[johnwk]

In an article titled Edwards proposes health care plan, 2/5/2007 1:14 PM by Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, we are told that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards asserted the following:

"The time has come for a universal health care reform that covers everyone, cuts costs, and provides better care"

The article also states:

Edwards said his plan will make it cheaper for families and businesses to have insurance coverage while providing health care to the uninsured.

The plan would free up money for health care coverage by abolishing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes, Edwards said.

But the truth about Nedra Pickler’s article is, which was suspiciously not reported, Edwards has not proposed the necessary amendment to our Constitution granting power to Congress to tax and spend or involve itself in the health care needs of the people within the various states. And so, what Edwards is proposing, and is going unnoticed by our media, is another proposed attack upon federalism, and a blatant proposed subjugation of our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to. Those intentions may be summed up as follows:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."see Federalist Paper No. 45

Now, why is Edwards’ proposed subjugation of our written Constitution not reported? Seems to be quite apparent that our popular media works in concert with our Capitol Hill gangster crowd to expand the iron fist of the federal government over the people ___ in this case, seizing control over their health care needs and making them dependent upon the federal government for health care.

But what about Edwards, is he really sincere in wanting to help working people with their health care needs? Seems only too obvious, if Edwards were concerned about the working people, he would be proposing an end to income taxation and a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan which would “free up” the working people’s paychecks to meet their own economic needs rather then propose to subjugate our federal Constitution with another socialist idea.

Make no mistake, Edwards is a sheep in wolves clothes! A very, very dangerous individual to all freedom loving people. Keep in mind socialism is a blessing to folks in government, not the people, and allows folks in government to live large [six figure salaries, extravagant health care plans which the working people can only dream of, and, outrageous pension plans ___ all paid for by the taxed wages working people earn]. Folks in government get all this for nothing more than using the force of the federal government to redistribute working people’s paychecks they have taxed away from them, making wage earners poor and creating a dependent voting constituency which keeps these thieves in political power.

When will the American People wake up and come to the realization the object of the Capitol Hill gang, Republicans and Democrats in political power, is to keep themselves in power, live large, and enjoy the top of the shelf fruits siphoned from the pockets of working people? That is what socialism is all about…a big fat tax pig getting fatter.

The very purpose of income taxation is to make the people dependant upon government by confiscating their earned wages, which folks in government then use to bribe the voter with programs which keeps them in power. And, that is why Edwards, and his socialist pals on Capitol Hill will not propose an end to taxing the wages which labor has earned…their intention is to keep the working people as a usful tax slaves for folks in government and very dependant upon government for their subsistence.

JWK

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“___ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[OldManMac]

Okay, let's play your game. We'll eliminate the income tax....which will eliminate the building and repair of current highway systems we all depend upon, and which will eliminate the vast amounts of medical research that the government funds that have given us longer lives and better medicines and understanding how our bodies work, and which will eliminate funding that allows the "average" person to go to college, and on and on and on. What do you think built our great society, especially after WWII? Who do you think paid for the great leaps in knowledge we've acquired since then, and the infrastructure that we have (which is now crumbling because nobody wants to pay to keep it up, but they'll run down to Midas and have their bent wheels/exhaust replaced)? It certainly wasn't a bunch of Santa's elves.

Please learn to look past the end of your nose.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Okay, let's play your game. We'll eliminate the income tax....which will eliminate the building and repair of current highway systems we all depend upon, and which will eliminate the vast amounts of medical research that the government funds that have given us longer lives and better medicines and understanding how our bodies work, and which will eliminate funding that allows the "average" person to go to college, and on and on and on. What do you think built our great society, especially after WWII? Who do you think paid for the great leaps in knowledge we've acquired since then, and the infrastructure that we have (which is now crumbling because nobody wants to pay to keep it up, but they'll run down to Midas and have their bent wheels/exhaust replaced)? It certainly wasn't a bunch of Santa's elves.

Please learn to look past the end of your nose.

Apparently you are the one who needs to look past the end of their nose and study our Constitution’s original tax plan, which we would be returned to if income taxation was ended, and, would allow the raising of existing levels of revenue!

In addition, there are a number of erroneous assumptions in your thinking above which can best be pointed out by asking you: What do you think built our great society prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment?

JWK

[Kevin]

I used to think Edwards could have taken Bush in the last election. But after seeing him in a interview yesterday morning just shilling in a interview I have my doubts. He was talking about "pulling out of Iraq" and whenever the interviewer reminded him that every single expert on the board claims pulling out now would be a DISASTER! he just kept shilling having no answer to the question. Like he actually DID NOT KNOW anything about the situation. He looked like he was basically just reading off cards.

I have no faith in him being able to win elections anymore.

And I am sure this plan was "given" to him and more than likely he really has no clue how it works.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

"The time has come for a universal health care reform that covers everyone, cuts costs, and provides better care"

Reminds me of the old saw that you can have things better, faster, or cheaper--but you can only have 2 of them. It's not possible to have a system that provides more (covers everyone) while costing less and providing better care.

So which one has to give? The answer is in the second quote...he'll raise taxes. So much for costing less.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Reminds me of the old saw that you can have things better, faster, or cheaper--but you can only have 2 of them. It's not possible to have a system that provides more (covers everyone) while costing less and providing better care.

So which one has to give? The answer is in the second quote...he'll raise taxes. So much for costing less.

But when you get down to the nuts and bolts of what is being proposed, it’s not about health care…it’s about a power grab and making the people dependent upon the federal government.


Why is it so difficult for people to not realize why there is such fighting between Republican and Democrat leaders during federal election time? Is it not obvious to all that one thing remains constant after each federal election? Those who win elections get to be in charge of who will be hired and fired from the countless political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington___ many of these jobs not being within the delegated powers granted to the federal government and being nothing more than a job to redistribute wealth taxed away from hard working Americans!

To get a perspective on the countless number of political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington, take a look at a 1956 telephone directory under federal government and you will find two pages of federal government offices. Look today and that two pages has exploded into a telephone directory that challenges the telephone directory size of many of America’s cities. But what is most astonishing when one realizes how large the federal government has grown, and how it now manages to meddle into almost every aspect of the people’s private lives, is to read the words of James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45(LINK) and then compare his words to the multiple listings for federal government agencies.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

Having identified the intended functions of the federal government, intended to operate on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce, here is a current A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies(LINK), click on any particular listing to find the countless plum jobs created in that department, many of which have six figure salaries!

And what does the phrase, “political plum job“ mean on Capitol Hill? Do you have any idea how many political plum jobs have been created since 1954, and the amount of tax revenue which goes just to pay the salaries, extravagant health care benefits and outlandishly generous pension programs of those appointed to political plum jobs? Of course, the above questions do not even take into account that many of the plum jobs created are for functions not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, such as the current Department of Education(LINK), education being a state constitutionally authorized function!

And, just what are some of the plum jobs at the federal Department of Education? For a partial list see: Officials—U.S. Department of Education(LINK)

And what do these "OFFICIALS" do at the Department of Education? Surprise, they pilfer money from the Department’s budget into their own pockets See: The Department of Embezzlement(LINK)

Fact is, our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population with a national debt which exceeds $50 Trillion(LINK). Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant, and the new servant pays tribute to a gangster government which ignores our most basic law…our constitutions, state and federal.

The Edwards’ proposal would create another department and agency with countless more political plum jobs with outrageous salaries, privileged health care benefits for the in-crowd and extravagant pension plans…all of which would be paid for by taxing working people’s paychecks and the very reason they are not able to meet their own health care needs!

I guess, if the founders were around today one thing they would certainly say is: “He has erected a multitude of new offices(LINK) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Regards,

JWK

[typoon]

These Democrats talk about Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare is working great for Castro in Cuba. The one thing Universal healthcare does well is bankrupt the government.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by typoon 

These Democrats talk about Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare is working great for Castro in Cuba. The one thing Universal healthcare does well is bankrupt the government.

Incorrect, it's actually cheaper to run Universal healthcare.

[typoon]

I wouldn't trust ANY healthcare plan from Edwards. A Man who has sued doctors to make his money. He and his lawyer buddies are a large part of the problem.

[OldManMac]

Maybe those doctors needed to be sued, due to incompetence. It is not as big a part of the problem as some would like you to believe, and those who would like you to believe it have vested interests in getting you to believe that.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Incorrect, it's actually cheaper to run Universal healthcare.

That would be correct. Unfortunately, the American public can't digest anything other than simple sound bytes, and the lobbyists for large corporations that make huge profits on insurance schemes make sure that their congresspeople are fat and happy.

[smacintush]

I think that in light of the Federal Government's excellent decision-making skills and fiscal responsibility that a government run healthcare program would be a fantastic idea.

[OldManMac]

The federal government's decision making skills and fiscal responsibility are no different than most companies. It's interesting that lately the U. S. auto industry has learned that it can make the same number of cars with far less people, and at a lower cost. When you buy name brand clothing with some famous person's name on it, and you pay much more for that article because somebody famous has endorsed it, do you think that's wise decision making and fiscal responsibility?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The federal government's decision making skills and fiscal responsibility are no different than most companies. It's interesting that lately the U. S. auto industry has learned that it can make the same number of cars with far less people, and at a lower cost.

So you're suggesting massive layoffs and pay cuts? The same thing that corporations are maligned for when they do it? (That's OK, maybe we can just put them on welfare)

When this happens and we have nanny-care the economy WILL be hurt significantly, quality WILL go down, corruption WILL be rampant, waste WILL be widespread and we WILL say "I told you so".

When you buy name brand clothing with some famous person's name on it, and you pay much more for that article because somebody famous has endorsed it, do you think that's wise decision making and fiscal responsibility?

On the part of the company selling them absolutely. I am at a loss as to what this has to do with the argument at hand…

P.S. When a company screws things up the profits go down and at times the company fails utterly. When this nanny-care scheme gets screwed up, those in charge may be fired or kicked out of office (as the case may be) IF and ONLY IF it is a big news story, but DEEP pockets of our government will keep throwing BILLIONS down the toilet and the system will be so convoluted that EFFICIENCY will a thing of the past. They WILL turn a profitable segment of our economy into a negative profit black hole.

[OldManMac]

The point I was making is that there is just as much waste, inefficiency, and corruption in private enterprise as there is in government. It's easier to point fingers at the government, because you normally don't dare say anything about your employer. The strange thing is, it's actually easier to control the government, because you can vote people out if they're not doing what you agree with. Unfortunatley, so many have bought into the wasteful government argument that they are too stupid to realize that they can in fact control their government. You can't fire your boss if he takes a day off to go golfing, etc., but you can vote a politician out. What's really at the root of that is that people are not only too stupid to pay attention to what's going on in Washington, they're also too lazy to do anything about it, and that's why we get the government we deserve.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The point I was making is that there is just as much waste, inefficiency, and corruption in private enterprise as there is in government. It's easier to point fingers at the government, because you normally don't dare say anything about your employer. The strange thing is, it's actually easier to control the government, because you can vote people out if they're not doing what you agree with. Unfortunatley, so many have bought into the wasteful government argument that they are too stupid to realize that they can in fact control their government. You can't fire your boss if he takes a day off to go golfing, etc., but you can vote a politician out. What's really at the root of that is that people are not only too stupid to pay attention to what's going on in Washington, they're also too lazy to do anything about it, and that's why we get the government we deserve.

I can't disagree with all of this. If fact I have said similar things in the past.

I do disagree that companies are just as wasteful. How long do you think businesses can survive if they were to run in the red like the government does? Many companies run very inefficiently but in the end they have to at least break even to stay afloat. Our government hasn't managed to stay consistently in the black decades and this would be another HUGE expenditure.

The problem is that these giant government programs rarely (if ever) get fixed. When they get bloated and out of control they just pour MORE and MORE money down the crapper. You know this as well as I, why should I believe this will be any different? They don't EVER have to fix ANYTHING, they only have to APPEAR as if they are.

[OldManMac]

Companies don't run in the red because you pay for it through your purchase of their products. Go into any corporation and you'll see people stealing the company's time, doing things that they shouldn't be doing. That's inefficiency.

In the end, it's still up to the people to determine what level of inefficiency they'll tolerate, and Americans are notorious for complaining about waste, but not doing anything about it. We have no one to blame but ourselves, not some government.

[pooka]

Sorry dude. Companies don't spontaneously gestate & spawn new entities every time a new task is at hand. Don't get me wrong, big companies suck. Big government is exponentially worse.

[OldManMac]

Sorry dude. Then do something about it.

[Big Mac]

The thing to do is to reject demagogues like Hillary and Edwards who attempt to fool the masses into believing they can get something for nothing. Whenever the government does something new for the people, it takes that much more liberty and resources away from the people in order to do it. I'm not too worried right now, though - I don't think the country wants to jump into federal socialized medicine just yet. We already rejected Hillary-care once - although it seems she's a slow learner - and Edwards isn't a credible threat to take the presidency. I do fear that states, like mine, will try to institute state-wide health coverage, but at least on the state level I have a choice to move to another state.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't think the country wants to jump into federal socialized medicine just yet.

I'm not so sure about that. There's an awful lot people who seem to enjoy being taken care of by a nanny state. Either way it IS coming eventually. (IMO)

Edwards isn't a credible threat to take the presidency.

I agree there.

I do fear that states, like mine, will try to institute state-wide health coverage, but at least on the state level I have a choice to move to another state.

State run nanny-care is a better solution IMO than Federal nanny-care.

[medicineman]

If you love the post office or the state DMV, you'll love national or state healthcare.

[mr. natural]

johnwk: Your heart is in the right place with respect to how readily federal govt. involvement more often than not results in greater taxation and loss of liberty. I just wonder why you couldn't have pointed out any number of other unconstitutional realities to make this point than picking on a presidential pretender's proposal that is a long way off from actually being implemented.

Posted by johnwk:
When will the American People wake up and come to the realization the object of the Capitol Hill gang, Republicans and Democrats in political power, is to keep themselves in power, live large, and enjoy the top of the shelf fruits siphoned from the pockets of working people? That is what socialism is all about…a big fat tax pig getting fatter.

The very purpose of income taxation is to make the people dependant upon government by confiscating their earned wages, which folks in government then use to bribe the voter with programs which keeps them in power. And, that is why Edwards, and his socialist pals on Capitol Hill will not propose an end to taxing the wages which labor has earned…their intention is to keep the working people as a usful tax slaves for folks in government and very dependant upon government for their subsistence.

When it comes to federal bureaucratic bloat, abuse of our labors & wages, and loss of liberties, why not just come right out and offer that you believe the Federal Income Tax as enacted and carried out is unconstitutional and illegal.

IMHO, a better way to discuss this whole array of unconstitutional slavery to federal government gangsterism than this Edward's one would have offered the same thoughts with a link to America: Freedom to Facism or Why We Fight for discussion.

Of course, another way would of been to point out all the ways in which government subsides (or "socialism", to use your term) for private corporations -- especially within the military-industrial and energy complex -- is way more rampant, disgusting, and harmful to our personal and public well-being than any such woefully long and uncompleted presidential election process health insurance proposal.

Frankly, this is all just a two-bit sideshow to the real issues We The People are up against.

[medicineman]

A federal or national health care plan is rather more than a two-bit entity. Medicare D, which has just reached its first anniversary, is only enriching Benefit Managers and manufacturers, and doing little if anything in the way of providing actual health care. Lots of paperwork, lots of claim rejections, much lower fees for providers and many angry patients.

Mr. Edwards anticipates 90 to 120 billion a year. If it doesn't double or triple that, I'd be very surprised.

[Buckaroo]

Haaaah!

What Edwards fails to explain is that all of his policies will drive inflation throught the roof, and the local hamburger flipper will be starving on $200,000/year.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Incorrect, it's actually cheaper to run Universal healthcare.

Yes but is it better than the healthcare we can get without it?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Yes but is it better than the healthcare we can get without it?

That's the question... I would say it depends on how you define "better"? Would greater accessibility make it better?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The thing to do is to reject demagogues like Hillary and Edwards who attempt to fool the masses into believing they can get something for nothing. Whenever the government does something new for the people, it takes that much more liberty and resources away from the people in order to do it. I'm not too worried right now, though - I don't think the country wants to jump into federal socialized medicine just yet. We already rejected Hillary-care once - although it seems she's a slow learner - and Edwards isn't a credible threat to take the presidency. I do fear that states, like mine, will try to institute state-wide health coverage, but at least on the state level I have a choice to move to another state.

What do you think of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security?

[medicineman]

Medicare and Medicaid is:
1. Big
2. Wasteful
3. Bureaucratic
4. Impersonal
5. Incompetent
Other than that, the're not bad.

I can't speak to Social Security.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

Medicare and Medicaid is:
1. Big
2. Wasteful
3. Bureaucratic
4. Impersonal
5. Incompetent
Other than that, the're not bad.

So what would you do to replace this service that people count on?

[medicineman]

You would have to start by defining what you want to accomplish. What kind of coverage you want to provide. How you would determine eligibility. How you want to fund it. These are basic questions. Each can evolve into tremendous debate, depending on what you expect government to do. By and large, I would say that impersonal funding leads to overuse and waste and all the other abuses of government programs.