Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: It's time for national healthcare - Page 78







Post#1926 at 12-15-2010 01:33 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
12-15-2010, 01:33 PM #1926
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Comment: It would be gratifying poetic irony if conservative legislators and conservative judges pushed us into single payer reform by either repealing or ruling unconstitutional the individual mandate.
The strange thing is, I can see the legal argument for striking down the "individual mandate" to purchase a private product. To my knowledge there is no other private sector product that the government forces citizens to buy (auto insurance doesn't count since you don't HAVE to buy it, you just can't legally drive if you don't).

But yes, this would more or less force 'single payer' or the 'public option for all' as the way around it. So in killing this, the Right might be planting the seeds for something that's even more anathema to them. Interesting times.







Post#1927 at 12-15-2010 03:36 PM by Silifi [at Green Bay, Wisconsin joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,741]
---
12-15-2010, 03:36 PM #1927
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts
1,741

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
The strange thing is, I can see the legal argument for striking down the "individual mandate" to purchase a private product. To my knowledge there is no other private sector product that the government forces citizens to buy (auto insurance doesn't count since you don't HAVE to buy it, you just can't legally drive if you don't).
I dunno, you don't *have* to buy insurance either. You just get taxed if you don't.

What I see as the big downfall here is that the federal government doesn't have the same authority as state governments. The feds can only do this as long as they're regulating interstate commerce, but the insurance industry is decidedly not interstate. If the bill had, in it's original house form, created a national health exchange, this wouldn't be a problem, but as it is, the feds basically reinforced that health insurance is a state-by-state commercial activity, and completely screwed itself with regards to the constitutionality, since they're obviously not regulating interstate commerce: at least not by the modern standards of what that means.

But yes, this would more or less force 'single payer' or the 'public option for all' as the way around it. So in killing this, the Right might be planting the seeds for something that's even more anathema to them. Interesting times.
Yeah, I can definitely see this bill being declared unconstitutional in part (and the only part that even had the potential of lowering costs) and it leading to the left having renewed vigor to get a comprehensive system in a couple years.

Still, I think it will take Obama losing the national election for the left to get back to the drawing board. He's done for.
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
-Phil Ochs

INTP 1989 Millenial







Post#1928 at 12-15-2010 06:55 PM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
12-15-2010, 06:55 PM #1928
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

The reason car insurance is OK but a mandated purchase of health care is not is simple.

You do not need to purchase a car to live.

The health care mandate requires you to purchase a service just for being alive.

That is not right, you shouldn't be required by law to purchase something just for being alive.







Post#1929 at 12-15-2010 08:58 PM by Silifi [at Green Bay, Wisconsin joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,741]
---
12-15-2010, 08:58 PM #1929
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts
1,741

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
That is not right, you shouldn't be required by law to purchase something just for being alive.
How is that any different from taxes?
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
-Phil Ochs

INTP 1989 Millenial







Post#1930 at 12-15-2010 09:46 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
12-15-2010, 09:46 PM #1930
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

When I learned about the proposals for HCR early on, I was very excited about the public option. The reason being that I knew that, properly managed, the public option could grow into a single-payer plan. It was single-payer by the back door, since a for-profit insurance company couldn't possibly compete with it. Making Medicare available to everyone on a buy-in basis would over time mean the end of private health insurance as we know it and the beginning of a rational health-care system.

I was disappointed that the public option didn't make it into the ACA, but knew that passing any sort of comprehensive HCR, however flawed, would mean that we would eventually have a single-payer system, whereas failure of the bill would delay things for years longer.

The reason is that now the precedent has been set. Health care is seen as a right. Congress has passed a law essentially saying that; saying that it's the government's job to ensure that everyone has access to health care and nobody can be denied. Since the only thing that can actually accomplish that is a single-payer system, that's what we will eventually have -- this new precedent, this new expectation, requires it.

It really doesn't matter whether the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional or not, or whether it's repealed or not. The ACA as constructed, including the individual mandate, is inadequate and pressure for more reform will only grow. That's why I wanted to see the bill passed, despite its flaws. Its passage set the precedent that guaranteeing health care is the government's job. Its failure would have set the precedent to the contrary.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1931 at 12-16-2010 09:57 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
12-16-2010, 09:57 AM #1931
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
How is that any different from taxes?
You have to be doing something to pay taxes - have a job, buy something, have income, etc. It is possible to live in a subsistence way and never have any of these things. It is possible not to pay any taxes at all.

For HCR, all you have to be doing is breathing and you have to buy insurance. I cannot understand the comments from the left that the court challenges are frivolous. From what I understand of our system, these court challenges are a slam dunk to win. I would be interested in those who make a legal argument otherwise.

Keep in mind, I am for single payer.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1932 at 12-16-2010 09:58 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
12-16-2010, 09:58 AM #1932
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
When I learned about the proposals for HCR early on, I was very excited about the public option. The reason being that I knew that, properly managed, the public option could grow into a single-payer plan. It was single-payer by the back door, since a for-profit insurance company couldn't possibly compete with it. Making Medicare available to everyone on a buy-in basis would over time mean the end of private health insurance as we know it and the beginning of a rational health-care system.

I was disappointed that the public option didn't make it into the ACA, but knew that passing any sort of comprehensive HCR, however flawed, would mean that we would eventually have a single-payer system, whereas failure of the bill would delay things for years longer.

The reason is that now the precedent has been set. Health care is seen as a right. Congress has passed a law essentially saying that; saying that it's the government's job to ensure that everyone has access to health care and nobody can be denied. Since the only thing that can actually accomplish that is a single-payer system, that's what we will eventually have -- this new precedent, this new expectation, requires it.

It really doesn't matter whether the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional or not, or whether it's repealed or not. The ACA as constructed, including the individual mandate, is inadequate and pressure for more reform will only grow. That's why I wanted to see the bill passed, despite its flaws. Its passage set the precedent that guaranteeing health care is the government's job. Its failure would have set the precedent to the contrary.
Nice and optimistic. I like it.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1933 at 12-16-2010 11:14 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-16-2010, 11:14 AM #1933
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
For HCR, all you have to be doing is breathing and you have to buy insurance. I cannot understand the comments from the left that the court challenges are frivolous. From what I understand of our system, these court challenges are a slam dunk to win. I would be interested in those who make a legal argument otherwise.

Keep in mind, I am for single payer.
Most of us who have been working for single payer, could see from the beginning that the mandate was merely a windfall for the insurance industry. Not to mention that it meant more citizen money subsidizing that giveaway. And, the insurance that was to be purchased were usually junk policies. Meaning that these instruments had extremely high deductibles and co-pays that would make any holder of that policy hesitant to seek care when they were sick.

So when it appears that we think the court action is frivolous, it's because even if they strike down the mandate, it isn't a real lose.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1934 at 12-16-2010 01:25 PM by Poodle [at Doghouse joined May 2010 #posts 1,269]
---
12-16-2010, 01:25 PM #1934
Join Date
May 2010
Location
Doghouse
Posts
1,269

We had to destroy the healthcare system to save it...

Next 1T?







Post#1935 at 12-16-2010 01:57 PM by Silifi [at Green Bay, Wisconsin joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,741]
---
12-16-2010, 01:57 PM #1935
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts
1,741

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
You have to be doing something to pay taxes - have a job, buy something, have income, etc. It is possible to live in a subsistence way and never have any of these things. It is possible not to pay any taxes at all.
Is it practically possible to never pay taxes?

I suppose if you lived a complete nomadic lifestyle, it would be. Maybe. You'd have to get everything from charity, couldn't use money except in personal exchanges, and could own no property beyond the clothes on your back.

For HCR, all you have to be doing is breathing and you have to buy insurance.
I'm not quite sure it works that way.

Something tells me homeless guy on the street isn't going to be expected to buy insurance.

I cannot understand the comments from the left that the court challenges are frivolous. From what I understand of our system, these court challenges are a slam dunk to win. I would be interested in those who make a legal argument otherwise.

Keep in mind, I am for single payer.

James50
Again, I do think the court challenges will prevail, but not simply because of the mandate. The mandate will fail, I would guess, not based on the forced purchasing of insurance, but on the interstate commerce clause. That they are regulating a business transaction that is not interstate, and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

This is something the right four justices (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas) would agree on, and something that Kennedy might sway on due to the particular invasiveness of the individual mandate. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the first big shift in the understanding of the commerce clause since the 1930s.
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
-Phil Ochs

INTP 1989 Millenial







Post#1936 at 12-16-2010 02:13 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
12-16-2010, 02:13 PM #1936
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
This is something the right four justices (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas) would agree on, and something that Kennedy might sway on due to the particular invasiveness of the individual mandate.
Indeed, as will often be the case with the current makeup of the court, as goes Justice Kennedy, so goes the decision.

Anyone else remember the days when Republican Court nominees often sided with the liberals? Warren (appointed by Eisenhower) and Stevens (appointed by Ford) come to mind. These days you wouldn't see that happen since the presidents doing the appointments (D or R) wouldn't stand for it, so I guess the court is positioned for the 4T along ideologically polarized lines as well.
Last edited by ziggyX65; 12-16-2010 at 02:16 PM.







Post#1937 at 12-16-2010 02:18 PM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
12-16-2010, 02:18 PM #1937
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Taxes are very different from forcing to private entities into commercial contract. Which has happened a lot an I am not a fan

Anyway, taxes are a social contract you agree to by remaining a citizen you agree to pay taxes and obey the law in return for the protections and services the government provides to us all. (protection, clean water, roads mainly). When the government starts providing extra to others, or promoting one group financially over another I get upset with it. That is not for this thread though. I have found the boomers don't usually understand my point with this, because they always assume this form of power will be used to change society in a way they prefer. Which is why government power is used in social engineering and has for many decades.

HCR mandate is wrong because it is forcing you to purchase a service from a private company. It is not a pay-we-all-benefit- tax; it would be like the government requiring us all to by food from supermarkets. Sure we all need food to survive but if I choose to grow my own food or use a different method to get food, who is the government to force me to buy from Safeway? They wouldn't and they shouldn't.

This whole mandate is exactly the type of thing that highlights what is really wrong in this country. The union of government and business to the detriment of our society. Many wanted health care reform, and what we got was a bastardized bill that made you required to purchase something from insurance companies. And people still think that the legislators have your interests in mind Ha!
Last edited by Debol1990; 12-16-2010 at 02:30 PM.







Post#1938 at 12-16-2010 02:19 PM by Silifi [at Green Bay, Wisconsin joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,741]
---
12-16-2010, 02:19 PM #1938
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts
1,741

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
Indeed, as will often be the case with the current makeup of the court, as goes Justice Kennedy, so goes the decision.

Anyone else remember the days when Republican Court nominees often sided with the liberals? Warren (appointed by Eisenhower) and Stevens (appointed by Ford) come to mind. These days you wouldn't see that happen since the presidents doing the appointments (D or R) wouldn't stand for it, so I guess the court is positioned for the 4T along ideologically polarized lines as well.
Well, they pretty much were liberals.
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
-Phil Ochs

INTP 1989 Millenial







Post#1939 at 12-16-2010 02:34 PM by Silifi [at Green Bay, Wisconsin joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,741]
---
12-16-2010, 02:34 PM #1939
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts
1,741

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
Taxes are very different from forcing to private entities into commercial contract. Which has happened a lot an I am not a fan
You aren't forced into a commercial contract, you either get a contract or you pay a tax.

Think of it this way: everyone has to pay the health care tax but those who buy insurance are exempt.

Anyway, taxes are a social contract you agree to by remaining a citizen you agree to pay taxes and obey the law in return for the protections and services the government provides to us all. (protection, clean water, roads mainly).
when did I sign that again

When the government starts providing extra to others, or promoting one group financially over another I get upset with it.
All government actions promote one group over another. It's kind of the point.

That is not for this thread though. I have found the boomers don't usually understand my point with this, because they always assume this form of power will be used to change society in a way they prefer. Which is why government power is used in social engineering and has for many decades.
Again, all governments at all times use social engineering. Every outlay of rules-to-be-followed carries with it social consequences. The only difference between now and a century ago is the precision of the social engineering.

HCR mandate is wrong because it is forcing you to purchase a service from a private company. It is not a pay-we-all-benefit- tax; it would be like the government requiring us all to by food from supermarkets. Sure we all need food to survive but if I choose to grow my own food or use a different method to get food, who is the government to force me to buy from Safeway? They wouldn't and they shouldn't.
No, it would be like the government telling you that you have to pay a tax but that's you're exempt from the tax.

Both are silly and counterproductive, but there's nothing particularly odd about them. You get tax exemptions for all sorts of things nowadays, like getting married or having kids or whatever.
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
-Phil Ochs

INTP 1989 Millenial







Post#1940 at 12-16-2010 05:04 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-16-2010, 05:04 PM #1940
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

The judge in VA is a piece of work. The government can't ask people to pay for health coverage? Anyone heard of medicare? Ronald Reagan made the same objection to Medicare. His ideological clones are making the same objection to this mild, moderate health reform law now.


Again, I do think the court challenges will prevail, but not simply because of the mandate. The mandate will fail, I would guess, not based on the forced purchasing of insurance, but on the interstate commerce clause. That they are regulating a business transaction that is not interstate, and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Good point, but aren't most of the insurance companies interstate?

So far the judges are 2 to 1 in favor of the health reform law. We'll see what Kennedy decides.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1941 at 12-17-2010 05:24 AM by Silifi [at Green Bay, Wisconsin joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,741]
---
12-17-2010, 05:24 AM #1941
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts
1,741

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Good point, but aren't most of the insurance companies interstate?
I was under the impression that there are no interstate insurance pools. There are companies that manage plans in multiple states, but this is an administrative thing, not putting customers from one state into the same risk pool as customers from another state.

Or at least, that's what I've presumed based on the fact that every insurance provider I've ever had was state specific, and there was lots of talk about people being able to buy insurance across state lines: implying they currently can't.
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
-Phil Ochs

INTP 1989 Millenial







Post#1942 at 12-17-2010 11:17 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-17-2010, 11:17 AM #1942
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

My friend Kevin, who is the president of Voters For Peace and has worked for years for a health care for all, says, "Looks like another federal judge is about to rule against the health insurance mandate. Bravo. The government should not be allowed to force Americans to spend 10% of their income on corrupt insurance policies. Enough of this corporate-state!"

Health Law May Be Unconstitutional, Florida Judge Says
www.nytimes.com

A federal judge hinted that he might be the second to rule against the new health law...
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1943 at 12-17-2010 11:21 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-17-2010, 11:21 AM #1943
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

This is the direct link to 'Health Law May Be Unconstitutional, Florida Judge Says'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/us...%20care&st=cse
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1944 at 12-17-2010 03:16 PM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
12-17-2010, 03:16 PM #1944
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
You aren't forced into a commercial contract, you either get a contract or you pay a tax.
How is that not force?

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
Think of it this way: everyone has to pay the health care tax but those who buy insurance are exempt.
again...that is using force to make people buy something. The tax is a punishment for not purchasing a service from a private entity. You see nothing wrong with that?

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
when did I sign that again
When you continued to live and pay taxes here.

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
All government actions promote one group over another. It's kind of the point.
That is not the point of a government. Holy Christ where did you develop such a backwards view of the point of government? The point of the government is to ensure nobody kills, rapes, or steals from you. It also ensures public safety (fireman, military). The government is also used as a tool to ensure other forms of collective good depending on what current times demand. It is supposed to do these things equally for all, with equal justice under the law. Supporting one group over another is not equal justice under the law. That is social engineering. Our government practices it a lot. And it shouldn't because it is not the place of the government to mold society, it is societies job to mold the government.

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
Again, all governments at all times use social engineering. Every outlay of rules-to-be-followed carries with it social consequences. The only difference between now and a century ago is the precision of the social engineering.
It is unfortunate that we can never live in a free society. People are to afraid of one another.

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
No, it would be like the government telling you that you have to pay a tax but that's you're exempt from the tax.

Both are silly and counterproductive, but there's nothing particularly odd about them. You get tax exemptions for all sorts of things nowadays, like getting married or having kids or whatever.
As I said before the tax is a punishment. A punishment which is backed by the ultimate in physical force, the military and armed incarceration. I understand you like the idea of national healthcare. Forcing someone to purchase a service from some other private entity is not the way to do it. It is overly subversive to the bill of rights and is a dangerous precedent. It is not a reasonable mean to a HCR end.







Post#1945 at 12-17-2010 03:44 PM by Silifi [at Green Bay, Wisconsin joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,741]
---
12-17-2010, 03:44 PM #1945
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts
1,741

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
How is that not force?
Oh, it is, I'm just saying your supposed difference between this force and everything else the government forces you to do is rather spurious.

again...that is using force to make people buy something. The tax is a punishment for not purchasing a service from a private entity. You see nothing wrong with that?
I see no difference between this and any other social engineering that the government engages in every day.

When you continued to live and pay taxes here.
Because I had such excellent alternatives...

That is not the point of a government. Holy Christ where did you develop such a backwards view of the point of government? The point of the government is to ensure nobody kills, rapes, or steals from you. It also ensures public safety (fireman, military). The government is also used as a tool to ensure other forms of collective good depending on what current times demand.
You do realize that all of these things have the effect of promoting one group over the other, right?

Any kind of government program comes with inherent biases. If the role of the government is to protect property, then it favors those with property to those without it. If the government protects people's lives, then it favors those who are unable to physically defend themselves. Government's role is a question of who gets what, when, and how.

It is supposed to do these things equally for all, with equal justice under the law. Supporting one group over another is not equal justice under the law. That is social engineering. Our government practices it a lot. And it shouldn't because it is not the place of the government to mold society, it is societies job to mold the government.
Even doing things "equally for all" can produce inequal results. Again, if the government protects private property, especially land, this is social engineering. You're allowing someone to accumulate wealth without possessing the necessary resources to hold it. You allow individuals to accumulate vast amounts of property that, as a matter of practicality, they could never hold in absence of a government. The United States, and more or less every country, has always done this, and the effect has been the creation of extremely wealthy individuals that would not have existed otherwise. That is a bias in favor of one group over another.

There is no escaping that this is what government does. It doesn't have to specify what group gets what, the nature of the laws themselves, even if applied equally to all, cause certain groups to be favored.

It is unfortunate that we can never live in a free society. People are to afraid of one another.
Yeah, probably. But it's important to realize that things have always been this way, it's not some modern invention.

As I said before the tax is a punishment. A punishment which is backed by the ultimate in physical force, the military and armed incarceration. I understand you like the idea of national healthcare. Forcing someone to purchase a service from some other private entity is not the way to do it. It is overly subversive to the bill of rights and is a dangerous precedent. It is not a reasonable mean to a HCR end.
Oh boy you've misread me...

I didn't say that I favored this method of universal health care. What I said was that the HCR law is not something out of the ordinary. It is merely an additional part to a system of taxes and exemptions. There is nothing uniquely unjust about it.

Again, other exemptions can be framed in the same way.

If you don't get married, you have to pay more in taxes.

Is that forcing people to get married? Not really.

The only difference is in how we frame the mechanism. A mere switcheroo of words without changing the substantive formula, and the law becomes an tax exemption for purchasing health insurance. Everyone has to pay this tax, but if you buy insurance, you're exempt.
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
-Phil Ochs

INTP 1989 Millenial







Post#1946 at 12-20-2010 05:39 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-20-2010, 05:39 PM #1946
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

This is how the Pentagon treats the troops that they made so many promises to during their recruitment?

Pentagon Health Plan Won’t Cover Brain-Damage Therapy for Troops

http://act.commondreams.org/go/3615?...06.dVBPxy&t=14
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1947 at 12-20-2010 06:05 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
12-20-2010, 06:05 PM #1947
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

What next? Will they start deciding that the things they're covering now are too expensive to treat? Will we go back to wounded veterans sitting on the roadside begging? Then how are they going to get recruits, revive the press gang?

P.S. Yes. I know that's a "slippery slope" argument.That doesn't make it necessarily false any more than it's necessarily true. But possible? You bet!







Post#1948 at 12-21-2010 04:14 PM by Poodle [at Doghouse joined May 2010 #posts 1,269]
---
12-21-2010, 04:14 PM #1948
Join Date
May 2010
Location
Doghouse
Posts
1,269

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
What next? Will they start deciding that the things they're covering now are too expensive to treat? Will we go back to wounded veterans sitting on the roadside begging? Then how are they going to get recruits, revive the press gang?

P.S. Yes. I know that's a "slippery slope" argument.That doesn't make it necessarily false any more than it's necessarily true. But possible? You bet!
I warned Chris S. and Glick about this. Look at all the VA scandals to date. This is only the beginning.







Post#1949 at 12-21-2010 04:45 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
12-21-2010, 04:45 PM #1949
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Poodle View Post
I warned Chris S. and Glick about this. Look at all the VA scandals to date. This is only the beginning.
I have a claim in right now. It should be complete by mid-January. I'll report back on the results.

Of course, my claim is minor. I lost no limbs, and I still have my faculties (as far as I can tell). On my last trip to the VA Hospital, I saw far too many far less lucky than me.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1950 at 12-21-2010 05:00 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
12-21-2010, 05:00 PM #1950
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Poodle View Post
I warned Chris S. and Glick about this. Look at all the VA scandals to date. This is only the beginning.
A Gen X friend of mine who was over in Lebanon knows full well the VA scandals. What he had to do in order to get benefits from his service is just dispicable.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
-----------------------------------------