Obama wins victory in US healthcare vote

[Kiwi 1691]

The US House of Representatives narrowly endorsed on Saturday the biggest healthcare overhaul in decades, giving President Barack Obama a crucial victory in a battle that now moves to the Senate.

Obama wins victory in US healthcare vote | Stuff.co.nz

BBC NEWS | Americas | US House backs healthcare reforms

[DC]

While still a great move, my understanding it was shot in the leg somewhat by amendments made to at least get it through. Besides, I'm getting the feeling Obama's throwing a lot of money around that he (or at least the future) doesn't have.

[Midas]

Besides, I'm getting the feeling Obama's throwing a lot of money around that he (or at least the future) doesn't have.

So what's new from any government to the left of party politics!

[Barry]

Yep, America is bankrupt, but what the hey?

[Tantal]

It still has to go throught the Senate, then the reconciliation process. This whole thing strikes me as akin to a man filing bankruptcy, then putting a down payment on a new yacht. We've accumulated so much debt that it would take 100 years to dig our way out even under the best economic circumstances. And what's the Democrats' solution? "Hey, let's go spend some money!"

[LA]

You American's don't even know your own constitution.
I was debating this with an American who said that these health care reforms are unconstitutional.

Let me spell out some of the constitution for you:

Article 1 section 8
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"


So Obama wants to provide general welfare [in the form of healthcare] throughout the United States paid for through taxation.

That sounds very constitutional too me

[Tantal]

Article 1 section 8
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"


So Obama wants to provide general welfare [in the form of healthcare] throughout the United States paid for through taxation.

That sounds very constitutional too me

You apparently don't have a very good grasp of American history or the thinking of our Founding Fathers. You are making the mistake of interpreting their words using the modern meaning of those words, rather than their meaning at the time that the Constitution was written. "Welfare" in 1787 is much different than "welfare" in 2009. Much as "well-regulated" in that time meant "well disciplined, or well trained" rather than the "government reguation" that we think of now. Our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves right now at the amount of debt our elected officials have accumulated and the overreaching nature of our current government. By your logic, Congress could provide for the general welfare by buying everyone a ticket to an Amy Winehouse concert, but I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind.

[LA]

You apparently don't have a very good grasp of American history or the thinking of our Founding Fathers. You are making the mistake of interpreting their words using the modern meaning of those words, rather than their meaning at the time that the Constitution was written. "Welfare" in 1787 is much different than "welfare" in 2009. Much as "well-regulated" in that time meant "well disciplined, or well trained" rather than the "government reguation" that we think of now. Our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves right now at the amount of debt our elected officials have accumulated and the overreaching nature of our current government. By your logic, Congress could provide for the general welfare by buying everyone a ticket to an Amy Winehouse concert, but I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind.

Yes, but it is all about interpretation.
It is entirely possible that the right to bear arms is being misinterpreted.

The constitution allows for the provision of welfare to the United States. Healthcare is a very good form of welfare that benefits everyone.

A ticket for an Amy crackhouse concert is neither desirable nor is it welfare.

[Tantal]

Yes, but it is all about interpretation.
It is entirely possible that the right to bear arms is being misinterpreted.

Another instance in which you don't understand the structure of the Constitution, the history of our country, or the minds of our Founders. The Constitution has RIGHTS of the people, and POWERS of the government. The 2nd Amendment falls in the Bill of RIGHTS. It has nothing to do with the Army or National Guard. It is meant as a right to INDIVIDUALS, not to the 'collective'.

The constitution allows for the provision of welfare to the United States. Healthcare is a very good form of welfare that benefits everyone.

Once again, our founders didn't think of "welfare" in the way that we currently think of it.

A ticket for an Amy crackhouse concert is neither desirable nor is it welfare.

But who gets to determine what is 'good' for the citizens or what is in the interests of their general walfare? Under the logic of your previous post, the government should be able to tax at any level it sees fit to provide ANY service it sees fit, so long as they believe it's good for you.

[LA]

Another instance in which you don't understand the structure of the Constitution, the history of our country, or the minds of our Founders. The Constitution has RIGHTS of the people, and POWERS of the government. The 2nd Amendment falls in the Bill of RIGHTS. It has nothing to do with the Army or National Guard. It is meant as a right to INDIVIDUALS, not to the 'collective'.

The 2nd amendment falls in the Bill of Rights.
Now I declare again, it is possible that the right to bear arms (which is in the Bill of Rights section) could have been misinterpreted.

Once again, our founders didn't think of "welfare" in the way that we currently think of it.

I don't know where you got your time machine one, but I will pay for several million pounds for one. I would love to speak and get to know political figures in British history.

But who gets to determine what is 'good' for the citizens or what is in the interests of their general walfare? Under the logic of your previous post, the government should be able to tax at any level it sees fit to provide ANY service it sees fit, so long as they believe it's good for you.

The article states clearly that the congress should impose taxation for the purpose of general welfare. Thus increases in tax for healthcare are very constitutional.

Is my very liberal marxist borderline communist views too left wing for you Americans?

[Tantal]

Is my very liberal marxist borderline communist views too left wing for you Americans?

Not ALL Americans. We have our commies here too. Just too left wing for my tastes.

[JAMC]

You may be expecting me to be jumping up and down with enthusiasm as a result of this - but no.

America's healthcare system was a joke before this bill was passed, and it remains one after too.

[Tourmaline]

The area where the health care bill fails to be constitutional is in forcing an individual to purchase the insurance. This has been compared to auto insurance. Generally, US law requires individuals to purchase liability insurance; however, an individual can desire to purchase a more comprehensive policy. The analogous health care insurance to the mandated liability auto insurance is some type of catastrophic insurance (which is not available in the US). In the case of auto insurance, an individual does not have to purchase it. They can opt out by simply not owning a car or not driving it on public roads. Many individuals in larger cities do not pay for this type of insurance, because they do not own a car. With health care this is not the case. I believe there is a provision that states can opt out of the coverage; however, this is somewhat meaningless. This is because the federal government tax money will still go to the program. Moreover, if you are an individual within a state that does not opt out you have no choice. Specifically, if one refuses to purchase health insurance they can be fined and face possible imprisonment.

The preamble of the Constitution is meant to be a declaration of purposes. By reading only the preamble, one can interpret vast powers for the federal government; however, these powers are severely limited elsewhere. As an example, if an amendment were to be proposed to grant the federal government new powers must support one of the general purposes in the preamble. Alternatively, the amendment may alter the preamble. This is the position held by James Madison, and is the current interpretation of the Constitution, to the best of my knowledge.

It is a well known fact that during the time of the founders the definition of the term "welfare" meant: "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being." The context of today's meaning has changed significantly. One does not need a time machine to understand the meaning of words or phrases used in the past. Especially a past that is very well documented and not all that distant.

As far as the second amendment being misinterpreted, I would agree that it has been. In the original text of Madison's proposed amendment there is a definition of the term "militia." This definition clearly states that the referred to militia means the people as a whole, and does not infer a government controlled military unit. This phrasing was removed from the final document, however. Another confusion arises when one discovers that the official document passed in Congress includes "Militia" and the documents ratified by the states includes the term "militia."
Nonetheless, I believe the thinking at the time regarded a standing army in the time of peace as a unnecessary expense as well as affording unscrupulous tyrannical leaders to use the army for their own purposes. In the instance that the Nation was invaded it would be necessary for the general population to defend it, using their own weapons, by forming ad hoc military units, similar to those done during the revolution against England. In addition, by allowing the general population to be armed any leader that wishes to impose tyrannical rule must do so with consent of the populous. Otherwise, they risk a general uprising. Using this logic it is easy to see why having an armed populous is necessary for a free society. This interpretation is supported by early commentary of the Constitution.

[Citizen Smith]

Who cares about whether or not its constitutional- I'm just glad Obama is making progress in helping the needy of America- to the horror of the greedy!

[Tantal]

Who cares about whether or not its constitutional- I'm just glad Obama is making progress in helping the needy of America- to the horror of the greedy!

First of all, we don't make exceptions to the Constitution. It is that one document alone that separates us from Third World-like mob rule. Secondly, despite what you may have been told, insurance companies only run about a 2% profit margin. What's the government going to do when it takes over health care? Save us that 2%? Sure, that'll put a Bentley in every garage.

What the government could save us in insurance company profits, it'll spend quadruple in lost efficiency. I don't want the government having anything to do with my health. Maybe we're just wired differently, but I'd rather kick off at 78 as a free man knowing that my kids and grandchildren will be free as well than to linger on until 82 as a slave to a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy. To each his own though. If y'all are happy with the NHS, so be it. I just don't see the incessant need for Britons to try to export their socialist ideology over here. Same goes for guns. If y'all are happy being vulnerable to the psychopaths in your midst, good on ya. Just don't try to get the U.S. to sign on to some international treaty infringing upon our rights.

[LA]

Who cares about whether or not its constitutional- I'm just glad Obama is making progress in helping the needy of America- to the horror of the greedy!

so you support the UK position of having no codified constitution?

[Don]

Who cares about whether or not its constitutional- I'm just glad Obama is making progress in helping the needy of America- to the horror of the greedy!

My reply to that would be; The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No man's wish is superior to it, for any reason whatsoever. Any US citizen, and I realize you are not, who says "Who Cares.." about constitutionality does not deserve it's protection.

[red star]

I It is that one document alone that separates us from Third World-like mob rule.

The third world " mob rule " countries are suffering from the mob rule ( our mob) the western nations bestow upon them in order to control their resources and markets

Secondly, despite what you may have been told, insurance companies only run about a 2% profit margin. What's the government going to do when it takes over health care? Save us that 2%? Sure, that'll put a Bentley in every garage.

Two percent ?? I don't think so. The lowest i found were around the 3-4( with a recession blip of 0.37%) percent the figure below is for 9/9/2009

The median profit margin of U.S. hospitals rebounded to just over 8 percent in the second quarter — back to its pre-recession level — according to an analysis of hospital financial performance by Thomson Reuters.

What the government could save us in insurance company profits, it'll spend quadruple in lost efficiency. I don't want the government having anything to do with my health.

Well you can bet your life the knives will be out to hamper any concessions to a social healthcare plan....................same as with anything that eats into corporate profits.
Plus it's not just about the profits of health insurance companies , what about the other profiteers from ill health......Big Pharma!!

Maybe we're just wired differently, but I'd rather kick off at 78 as a free man knowing that my kids and grandchildren will be free as well than to linger on until 82 as a slave to a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy.

There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who, falsely , believe themselves to be free ............don't believe the hype you do still have freedom of thought

To each his own though. If y'all are happy with the NHS, so be it.

The concession of the NHS was won over a long and bitter struggle and , like all concessions , the fight to keep them is always ongoing under our present socio-economic system.

I just don't see the incessant need for Britons to try to export their socialist ideology over here.

Who's " exporting " the NHS to the US?? Just because your own system is so ****ty there's no need for attacking those who have fought and won the battle ( for now ) to employ universal healthcare systems in their own countries.

Same goes for guns. If y'all are happy being vulnerable to the psychopaths in your midst, good on ya. Just don't try to get the U.S. to sign on to some international treaty infringing upon our rights.

The US has a terrible history for signing up to international treaties ( they think they're above it IMO ) whether its the Kyoto protocol or a ban on child labour the US stands firm in its undying inhumanity.

[Citizen Smith]

The constitution was written to be relevant at the time. At the time it was practical and necessary to carry arms.
Tantal, its less to do with putting a Bentley in every garage, and more to do with making sure that the poorer Americans get decent treatment. I'd rather everyone got decent health care then some got next to nothing while the wealthy lounge round in private clinics getting warts zapped off their backsides.
Britain isn't "Importing socialism", Obama wanted to bring this in, because he understands the idea of looking after the needy in society.

[Don]

The constitution was written to be relevant at the time. At the time it was practical and necessary to carry arms.

Well hell, why don't we just scrap the whole ****ing thing then. Contrary to popular opinion, especially among the uninformed non US citizens, the Constitution is not a "living document". If that were so, the founding fathers would not have made it so difficult to alter. Our Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional.

As an aside, it is ridiculous to assert that where "the people" is used in other Articles of the BOA it is interperted to mean all "the people", by some, and not so in the in the 2nd. A SC ruling on another case having to do with, I believe, the 4th admendment (I'll have to get to my home computer to verify) references this very odd twist of thinking in the opinion, written by the majority. Those same members of the majority are either still sitting or have been replaced by like minded individuals. Witness the ruling on DC's restrictive gun laws.

[LA]

The Constitution allows for taxation to be implemented to afford for the general welfare of the United States.

Healthcare is a form of welfare, hence constitutional!

[Tantal]

The third world " mob rule " countries are suffering from the mob rule ( our mob) the western nations bestow upon them in order to control their resources and markets

Maybe they should raise an Army.

Two percent ?? I don't think so. The lowest i found were around the 3-4( with a recession blip of 0.37%) percent the figure below is for 9/9/2009

Even at 3-4%, that's still far below most other industries. Most other industries operate at a margin of 6-8%. As for hospitals, most are privately owned and I have no illusions that they 'owe' me anything. Hospitals, medical equipment, doctors, and nurses aren't free. Even at a profit of 4%, a procedure that costs me $20,000 still costs the hospital $19,000 to provide it.

Well you can bet your life the knives will be out to hamper any concessions to a social healthcare plan....................same as with anything that eats into corporate profits.

As well they should. You wouldn't want to live in a world where there was no opportunity for profit. All investment, growth, and innovation will come to a grinding halt. Maybe a basic-necessities-of-life barter-type economy sounds good to you, but I'll pass.

Plus it's not just about the profits of health insurance companies , what about the other profiteers from ill health......Big Pharma!!

You mean those companies that have kept people artificially alive long after they should have expired? Make up your mind. You hate them, yet you use their products. You should teach them a lesson and never use manufactured medication again, after all, it was created by capitalists with a profit motive.

There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who, falsely , believe themselves to be free ............don't believe the hype you do still have freedom of thought

I guess that's just where we're wired differently. To me "freedom" means the ability to live my life with minimal outside intervention from others, including the government. For you "freedom" means the ability to live your life without ever having to deal with the pitfalls that naturally go along with life. You want to be protected from life.

The concession of the NHS was won over a long and bitter struggle and , like all concessions , the fight to keep them is always ongoing under our present socio-economic system.

Y'alls business. I could care less.

Who's " exporting " the NHS to the US?? Just because your own system is so ****ty there's no need for attacking those who have fought and won the battle ( for now ) to employ universal healthcare systems in their own countries.

I didn't attack anyone. I said "congratulations......now keep that nonsense on your own side of the pond."

The US has a terrible history for signing up to international treaties ( they think they're above it IMO ) whether its the Kyoto protocol or a ban on child labour the US stands firm in its undying inhumanity.

We should enter into international treaties under two conditions:
1. They are in our best interests.
2. They do not violate the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land.......regardless of what the globalists would like to believe.

[Tourmaline]

I would like to say that I have utilized government health care in the US, and at facilities that are consistently rated higher than most private facilities. It is, nonetheless, a horrible system. I hated going there, I was forced to schedule medical appointment months in advance, and I consistently questioned the competency of the medical staff. The cost at the time of treatment was zero, and I can still be seen there today. I would not recommend it for anyone. So, from personal experience I typically don't buy into any rating system that so many people cite (including the WHO).

two percent ?? I don't think so. The lowest i found were around the 3-4( with a recession blip of 0.37%) percent the figure below is for 9/9/2009

According to Frobes' Magazine it ranges (they divide up the industry into subsections) between 2% and 4%.

anything that eats into corporate profits.

Since when are profits a bad thing? Without these evil profits the R&D would go into the toilet. Even the most socialist nation benefits from the R&D dollars produced by capitalist ones.

The US has a terrible history for signing up to international treaties ( they think they're above it IMO ) whether its the Kyoto protocol or a ban on child labour the US stands firm in its undying inhumanity.

Here is an interesting thing about the US. Even if the President signs a treaty it is meaningless without Senate ratification (and the Senate can omit any section they wish). Then it is still meaningless without legislation to enforce the treaty. Congress can, at any point and without warning, change any legislation they wish and make any treaty or its parts invalid.

We, historically, don't like entangling foreign alliances.

Kyoto was ridiculous, and it does not do what it claims. Moreover, its premise is useless, to a great extent, just like the second version they are shopping around the world.

[red star]

I would like to say that I have utilized government health care in the US, and at facilities that are consistently rated higher than most private facilities. It is, nonetheless, a horrible system. I hated going there, I was forced to schedule medical appointment months in advance, and I consistently questioned the competency of the medical staff. The cost at the time of treatment was zero, and I can still be seen there today. I would not recommend it for anyone. So, from personal experience I typically don't buy into any rating system that so many people cite (including the WHO).

Don't you have private healthcare insurance ? I mean is that why you used the government system ?

What is it 47 million in the US have no or inadaquate healthcare provision ?

According to Frobes' Magazine it ranges (they divide up the industry into subsections) between 2% and 4%.

Well i suppose it's just down to who you wish to believe............but even so healthcare shouldn't be left to in the hands of profiteers for obvious reasons.

Since when are profits a bad thing? Without these evil profits the R&D would go into the toilet. Even the most socialist nation benefits from the R&D dollars produced by capitalist ones.

Profits are bad when they are put before people and/or environmental considerations............which is all the time in the capitalist system . The only chains imposed on it( by popular forces ) are for these very reasons

R&D is a vital component but it is not 100% privately funded.
In fact I read an article some time back and the author stated that the split in R&D is about 60% private funding and 40% public funding. His way of thinking that it would be in the interests of the public to fund R&D 100% so as to bring treatment costs down( non profit ) and give a more universal entitlement IE poorer people could benefit from drugs they currently cannot afford...............seems to me to make some sense.

Here is an interesting thing about the US. Even if the President signs a treaty it is meaningless without Senate ratification (and the Senate can omit any section they wish). Then it is still meaningless without legislation to enforce the treaty. Congress can, at any point and without warning, change any legislation they wish and make any treaty or its parts invalid.

So if the US has no commitment to international standards isn't it hypocritical of them to hold others to them ?

We, historically, don't like entangling foreign alliances.

I agree you don't................. just a series of expedient ones.........easily dropped as and when suits ( saddam hussein springs to mind but the list is endless and informative )

Kyoto was ridiculous, and it does not do what it claims. Moreover, its premise is useless, to a great extent, just like the second version they are shopping around the world.

Whether you think they are ridiculous or not ( you never mentioned the ban on child labour ) they are instructive in so much as they highlight how isolated the US is in world opinion in everything from the Cuban Embargo/sanctions to the militarization of space

[red star]

Maybe they should raise an Army.

They do and we label them terrorists and help the oligarchy and their military cronies to destroy them and put them back into servitude

Even at 3-4%, that's still far below most other industries. Most other industries operate at a margin of 6-8%. As for hospitals, most are privately owned and I have no illusions that they 'owe' me anything. Hospitals, medical equipment, doctors, and nurses aren't free. Even at a profit of 4%, a procedure that costs me $20,000 still costs the hospital $19,000 to provide it.

So someone makes a thousand dollars out of your operation............wouldn't it be better if that 1000 dollars were put back into the system rather than someones pocket ?
How many ops ?................how much profit ?

As well they should. You wouldn't want to live in a world where there was no opportunity for profit. All investment, growth, and innovation will come to a grinding halt. Maybe a basic-necessities-of-life barter-type economy sounds good to you, but I'll pass.

Something I posted in a different thread.........

"As for the argument for " dynamisn " within society which also plays a major role in the denouncement of the socialist alternative.........well.........once again Russia provides us with some food for thought.
At the turn of the 20th century Russia was a huge peasant nation , what might be refered to as an " underdeveloped " nation and America was the leading western industrial nation roughly.
Within 50 years the Russians had beaten the Americans in the race to put people into space..............that's quite a remarkable achievement.
Especially when you consider the state of seige that prevailed over the soviet system for its entirety
So people will be dynamic whatever the system............the choice is whether to use the fruits of that dynamism for private profit or public betterment."

You mean those companies that have kept people artificially alive long after they should have expired? Make up your mind. You hate them, yet you use their products. You should teach them a lesson and never use manufactured medication again, after all, it was created by capitalists with a profit motive.

Doesn't the vast majority of healthcare " keep people artificially alive "?

And you have to live in the system as it is but that no reason to seek change or consider different options , more humane and morally less contentious options ?

I guess that's just where we're wired differently. To me "freedom" means the ability to live my life with minimal outside intervention from others, including the government. For you "freedom" means the ability to live your life without ever having to deal with the pitfalls that naturally go along with life. You want to be protected from life.

No I want protection from death ...........that's natural enough isn't it ?

I think you are not really aware of the chains you wear

Y'alls business. I could care less.

I suspect you do care

[Tantal]

They do and we label them terrorists and help the oligarchy and their military cronies to destroy them and put them back into servitude

Only if they get stupid.

So someone makes a thousand dollars out of your operation............wouldn't it be better if that 1000 dollars were put back into the system rather than someones pocket ?

If nobody's getting any money into their pocket, then what's the motivation for providing the service? I enjoy my job and truly believe that I am able to help some people, but I'm still not going to do it out of the kindness of my heart. The Tantal clan has to eat too, ya know.

Within 50 years the Russians had beaten the Americans in the race to put people into space..............that's quite a remarkable achievement.

Yet their economy collapsed under its own weight because it couldn't keep up with the U.S. economically. Even with the USSR collapsed, its military was a joke other than the nukes and the massive numbers of men that Mother Russia could send into battle. Whether it was naval or land warfare, their technology was so far behind ours that they would have had no choice but to go nuclear.

So people will be dynamic whatever the system............the choice is whether to use the fruits of that dynamism for private profit or public betterment."

Private profit IS for the public betterment.

No I want protection from death ...........that's natural enough isn't it ?

No, you want someone to PROVIDE you with protection from death free of charge. Basically, you want a slave.

[Tourmaline]

Don't you have private healthcare insurance ? I mean is that why you used the government system ?

What is it 47 million in the US have no or inadaquate healthcare provision ?

I was in the military. As such, I have been forced to use government health care. This was either due to the fact that: a) there were no civilians around. b) it was for a service related injury c) because the health care provided to the military, as a employer provided benefit, is government health care. The Veteran's Administration runs a similar system for veterans.

Well i suppose it's just down to who you wish to believe............but even so healthcare shouldn't be left to in the hands of profiteers for obvious reasons.

It's less about belief and more about facts. All I was pointing out was that both figures may be accurate; however, they include slightly different sets or subsets in their statistics.

Profits are bad when they are put before people and/or environmental considerations

The government is the worst polluter in the US, while oil companies are very environmentally conscious.

R&D is a vital component but it is not 100% privately funded.
In fact I read an article some time back and the author stated that the split in R&D is about 60% private funding and 40% public funding. His way of thinking that it would be in the interests of the public to fund R&D 100% so as to bring treatment costs down( non profit ) and give a more universal entitlement IE poorer people could benefit from drugs they currently cannot afford...............seems to me to make some sense.

I don't know if those figures are accurate for the US. I do agree that the government has too big of a role in R&D.

So if the US has no commitment to international standards isn't it hypocritical of them to hold others to them ?

hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

No, we engage in foreign affairs for our benefit. This is not a secret. I am going to leave it at that for now, due to time.

Whether you think they are ridiculous or not ( you never mentioned the ban on child labour ) they are instructive in so much as they highlight how isolated the US is in world opinion in everything from the Cuban Embargo/sanctions to the militarization of space

Please cite the child labor treaty. I don't think they are ridiculous I know they are, from a scientific point of view. They simply do not fix the stated problems they claim to. I care less about the world opinion, and I care more about US opinion. This seems to be something that the current administration and I disagree on.

[red star]

Only if they get stupid.

I don't think you really understand these things Tantal

If nobody's getting any money into their pocket, then what's the motivation for providing the service? I enjoy my job and truly believe that I am able to help some people, but I'm still not going to do it out of the kindness of my heart. The Tantal clan has to eat too, ya know.

Of course people get money in their pocket................ do you think all the nurses and doctors EMPLOYED by the NHS work for free ?

Yet their economy collapsed under its own weight because it couldn't keep up with the U.S. economically. Even with the USSR collapsed, its military was a joke other than the nukes and the massive numbers of men that Mother Russia could send into battle. Whether it was naval or land warfare, their technology was so far behind ours that they would have had no choice but to go nuclear.

I detect a certain amount of willie waving here to be honest

Well they had nukes long before they collapsed.............so I don't really see the relevance myself.
As for being behind the US militarily.........who isn't? They spend nearly as much as the rest of the world put together so of course they are going to have the advantage.

The US military budget is paid for by the public at the expense of universal healthcare , free education , homes for the homeless etc etc..........the Russians spent less than the US because they provided all of these things.The US didn't/doesn't!

I suppose it just reflects what the differing systems hold dear............an awesome military to conquer the globe or the well being/social security of their own people.

Private profit IS for the public betterment.

Try to explain that to the Russians since they have had the capitalist system bestowed upon them!! They would string you up Tantal.

No, you want someone to PROVIDE you with protection from death free of charge. Basically, you want a slave.

But it isn't free of charge..........you pay for it direct from your wages.

And it is rich to hear an American southerner challenging somebody on an alleged wish for slave ownership

[red star]

I was in the military. As such, I have been forced to use government health care. This was either due to the fact that: a) there were no civilians around. b) it was for a service related injury c) because the health care provided to the military, as a employer provided benefit, is government health care. The Veteran's Administration runs a similar system for veterans.

Right now I understand

It's less about belief and more about facts. All I was pointing out was that both figures may be accurate; however, they include slightly different sets or subsets in their statistics.

But what is not in doubt is that there is a profit to be made on peoples misfortune to suffer illness/injury ............ and I personally think that that is totally open to abuse and immoral

The government is the worst polluter in the US, while oil companies are very environmentally conscious.

Have you any proof for that statement ?

I don't know if those figures are accurate for the US. I do agree that the government has too big of a role in R&D.

As a self confessed free marketeer you would think that though.........and I think you missed the point in what I was saying. The point was more government ( public funded ) research not less

hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
No, we engage in foreign affairs for our benefit. This is not a secret. I am going to leave it at that for now, due to time.

We will take this up some other time then................ but in short the hypocrisy of US imperialism is no secret .......same with their advocacy of free market capitalism IMO

Please cite the child labor treaty.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989 (the 30th anniversary of its Declaration of the Rights of the Child).[5] It came into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. As of December 2008, 193 countries have ratified it,[1] including every member of the United Nations except the United States and Somalia.[4][6]

I suppose Somalia has at least got the excuse of not having a government.

Convention on the Rights of the Child - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think they are ridiculous I know they are, from a scientific point of view. They simply do not fix the stated problems they claim to. I care less about the world opinion, and I care more about US opinion. This seems to be something that the current administration and I disagree on.

US elite opinion or US popular opinion ?

I wouldn't worry about Obama if I were you................. he doesn't pull the strings...........US corporate interests do.

[Don]

The Constitution allows for taxation to be implemented to afford for the general welfare of the United States.

Healthcare is a form of welfare, hence constitutional!

Note that what you refer is in the preamble to the Constitution, not the body of the Constitution. The preamble states the whys, not the hows.

More importantly, please note that it says; "...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

"Provide" and "promote" do not have the same meaning.

Provide means to make available, to furnish or supply.
Promote means to help or to encourage.

They are not the same and one would think that our founding fathers were astute enough to understand the difference.

Either you were being a bit disingenuous, which I prefer not to believe, or have a misunderstanding.

[LA]

Note that what you refer is in the preamble to the Constitution, not the body of the Constitution. The preamble states the whys, not the hows.

More importantly, please note that it says; "...provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare..."

Either you were being a bit disingenuous, which I prefer not to believe, or have a misunderstanding.

Put it this way.
What I know of the American constitution is little bits I have heard over the years.

[Tourmaline]

Note that what you refer is in the preamble to the Constitution, not the body of the Constitution. The preamble states the whys, not the hows.

More importantly, please note that it says; "...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

"Provide" and "promote" do not have the same meaning.

Provide means to make available, to furnish or supply.
Promote means to help or to encourage.

They are not the same and one would think that our founding fathers were astute enough to understand the difference.

Either you were being a bit disingenuous, which I prefer not to believe, or have a misunderstanding.

He is actually referring to Section 8 Article 1 Clause 1:

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;

I actually attempted to post a very nice rebuttal to this (yesterday, I think); however, it apparently didn't get posted for some reason.

The basic idea it that by using this clause so elastically it results in virtually unlimited power given to the federal government. The Attorney General states that this power is well within the power of Congress; however, compelling an individual to purchase anything based solely off of existing as a citizen is unprecedented.

[LA]

Tourmaline, that is exactly what I was referring to.
I just couldn't remember the section and article

Thank you.

[Don]

Tourmaline, that is exactly what I was referring to.
I just couldn't remember the section and article

Thank you.

Please accept my apologies and my thanks to Tourmaline

[Don]

He is actually referring to Section 8 Article 1 Clause 1:
I actually attempted to post a very nice rebuttal to this (yesterday, I think); however, it apparently didn't get posted for some reason.

The basic idea it that by using this clause so elastically it results in virtually unlimited power given to the federal government. The Attorney General states that this power is well within the power of Congress; however, compelling an individual to purchase anything based solely off of existing as a citizen is unprecedented.

Fortunately the AG is not the final world and the Supremes remain silent unless the matter is presented to them.

I too have had a bad expereince with the VA, enough so to put me off government healthcare for the duration.

[Tourmaline]

Fortunately the AG is not the final world and the Supremes remain silent unless the matter is presented to them.

I too have had a bad expereince with the VA, enough so to put me off government healthcare for the duration.

Well it's not like the AG is ever wrong *he says tongue in cheek*.