Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

The Road to Universal Healthcare


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> The Road to Universal Healthcare Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 12:49:56 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline 		First, go read this by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells:

"The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It"
March 23, 2006
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802

-----

Second, try a viewing of this film (it's a tiny online version and hopefully the whole thing):
"Sicko"
http://www.cjonline.org/mooreSicko607.htm

-----

The first link is a nuanced historical overview of the healthcare situation in the U.S. and where we are most likely headed.

The second link is a jeremiad by Michael Moore. But Moore's is not just a hopeless, bitter viewpoint - he wants to work for change by exposing the tragedy of what exists in the present. I think he sees a better tomorrow.

My own view is that a single payer system might work if it is government run. Alternatively, if we take single payer to instead mean some kind of privatized insurer or consortium of insurers we are still screwed. The whole point is that we have to eliminate the middlemen and they aren't going to like that one bit. The free ride is over and the insurers are going to kick and scream as we remove them from the vehicle that is our healthcare system. They are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to retain their multi-billion dollar industry - a for profit overlay that is entirely unnecessary. Expect to be advertised to in an unprecedented way about all the horrors of universal healthcare and how the insurers offer a more sensible approach to the problem. Avarice will ultimately be the undoing of the private insurers - everything they say and do to stop universal healthcare will stink of blatant, unrelenting greed.

My other proposed target is the pharmaceutical industry - so yeah, Big Pharma must also be on the hit list over the longer term. While I think it's possible to have a smooth running drug manufacturing industry based on capitalist ideals I have concerns in the following areas:
1. The cost of drugs and the absence of market caps.
2. Drugs that poorly replace traditional or more holistic therapy.
3. The overuse and the piling on of drug therapies without significant oversight.
4. Advertising to the public about drug solutions.
5. Abandoned and orphan drug treatments.

In sum, we need to reign in the drug industry. Drugs should be available for those that need them and their efficacy tracked. They should be available inexpensively. They should not replace traditional therapies nor should they be prescribed without regard for drug interactions or overlapping effects. Drug therapies should be carefully monitored medical solutions not mere consumables the patient wants because of TV adverts. Any drug abandoned as unprofitable for longer than two years should have its patent revert to the public domain for use by the state.

Chew on that.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 3:16:42 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		This is an issue that comes up a lot and can be guaranteed to stir a good fight between Liberals and Conservatives.
Seeing an ideal solution is definitely miles away from implementing progress towards that solution and having it work out as expected.
I am Liberal on the issue and believe that some form of universal care, which must mean government involvement, is the way to go.
Unfortunately the almost inevitable inefficient government beauracracies (sp?) will then develop over time and begin to swallow millions of Pounds/Dollars.

I have no detailed solution but it seems plain wrong to me that say a hard working family can be reduced to penury simply because a member falls chronically sick. ie needs long term expensive treatment.
Same argument if a dropout dies on the streets.
So America try to work out a system that benefits the masses, just for once lol

The UK system with any imperfection you may care to identify just is better for most people IMO


(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 3:42:15 AM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline 		Good posts, Churro and seeks. A lot to think about.
 
 

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 4:42:13 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		The only way the American system could change is if health care was nationalised. Money now paid into insurance schemes could then be paid via taxes to fund the system. You already pay the highest % of GDP on health in the world. That said, it doesnt matter how much goes in if big companies keep taking it out.

I also agree that the system here in the UK is not perfect and the drug companies seem to rip everyone off with the prices they charge.

< Message edited by Politesub53 -- 8/18/2007 4:50:08 AM >

(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 8:40:26 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline 		Well, there are other things that could be changed. Like forcing the hospitals to charge the same rates to individuals that the insurance companies pay. The insurance companies negotiate with the hospitals for rates. So, Joe blow comes in and pays 50.00 dollars for an aspirin, insurers don't pay that becuase they have contracts. So that would be step one. The hospitals essentially force the individuals off the street to pay for the non-paying walk-ins.

You could simply make it law that all hospitals must charge one rate for each services regardless of insurance, and make contracts with kickbacks, or annual reimbursements to the insurers illegal. Then at least the insurers and the average joe would be on equal footing.

Also all you have to do, is make excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions illegal for major medical coverage. And finally Make the medical coverage costs per month, only to be based around chosen risk factors(smoking, drinking), and age groupings. This would only apply to Major medical plans, and not to supplemental income insurance.

80% of the problems solved right there.

The other 20% can be solved by the states via a subsidized healthcare premium program. If you are poor they will simply pay part or all of your premiums based on income.

Don't see any reason why a federal program is necessary.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 12:26:18 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Also all you have to do, is make excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions illegal for major medical coverage.


I know you didn't read the first link because if you did I seriously doubt that you would then make this precise remark. Exclusions and the ability to drop coverage is exactly what it is wrong with a "for profit" private insurance system.

You seem to think that we can regulate the ways insurers make a profit and still allow them the ability to make a profit. It simply will not work that way and I can't even see why we should try to make it work that way.

The free market not only does not exist, but it is absolutely not the solution to healthcare goods and services.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Don't see any reason why a federal program is necessary.


Of course you don't. I apologize for being harsh about this but you have a major problem with your idealogical blinders. You cannot apparently wrap your head around the idea that for this particular issue the ideas of "for profit" and "fair and equitable" simply do not even belong in the same conversation.

What I'd like to see is a meaningful defense for the existence of the insurance middlemen.

In my opinion, such a defense is impossible. Now maybe my idealogical blinders are showing, but I have been around for most of the current U.S. healthcare system as implemented since the late 40s and I just cannot see the upside except for the guys getting the free ride. The whole thing is set up like a mafia protection racket - you want the protection but they can drop you from coverage or limit your coverage effectively on a moment's whim. That's ridiculous. You can claim that government regulations will help, but even now you can sue the insurance companies. Of course, while the law solution slowly shambles forward you will most likely die or become irreparably harmed by the illness that is effecting you and for which reason the insurance companies have limited your coverage.

Just remember this: the free market doesn't exist, and even if it did it is not the solution to all things.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 2:31:25 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline 		In Canada we have a universal, public system of providers (health services) and insurance (payers). We pay between $60 and $70 a month for public health including doctor and clinic visits and hospital visits. No one has to choose between keeping their home or getting life saving surgery.

There is a call, from profit motivated parties, to introduce a “two-tiered” system where private providers can sell services presently covered under public health, to the highest private bidder. If you don’t like the waiting list for knee replacements, get one tomorrow – for cash.

The argument is that a “parallel” private system will reduce waiting lists. Since the long waits are mostly due to a lack of doctors, bleeding them from the public to the private system will only increase the waiting lists for the majority of Canadians.

The other myth is that private, for profit operations are naturally more responsive, responsible and especially efficient. That is simply not true, in any objective analysis. Any weakness or abuse found in a public system will certainly occur in a private corporation. In addition, when you have a legally required inefficiency built in to a private company (profits for investors), compromising quality of care and treatment of workers is inevitable. Private practitioners are entitled to refuse service, so they can cherry pick clients for success.

In the USA the money is siphoned off using the HMOs. Under Canada’s proposed “two-tier” system the method will be to bleed professionals from the public system and take the cream from the “can-pay” Canadians and later from the “will-pay” and “must –pay” Canadians resulting from the gutting of the public system.


Z.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 2:47:15 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Also all you have to do, is make excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions illegal for major medical coverage.


I know you didn't read the first link because if you did I seriously doubt that you would then make this precise remark. Exclusions and the ability to drop coverage is exactly what it is wrong with a "for profit" private insurance system.

You seem to think that we can regulate the ways insurers make a profit and still allow them the ability to make a profit. It simply will not work that way and I can't even see why we should try to make it work that way.

The free market not only does not exist, but it is absolutely not the solution to healthcare goods and services.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Don't see any reason why a federal program is necessary.


Of course you don't. I apologize for being harsh about this but you have a major problem with your idealogical blinders. You cannot apparently wrap your head around the idea that for this particular issue the ideas of "for profit" and "fair and equitable" simply do not even belong in the same conversation.

What I'd like to see is a meaningful defense for the existence of the insurance middlemen.

In my opinion, such a defense is impossible. Now maybe my idealogical blinders are showing, but I have been around for most of the current U.S. healthcare system as implemented since the late 40s and I just cannot see the upside except for the guys getting the free ride. The whole thing is set up like a mafia protection racket - you want the protection but they can drop you from coverage or limit your coverage effectively on a moment's whim. That's ridiculous. You can claim that government regulations will help, but even now you can sue the insurance companies. Of course, while the law solution slowly shambles forward you will most likely die or become irreparably harmed by the illness that is effecting you and for which reason the insurance companies have limited your coverage.

Just remember this: the free market doesn't exist, and even if it did it is not the solution to all things.


Churro, you hit the nail on the head.
It can't be "for profit".
That just doesn't work the way all those policies are set up now.
Even if we have a seperate non-government entity to run the healthcare plan the insurance cos would be shut out of it and big pharma would have one customer.
So, they would be, "lobbying to keep their profits."
People who are "happy" with their medical insurance now don't realize that it's not about "them" it's about insurance companies making money and that "they" can be dropped or downgraded at any time. Or denied coverage for certain procedures.
For these and a lot of other reasons it's vital that we get rid of those lobbyists on "K" street.
They shouldn't be running the country!

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 8/18/2007 2:49:37 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 7:28:13 PM   
sophia37


Posts: 1433
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline 		Im not sure we'll see universal healthcare in my lifetime. Im 48. Im just hoping to get medicare at 65 and whatever secondary insurance might go with that. Until age 65, I hope I simply stay healthy. Cant say what my odds are, but Im trying. 

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 7:30:31 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		I agree the sooner we can require every citizen to carry a national ID (health)card the better(or should we just have a national DNA database, or a RFID chip, those would probably be better than cards).  It will also help us to catch the illegal immigrants

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/18/2007 7:55:31 PM   
sophia37


Posts: 1433
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline 		We'll all carry passports before we carry universal healthcare cards. I'd be willing to bet money on that one. 

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 12:29:52 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline 		Actually sophia, one of the banes of Canadian Medicare is freeloaders from the USA coming up and using either their friend's card or stolen health cards to obtain services. We need a secure health card to protect against theft but there is the temptation to make it a record card with your medical history, prescription use and such stored on the card. There are pros and cons for carrying such information.

If it is a necessity (air, water, food, medicine) it should be regulated and controlled (up the yin-yang) by the elected authorities of a country. Strategic industries and essential resources should not be controlled by the private sector. Private businesses can still profit by providing materials, services and products for processing and distributing essential resources and services but it is not right for any of them to have J.Q. Public by the short and curlies.

It's bad enough what the people we vote for do. People we have no control over are far, far worse.


Z.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to sophia37)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 2:53:34 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline 		Well, I didn't read the whole article before posting, read a bit of it, and watched about half the michael moore thing. The sicko movie was useless, and wouldn't qualify that as any information value at all. In my opinion the worst michael moore film to date. Not even funny or thought provoking, just emotional people crying. I actually enjoyed his others, even if they were slanted. The article was better.

Essentially, the article you site, simply says that healthcare would benefit from reduced administration costs(due to not processing claims for approval or denial, and virtual no application processing), and due to basicly large scale negotiation power with the drug companies. They state the primary reason for escalation in health costs beyond administration and high drug costs is technology costs.

Administration and drug costs could be dealt with without handing the whole of the system to the federal government.

My question and objection is really basic. Wouldn't any industry in theory benefit from Monopoly status. It will always work out on paper and to some degree in reality, that a huge mega-corp, or huge mega government, will be able to have superior negotiating abilities with its suppliers and also in theory be able to stream line administration. So, why not just take over the hospitals to? It would benefit in theory to a large degree saving even more money. Or set wage controls on the doctors saving even more money? Or why not take over drug factories, so as to produce the drugs at the cheapest level possible.

I really don't see why you'd want to stop at some arbitrary point in the healthcare chain when even more savings could be had if you extended it further.

And let's not forget other industries could benefit as well. Car insurance, well the poor can't afford it, is this not a problem that could be remedied, by a vast reduction of administrative costs.

Simply put the arguments in that article for socialism, in medicine. Can be applied to any important industry. Oh, I know another one let's give control of oil to the federal government. We don't need ten oil companies all producing the same product and paying 10 different CEO's, all buying the same equipment. One would be much better. And it'd lower the cost!.  Helping everyone!

And why we are saving everyone, why not take over retail, there is absolutely no point in having all these redundant store offering the exact same crap and paying people to do the same jobs. This way we can lower costs and the poor can by all the items they need.

It's all the same logic and I don't think healthcare is any more important than Oil(this effects the price of everything), or housing(why not socialize all housing lenders, or housing entirely), or hell banks(they are way more important to everyone, as most businesses rely on them for capital and job creation), or Farming that's really important to, with the milk prices the way they are, and corn prices(were anyway, haven't really looked in awhile) surging.

Yeah, Yeah, I know you are probably going to say I'm blowing it out of proportion and that health care is unique.

It's not. It is an important industry that effects the life of everyone. Just like what neighborhood you live in, just like what food you can afford to buy, just like the cost of gas, for driving, or oil for producing electricity. Or banks giving loans to start businesses so you can take care of your children. Or etc.....

It's all the same. Healthcare is just more emotional. So, everyone wants a quick fix. And run to daddy for help. "Take care of me, big corrupt, bought government. I know you are controlled by lobbyist(the whole reason we are in this mess, corporate bought politicians, you'd have control it all), but you'll do it right this time, even though you do everything else wrong. I can hope can't I."

Socialism in the end means less choice, less control, less opportunity.

You can disagree if you want. I'm not arguing that nothing needs to be done, but Universal Healthcare, is just as bad in my view.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 6:59:47 AM   
sophia37


Posts: 1433
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline 		In reply to Zensee, we have Medicaid card theft in the US as well. Anytime there is something of value, people will find a way to try to get it for "free". I say "free", because from my experience with the world, nothing ever comes for "Free". 

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 7:25:13 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Glance at ticket in hand, C194. Female voice on PA says "C28, the doctor will see you now." Jeez I hope this congestion doesn't get worse by the time they see me.

So in the last 50 years, what are some of the successful Federal programs again?

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to sophia37)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 7:39:35 AM   
pogo4pres


Posts: 593
Joined: 1/14/2007
Status: offline 		The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.


To all the free market conservatives that will respond, exactly which part of the fourth clause (the bolded part) don't you understand??

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 7:47:02 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Oh, I know another one let's give control of oil to the federal government...or housing(why not socialize all housing lenders, or housing entirely), or hell banks...Farming that's really important to, with the milk prices the way they are, and corn prices(were anyway, haven't really looked in awhile) surging...


Well, rhetorically you are engaging in an argument of distraction by introducing a series of red herrings. But I find your BS amusing and will indulge your topics in brief counter-attacks....

1. Oil is subsidized by war. There is no free market, just a free ride for the well connected. Frankly, I'd prefer to nationalize all energy concerns and eliminate the waste and profit. Without a profit motive at stake for anyone, I'd also hope to move to fuels and energy sources other than fossil fuels and coal. Solar, wind, hydro, hemp oil, etc.

2. Housing is substantially becoming controlled by the government. If you're poor you might rate some assistance. If you own outright try not paying the property tax on your home and find out who really owns it.

3. Banks shouldn't really exist in the first place - the federal government is supposed to coin money in gold and silver. Since they do not - right, it's another subsidized free ride for the chosen few. From the Federal Reserve on down...

4. Farming is heavily subsidized and government regulated. And speaking of corn...

5. ADM is heavily subsidized also. They have turned being subsidized into a kind of art form with which to burden the taxpayer. Read here if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Daniels_Midland

So really, you're talking out your ass and aligning yourself with the powers that be and of whom you are not a part. They use the myth of a capitalist free market that does not now exist and, in fact, has never existed to maintain the status quo! And sadly, you've taken the whole thing in raw and swallowed.

You act like medical services are like other kinds of services - but no one can truly plan for catastrophe. People that think just like you are regularly bankrupted by the status quo healthcare system. You are young enough that the best unasked for advice I can offer is for you to use the experiences of others to make a better decision than the one you seem satisfied with now.

I've seen you spewing the libertarian jive for some time now - but don't believe the hype. Look around you and see what is and what can really be done. Theories only work in books.

I've said it before: we are in a post-Constitutional era. We might as well take back our cut of income taxes now, starting with universal healthcare.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 8:48:00 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
So in the last 50 years, what are some of the successful Federal programs again?


Postal service, army, FAA, interstate highways, etc...

You don't know as little as that and they still let you vote?

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 11:35:02 AM   
Vampyrefledgling


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/10/2007
Status: offline 		And what exactly is wrong with tax-paying citizens of a nation expecting 'free' healthcare? Why is it so wrong for us to expect our government to do more than the absolute bare minimum, and at times not even that!

"Wouldn't any industry, in theory benefit from monopoly status?" The answer to that is a big fat no. Well, the big wigs in that industry certainly would, but your average consumer would lose out big time. Monopoly status is what keeps prices high, no competition, which does not and will not exist in a fair market economy. That leading company can charge whatever they wish and people are forced to pay. If only one company produces a necessary product, they control the price. Basic economics. Imagine that on a large scale, every industry dominated by one major company, charging ridiculously high prices for cereal, or bread, or computers (not the best example, but valid I think) then what? Take a look at the United States economy in the years leading up to the Great Depression. Look at how the industry standards treated not only their workers, but anyone who tried to rise up as competition. It wasn't pretty, nor was that dark day in 1929.

Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for healthcare? I would, and I think a lot of people would agree. It is ridiculous the way healthcare costs have skyrocketed in this country, so much so that people are considering going to other countries (not just Canada) for surgeries simply to save money. And I'm not talking first world nations necessarily. So what if people go to Canada to buy medicine? Cheers to them! If Canadian companies weren't producing a cheaper product for people to purchase (again, free market capitalism), they wouldn't be making money off the mistakes American companies are making (another pro of capitalism, benefiting from your competitors mistakes). I agree, they shouldn't do so illegally. In their defense, if what they need is healthcare, I could think of worse things for them to 'steal.'

Nationalize all energy concerns? Right, like I trust anyone in this (or any other) White House to make any sort of intelligent decision in that respect. Almost anything nationalized will be influenced by politics (duh). This is something that should be left to the researchers and scientists to explore and individuals to determine how to run.

Banks shouldn't exist? Interesting, though I don't know how keeping my money in a tin can is any better than in a bank, if only for convience sake. The foundations of the modern banking system put into effect following the Stock Market Crash were vital in rebuilding this country's economy and keeping such an event from ever happening again (to the same extent). We need banks to purchase homes, to run businesses, etc. Without some sort of federal governance, consumers would have no recourse and banks no guidelines or industry standards to follow. Sometimes government involvement is necessary. As for the farming subsidies...I'm too tired to go into that nonsense.

Government is necessary, now if we could only do it without those pesky politicians...

~Fledgling

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare - 8/19/2007 2:20:36 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		The part I do not understand is "How the Federal Government is going to successfully do this". May I ask which article or amendment, your quote is from? Could you help me understand, why the Fed's have to handle this, and the States cannot? So what exactly is in "General Welfare"? If I get the sniffles and just don't feel like going to work, but need a Dr excuse, would it cover that?

Not saying there is not a problem, and it is on the medical side as well as the insurance side, just saying I do not trust the federal government to do a whole lot.


quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.


To all the free market conservatives that will respond, exactly which part of the fourth clause (the bolded part) don't you understand??



_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to pogo4pres)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> The Road to Universal Healthcare Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078