Well, your feelings run quite high.

Any true libertarian would be “for” universal healthcare and the argument should focus on how to pay for it.

Anything else is self centered BS mascarading as any loose idea put out there.

Having owned my own business, I respect your continuing achievement on that front. You ought to share a few good engineering/shit jokes. I can’t think of any, other than every position you have taken on this blog. An those have just been shit positions without the social engineering considered.

Incorrect.

I feel that just because it happened once, doesn’t mean it should happen again. We need to correct those mistakes, not build on them.

Big difference.

If a murderer goes free on a technicality, does that mean all future murders this guy commits are ok?

//#54 insert waste treatment joke here

I probably know more than you do

So, instead of accepting the SCOTUS rulings as valid (as clearly stated by the Constitution), you simply throw them out because they don’t agree with you. Sorry, reality doesn’t work that way. What the Supreme Court *says* the Constitution means *is* what the Constitution means, unless overruled by a more recent SCOTUS ruling.

Political background is good to know as a historical matter, but it’s irrelevant to the legality of the rulings. You’re peaching about FDR really only serves to prove that you’re opinions have been out dated for well over a hundred years.

The fact is that no country in this would has a health system run the way you wish ours was run *and* produces better results. Completely apart from the fact that you have no legal foot to stand on, there are no countries in this world that you can use as examples to support your ideology.

You’re an ideologue, with no feet to stand on. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can move on from your denial to anger (then bargaining, etc…).

//#54 insert waste treatment joke here

Nope. I own an engineering firm with about a dozen engineers. We design waste water treatment plants, electrical power distribution centers, and other processes — all the things people use day to day and wonder why it costs so much to use.

Keep increasing our overhead. Eventually, you won’t be able to afford the basics.

I know what the purpose of the SCOTUS is for. But in the 1890s it job turned more and more from settling disputes between States and the like to handling lawsuits brought against the US. I find no problem with that.

I bring up FDR as an example of how the Constitution has been subverted. They were doing their job up until then.

When FDR’s socialist programs were being struck down one after the other after he took office, he threatened to dilute the sitting judges’ power by appointing an equal number of judges who would vote in his favor — and not replace the sitting ones when they retired.

Lo and behold (!) all his programs since were approved. And every president since has had the near-perfect approval for anything they support.

BTW . . . I don’t watch West Wing but thanks for describing your educational background.

Why is he still mad at FDR? The dude’s been dead for 64 years. Give it a rest already.

Once more with feeling:
The constitution is very clear about who has the valid legal authority to interpret the constitution: The Supreme Court (and lower courts as necessary; SCOTUS being the highest of them, and thus the one that defines the discussion for everyone else). This interpretation is backed by precedent. You’re personal opinion on the matter is about as legally binding as a Harry Potter novel.

Interpreting the constitution without consideration to Supreme Court decisions is like speaking to a deaf person without knowing sign language and pointedly ignoring the guy behind her yelling at you about what she’s trying to say (Constitution is to Joey Lucas as Supreme Court is to Kenny Thurman; for a West Wing reference).

Yea–every case ruled on by the Sup Ct starts with: “What we are doing today is throwing the Constitition in the trash and ruling to make LIEBERTARIANS but chattel slaves.”

What a dope.

The Supreme Court was originally supposed to handle cases between states and to act as the final say in federal cases. However, in the 1890s, that all changed when people started filing suits against the Federal Government on Constitutional grounds (which is ok, I’m not denying that purpose). The problem is that with the Federal Government involved in so many States issues, they have become more than they were intended to be. FDR just made it worse.

There is a difference between completely throwing it in the trash and trying to get it restored.

“If they are that appealing to you, a ticket is less than you think.”

Says the person who just argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have the rights clearly given to it by the constitution.

One of us has a bigger problem with this country then the other, and it ain’t me.

yap, yap, yap—where’s my bone?

. . . or Government Sponsored Genocide.

Also, it’s fine to disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions,

I guess you’ve never heard about FDR’s court packing threat if they didn’t start ruling in his favor, huh?

The Supreme Court has been nothing but a rubber stamp ever since.

But I guess you think two wrongs make a right?

You can’t have lower costs by not covering people *and* have universal coverage. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

You could have universal coverage if the costs weren’t prohibitive.

Get government out of the “dictating” business, put them back in to the “promoting” business, and prices will come down, charity hospitals will open back up, and you’ll find that more people are getting better quality care than ever.

There’s a reason why no country in the world has *less* government involvement in healthcare *and* better coverage than the US.

I don’t really care what other countries are doing. If they are that appealing to you, a ticket is less than you think.

Social Darwinism at it’s finest.

Also, it’s fine to disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions, but the constitution itself delegates who’s constitutional opinions are valid, and it’s the Supreme Court (Article III Section 2). Pretty much all other opinions are just heckling from the bleachers. If Social Security is constitutionally legal under the welfare clause (Helvering v. Davis), then there’s no reason Healthcare reform wouldn’t be. Also, the idea that Heathcare–an industry that takes up a sixth of the US economy–doesn’t qualify as commerce is rather silly.

#40 (same dude/-et)

In one post, saying costs are too high *because* everyone gets covered, then in another saying you *want* everyone to get covered, and they would if… I’m sorry, you weren’t very clear… Less paperwork? Surly not… Not everyone getting covered. That’s *why* the costs would be lower. You can’t have it both ways, though.

You can’t have lower costs by not covering people *and* have universal coverage. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

There’s a reason why no country in the world has *less* government involvement in healthcare *and* better coverage than the US.