Junior Senator Franken Kicks Conservative Ass -again

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

Care to point out in the Constitution that gave Congress(Mostly Democrats) to implement Medicare and Social security?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PatranusCare to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

The Interstate Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Congress has very broad authority to regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce.

Regardless, even if it isn't in the Constitution, we should still have national health care. The free market dogmatists are intellectually bankrupt and have lost the debate on both moral and practical grounds.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PJABBERFranken is being disingenuous in the cited clip - the Europeans have a much different perspective on what constitutes bankruptcy than the U.S. In fact it is damn difficult to get what we might refer to as a "bankruptcy discharge" in Europe.

OK, so how many Europeans end up penniless and emptying their bank accounts to pay for medical care in the first world European nations that have socialized medicine? I'm guessing that the answer is very close to zero.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: PJABBERFranken is being disingenuous in the cited clip - the Europeans have a much different perspective on what constitutes bankruptcy than the U.S. In fact it is damn difficult to get what we might refer to as a "bankruptcy discharge" in Europe.

OK, so how many Europeans end up penniless and emptying their bank accounts to pay for medical care in the first world European nations that have socialized medicine? I'm guessing that the answer is very close to zero.

Less then zero if that is even possible

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: PatranusCare to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

The Interstate Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Congress has very broad authority to regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce.

Regardless, even if it isn't in the Constitution, we should still have national health care. The free market dogmatists are intellectually bankrupt and have lost the debate on both moral and practical grounds.

Ok, they can REGULATE it. What does that have to do with a government option?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

Care to point out in the Constitution that gave Congress(Mostly Democrats) to implement Medicare and Social security?

It doesn't allow the Feds to do that. Very few seem to care about those sorts of abuses though, which is unfortunate.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: PJABBER
- the Europeans have a much different perspective on what constitutes bankruptcy than the U.S. In fact it is damn difficult to get what we might refer to as a "bankruptcy discharge" in Europe.

Maybe it's because they removed involuntary bankruptcies like medical bankruptcies, they can be more stringent with bankruptcies involving reckless behavior (i.e. credit card bankruptcies).

What's embarrassing is, the only fool is you, you haven't disproved Franken's facts.

I'll keep this to a general comment as I am heading out for a manly one hour BTTW mountain bike ride, but doesn't it seem to you that Franken using statistics from overseas legal systems that virtually disallow bankruptcy for any cause is misleading at best?

You can look up the bankruptcy codes for all the cited countries yourself. It isn't that hard. Do I have to do ALL of your heavy lifting for you? No wonder we now have several threads going on and on about hissy girly Democrats.

(My apologies if you are actually of the female or trans gender option!)

You'll keep it to a general comment because you have no facts, no logic, and no argument. Why the fuck does that even matter when it's impossible for Europeans to be in a situation where they would NEED to go through a bankruptcy process like we do for medical bankruptcies? You're an IDIOT.

 

[Moonbeam]

I knew we were in for universal health care the minute some asshole said:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

Care to point out in the Constitution that gave Congress(Mostly Democrats) to implement Medicare and Social security?

It doesn't allow the Feds to do that. Very few seem to care about those sorts of abuses though, which is unfortunate.

This is a laughable point. If these were actually unconstitutional, SOMEONE would have pursued a successful challenge in the court system. No one has. Ipso facto, they aren't "abuses." They're perfectly acceptable exercises of federal authority.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: PJABBER
- the Europeans have a much different perspective on what constitutes bankruptcy than the U.S. In fact it is damn difficult to get what we might refer to as a "bankruptcy discharge" in Europe.

Maybe it's because they removed involuntary bankruptcies like medical bankruptcies, they can be more stringent with bankruptcies involving reckless behavior (i.e. credit card bankruptcies).

What's embarrassing is, the only fool is you, you haven't disproved Franken's facts.

I'll keep this to a general comment as I am heading out for a manly one hour BTTW mountain bike ride, but doesn't it seem to you that Franken using statistics from overseas legal systems that virtually disallow bankruptcy for any cause is misleading at best?

You can look up the bankruptcy codes for all the cited countries yourself. It isn't that hard. Do I have to do ALL of your heavy lifting for you? No wonder we now have several threads going on and on about hissy girly Democrats.

(My apologies if you are actually of the female or trans gender option!)

You'll keep it to a general comment because you have no facts, no logic, and no argument. Why the fuck does that even matter when it's impossible for Europeans to be in a situation where they would NEED to go through a bankruptcy process like we do for medical bankruptcies? You're an IDIOT.

So you ARE of the female or trans gender. Say no more, I've seen PMS in others before. :laugh:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PatranusOk, they can REGULATE it. What does that have to do with a government option?

"Regulate" implies the authority to also own and operate if that is "necessary and proper" for the purpose of the act of regulating.

Patranus, you're making a bad argument against socialized medicine simply because morality and practicality aren't dependent on pieces of paper. The argument you're trying to make is, "It's written down (or not written down) on this ancient piece of paper, therefore it's correct." If the Constitution said that people could own slaves, would you believe that slavery was correct? That was in fact part of the Constitution until the Civil War.

Instead of basing right and wrong and what is and isn't practical and good based on what's written down on a piece of paper, you should try to refer to reality. In other words, just put up an argument explaining why socialized medicine is evil and why it will always fail and end up being extremely expensive and inefficient and provide bad care. That will be much more effective and persuasive than saying, "Uh, it's not in the Constitution." You should begin by explaining how it's more expensive in the UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and Taiwan and how it results in worse health care and more medical bankruptcies and a greater burden on businesses.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: PJABBERFranken is being disingenuous in the cited clip - the Europeans have a much different perspective on what constitutes bankruptcy than the U.S. In fact it is damn difficult to get what we might refer to as a "bankruptcy discharge" in Europe.

OK, so how many Europeans end up penniless and emptying their bank accounts to pay for medical care in the first world European nations that have socialized medicine? I'm guessing that the answer is very close to zero.

Precisely what does Europe have to do with the proposals which are on the table? Franken is trying to establish his credibility by bring up the irrelevant. In THIS legislation people would have to pay for insurance whether they can afford it or not. Now, if people don't have the financial reserve to buy insurance to begin with, how will forcing them to buy that which they couldn't afford fix that?

Heaven forbid I should have Frankens authority badger people over nonsense. I would be shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

Care to point out in the Constitution that gave Congress(Mostly Democrats) to implement Medicare and Social security?

It doesn't allow the Feds to do that. Very few seem to care about those sorts of abuses though, which is unfortunate.

This is a laughable point. If these were actually unconstitutional, SOMEONE would have pursued a successful challenge in the court system. No one has. Ipso facto, they aren't "abuses." They're perfectly acceptable exercises of federal authority.

:laugh: Are you for real? You can't seriously be that stupid...

 

[Munky]

You know there is something wrong with our health insurance industry if the majority of those who did go bankrupt due to medical costs were insured nonetheless. The bottom line in the private sector is profit, not the welfare of the nation. I say at least give the govt a chance to provide an alternative insurance system, they might just do a better job.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I knew we were in for universal health care the minute some asshole said:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

That is actually the justification for Revolution and an overthrow of Government.

The reference to "the pursuit of happiness" in the vernacular of the day was the right to have the benefit/profit of property ownership remain with the property owner and not the government. You get happy by keeping the profits which come from your labor and the use of land that you privately own.

Actually, that language might be a further rebuttal to government mandated "insurances" - the government in that circumstance is forcing you to use your "profit" in a way that you might not want to.

The government has no legal right to force you to buy insurance. They might TAX you and apply those taxes toward a government program of some kind, but they have no legal leg to stand on in requiring you to buy insurance.

It will be up to the Supreme Court to render a determination on this, the Congress has refused to ask for an early reading so that the Court's likely Constitutional interpretation thinking can be incorporated in the drafting of the legislation. Highly unusual with such a broad sweeping attempt by government to take over such a large swath of the economy, but that is the Democrat way!

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would start with:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

that's not a grant of power.

What about:

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;

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: PJABBER
- the Europeans have a much different perspective on what constitutes bankruptcy than the U.S. In fact it is damn difficult to get what we might refer to as a "bankruptcy discharge" in Europe.

Maybe it's because they removed involuntary bankruptcies like medical bankruptcies, they can be more stringent with bankruptcies involving reckless behavior (i.e. credit card bankruptcies).

What's embarrassing is, the only fool is you, you haven't disproved Franken's facts.

I'll keep this to a general comment as I am heading out for a manly one hour BTTW mountain bike ride, but doesn't it seem to you that Franken using statistics from overseas legal systems that virtually disallow bankruptcy for any cause is misleading at best?

You can look up the bankruptcy codes for all the cited countries yourself. It isn't that hard. Do I have to do ALL of your heavy lifting for you? No wonder we now have several threads going on and on about hissy girly Democrats.

(My apologies if you are actually of the female or trans gender option!)

You'll keep it to a general comment because you have no facts, no logic, and no argument. Why the fuck does that even matter when it's impossible for Europeans to be in a situation where they would NEED to go through a bankruptcy process like we do for medical bankruptcies? You're an IDIOT.

So you ARE of the female or trans gender. Say no more, I've seen PMS in others before. :laugh:

Hmm yes, lets steal the insult for the day:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2344356&enterthread=y

Sorry about your hormones, maybe you could go to the hospital and get that checked out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: munky
You know there is something wrong with our health insurance industry if the majority of those who did go bankrupt due to medical costs were insured nonetheless. The bottom line in the private sector is profit, not the welfare of the nation. I say at least give the govt a chance to provide an alternative insurance system, they might just do a better job.

If they do not, will you change carriers?

There's a WHOLE lot of things to consider in changing health care. Government never says "Hey here is money. Do the best that can be done."

What the do is say "This is what you will do". Consider that people rant about the FDA, yet people want to give control to the same bureaucrats. Do you want that?

Federal dollars never come without strings. In this case they would be pulling yours.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

You keep harping this 10th amendment garbage, but the truth is that both parties (and parties before the current ones) have been ignoring the 10th amendment ever since it was used to justify slavery and secession from the union. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government power to do 99% of the things it does now. I mean, (very) technically, we shouldn't even have an airforce branch of the military because the Constitution doesn't mention it. NASA, the NIH, the NSF, the war on drugs, and a thousand other institutions and programs have no basis in the Constitution.

So cut it with this 10th amendment bullshit because when you look at the facts, the amendment has been dead for 150 years now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

You keep harping this 10th amendment garbage, but the truth is that both parties (and parties before the current ones) have been ignoring the 10th amendment ever since it was used to justify slavery and secession from the union. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government power to do 99% of the things it does now. I mean, (very) technically, we shouldn't even have an airforce branch of the military because the Constitution doesn't mention it. NASA, the NIH, the NSF, the war on drugs, and a thousand other institutions and programs have no basis in the Constitution.

So cut it with this 10th amendment bullshit because when you look at the facts, the amendment has been dead for 150 years now.

That's what Bush said about the 4th. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Has it occurred to you that the problem isn't that we don't evade the Constitution enough, but that we don't pay attention as we should? Naaaa. That would kill whatever agenda a party has, and party uber alles.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
You keep harping this 10th amendment garbage, but the truth is that both parties (and parties before the current ones) have been ignoring the 10th amendment ever since it was used to justify slavery and secession from the union. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government power to do 99% of the things it does now. I mean, (very) technically, we shouldn't even have an airforce branch of the military because the Constitution doesn't mention it. NASA, the NIH, the NSF, the war on drugs, and a thousand other institutions and programs have no basis in the Constitution.

So cut it with this 10th amendment bullshit because when you look at the facts, the amendment has been dead for 150 years now.

So him having a problem with that is 'harping this 10th amendment garbage'?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
You keep harping this 10th amendment garbage, but the truth is that both parties (and parties before the current ones) have been ignoring the 10th amendment ever since it was used to justify slavery and secession from the union. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government power to do 99% of the things it does now. I mean, (very) technically, we shouldn't even have an airforce branch of the military because the Constitution doesn't mention it. NASA, the NIH, the NSF, the war on drugs, and a thousand other institutions and programs have no basis in the Constitution.

So cut it with this 10th amendment bullshit because when you look at the facts, the amendment has been dead for 150 years now.

So him having a problem with that is 'harping this 10th amendment garbage'?

He's not consistent at all with his reasoning. That's what I have a problem with. When it fits with his agenda, then he'll side with "states right", but when it aligns with his viewpoint, he'll stomp over the 10th amendment.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

You keep harping this 10th amendment garbage, but the truth is that both parties (and parties before the current ones) have been ignoring the 10th amendment ever since it was used to justify slavery and secession from the union. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government power to do 99% of the things it does now. I mean, (very) technically, we shouldn't even have an airforce branch of the military because the Constitution doesn't mention it. NASA, the NIH, the NSF, the war on drugs, and a thousand other institutions and programs have no basis in the Constitution.

So cut it with this 10th amendment bullshit because when you look at the facts, the amendment has been dead for 150 years now.

That's what Bush said about the 4th. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Has it occurred to you that the problem isn't that we don't evade the Constitution enough, but that we don't pay attention as we should? Naaaa. That would kill whatever agenda a party has, and party uber alles.

Well, the American people just don't know what they want. They, simultaneously, want a strong state government and a strong federal government. For the majority of situations, these goals are mutually exclusive.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Well, the American people just don't know what they want. They, simultaneously, want a strong state government and a strong federal government. For the majority of situations, these goals are mutually exclusive.

Then why not let the people vote for it?

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

so ALL Democrats are smart, honest, decent, hardworking, and always there for the public good?

Alex, who are Reps. William Jefferson of LA and James Traficant of OH, Governors Rod Blagojevich of IL and Edwin Edward of LA just to name a few for $1000 please.

I am no way a fan of Republican party (true Independence) but to say the problems we are in now are "only" because of them are insane.