THANK YOU Massachusetts!

[RainmanTime]

You may have saved the entire country from having to withstand a highly-partisan, VERY unfair, and what some constitutional lawyers were saying was an unconstitutional health care reform bill!

There is little doubt that the way this bill was prepared was 180 degrees out from what Obama promised would be the case (all his campaign rhetoric of "bipartisan cooperation" or "transparency" certainly went by the wayside when Nancy Pelosi started swinging her penis around!)

:D

NOTE: Contrary to what many uber-left liberals accuse me of... it is NOT about "doing nothing" about health care. Rather is IT about NOT passing something that is not only dangerous to the majority, potentially unconstitutional, and certainly NOT supported by the majority of the population. It is about getting the legislation RIGHT, not necessarily getting it done quickly.

RMT

 

[ruthless]

its good for you, but very bad for people like me. i'd like to go to the doc every now and then.

 

[RainmanTime]

ruthless,

its good for you, but very bad for people like me. i'd like to go to the doc every now and then.

As I know you are well aware, there is always more than one way to solve any problem. Those politicians who claim this seriously flawed bill (which also violates the Constitution) is the only way to fix health care are the most insidious, power-hungry people in DC.

In the hopes that this does not turn into 20 questions, I am more than willing to help you find another solution to the problem you pose. I guarantee there is at least one other solution. In fact, I hereby promise that if this reaches 20 questions I will tell you the simplest solution. So, much as I do in my classes to lead students to discovery of problem solutions, bear with me and answer some questions as I pose them. OK? I will number them so I can keep my 20 questions promise to you...

1) What is it that leads you to believe you cannot go see a doc every now and then, when you have the need?

RMT

 

[ruthless]

no insurance. yeah yeah, i should get a job. i know.

 

[ruthless]

how about this: whats your plan for national healthcare?

 

[RainmanTime]

no insurance. yeah yeah, i should get a job. i know.

I am not doing this to berate or embarass you, ruthless. I really am trying to help solve the problem. We may get to the job part, but let's continue:

2) Do you not have Medicaid? (Or have you not applied for it?)

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

how about this: whats your plan for national healthcare?

Complicated question, which forces us to examine if the national level is the right place to administer it. But I can address it as long as you keep with me in answering questions and trying to help you with your issue.

The people who are elected to govern OFTEN overstep the boundaries set down by the US Constitution. In this health care debate, they are doing exactly that. The US Constitution defines and allocates ONLY VERY SPECIFIC POWERS to the federal (national) government. Further, the Constitution states that all other powers not invested in the federal government are reserved for the states. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to do what they are trying to do, which is one reason anything they pass with the current legislation will be challenged in courts and ultimately fail.

The ONLY part of the Constitution that can be construed to apply to health care is the phrase "promote the general welfare." Note it says PROMOTE and NOT CONTROL! And this represents the brilliance of our founding fathers. They knew that back then, just as it is today, things are not the same all over our land. What works in one state may be a disaster in another state, if for no other reasons than demographics, cultural biases, differing morals and values.

So the federal government cannot control health care, the best they can do according to the Constitution is PROMOTE it. Their means for promoting it is the biggest hammer they have: The ability to tax. That does NOT mean "tax the hell out of people who work to pay for all the people who do not work." What it suggests is that, if they want to PROMOTE better (mroe accessible and cheaper) health care, they need to remove barriers and provide incentives for more people to get in the business of offering it.

One way would be to give tax incentives to the states that would encourage competition amongst not only major hospitals but individual family practices. If a private practice doctor was able to reduce his/her tax burden by seeing "x number of indigent patients per week", you might be surprised how quickly things would change.

The other thing that MUST be changed are tort reform laws that allow massive and ludicrous legal settlements for malpractice. Imagine you are a doctor who is trying to "do the right thing" and you setup practice in a depressed area, where you KNOW your ability to earn a living is going to be less than taking a posh job somewhere else. And now, one or more of the people you treat for LOW costs (or NO costs) is now allowed to sue you because you may have made a medical error (we ALL make mistakes!). Now you stand to not only lose your practice, possibly your license to practice, but also may end up in EXACTLY the position of the people he was trying to help... while the person he tried to help walks away with a judgment of millions (or more).

These are the ISSUES that must be addressed before a REAL debate (not Democrats hiding in back rooms cutting special deals with unions) can begin about how to we make health care better and more accessible.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

In between questions, let me also offer some evidence for precisely WHY trying to do what the Dems wish to do on the national level will become a disaster... and oddly enough, as in the cases represented by this evidence, it is the people who MOST NEED HELP (that they say they are trying to help) who have been harmed the most.

There are LOTS of historical cases where the federal government decided they had to jump in and try to control things "for the good of the poor people." How did they turn out?

1) Social security was established in 1935. Here are the goals behind which the whole social security system was set up back then:

<font color="red"> "The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate the protection of the elderly." [/COLOR]

Certainly a noble cause. But how did things work out? Terrible. Both Dems and Repubs agree that social security is already GOING broke, and will be completely broke within the next 10-15 years. Why did this happen? Because the SAME types of federal lawmakers in DC who created SocSec also thought it was perfectly OK to transfer (steal!) money from the SocSec fund and put it into the general fund so they could spend it "to help the poor". The argument was there was a huge surplus, and once the programs they wanted to spend the $ on paid-off, they would pay back the SocSec fund. But that never happened, did it? And so the result is that people who really will need and rely on social security in the coming years will not have it! And even though I have been paying into SocSec for my ENTIRE working career, I know I will not see a cent of it. But then again, I am smart enough and have worked to save and invest enough of the money the FED did NOT take from me that I do not really need SocSec. So here we have CLEAR EVIDENCE that the people who the GOV said they were trying to help are actually the ones who will suffer because the FEDs abused their own system! Ironic, eh?

2) Fannie Mae was established in 1938. Much like SocSec, here is why it was created:

<font color="red"> "Fannie Mae was established in 1938 as a mechanism to make mortgages more available to low-income families. It was added to the Federal Home Mortgage association, a government agency in the wake of the Great Depression in 1938, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in order to facilitate liquidity within the mortgage market." [/COLOR]

Again, great intentions. Sounded good. But once the FEDS had the power over this creation of theirs, their natural tendency to abuse that power lead them to abuse what Fannie Mae was all about. I am sure you are aware that Fannie Mae is broke, and as a result it is not doing very well at helping low-income peeps. And before you "blame George Bush and the Repubs" I should warn you (or anyone who wishes to rise to that level of rhetoric) that I can destroy that argument and show that just as many Dems destroyed Fannie Mae as Repubs. It is not about the parties... it is about federal control and the tendency to corruption at that level of government.

3) Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You know the routine from the above. There was a reason for it being created. Here it is:

<font color="red"> "Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources." and "Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. " [/COLOR]

I would bet that you know that both Medicare and Medicaid are in big financial trouble. In other words, they do not "work" to help all the needy people who need the help that these two programs were created for!!!

Not a very good track record we are seeing here for FED control over things intended to "help the poor", eh?

4) Freddie Mac was established in 1970.

<font color="red"> "To provide competition for the newly private Fannie Mae and to further increase the availability of funds to finance mortgages and home ownership, Congress then established the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) as a private corporation through the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970. The charter of Freddie Mac was essentially the same as Fannie Mae's newly private charter: to expand the secondary market for mortgages and mortgage backed securities by buying mortgages made by savings and loan associations and other depository institutions." [/COLOR]

Same basic goal as Fannie Mae, to help people get home loans that could not otherwise qualify. Same basic result, as well.... it is broke!

I will not go on, but there are plenty other examples. Two that I will just identify by name, and you might wish to go research them to see how these federal bureacracies are doing:

5) AmTrak
6) Department of Energy

With a record like this, what makes you or anyone else think that the FED government taking control over all health care in this nation will not only be a GOOD thing, but has ANY CHANCE IN HELL OF SUCCEEDING????

RMT

 

[ruthless]

I am not doing this to berate or embarass you, ruthless.

im not really embarrased by it anymore. 10% of the u.s. is in the same boat as me.

2) Do you not have Medicaid? (Or have you not applied for it?)

no medicaid. i hear it doesent help much either.

 

[RainmanTime]

ruthless:

no medicaid. i hear it doesent help much either.

Not sure who you have heard it from, but they are clearly misinformed. In fact, here is something one of my friends on Facebook posted this morning:

<font color="red"> "I am disabled and have Medicare; it rocks." [/COLOR]

I know you have kids, ruthless. You should definitely go through the effort to apply for Medicaid for them. They can qualify all on their own. And while you are at it, you should apply for yourself and at least see if you qualify. Next question:

3) Do you know how the majority of illegal aliens get to see the doctor?

RMT

 

[ruthless]

wife has medicare, they took her medicaid away. kids have medicaid. it helps, but not enough. they run out of points pretty fast.

3) Do you know how the majority of illegal aliens get to see the doctor?

my guess would be they swim to cuba and see the free doc.

 

[RainmanTime]

kids have medicaid. it helps, but not enough. they run out of points pretty fast.

And that leads to the question:

4) Then who do you think should be paying to do more for them? Myself and all the other taxpayers are already doing more than enough, wouldn't you agree?

my guess would be they swim to cuba and see the free doc.

They walk into the emergency rooms. And you can do the same thing. Now, I hate the fact that this is the default position, but it is also the position protected by the laws of this country. No one who needs health care can be denied by the hospitals if they do this. Hence, you can do this. So this leads to:

5) Why do you think we need to take more money out of the pockets of the people who are already paying for what you do get as a handout, especially and specifically when it is almost a certainty that the "middle man" (government) will abuse its power just like it did in all the examples above, and you (the needy) would NOT GET ANY EXTRA HELP YOU NEED?

This last question is a very important one that I would like you to answer. Because clearly you cannot (and have not) denied that all the government programs that were setup to help people like you have actually been corrupted, and that has not done much for you. You even seem to agree with this given your statement about "not enough" Medicaid for your kids.

And if we finish these questions, then yes, maybe we can discuss a job. Because I have a suggestion for one that the odds of being rejected are low, and will also provide health care benefits.

RMT

 

[ruthless]

4) Then who do you think should be paying to do more for them? Myself and all the other taxpayers are already doing more than enough, wouldn't you agree?

no, i wouldnt agree. when some people become complacent to the world around them, they forget that we are all in this boat together.

now, i hope you hear and understand this: when this very, very short life ends for everyone, and you go to the pearly gates, and god asks, "what did you do with your life, my child?" i dont want to be the person that says, "i hoarded all of my rescources, and locked them up with a key, and defended it with a shotgun."

5) Why do you think we need to take more money out of the pockets of the people who are already paying for what you do get as a handout, especially and specifically when it is almost a certainty that the "middle man" (government) will abuse its power just like it did in all the examples above, and you (the needy) would NOT GET ANY EXTRA HELP YOU NEED?

i did, in fact have a job once upon a time, and i did not complain when they took a large portion of my money. also, i would probably still have money to this day, if i had not helped those around me that needed it.

if the government blows the part that they take, fine and dandy. they obviously need it more than me. in the end, it comes down to two choices, greed or selflessness. everyone has to make that choice.

 

[ruthless]

Rather is IT about NOT passing something that is not only dangerous to the majority, potentially unconstitutional, and certainly NOT supported by the majority of the population

i am sure that you believe that, but the fact is the upper class is not the majority. neither is the middle class. the lower class people are the majority in this country, despite what you may hear in the media.

the folks that need it certainly do support it, and the folks that dont need it, dont want to pay for it. its as simple as that.

...but they still want their big mac on time, and cooked properly, of course.

 

[RainmanTime]

no, i wouldnt agree. when some people become complacent to the world around them, they forget that we are all in this boat together.

I knew we would get here. So then answer this: If we are all in this together, what do YOU contribute to society that benefits others? Why is it OK for you to live off of others, but then it is also OK for you to judge others who do not give more to support you?

now, i hope you hear and understand this: when this very, very short life ends for everyone, and you go to the pearly gates, and god asks, "what did you do with your life, my child?" i dont want to be the person that says, "i hoarded all of my rescources, and locked them up with a key, and defended it with a shotgun."

Now I hope you hear and understand this: It is not my job to give everything I have to people who have nothing to give. It is my responsibility to take care of myself (remember the old saying "God helps those who help themselves). I give to many charities. One of those charities I give to is called the US government. Rather than taking, what do you give?

i did, in fact have a job once upon a time, and i did not complain when they took a large portion of my money. also, i would probably still have money to this day, if i had not helped those around me that needed it.

What you are failing to understand is this: Some of us don't ever want to have to burden others. Hence, we work and we plan our lives such that we do not have to be a burden to others. You seem to wish to judge people who do not give more ("judge not, lest ye be judged"). But when will you take responsibility for yourself in such a way that you never have to be a burden to others? Why would that not be a good way to live your life, rather than being happy to rely on others to give to you?

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

i am sure that you believe that, but the fact is the upper class is not the majority. neither is the middle class. the lower class people are the majority in this country, despite what you may hear in the media.

the folks that need it certainly do support it, and the folks that dont need it, dont want to pay for it. its as simple as that.

And finally this brings us to one of the most telling quotes about socialism, which is the definition of what you are advocating:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

What would happen if the all those people who work and pay taxes so you don't have to work just got so sick of having their money forcibly taken from them by the government, that they said "I give up. I am going to live like those people who take, take, take."? What would you do then?

What if me, and people like me, one day said "I am done taking care of everyone else. I am going to stop working, which will lower my income below the level I have to pay any taxes at all."

What then? Your ideal socialist world would disintegrate.

Why are your ethics always about "people should give more", but yet you (being a person) don't have to give at all? Why is that OK?

That job I told you about is all about giving...which you say you are interested in. If you were to join the armed services, you would be able to give to your country, and your country would not only pay you, but give you health care in return. But I would bet you have a moral judgment about that which says "others should give, but it is against my ethics to give in that way."
RMT

 

[ruthless]

yeah, great conversation. more of the same old stuff.

since you missed it, i'll say it once again: you have two choices in life, you can be a greedy person and gripe about everything when its convenient, or you can be selfless, and be thankful for what god has given you.

and heres the problem with greedy upper class elitists: they hoard all of the rescources, and make capitalism their top priority, then everyone, except the top of the food chain live in the gutters. society eventually falls, and that dollar they hold on to so hard, becomes worthless, then they are in the same boat as everyone else.

what gives you the right to judge and say that i am lesser than you? becuase you work? ha! i could have as much money as i wanted, alot more than you if i so chose. but i think that on our judgement day, god will be happy with my decisions, and happy to see that hope never left my eyes. will he say the same to you? only you can make that call. i sincerely hope you envision that scenario.

Why are your ethics always about "people should give more", but yet you (being a person) don't have to give at all? Why is that OK?

have you gone mad?! seriously? i have nothing because i gave everything i have. first i gave my money, now i give my heart and soul. but it will always fall upond blind eyes and deaf ears because they have more money than me, therefore they must be right.

we can do this silly back and forth all day like we have plenty of times before, but it wont get us anywhere. it will, however, waste our time. i will never believe the way you do, and you will never believe the way i do, unless you have to. i hope that day never comes for you, because you will be in a heap of trouble.

i am sorry that i am a burden to you and the upper class. i do not like being a burden to anyone. that is why i choose to stay at home, and not ask anyone for anything, especially the government. either way, i never feel like a burden to anyone except to god. i actually think you are silly for believing anything is yours. but hey, thats just me. call me crazy!

...and im sure you do. its cool though, i wont lose a bit of sleep over it.

have a good one ray. enjoy your priveladged life, and be thankful that god did not burden you with sickness, or mental instability. you are fortunate. enjoy that fact and live in bliss.

 

[ruthless]

I am not doing this to berate or embarass you, ruthless. I really am trying to help solve the problem.

thanks for the help, i appreciate it. it made everything so much better to know i am a bane to all mankind. a scar on the planet, if you will.

 

[ruthless]

i have a proposition for you. you have plenty of money, and this will cost you very little to prove your point. go out, and buy a game called guild wars: prophecies.

if you choose to do that, let me know what your character name is. i will take you on a journey that will definitely change your mind. i know it sounds silly to you, but that is because you have no idea what you are getting yourself into. i dont think you do so well under those conditions, but, if you decide to go out of your comfort zone just to prove a point, you will have taken the fist step in the right direction in my eyes.

 

[RainmanTime]

more of the same old stuff.

Yes, indeed. Look in the mirror.

what gives you the right to judge and say that i am lesser than you?

Yes, indeed. Look in the mirror.

Who is really the one judging here? Obviously, you do not see it because you have judged the same thing about me. Your logic: When I judge=bad (hoarder, elitist, and other lovely judgments). When you judge=God is on your side and you are pure. I see.

Have fun with your games. Glad you have $ to spend on that, but not to spend on things that are clearly more important, even by your own judgment. Who needs to grow up?

Adios,
RMT