in my opinion, draw a very dark similarity in style and substance as far as the bleak outlook for senior citizens to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis approach to dealing with the Jews.

And the really sick funny part of it is that AARP and most of the Jews in this country voted for him.

And sicker still is the belief of the black and minorities in this person to the point that one must assume they have no parents over the age of 55, are not that old themselves, or that “it don’t apply to us cause we gots Obama”.

You can’t legislate smart from stupid, and the Obamaniacs are, quite simply, a collection of stupid racist morons.


July 28th, 2009
6:15 pm

booger: I live in the UK. There is no such thing as a “10% national health tax”, you just made that up. I certainly haven’t been paying it. The taxes I pay are National Insurance (state pension contribution), Income Tax, Council Tax (a property tax) and VAT on purchases.

You are correct that my analysis only shows federal income tax. I posted it to counter the practice of taking the top rate of income tax in any non-US country and claiming that people there pay that much of their income in tax, which is simply not true.

I didn’t count other French taxes, but I also didn’t count US state taxes either.


July 28th, 2009
6:38 pm


National Insurance tax includes health care. I lived there from 1993 to 1997. At that time it was 10%. don’t know what it is today. The VAT is the most onerous and there is one more. The TV tax. I’m sure there was another name but that’s what I called it.

The point here is that anyone with means uses private health care. My company provided insurance for private care, as did many other companies. One can make their own assumptions about the quality of the national system from that.

Another interesting thing in your French example is the fact that every one pays some income tax regardless of their income. I think you will find that true in most of Europe. This is in contrast to here where 43% pay nothing.

Jim morrison

July 28th, 2009
7:03 pm

Hey Dave, keep smoking that Obama weed.

How ya like that change?

Sucks doesn’t it, you moron!

Enough Said!


July 28th, 2009
7:21 pm



July 28th, 2009
7:29 pm


Northern Songs LTD

July 28th, 2009
7:33 pm

Butt Wiper – this is wooten’s blog where, unlike bookman, you can be as vile as you’d like. let it rip. idiot.


July 28th, 2009
9:12 pm

seriously, why does anyone ever say anything on these blogs. everyone here makes up stuff or spouts whatever media they listen to.

Michael H. Smith

July 28th, 2009
9:12 pm

Go Blue Dogs!

No ObumerCare Public Option single payer government run socialized healthcare system.

I’m glad to see support growing for Private Public Co Op Healthcare Plans.

State Health Care Co-Op Eyed As Model For National Plan
Senate Finance Committee Considering Idea


July 28th, 2009
10:52 pm

Trusting corrupt Senator’s to do the right thing is not reality.

Mike’s toon is spot on.

You just can’t trust them when lobbyists are handing out millions.


July 29th, 2009
12:39 am

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of – The Department of Energy?
Anybody? How about you Democrats, it was under President Carter – a Democrat.
No? Well I didn’t think so. So this Republican will tell you!
The bottom line is this. We’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency… the reason for which none of you Democrats can remember.
Ready? It was very simple… and at the time, everybody thought it was very appropriate and very much needed.
The department of Energy was instituted on 8-4-1977
Pretty efficient huh?
And now its 2009, almost 2010 – 32 years later – and the budget for this very necessary “agency” is at 24.2 billion a year.
They have 16,000 Federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees
This is where you say “Thank you Government, you are my hero”
What were we thinking at the time? – Are we ANY less dependent on foreign oil?
Answer that Democrats!
You created that agency – and now you want to do that we OUR HEALTH CARE – WITH OBAMACARE!
What will Americans say in 30 years with Socialized “Obamacare” as our health care?
Some pretty nasty stuff I can imagine!

Old Timer

July 29th, 2009
1:17 am

Obama/Pelosi medical plan with government running it is akin to the old Plantation boss hog type of no government. The Boss is in charge and you owe your due to the boss who is the plantation owner. Equal opportunity gone astray, the blacks will be back right to the beginnning they complain about. It would be nice, since they have more opportunities that my Caucasian kids don’t have tand they don’t take advantage of it. But I do see robbery, murder, car jackings, shootings evvery bnight on Atlanta TV. Iif Obama wants to crate CHANGE he need to make birth control pills manidtory in the black community, Atleast for a generation or two until the curent daddie less hoods are off t he street. . I have to carry a gun to drive through their neighborhoods for fear of idiots carjacking/robbing.. Atlanta should have no car jackings and they brag about the number being down. We haven’t had one car jack where I live.They know better. And we eat watermellon. I am not a biggiot, just a realist.

B Squared

July 29th, 2009
7:38 am

If you want to see a change in the tide in a presidency, watch this video. It’s CNN interviewing some Black Cambridge police officers who back Officer Crowley. The best is the woman who says: “I supported Obama, I voted for him, and I will never vote for him again.” WOW. Who are those 30 percenters that still support the Community Organizer In Chief again in polls that say he’s doing an excellent job? We’ve got to get that bozo out of office in 2012 along with the other America destroying bozos Pelosi and Reid in 2010. WAKE UP AMERICA.

Curious Observer

July 29th, 2009
7:51 am

Let’s dispense with the notion that Congress has its own, separate health plan. It doesn’t. Members of Congress make the same choices that the hundreds of thousands of federal employees make. The federal government offers around 22 health plans, ranging from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to various United Healthcare alternatives, HMOs, PPOs, etc. There is no separate Congressional plan.

It’s this choice that’s missing in the so-called cooperative option. I don’t see how any cooperative is going to have the resources to negotiate fees with doctors, hospitals, etc., as the private healthcare companies do. Those negotiations are really significant in holding down costs. The private companies have the leverage, by virtue of the number of potential patients they offer, to bring an agreed-upon office visit fee down to, say, $37, instead of the $150 a physician might charge an uninsured patient. Either a physician plays ball or else he goes without the thousands of patients the insurer has.

At the same time, I don’t see how private insurers can compete with a truly federal single-payer plan. Such a federal plan would have a non-profit advantage, in addition to “owning” five times as many potential patients as any private plan.

What happened to the notion of simply allowing the currently uninsured Americans to choose from the same plans as are offered to federal employees and instituting a prohibition against exclusion by virtue of preexisting conditions? That was the campaign promise, the premise offered by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in setting forth their plans. Now we have Congress botching things badly. I fear that the outcome of the current Congressional negotiations is going to be a version of the old joke about a horse constructed by committee–a camel.


July 29th, 2009
8:24 am

booger: National Insurance is not a healthcare tax. Only 2% of NI payments are earmarked for the NHS, the rest is used to fund unemployment benefits and pensions. NI is not a healthcare tax, it is Social Security.

The TV license isn’t relevant, because it only pays for the BBC and nothing else. Slashing healthcare spending would do nothing to reduce the TV license fee. Whether publicly funded television should exist is another debate entirely.

You’re mistaken when you say that everyone who can afford it has private healthcare. Most people don’t bother with it, only taking it as you did when it’s a perk of employment.

For intensive care, emergency rooms and serious illness, the NHS generally provides better care. People go with private insurance when they want private rooms or, more importantly, don’t want to wait for routine operations. Often the same staff perform both NHS and private procedures, so suggesting that the level of care is lower on the NHS is nonsensical.

I used to live in the US. I was fully insured and two blocks from a major hospital, but getting to see a doctor took at least two weeks. Here in the UK I can get an appointment in under a week, with no fee. My experiences with the doctors here have been better. In the US my wife was prescribed expensive drugs indefinitely; when we moved to the UK seven years ago the doctors here stopped the prescription because it wasn’t doing any good and presented a small but potentially serious health risk in itself. The thing about private enterprise is that it has a strong incentive to sell you services whether you need them or not.

Your claim about income tax is also untrue. France has a 0 rate of income tax on the first $8,000 earned. In the US it’s only $5,700.


July 29th, 2009
9:02 am


July 29th, 2009
12:00 pm

Should you be reading,remember you owe me $10.


July 29th, 2009
12:43 pm

Health care is not a right. Nor is housing, food, or any number of other things socialist nanny/welfare states try to say are fundamental human rights.

To me, it is a self-evident truth that your rights do not trump mine. If the only way you can afford food, shelter, clothing or health care is to force me and your other fellow citizens to pay for them, then you have essentially decided that it is worth enslaving others to meet your needs.

Imagine that tomorrow every doctor, nurse, P.A., EMT, etc.–every health-care provider–decided to quit their jobs and refused to practice medicine. How then will you exercise your health-care “rights”? Many people will say that doctors will have to be forced to provide care. And those people have just espoused a form of slavery–forced labor is a form of slavery.

Forcing others to pay for your health-care is only somewhat removed from that far-fetched scenario. Each dollar removed from someone to pay for your health care is a dollar they worked to earn. A portion of their alloted time on this Earth was confiscated from them for your benefit.

Raise The Teleprompters, It's Town Hall Time

July 29th, 2009
12:45 pm

Yeah, since Barry’s poll numbers are tanking faster than a rotten fish and his precious Commiecare is being rejected by even Democrats, it’s time to go run around the nation and sell himself campaign style. So how does he do that? Why bash Bush of course!

Let’s see here: we were told unemployment wouldn’t get above 8%; we were told that the stimulus package would result in immediate job gains and job savings; we were told that this would be an open policy admnistration [and congress]; we were told that Commiecare would save the government money, not cost it money; we were told that Bush wiretapping was illegal and should be stopped. Yep, it’s all Bush’s fault alright. And these people want to take over the US health care system now? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????????????


July 29th, 2009
12:50 pm

“Health care is not a right. Nor is housing, food, or any number of other things socialist nanny/welfare states try to say are fundamental human rights.”

MPercy: you have to understand the socialist mindset of liberals. In their warped minds, the Constitution GRANTS rights, not *protects* rights as our Founding Fathers designed it. Their mentality is if the Constitution says the “Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” then that means everyone should be equal, even if said pursuits are punished via higher taxes, stolen health care taken over by gubment, and my personal favorite, being against private education because it’s not FAIR. Sick way of thinking, isn’t it.


July 29th, 2009
12:58 pm

Jack’s #’s are off a bit. The CBO provides effective tax rates annually. In 2004/2005 they break down like this. About 45% of household in the US pay *negative* federal income taxes.

Columns are Income Rank, # of households (millions), Pretax income
($), and effective tax rate for federal income taxes.

Lowest Quintile 23.6 15,800 -6.2
Second Quintile 21.9 37,200 -0.9
Middle Quintile 22.0 58,000 3.0
Fourth Quintile 22.3 84,500 5.9
Highest Quintile 23.0 214,500 13.9
All Quintiles 113.3 81,300 8.7
Top 10% 11.6 307,800 15.9
Top 5% 5.8 457,400 17.6
Top 1% 1.2 1,299,300 19.7

Lowest Quintile 24.1 15,900 -6.5
Second Quintile 22.0 37,400 -1.0
Middle Quintile 22.2 58,500 3.0
Fourth Quintile 22.6 85,200 6.0
Highest Quintile 23.1 231,300 14.1
All Quintiles 114.5 84,800 9.0
Top 10% 11.7 339,100 16.0
Top 5% 5.8 520,200 17.6
Top 1% 1.1 1,558,500 19.4


July 29th, 2009
1:00 pm

Joe Biden update: Lots of closed meetings, a poll number under Cheney

The news just keeps getting better and better for the Dems, doesn’t it?

david wayne osedach

July 29th, 2009
1:03 pm

Maybe some semblence of this bill will pass next year. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up.


July 29th, 2009
1:04 pm

MPercy, and even better link on who pays income taxes at what proportion relative to income is found here:

Keep in mind that’s a three year old chart. So, 10% are paying over 70% of IRS personal income revenue, huh. It’s always amusing watching a liberal spin those facts with something like payroll taxes, social security and medicare/cade taxes, and general sales taxes.


July 29th, 2009
1:29 pm

In 1980:

* the top 1% consisted of 932 thousand taxpayers who had AGI greater than $80,580
* they had a total of $138B in AGI, which comprised 8.4% of overall AGI
* they paid a total of $47B in taxes, which comprised 19.05% of the overall taxes
* their average effective tax rate was 34.47%
* per taxpayer, average revenue was $50,429

In 2006:

* the top 1% consisted of 1,357,192 taxpayers who had AGI greater than $388,806
* they had a total of $1,792B in AGI, which comprised 22.06% of overall AGI
* they paid a total of $408B in taxes, which comprised 39.89% of overall taxes
* their average effective tax rate was 22.79%
* per taxpayer, average revenue was $300,663

Even though the effective rate went down markedly, the amount of tax collected per taxpayer went up even more markedly, rising by a factor nearly six. And the share of taxes collected from this group more than doubled, although their share of income also went up 2.5x.

In 1980:

* the bottom 50% consisted of 46,619 thousand taxpayers who had positive AGI less than $12,936
* they had a total of $288B in AGI, which comprised 17.68% of overall AGI
* they paid a total of $18B in taxes, which comprised 7.05% of the overall taxes
* their average effective tax rate was 6.10%
* per taxpayer, average revenue was $386

In 2006:

* the bottom 50% consisted of 67,859,580 taxpayers who had postive AGI less than $31,987
* they had a total of $1,016B in AGI, which comprised 12.51% of overall AGI
* they paid a total of $31B in taxes, which comprised 2.99% of overall taxes
* their average effective tax rate was 3.01%
* per taxpayer, average revenue was $456

It is worth noting that the income figure for the lower 50% is the upper limit, while the figure for the top 1% is a lower limit. So comparisons of those numbers should keep that in mind. However, this fact must also be balanced with the recognition that a very large number of the bottom 50% actually had zero or even negative tax liability.

Following this link, we can see that in 2004, there were a total of 131,113,969 tax returns filed. Of those, 42,545,501 (32.4%) had $0 tax liability, or even had negative tax liability and actually received money from the IRS. An estimated 15 million more people earned some income but did not file a return. When these non-filers are added to the non-payers, they add up to 57.5 million income-earning people who will be paying no income taxes. Even 57.5 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these income-producing people are counted, roughly 120 million Americans – 40 percent of the U.S. population – are outside of the federal income tax system.


July 29th, 2009
1:49 pm

MPercy: My numbers are a bit off (I didn’t take all the deductions into account) but my point about “Frenchmen pay 40% of their income to the government” being a misleading claim stands.

Your numbers on the other hand are wrong. You can’t have a tax liability of less than zero, and a single person filing alone and making $15,000 a year would pay $565. If you have enough babies you can reduce your tax liability to zero, though, through child tax credits. This isn’t an actual reduction in the rate of tax, though, but a form of welfare for people with families to support.

You also say that health care is not a right. Do you believe that fire protection is a right? If not, do you advocate dismantling the fire department?

g.skill: You say that the democrats have ‘warped minds’ because they believe that rights are granted by the constitution. Where do you think rights come from?


July 29th, 2009
3:05 pm

Jack: “Your numbers on the other hand are wrong. You can’t have a tax liability of less than zero.” Sorry, these are the government’s own numbers. The IRS and CBO both treat the EITC and other tax credits as negative taxes, so if you are “entitled” to enough tax credits to more that offset your tax liabilities, then the IRS and CBO count it as a negative effective tax rate.

Funny you mention fire protection. It’s not a right, either. It’s a service that in some cases may be provided by the local government. I own a home that is many miles from the nearest fire department (which itself is a volunteer fire department largely funded through donations, weekly bingo games, and fish frys), and pay hefty insurance premiums in the case it happens to burn down. Clearly fire protection is not a right.


July 29th, 2009
3:05 pm

The unalienable rights phrase is in the Declaration not the Constitution and, therefore, is not a part of US law. However, enlightened civilizations have always taken care of the less fortunate to some extent. Oh and capitalists should pay more because they benefit more.


July 29th, 2009
3:07 pm

Isn’t earned income credit in excess of tax liability actually paid out as a quasi refund so some people actually do have negative income tax rates?


July 29th, 2009
4:13 pm

Jack, the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. Excepting as spelled out there, the federal governments powers are supposed to be limited to those enumerated. All other government is expected to be at the state level (10th Amendment makes this explicit). The presence of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights merely makes explicit how government may not, through exercising the enumerated powers, infringe on certain human rights–in ways that had been “traditionally” infringed. The 9th Amendment further precludes the federal government from using the argument that the only rights people have are those enumerated.

Thus: the Constitution does not *grant* rights, it acknowledges explicitly some rights (BOR) and implicitly others (9th).


July 29th, 2009
6:07 pm

MPercy: Clearly fire protection is not a right.

So because it is not provided where you live, it is not a right. So by that logic, if a man lives in a country where freedom of speech is not enshrined in law, he should not regard free speech as a right?

Can you give me a clear and cogent explanation as to what is and isn’t a right, and what makes one thing a right and another thing not a right?

MPercy: if you are “entitled” to enough tax credits to more that offset your tax liabilities, then the IRS and CBO count it as a negative effective tax rate.

But the amount of federal income tax you actually pay is zero. Zero is not a negative number, however much you want to handwave it.

Jake: Isn’t earned income credit in excess of tax liability actually paid out as a quasi refund so some people actually do have negative income tax rates?

Possibly in some circumstances, but again, that’s welfare, not a lower tax rate.


July 29th, 2009
7:20 pm

“g.skill: You say that the democrats have ‘warped minds’ because they believe that rights are granted by the constitution. Where do you think rights come from?”

Jack, if you tell me where a right is *granted* to health care in the US Constitution, you’ll find your answer. But you can’t find where that right is *granted* now, can you? Not any more than the right to own a home, a college degree, or anything else you leftocrats want to give away at other people’s expense – after all, where do you think government gets its money to do all these wonderful fantasyland things you people on the left want. Now, I can sure point you where a right is *protected* to own a gun, but not GRANTED:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Note that RIGHT is already mentioned in there, but not GRANTED. You liberals don’t even understand the Constitution, do you?


July 29th, 2009
7:41 pm

g.skill: Jack, if you tell me where a right is *granted* to health care in the US Constitution, you’ll find your answer.

I never said it was.

I’m just asking you where you think rights come from. Will you answer me or not?

>you leftocrats

I don’t like labels, but my political beliefs could be summed up as “free people and free markets.” I don’t think I qualify as a leftist or a Democrat with a big D.

>Note that RIGHT is already mentioned in there, but not GRANTED. You liberals don’t even understand the Constitution, do you?

I agree with you, the right is protected there but not granted. Which begs the question, where does that right come from?

It’s a question you don’t seem to want to answer.


July 29th, 2009
7:52 pm

Down he goes, Obama:

“WASHINGTON – Despite his public-relations blitz over the past two weeks to promote his plans to reform the nation’s health-care system — including holding two town halls on Wednesday — President Barack Obama has lost ground on this issue with the American public, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.”

Reality is starting to set in now, isn’t it. That’s a good thing.

“As Congress works on its legislation and as Obama campaigns to get an overhaul enacted, 42 percent now say that the president’s plan is a bad idea, which is a 10-point increase since last month. Thirty-six percent say it’s a good idea. In addition, 39 percent — a plurality — believe that Obama’s plan would result in the quality of their health care getting worse. That’s 15-point jump since April. And just 41 percent approve of the president’s job on health care, which is nearly identical to Bill Clinton’s scores from 1994, when he failed to get Congress to pass health care reform.”

Oh my. Whatever happened to the Dream Presidency as MNBC’s and CNN’s totally non-biased* reporters?


“Americans who have private health insurance disapprove of Obama’s job on health care by a 51-38 percent margin. Those who lack insurance, however, approve of his job, 52-29 percent.”

Sucks for them with no health insurance, because they are in the extreme minority, at about 16% of Americans. Rather amazing how the media can play on numbers and make figures look big, no? That alleged 46 million sounds like a lot – until you look at the 250 million plus with a health insurance. But if you really want to know a secret, the majority of those alleged 46 million really aren’t qualified for health insurance in America. Here’s why: most are a mix of illegals, legal non-residents, on another government plan, and/or can afford a private insurance plan but choose not to. About 8-10 million in this nation are *truly* eligible for some sort of health insurance plan. That’s no reason to have government takeover of health care. There are other alternatives, and thank God America is waking up to this insanity brought to us by Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid and the other band of misfits in Washington running things.


July 29th, 2009
8:07 pm

“I never said it was.” [a right, health care}

Nah Jack, you all but emphasized it without stating it in this great logic to MPercy:

“You also say that health care is not a right. Do you believe that fire protection is a right? If not, do you advocate dismantling the fire department?”

Not even sure what your original point is, because it is not Republicans trying to DISMANTLE something because it’s an alleged right.

“I agree with you, the right is protected there but not granted. Which begs the question, where does that right come from? I’m just asking you where you think rights come from. Will you answer me or not?”

I’m not avoiding your question at all. Maybe you mean this phrase:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Clue: you’ll have to go back further than the US Constitution to find that right – it has to do with English common law.

Michael H. Smith

July 29th, 2009
9:53 pm

Giving a little help to my friends….

Privileges are granted, rights are not granted. Rights are said to be endowed: they (humanity or mankind) is “endowed” by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

The Constitution protects rights (our rights) it does not and it cannot provide our rights. Anything provided to us by government is a privilege and therefore government can take away granted privileges.

Note: Only the Creator of an entity or being can endow it with rights i.e. we created government and it is we who endow government with its rights, for its power is derive from our hands.

Quite a thing of beauty the grand old document, the Declaration of Independence, complexity in its simplest form set about establishing the new order of the ages.

If the question is, must government protect the healthcare as the right (human right) of an individual, then the answer is only when the life of an individual is gravely threaten by real harm or death. Which is in fact covered as humanitarian aid under the law.


July 29th, 2009
9:58 pm

Government cannot run the VA properly; nor medicare or medicade. The Post Office is a mess. What makes us think they can run our health care for Heaven’s sake.


July 29th, 2009
10:14 pm


July 30th, 2009
2:42 am

According to Hobbes,rights are the absence of obligation,law being the opposite of rights.Accordintg to Thomas Paine,any right granted by charter was not a right because it also implied that the right could be revoked.Some philosophers held the view that the only unalienable right was the right to personality,thus a slave had the right to think freely while he was held in bondage.
Strange entities,these unalienable rights.


July 30th, 2009
7:38 am

Whatever: You base your philosophy on a novel written by an atheist? Why not use The Golden Compass instead of Atlas Shrugged?


July 30th, 2009
8:04 am

As to whether or not the Constitution entions or does not mention health care as an idividual right, it does say:”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”, and “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”. Taxes can be levied and spent by Congress to support the general welfare of the populace. This allows for National Parks, historical sites, etc. I can think of nothing that fits the description of general welfare as the availibilty of affordable healthcare. If you go back to the Declaration of Independence, if “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.”, then we are denying the basic right of life to those who don’t have healthcare by not providing access to all.

DB, Gwinnettian

July 30th, 2009
9:42 am

the outcome “pro-lifers” really wish for.

Nicaragua’s total ban on abortion is a violation of human rights and is killing a growing number of women and children, Amnesty International said Monday in launching a campaign to have the measure repealed.

In a report released in Mexico City, the international human rights organization said Nicaragua’s law, which went into effect in late 2006, puts the Central American country among the 3% of the world’s nations that do not allow abortion under any circumstance.

Citing statistics from the Nicaraguan Health Ministry, the report says 33 women and girls died from pregnancy complications in the first 19 weeks of this year, compared with 20 in the same period last year. It also says the real numbers are probably much higher.

Nicaragua has one of Latin America’s highest rates of sexual violence, with the abuse often perpetrated by fathers, uncles or other relatives.

At least 50% of reported rapes are of girls under the age of 18, and most of those who get pregnant are under 15, the report says.

Women and girls who have been impregnated by rapists or whose lives or health is at risk are not allowed to abort.

And we’re supposed to listen to what these knuckle-dragging barbarians have to say about US healthcare policy, why, again?


July 30th, 2009
10:15 am

TechLover – What is your philosophy based on, mysticism? And the Constituion is part of our law but the Declaration is not. If there is an unalienable right to liberty how can the government legally take away that right by imprisoning people for breaking laws? Same answer, your liberty can be taken away because our law does not grant anyone unalienable rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. That’s just a very cleverly spun phrase by Thomas Jefferson in an attempt to morally justify the rebellion of the colonists against the legal authorities.

eagle scout

July 30th, 2009
11:27 am

Oldtimer…I’d bet you have never been to the VA. If you have you would know that it’s a model of quality care, and efficiency.

Medicare is no different…I get the same care if not better than when I had Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
The only thing that has changed is now I have no co-pay, and a different card in my wallet!