"The field plan says the protests should attract media coverage that "creates villains or enemies that serve as a contrast with our side; validates the need for affordability and the public health insurance option; [and] forces the other side to respond."

Plagiarized from snap's Washington Times post yesterday.

I only count about 16 heads - did they achieve the suggested number of 30 angry mob members? Perhaps if the CC had the time to do a bit of research, they would have understood that this was completely contrived and would not have acknowledged the astroturf movement in any way.

This is for you, boris--

http://pol.moveon.org/insurance_execs/?id=17290-4861769-WMOJG5x&t=2&reloaded=1

Stedman... "Why don't you present acutal facts instead of rumors and flat out lies? "

I agree. Like the guy carrying the sign which says health care is a human right. That is a lie. He may want it to be a right, but it is not a right.

Also, did you listen to Obama's speech where he stated health insurance coverage would be mandatory, and there would be a tax penalty to individuals who don't get coverage? So before you accuse others of not having their facts straight, you might want to check your own.

Uninsured would get fined.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/09/baucus-plan-would-fine-uninsured/

ObamaCare requires the young and healthy transfer wealth to the elderly and those who don't take care of their health. Even though the older Americans have per capita far more wealth than younger Americans, Obama wants to continue to spread the wealth from some people to others.

How is transferring wealth from the have-nots (young) to the haves (elderly) fair?

Was that comment on your list of talking points from moveon, porchie?

(laughter)

The health care debate is not about who gets sick. It is about a philosophy.

1. Capitalism - Self determination. The harder/smarter you work, the more money you make and the better you provide for your family.

2. Socialism - Gov/Society determination. Regardless of your efforts, we all get the same mediocre care. Why work hard in life if the lazy man next door gets the same ride I do?

This is not a new question, peoples have been trying to create a utopia (socialism) for ever and it has been proven a failed philosophy again and again. Why do we think that it will work for us?

Actually, bigprune is right, this plan includes a provision to fine anyone that doesn't have health insurance. It's a dumb plan that goes too far. Lets do something reasonable like provide health care for the bottom 20%, and the uninsurable and call it good. Those of us that can afford private health care or simply choose not to have it can go about our lives as we always have.

We already have a government-run health care system, it's called the VA. Trust me, it doesn't work very well.

Why don't we just go ahead and nationalize everything? Seems to have worked pretty well for the Nazis and Soviets.

I want a public option.

If you think this is socialism, get off our federally funded roadways, stop using our federally funded school system, stop eating produce from federally subsidized farms, and give up your drivers license, car (which is registered to the government), and finally get off the internet which DARPA, a federal think tank of gigantic proportions, created.

Or stop whining and let some folks with common sense have a try at this country.

Folks should read the constitution. Healthcare is no more a right than is delivery pizza. Liberty nailed it (again).

Isn't this whole argument about making health care less expensive and giving more people access to it?

Why wait for DC to do something? How about we Kansans pass a law like Florida did. You make pharmacies publicly display the cost of all the prescription drugs they sell. When people are able to make informed choices based on price and quality, prices come down. Check out what happened in Florida. Isn't the name of the Health Care Bill (HR 3200) called "“The America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"? How come this idea isn't in the bill?

The idea of allowing health insurance companies to sell across state lines has been around for a very long time. Why isn't this provision in any bill? Think about it: If you took the health care plan used by federal government employees (which isn't restricted to only in-state companies) and you offered that same plan to every American, there would be 305 difference insurance choices available for everyone to chose from.

Remember what President Obama said about 95% of the health insurance in Alabama coming from one company? What would happen to price if that one company had to compete with 305 companies?

It's common sense folks, which is also the reason why this reform will never be in the health care legislation - because it would WORK, and drive down costs without any growth in government or another massive entitlement program we can't afford.

This isn't about health care, it's about expanding federal government power.

Maxcrabb…

I have heard so many liberals repeat your same illogical argument, i.e. government run health care isn’t any more socialistic than a government run military or government provided roads. That argument is naïve at best and deceptive at worst.

Some of us know that there are certain things “public goods” which the government should facilitate, administer, and/or heavily regulate; and there are many other areas which the government is incompetent to efficiently manage or run, and instead should be left to individuals or the private market. It all boils down to a simple but fundamental question: What do you believe is the purpose of government?

Personally I want Health Care reform. But I don’t want to replace what is currently a horrible system, with ObamaCare and a public option which will be atrocious. You may want change for the sake of change, but I am willing to hold out for something that actually works without 1 trillion in debt.

Maxcrab - federally funded roadways are a constitutional use of federal power and federal taxes. "Public option" health care is not.

Why does the federal government fund public schools? Is that a constitutional use of federal tax money? Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. People paying federal taxes in Nebraska shouldn't have their tax money spent on schools in Kansas, and vis versa.

Government subsidized farms? The federal government has no business being involved in functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. I oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

Give up my car? What other private property would you like me to give up? Regulations governing the operation of motor vehicles on public roadways is a legitimate function of government.

You are comparing apples and crescent wrenches.

Boris... "Well, that leave you out Mr. Maxcrabb!"

ROTFL. That is one of my favorite lines from LOTR, and you used it perfectly.

Liberty_One...

Don't go messin with the "education" porch_person got from an 80s movie!

(Psst...some posters can only understand stuff if they "learned it" from the idiot box. Discussing economics with some of these people is above their heads.)

Ricky_Vaughn...

See my post at 1:40 p.m.

I am glad to see the citizens of Lawrence taking the streets in favor of universal health care. Unlike the majority of conservative right-wingers on this thread, I believe that the President's plan is quite comprehensive, and have no problem with fines against those who don't obtain insurance as long as they have some kind of grace period.

In Brazil, there is universal care that coexists peacefully with private insurance plans. The state-run program favors those who can't afford private insurance, making private programs optional.

I think that those citizens who oppose the President's plan have been scared by Lou Dobbs and Fox News, who do not represent the majority of the will of the people, just an annoyingly loud minority -- of which I do not take part, sympathize or condone with.

The words "General Welfare" in the introduction to the enumerated powers of Article I Section 8 of our constitution were never intended to be an object for extension of the power congress has to tax and spend at will. This phrase is an introduction, a preamble common to the formal writing style of that era, to the enumerated powers that follow. It is not itself a grant of power. Up until the Roosevelt years, the supreme court had repeatedly upheld this view since the founding of the country.

Unfortunately, since a couple shockingly bad decisions by the court, the limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this day, an undefined and presumably boundless power.

The pregnant question nagging us to this day is: "if the framers intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why then did they bother to enumerate seventeen?" Why did they write a 10th amendment to reinforce the fact the federal government is confined to just those enumerated powers, and the rest is to left up to the states and the people?" The answer is sui generis.

This problem was created by a spineless and short-sighted Supreme Court in the throws of an economic depression, and being threatened by a President to impeach and replace them. It now must be fixed by a Constitutional Amendment which clearly defines what the "general welfare" clause really means, and exactly what congress can tax and spend for. The original enumerated powers in Article 1, section 8 would be a good place to start that debate.

Our government controls the American people -- our constitution is supposed to control our government. It doesn't so long as the "general welfare" clause can be used to justify anything and everything they decide to do. Before you vote, find out where the candidate stands on this issue.

Unsavory says: "Oh, I have no doubt it is comprehensive. Comprehensive in the sense of telling you whether you get chemotherapy or not based on your value to the “general welfare.”"

And what exactly do insurance companies do now? They DENY claims by sick people and throw them out in the cold. Deny coverage for those with preexisting conditions. Of course!!! they are a corrupt, for-profit business.

Now, can we start THINKING instead of just listening to whatever Fox News tells you?

Unsavory

That is not appraising risk. That's pulling the plug on mommy.

Did anyone notice that when porch_person answers the question of what is the purpose of the federal government he references only the taxing and spending clause? And to everyone's surprise, he is a liberal.

Believing health care is a right he quotes the taxing and spending clause, but fails to quote the important part "The Congress shall have Power..." This means Congress may do so if it elects to do so. It does not say "You have a right to..." If everyone had a right to everything that was for their "general welfare," the courts would be constantly congested with lawsuit that their rights are being denied since the government is spending enough on their "general welfare." Similar to the lawsuit that the education funding in Kansas was too low (which is a right as provided in the Kansas Constitution).

Also, he assumes he has a right to whatever is in HIS general welfare, and interprets that to mean whatever he so desire. Why do we even need a Supreme Court of the United States when we have porch_person who has never taken even a basic Con Law class, and has such high reading comprehension skills he omits certain words, and includes others to benefit his argument?

ErnestBarteldes…

Is all profit bad or just when insurance companies earn it? Do you think it is okay when trial lawyers profit at everyone's expense and driving up medical malpractice insurance costs and by extension consumer medical costs? Would you consider decreasing trial lawyers profits okay through tort reform which reduces the cost of medical malpractice insurance and decreases consumer medical costs?

Obama opposes meaningful tort reform. Do you think it is just a coincidence that trial lawyers overwhelming support democrats? So are profits are bad unless the person earning it supports democrats?

Lastly, I support health care reform. But you seem to be under the delusion that ObamaCare is the only option. Republicans have put forth several options and plans (if you watched Obama’s recent speech before Congress, you might have noticed Republicans holding them up when Obama claimed he was willing to listen) which are being ignored.

unsavoryagent...

You will eventually learn, as I have, that attempting to have a conversation with porch_person is a waste of time for the reasons I already stated.

Unsavoryagent, Liberty_One....

I have seen the light. You guys are wrong. Throwing money at problems will make things better.

Our health care system is way worse than in other nations, which can be proved by all the people who flock here from other countries for medical procedures.

And inventing "savings" to pay for a 1 trillion dollar health care reform bill is a great idea.

Spreading the wealth from the young and healthy, who are relatively poorer, to the elderly and those who choose not to take care of themselves, is our responsibility. It says so in the U.S. Constitution. Can't you read? It says "general welfare," which means their general welfare and not mine.

How could I have been so blind for so long?

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and when that consent is withdrawn the citizens have a right to change what they feel is wrong with the existing government. A very large and growing national debt, record-setting deficit spending, and proposals for even bigger, more expensive government are things the people disapprove of by wide margins - which are also growing.

What makes the current interpretation of the "general welfare" clause so laughable is the key principle the Constitution was written with: that is called "positive grant." It means the US federal government is authorized to exercise ONLY those powers which are SPECIFICALLY given to it in the Constitution (enumerated powers) Nothing more, and nothing less. This was further codified in the Tenth Amendment.

Even the most generous examination of the activities of our federal government would make clear that there’s very little that it does which is actually authorized by the Constitution. We've allowed our politicians to bend the rules - always for "good" reasons of course, but people are beginning to see reality. When you permit the Federal Government to abuse our constitution over extended periods of time, you end up with a federal government full of people who think the law doesn’t apply and they can do what ever they want so long as they think it's in the "general welfare."

Think about that the next time you have a ballot in front of you.

unsavoryagent...

I learned while getting my undergrad in Economics that resources are scarce, and there is no such thing as a "free lunch," but they were just telling me lies. How dare they!

The purpose of government is to take a car from the person who has two and give it to the person that doesn't have any, so both people can have a car. I know this because the U.S. Constitution says "general welfare."

Substantial reasons why Medicare Insurance for All should be the choice for all in America:

• Makes the USA more attractive to NEW industry thus jobs thus new wealth for the USA.

*Eliminates Politicians as shareholders: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html

• Eliminates Insurers Wrongfully Charging Consumers Billions = BIG TIME CORRUPTION http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

*Eliminates Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0IQKZLHHh&C

• JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS

• Why use Medicare? It eliminates reinventing the wheel therefore saves a big bundle of money and time = efficient use of existing resources.

• Medicare is in place therefore it is ready to roll which is convenient.

• The USA needs to STOP being be the most expensive insurance/health care of the industrialized nations if americans want jobs back.

• HR 676 Medicare for All insurance coverage is key to creating new wealth for america.

• The most expensive health insurance in the world is not the answer for keeping business costs down and keeping our cost of living somewhat in check.

10 Reasons to Support U.S. National Health Insurance Act

Written by Andrea Miller

Tuesday, 03 March 2009

Here are 10 great reasons to support HR 676, the U.S. National Health Insurance Act: http://guaranteedhealthcare4all.org/sites/default/files/10-Reasons.pdf

1. Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.

2. Portability. If you are unemployed, or lose or change jobs, your health coverage stays with you.

3. Uniform Benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care for everyone, regardless of the size of your wallet.

4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a universal health system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected and societal cost in the over-utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.

5. Choice. Most private insurance restricts your choice of providers and hospitals. Under the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair payment.

6. No Interference with Care. Caregivers and patients regain their autonomy to decide what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department. No denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.

7. Reducing Waste. One third of every private health insurance dollar goes for paperwork and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, the federal government’s universal system for senior citizen healthcare.

8. Cost Savings. A guaranteed health care system can produce the cost savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. private health care model, adopted a similar system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little increase in overall health care spending.

9. Common Sense Budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers, private and public, while assuring that appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.

10. Public Oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in private and making decisions based on their company’s stock performance needs.

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" -- James Madison, in Federalist No. 41

Up until 1937, congress largely confined itself to it's enumerated powers. Angry the at the Supreme Court for ruling a number of his New Deal programs unconstitutional, FDR threatened to "pack the court" by backing a movement to impeach those justices opposing him.

In the case, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 US 548, May 24, 1937) the court, fearing for their jobs, caved into FDR and ruled in his favor, thus establishing that Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for “general welfare.”

The sad fact is the reprobates in Congress are stealing us blind and are bankrupting our country - all in the name of a grossly misinterpreted general welfare clause. Short of a constitutional amendment the cowards in the Supreme Court have made it almost impossible to stop them - hence my aforementioned call for said amendment.

If the "general welfare" clause was meant to be applied as it has been since 1937, why wasn't it applied that way from the day our country was founded?

The founders never intended it to be the sweeping grant of completely unconstrained power it has become. Even Madison, who favored the idea that the general welfare provision did confer a power separate and distinct from the specific grants of legislative power contained in the Constitution (hotly contested by his colleagues) cautioned that there are several limitations on this power. He felt the appropriation must be applied to the whole and cannot be local or particular. (pork spending on home districts?) Second, he felt Congress cannot use this provision as a pretext to to do things not authorized by the Constitution, “either expressly or by fair implication.” (New Deal, Great Society, Obama Care, etc)

Even the most liberal interpreters of the constitution (Madison) who favored large and powerful federal government would disapprove of today's grotesque spending in the name of "general welfare."

"The entitlement programs (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) all continue to grow faster than the economy, and they will take more than 100 percent of all federal tax revenue this year, requiring that virtually all of the other government spending programs, including defense and interest payments on the debt, be funded by more borrowing."

See: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10563

Wow...every dime of tax collected by the treasury is being spent on entitlement programs, and everything else the government does is done on borrowed money. We're borrowing money to pay interest on the money we already borrowed.

I swear I watched a Soprano's episode with this plot line....

We can't afford Obama Care folks.

Well said, Porch_Person. Were it not for our "bought and paid for politicians" (dems and repubs alike) we would have had health care reform a long time ago.

Sadly, the medical profession is no longer a profession. Its big business.

At least folks got to stand up and speak; be heard a bit. I like that we can; and wish more could really 'listen' ~ or at least genuinely participate at multiple levels.

Good show, folks!

Well, I read about halfway through and couldn't stand any more of porch_pinhead's drivel, so I apologize if others have already tried to address the troll's talking points.

porchie, child, the leading cause of infant mortality is congenital malformations - something that is accounted for more by the lifestyle of the mother than access to healthcare. Besides that, pregnant women almost always have access to pre-natal care, very few pregnant women don't qualify for Medicaid. You can't make them avail themselves of it.

The top 1% of taxpayers makes about 21% of the income, and pays over 39% of the income taxes. That's the same amount of taxes paid by the bottom 95%.

I could try to address the rest of your incoherent, uneducated, ignorant claims, but what's the point - every time you post you just prove to the readers what a moron you are without any help from me.

By the way, your presence once again proves your mommy won't spring for premium cable, porchie.

You guys DO realize that we are the only developed nation that hands health care to private hands. To say that government-run insurance is socialist is delusional.

We have to get rid of the fat cats in the insurance companies, We also have to put a stop to all those millionaire malpractice suits, which end up rising the cost of health care for all of us...

Absolutely in respect to the malpractice suits. The 'get rich' quick, entitlement mentality fostered by a itigous society or mainstream mindset has been a huge help in the increase in medical care.

And the pharm cos for sure ~ everyone wants a piece of the pie but they each wan that piece to be so darn big!

After both republican home loan scandals, medicare and social security are a blessing to those who lost their retirement plans in the process.

The problem is not about government insurance or that government insurance would be bad. It's about the high profit insurance business throwing tons of health care dollars at legislators who are influenced with money and plenty of it.

And it's all about legislators as shareholders....yes their personal money making portfolios. They are among those who love to make money off the misfortune of others. There are plenty of those types waging war against smart medical insurance. OH YES the nations shareholders are also a problem even though the reckless spending med insurance industry is screwing them out of big dividend dollars... the romance of Wall Street dumbs them down.

Medicare Insurance For All would be most attractive to small business,large business and familes/individuals. It's the only one that makes dollars and sense. It makes sense and would require much less money to operate because all of it could be done under one umbrella which saves money.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

"The problem is not about government insurance or that government insurance would be bad. It's about the high profit insurance business throwing tons of health care dollars at legislators who are influenced with money and plenty of it."

3% is "high profit," buffoon? You DO realize that the average healthcare plan makes a smaller profit than the average hospital, don't you? But that's not a problem, right, mertle?

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

"Satirical, what is sad is that porch person is probably my kid's 3rd grade teacher."

So close.

Pretty sure he's one of your 3rd-grader's classmates.

Will there be a repeat at the next school board meeting? What about the County Commission?

I'm going to ask this question yet again (or just ask you to think about it...) how many people can honestly NOT get health insurance, and how many just decide not to? Paying health insurance premiums is pretty boring compared to buying a new flat screen tv, or that new notebook computer....or the top tier of cable, Internet and phone service from Sunflower Broadband! Could you afford health insurance if you cut back on some of your luxuries?

Why should all of us have to be responsible for your health care when you're not responsible for yourself?

I'm signing this "Americans for Prosperity" petition.

Folks - who thinks its a good idea to start a gigantic new entitlement program that would cost trillions of dollars when we can even collect enough tax revenue to cover the operation of the entitlement programs we already have AND operate the government. We're borrowing money to pay the interest on money we already borrowed! Come on!

There are a dozen things we could do to increase access to health care for people who don't have it AND reduce the cost of it and none of those things would cost a dime let alone increase the size and scope of federal government.

Given our dire financial situation, why aren't those things the FIRST things we do before we sign up for another huge pile of debt and/or the massive tax increase that it will eventually take to cover the bill? Use your heads!

fancy80 (Anonymous) says…

"the sad part is that alot of people are happy to have other people do their thinking for them. Someone tells them “hey, this is good for you” and that's all they need to hear. They haven't read they bill, don't care about what we lose to get this bill enacted, or for that matter, what is really in the bill. They just want cheap insurance."

The really sad part is they think insurance is the problem. They don't understand that it doesn't matter how we pay for it if it costs too darned much. They think if they can't afford that $50,000 operation out of pocket, and they can't afford the insurance premiums to pay for it, somehow they can afford the taxes for the government to pay for it.

Remember:

The Democrats only voted for the war in Iraq because they were "lied" to (and fell for it something like 935 times, supposedly).

The Democrats only voted for the bailout because they didn't read the bill and didn't know what was in it.

The Democrats only failed to pay their taxes because they either forgot or didn't know they were supposed to.

Let's face it - the Democrats best - and only - defense for their policies and actions is: "We're stupid."

(It has the advantage of being inarguable.)

Which says a lot for the people who keep electing them - see boohoozo, merrill, and porchie, for example.

Fancy80 - Thank you. You are a voice of reason in the partisan wilderness.

Our culture is so politically fractured people ignore the dire consequences of creating yet another massive and expensive increase in government just to say the democrats won! They hate the republicans so badly, and often with good reason, that they don't just shut out the partisan talking points coming from the other side of the argument - they shut out EVERYTHING. They, like you so ably point out, stop thinking, stop reasoning, stop using common sense because remaining true to their political ideology has become more important to them. What a sad state of affairs it is.

Thats one of the reasons why I'll never be a member of a political party.

BTW Fancy80, it's good to see a new name on this blog - welcome.

A couple pieces of advice: Don't stop driving your point home until you have to scroll down to read the entire, rambling, incoherent, and frequently juvenile reply your detractors leave you. That is how we measure success around here.

Lastly, there are some on this blog who will not be happy until the downward spiral our country is in repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism. They cannot be reasoned with. Don't waste your time. Post what you will, and let your ideas stand on their own merits.

On tort reform - Obama has signaled that he would be favorable towards changing these millionaire lawsuits. They are an outrage, specially because of how they are handled. Remember the McDonald's coffee case?

But to make tort reform a reality we have to rid ourselves of our litigious culture... which would be really, really hard.

I completely agree with you Chandler.

There are a bunch of things the federal government could do to improve the health care system we have that would result in more people having access to it, the cost being reduced for everybody, and the quality (already very good) being improved.

Unfortunately, the sticking point seems to be the presumption that in order to do the aforementioned things, we must first spend an enormous sum of money our country simply doesn't have, and we must create a considerably larger and more invasive federal government bureaucracy to do it. People go off the rails at this point, and the argument quickly devolves into very predictable, and quite intractable partisan positions - which I am sad to say is what the two major parties want us to do. As long as we are fighting amongst ourselves, they are free to act in their own self-interest and ignore us.

Its my hope common sense will someday break through the bickering and our government can do several of these reforms that don't cost the tax-payers a dime, and actually save all of us some money. The fact these things haven't been done to this point in time are indicative of the all-too common partisan political grid-lock in DC. The merits of cleaning up MEDICADE fraud for example, or a nation-wide (as opposed to states) health insurance market, or letting individuals take the same tax deduction business get for health care costs are all self-evident and have been around a long time.

They haven't been done to this point because some well-financed special interest (who donate heavily to congressional campaigns) will get it's toes stepped on. Congress (both parties) would much rather saddle you and me with more debt and deficit spending than threaten their goose that lays the golden campaign financing eggs.