# ordering a pizza in 2015



## MA_PE (Aug 13, 2009)

I saw this on another forum and thought it might go well with the Cap'n's Big Brother post.

"Ordering a Pizza in 2015

This is absolutely hilarious, but the scary part about it is that it's probably not too far away from being reality, providing Obama has his way with socialized medicine, and digitizing medical records.

Want to know how to order a pizza in 2015? Click the link and see.

Turn up the volume, listen closely and watch the pointer!"

ordering a pizza in 2015


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 13, 2009)

MA_PE said:


> I saw this on another forum and thgught it might gp well with the Cap'n's Big Brother post.
> 
> "Ordering a Pizza in 2015
> 
> ...


I bet it isn't too far from the truth....


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 13, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I bet it isn't too far from the truth....


How much? I'm in for $500 dollars and I'll even give you 2:1 odds!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 13, 2009)

Always the optimist, IlPadrino!


----------



## Sschell (Aug 13, 2009)

you have to define your terms... "far from the truth" will be hard to quantify when it comes time to pay out the bet...


----------



## Dexman1349 (Aug 13, 2009)

I think the unit of measure for "far from the truth" is in Acre-FT.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 13, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Always the optimist, IlPadrino!


It's either that or move to Canada... and now that I've learned they're mostly :ghey: , it's not much of a choice.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 13, 2009)

sschell_PE said:


> you have to define your terms... "far from the truth" will be hard to quantify when it comes time to pay out the bet...


In five years, the most the pizza joint will have is your phone number, address, and history of past orders - just like they have today.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Aug 13, 2009)

MA_PE said:


> I saw this on another forum and thought it might go well with the Cap'n's Big Brother post.
> 
> "Ordering a Pizza in 2015
> 
> ...


I am not saying you are wrong, but considering the amount of freedom/privacy the last administration took away from our citizens I have to question whether you are truly concerned about this issue or just don't like Obama.

The Patriot Act was a much larger threat to our freedoms and rights than the National Health Care Plan. Does illegal wire taps ring a bell? I am guessing you had no such outrage then. But did protecting our liberties only become a priority after Jan. 20th?

This sort of talk back in 2002 would have gotten you labeled Un-American.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 13, 2009)

Maybe he doesn't like the gov.

FWIW, I think both parties are more interested in stripping our rights than looking out for our welfare.


----------



## MGX (Aug 13, 2009)

D. Kephart said:


> I am not saying you are wrong, but considering the amount of freedom/privacy the last administration took away from our citizens I have to question whether you are truly concerned about this issue or just don't like Obama.
> The Patriot Act was a much larger threat to our freedoms and rights than the National Health Care Plan. Does illegal wire taps ring a bell? I am guessing you had no such outrage then. But did protecting our liberties only become a priority after Jan. 20th?
> 
> This sort of talk back in 2002 would have gotten you labeled Un-American.


I certainly got that tag in years past and I consider myself a conservative! The Patriot Act was entirely unconstitutional. Bush set a bad precedent which the current admin thinks it can use to justify its actions.

PS I delivered pizza for four years and in that time the number of super greasy meat combo pizzas went out the door with a jumbo DIET pepsi still resonates. "Sir, that zero calorie diet pepsi does nothing to fend off the 7,000 calorie pizza slices you'll be eating"

PPS Love the fax tax mention


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 13, 2009)

D. Kephart said:


> I am not saying you are wrong, but considering the amount of freedom/privacy the last administration took away from our citizens I have to question whether you are truly concerned about this issue or just don't like Obama.
> The Patriot Act was a much larger threat to our freedoms and rights than the National Health Care Plan. Does illegal wire taps ring a bell? I am guessing you had no such outrage then. But did protecting our liberties only become a priority after Jan. 20th?
> 
> This sort of talk back in 2002 would have gotten you labeled Un-American.


I was/am absolutely against the Patriot Act. I changed from a die-hard conservative Republican into somewhere between a Libertarian and an Anarcho-Capitalist during the Bush Administration. To be fair, not all of that transition was Bush's fault, but it certainly didn't help.


----------



## rudy (Aug 14, 2009)

one small item overlooked... 2012... 2013... 2014... 2015

we'll all be gone in 2012. no pizza for anyone.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 14, 2009)

MGX said:


> I certainly got that tag in years past and I consider myself a conservative! The Patriot Act was entirely unconstitutional. Bush set a bad precedent which the current admin thinks it can use to justify its actions.


I'm a conservative, and too have been against the Patriot Act. I agree with the above statement ^^



MGX said:


> PS I delivered pizza for four years and in that time the number of super greasy meat combo pizzas went out the door with a jumbo DIET pepsi still resonates. "Sir, that zero calorie diet pepsi does nothing to fend off the 7,000 calorie pizza slices you'll be eating"


I have to disagree with this, as one of the people who order that combo, I'm getting 7,000 calories from the pizza, but ZERO from the Diet Pepsi. If I were to order a regular Pepsi, that would be another 500 calories, 7,500 total, so in fact, I am cutting my calorie consumption by 7%. That's how one loses weight


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 14, 2009)

rudy said:


> one small item overlooked... 2012... 2013... 2014... 2015
> we'll all be gone in 2012. no pizza for anyone.


December 21st to be exact. Good call.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 14, 2009)

rudy said:


> one small item overlooked... 2012... 2013... 2014... 2015
> we'll all be gone in 2012. no pizza for anyone.


What happens in 2012? Should I start making plans?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 14, 2009)

IlPadrino said:


> What happens in 2012? Should I start making planes?


I don't think you can escape death in a plane. Dec. 21, 2012 is the last date accounted for in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (which accounts for about 5125 years). Many people think that this is a prophecy of doomsday/armageddon.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 14, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> December 21st to be exact. Good call.


Nice! I can skip the holiday hopping crunch that year. The mall is such a zoo then.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 14, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I don't think you can escape death in a plane. Dec. 21, 2012 is the last date accounted for in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (which accounts for about 5125 years). Many people think that this is a prophecy of doomsday/armageddon.


I meant "plans"... still, same difference! How can I avoid the Armageddon?!?


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 14, 2009)

IlPadrino said:


> I meant "plans"... still, same difference! How can I avoid the Armageddon?!?


[ܖärmǝܒgedn]

ܖärmǝˈgedn 1. (in the New Testament) the last battle between good and evil before the Day of Judgment.

2. a dramatic and catastrophic conflict, typically seen as likely to destroy the world or the human race: nuclear Armageddon.

It looks like the best way to aviod the Armageddon would be to die before 21 Decemeber 2012.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 14, 2009)

MA_PE said:


> It looks like the best way to aviod the Armageddon would be to die before 21 Decemeber 2012.


Sounds like a great idea... if anyone wants to take me up on the offer, I'm available on 20 December 2012 for a mass "solution". All I ask is that you will me all your possessions so we can have them in one convenient place for our entry into the afterworld. Of course, I'll be the last to go because I want to make sure everything gets taken care of... I sure wouldn't want someone to have to suffer through the Armageddon on the 21st.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 14, 2009)

^ My plan for Armageddon: opcorn:


----------



## Chucktown PE (Aug 14, 2009)

IlPadrino said:


> Sounds like a great idea... if anyone wants to take me up on the offer, I'm available on 20 December 2012 for a mass "solution". All I ask is that you will me all your possessions so we can have them in one convenient place for our entry into the afterworld. Of course, I'll be the last to go because I want to make sure everything gets taken care of... I sure wouldn't want someone to have to suffer through the Armageddon on the 21st.



IlPadrino,

I would like to help you in this noble endeavour. If anyone has a beachhouse, couple of million dollars in cash, gold bars, and a +23 ft boat I'll be happy to devote all my time to your estate.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 14, 2009)

Flyer_PE said:


> ^ My plan for Armageddon: opcorn:


I'm gonna swim out past the breakers, watch the world die.


----------



## MechGuy (Aug 14, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I'm gonna swim out past the breakers, watch the world die.


Everclear?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 14, 2009)

Yup.


----------



## rudy (Aug 14, 2009)

IlPadrino said:


> I meant "plans"... still, same difference! How can I avoid the Armageddon?!?


Answer = Jesus. Aren't believers supposed to be taken up before Armageddon?

Does the Mesoamerican calendar give the time the show starts? Midnight at the start of the 21st or midnight at the end of the 21st? I need to plan my meals.


----------



## MGX (Aug 15, 2009)

A friend of mine immigrated from Chihuahua Mexico, he says the calendar simply starts over in 2012 due to the cyclic system. At least that's what they say back home.


----------



## Dleg (Aug 16, 2009)

rudy said:


> Answer = Jesus. Aren't believers supposed to be taken up before Armageddon?
> Does the Mesoamerican calendar give the time the show starts? Midnight at the start of the 21st or midnight at the end of the 21st? I need to plan my meals.


You're wrong - the MesoAmericans didn't believe in Jesus, so how can belief in Jesus save you from MesoAmerican Apocalypse?

The only way that would work is if Christian apocalypse happens first, so I suggest you get crackin' on that!


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2009)

^^^ Perhaps these chicks have the answer ....



:huh:

JR


----------



## rudy (Aug 17, 2009)

Dleg said:


> You're wrong - the MesoAmericans didn't believe in Jesus, so how can belief in Jesus save you from MesoAmerican Apocalypse?


Maybe their lack of belief is why they are no longer around.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 18, 2009)

God smote the Mayans?


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 18, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> God smote the Mayans?


Should it be smitten?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 18, 2009)

MA_PE said:


> Should it be smitten?


God is smitten with Mayans? Then why did he kill them all?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 18, 2009)

He used to love them, but He had to kill them?


----------



## rudy (Aug 18, 2009)

Love hurts.

Naaa... they must have done something pretty bad.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> God smote the Mayans?


Hmmm ... you mean something like this ...



JR


----------



## benbo (Sep 16, 2009)

SapperPE said:


> Imagine how much life would have sucked for you over the last 8 years if you were an American loving, law abiding, societal contributing Pakistani-American.


I don't know, I work with and went to school with lot's of Pakistanis, Afghanis, Somalis, Yemenis, etc. and they are all doing okay. At least they don't complain to me. THey sure keep trying to come over here on student and work visas, at least they did before the economy went into the tank. One of my good friends from graduate school was a Pakistani lady who is now in dental school. Another colleague was a politically active Somali. Absolutely nothing happened to her, ever.

I am not worried about losing my freedom's under Obama, I agree there are checks and balances. But I also think all this worry about the Patriot Act is overblown. Guess how many people I know who have felt any effect from the Patriot Act - exactly zero. Maybe everybody else knows people that were thrown in jail under the Patriot Act, but I know nobody.

I also notice that despite all the outrage, even with a hugely Democratic congress nobody is talking about repealing it. Even Obama apparently supports some aspects of it.

And my health care is pretty good, as is the healthcare of everybody I know, including some people that are unemployed.

That's my honest experience. I think the "healthcare is a disaster" is just as much hype as "Obama is evil." That's not to say I don't think some of the proposed reforms (ie preexisting conditons reforms, etc.) are possibly worthwhile.


----------



## udpolo15 (Sep 16, 2009)

benbo said:


> And my health care is pretty good, as is the healthcare of everybody I know, including some people that are unemployed.
> That's my honest experience. I think the "healthcare is a disaster" is just as much hype as "Obama is evil." That's not to say I don't think some of the proposed reforms (ie preexisting conditons reforms, etc.) are possibly worthwhile.


My biggest issue with health care reform (and most legislation for that matter) is how it gets pushed through. Health care shouldn't be about whether you are a democrat or a republican, but what is best for the most amount of people. However, each side has drawn their lines and aren't looking at the evidence (ie, that preventative medicine doesn't lower cost). How can we make such a huge investment without public hearings. Why aren't experts testify on capital hill? One of my MBA professors last quarter went and met with the Obama admin, along with a handful of other economist. There was near universal concurrence that the public plan was bad and one way to control health cost was to eliminate the insurance tax deductions. Something as large as health care reform should be a multi year long process, not something you can attached an arbitrary time frame to.


----------



## benbo (Sep 16, 2009)

udpolo15 said:


> My biggest issue with health care reform (and most legislation for that matter) is how it gets pushed through. Health care shouldn't be about whether you are a democrat or a republican, but what is best for the most amount of people. However, each side has drawn their lines and aren't looking at the evidence (ie, that preventative medicine doesn't lower cost). How can we make such a huge investment without public hearings. Why aren't experts testify on capital hill? One of my MBA professors last quarter went and met with the Obama admin, along with a handful of other economist. There was near universal concurrence that the public plan was bad and one way to control health cost was to eliminate the insurance tax deductions. Something as large as health care reform should be a multi year long process, not something you can attached an arbitrary time frame to.


I would agree with that, but I'm thinking the political process will probably end up slowing it down.

And let me state that I am no fan of incremental decrease in liberty, whether from a Democratic or Republican. I just think that sometimes people freak out way too much about it, or pretend to freak out about it based on who is in the White House.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 16, 2009)

udpolo15 said:


> Something as large as health care reform should be a multi year long process, not something you can attached an arbitrary time frame to.


That's my problem with it. Why is it THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING (IE TRASH THE EXISTING SYSTEM) RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND!!!!


----------



## Dexman1349 (Sep 17, 2009)

Here's an interesting read on healthcare reform titled "The Case to Kill Granny" posted from Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291

It's basically discussing the insane amount of public money (medicare/medicaid) spent on chronically ill and elderly people, which in the long run does not necessarily increase the quality of life for the extended amount of life given.



> As President Obama said, most of the uncontrolled growth in federal spending and the deficit comes from Medicare; nothing else comes close. Almost a third of the money spent by Medicare—about $66.8 billion a year—goes to chronically ill patients in the last two years of life. This might seem obvious—of course the costs come at the end, when patients are the sickest. But that can't explain what researchers at Dartmouth have discovered: Medicare spends twice as much on similar patients in some parts of the country as in others. The average cost of a Medicare patient in Miami is $16,351; the average in Honolulu is $5,311. In the Bronx, N.Y., it's $12,543. In Fargo, N.D., $5,738. The average Medicare patient undergoing end-of-life treatment spends 21.9 days in a Manhattan hospital. In Mason City, Iowa, he or she spends only 6.1 days. Maybe it's unsurprising that treatment in rural towns costs less than in big cities, with all their high prices, varied populations, and urban woes. But there are also significant disparities in towns that are otherwise very similar. How do you explain the fact, for instance, that in Boulder, Colo., the average cost of Medicare treatment is $9,103, whereas an hour away in Fort Collins, Colo., the cost is $6,448?





> All this treatment does not necessarily buy better care. In fact, the Dartmouth studies have found worse outcomes in many states and cities where there is more health care. Why? Because just going into the hospital has risks—of infection, or error, or other unforeseen complications. Some studies estimate that Americans are overtreated by roughly 30 percent. "It's not about rationing care—that's always the bogeyman people use to block reform," says Dr. Elliott Fisher, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School. "The real problem is unnecessary and unwanted care."


Having 3 direct family members working in the medical industry, I hear about this on a daily basis. Go to a nursing home and you will find just about every patient there on at least 5 different drugs. 1 for a mild heart condition (which if undiscovered would not change the quality or length of life, but should be treated "just in case"), 2 to treat the side effects of the heart meds, 2 more to treat the side effects of the pills treating the heart med side effects, etc, all stemming from a drug that isn't really needed in the first place. You go into the ER with stomach pain and next thing you know you're getting passed through an EKG, MRI, blood tests, etc, when any 1st year med student would correctly tell you to take some pepto and call in the morning, but is scared to death of malpractice he orders everything under the sun.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2009)

Dexman1349 said:


> Having 3 direct family members working in the medical industry, I hear about this on a daily basis.


As a guy who used to be married to the Supreme Allied Commander of Nurses for a Longterm Care Facility, I heard it on a daily basis as well. I think it is really unfortunate that people cannot have frank and open discussions about quality of care without people cramming the 'culture of life' arguments down your throat.

It also saddens me that someone like Sarah Palin, who no longer holds accountability, can interject herself into the argument by making clearly inflammatory, untrue statements that continue to frustrate the process.

My dad used to say, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I see A LOT of people who are getting paid to be nothing more than part of the problem.

JR


----------



## Supe (Sep 17, 2009)

jregieng said:


> see A LOT of people who are getting paid to be nothing more than part of the problem.
> JR



So do I, every time I turn on CNN and they're showing a congressional hearing.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 17, 2009)

SapperPE said:


> My internets too slow to watch the video, but I think I've seen it before. the attack.
> ..... think that revising our health care system (which fucking sucks as it is now) is probably not the evil dictator move that we all seem to want to make it out to be.


:appl: :appl: :appl: :appl:

I love it when Sapper lets loose... I couldn't agree more!

I also agree with the statement above that it's a shame both the Democrats and Republicans have dug into their positions so firmly that it no longer seems possible to discuss, rationally, a solution to what everyone seems to agree is a broken system. And I have to put the blame on the radical, marketing-approach driven propaganda coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It disgusts me what this approach has done to the process of American democracy. It has turned it into a joke. Wait, check that: I guess it's always been a joke, and has always been driven behind the scenes by competing private interests. Which is such a shame. Mock me all you want for saying this, but the oft-reported statistics about America being far behind the countries of Europe, Japan, Australia, etc., in terms of health care, are all true. And maybe that's partly why America has, historically, been a bigger money maker than these countries. And that works out great for you and me; people who have good educations and good jobs that come with decent health insurance packages. But I honestly believe, as simply a human being, and a human being who was raised a Christian, that the propserity of the well-off is not much measure of the "success" of any nation, as is the condition of the not-so-well off. If that makes me a "liberal" or an "idiot" in anyone's mind, then so be it. But as I said, there are a LOT of other countries that have surpassed us in this respect, and they don't seem to be doing all that bad....


----------



## Dleg (Sep 17, 2009)

You can find someone to complain about the health care system in any country. Imagine the quotes you could get from dissatisfied Americans if another country decided they wanted to adopt the American model.

My main point is, I am deeply dissappointed that the discussion has been sabotaged by "someone" or "some group" who has turned it into a shouting match. There's no way to discuss ways to improve the system now, because it has become a fight, and the fight has been driven by less-than-honorable intentions.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 17, 2009)

^^Hmm... the post I replied to has disappeared.

HEre's seomthing that I have been thinking about in this debate: Would a government health care system make it easier to run a small business? If everyone had health care, which they paid for out of their taxes, and employers did not have to provide for that, I would think that very small businesses would prosper - because they could attract better workers, who, under the current system, gravitate to larger employers purely because of health care benefits. Think of it... small stores, small engineering firms, small service companies... to me, it would seem that these types of small businesses would flourish with a public health care system.

Now, someone explain to me why this wouldn't happen...


----------



## benbo (Sep 17, 2009)

Dleg said:


> You can find someone to complain about the health care system in any country. Imagine the quotes you could get from dissatisfied Americans if another country decided they wanted to adopt the American model.
> My main point is, I am deeply dissappointed that the discussion has been sabotaged by "someone" or "some group" who has turned it into a shouting match. There's no way to discuss ways to improve the system now, because it has become a fight, and the fight has been driven by less-than-honorable intentions.


I deleted my post because I don't want to argue about this - primarily because nobody really seems to have any real data on it. I fully admit I don't have any stats and the only stats I know of are a BS 10 year old WHO study. But I'd be willing to look at any data that shows how horrible our healthcare system is.

Plus, shoot me for this, I actually care more about the healthcare of my own family than the nation as a whole, and we have excellent care. I can only see it getting worse.


----------



## benbo (Sep 17, 2009)

Dleg said:


> ^^Hmm... the post I replied to has disappeared.
> HEre's seomthing that I have been thinking about in this debate: Would a government health care system make it easier to run a small business? If everyone had health care, which they paid for out of their taxes, and employers did not have to provide for that, I would think that very small businesses would prosper - because they could attract better workers, who, under the current system, gravitate to larger employers purely because of health care benefits. Think of it... small stores, small engineering firms, small service companies... to me, it would seem that these types of small businesses would flourish with a public health care system.
> 
> Now, someone explain to me why this wouldn't happen...


Well, nobody knows what would happen. I think under the current plans they are asking the business owners to foot the bill one way or the other. Plus, of course as you know, everyone would have healthcare, but not everyone would pay for it out of their taxes because not everyone pays taxes. Not even everyone who works.


----------



## benbo (Sep 17, 2009)

I am serious that I would like to see data comparing our system to other systems. But not the BS data of life expectancy and infant mortality. This is BS because we cannot compare population A to population B if they are not homogenous and equal populations.

Here are things I would like to know about to compare health / medical research in varous countries:

Doctor training and quality

Doctor to patient ratios

Waiting time for procedures

Procedures and new medicines developed in the country

Percentage of patients given cuting edge treatments and best practices treatments in various countries.

I am a person with a serious chronic illness. I also cared for two parents through end of life. I couldn't be happier with the healthcare we all recieved.

As a person with a chronic illness, I participate on message boards with people with the same malady from around the world. I know this is anectdotal, along with the fact I earlier posted about my brother and sister who live in Australia and their complaints (which I deleted). THat's why I'd like to see actually statistics on health care, not statistics on mortality, which is affected by so many other things.

I am not arguing one way or the other really. Just saying two things:

1. I'd really like to see relevant facts.

2. I'm not worried about paying a bit more in taxes. But I am worried that my family's healthcare will get screwed up.

And I don't ascribe evil motives to most people on either side.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 17, 2009)

I haven't finished reading it yet, but this report seems to answer your questions, or at least some of them.


----------



## benbo (Sep 17, 2009)

Dleg said:


> I haven't finished reading it yet, but this report seems to answer your questions, or at least some of them.


Okay, I just skimmed it.

This report seems fairly good, however it is really pretty equivocal and seems to qualify almost all the data. It says that the US his better in some things, not in others. It says some studies show the US better than Canada, others go the other way. It claims that the US "overuses" revascularization, where to me the use of revascularization is a good thing.

This is the first line of the conclusions "Taken collectively, the findings from international studies of health care quality do not in and of themselves provide a definitive answer to the question of how the United States compares in terms of the quality of its health care."

And I'm sorry - I will admit this is a pretty fair study, but a quick Google of the first author shows her to be affiliated with AARP - which is on record in support of the Health Care Proposals.

Let me just say this. I'm willing to give this all a chance, but if it screws up my family's healthcare in any way I am going to be mightly pissed off. Plus, I hardly consider myself the most conservative person on here. I'm sure there are a lot of folks on here mortified by these healthcare reforms, but for some reason they don't seem to want to argue this. So I'm not going to waste my time doing it.


----------



## benbo (Sep 17, 2009)

Oh, and thanks for finding the study. I will read it in more detail when I have time. Because I agree that these issues are far too important to be decided by bullshit and bromides on either side.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 17, 2009)

Well, for the sake of those not reading the whole thing, here is the summary section:



> Summary andconclusions
> 
> Taken collectively, the findings
> 
> ...


----------



## Dleg (Sep 17, 2009)

benbo said:


> And I'm sorry - I will admit this is a pretty fair study, but a quick Google of the first author shows her to be affiliated with AARP - which is on record in support of the Health Care Proposals.


Do you consider this surprising, considering the conclusions of the report?


----------



## benbo (Sep 17, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Do you consider this surprising, considering the conclusions of the report?


No, I'm wondering if that is the REASON for the conclusions in this report. All I ever hear is that the current US health system is irretrievably screwed up, that's why we need this massive overhaul. Even from this report I don't get that.

Just cutting a few equivocations from this conclusion:

_"While evidence is not conclusive, "_

"Instead, the picture that emerges

from the information available on

technical quality and related

aspects of health system

performance is a mixed bag,"

"To be sure, there are limitations to

the current evidence base."

"there may not be agreement about

which dimensions are most

important."

"Existing studies also fail to tell us

much at all about the reasons for

the apparent differences in quality

observed across countries,"

Like I said, I'll read the whole thing if I have time. But I doubt I will find stronger justification in the body of the report than in its own conclusions which are pretty wishy washy. Plus I love how the report is able to predict the effect of future change in this country, when it has no idea what sort of ripple effects they may have, the effect of external factors such as the overall economy, or how those changes are going to be implemented. THat part is complete BS to me.

I'l repeat my concern, which I'll grant is selfish. I went to school, I worked hard to get a job with good healthcare. If anything in these reforms causes my employer to drop my health plan, and I'm forced into a crappy plan which may kill me or my family members, I'll be pissed off, but then it will be too late. I give plenty in charity each year, and I pay plenty in taxes, so I don't feel guilty wanting to protect the best for my family.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 18, 2009)

The report explains pretty thoroughly why more definitive comparisons cannot be made, pretty much echoing what you said in an earlier point. I'd be a lot more suspect of a report that was any more conclusive than that.

The biggest point for me, which is what I was compaining about, is the 1/5 of Americans who have no insurance coverage, which is by far the biggest difference between the US and the other countries in the comparison, which all have far wider coverage. That's what I find appalling about the US system, especially in light of how much more it costs compared to those other counrties.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 18, 2009)

The report explains pretty thoroughly why more definitive comparisons cannot be made, pretty much echoing what you said in an earlier point. I'd be a lot more suspect of a report that was any more conclusive than that.

The biggest point for me, which is what I was compaining about, is the 1/5 of Americans who have no insurance coverage, which is by far the biggest difference between the US and the other countries in the comparison, which all have far wider coverage. That's what I find appalling about the US system, especially in light of how much more it costs compared to those other counrties.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 18, 2009)

Dleg said:


> ^^Hmm... the post I replied to has disappeared.
> HEre's seomthing that I have been thinking about in this debate: Would a government health care system make it easier to run a small business? If everyone had health care, which they paid for out of their taxes, and employers did not have to provide for that, I would think that very small businesses would prosper - because they could attract better workers, who, under the current system, gravitate to larger employers purely because of health care benefits. Think of it... small stores, small engineering firms, small service companies... to me, it would seem that these types of small businesses would flourish with a public health care system.
> 
> Now, someone explain to me why this wouldn't happen...


Because the small businesses will be shouldering the burden.

I think Obama mentioned 8% tax on businesses not provideing health insurance. A lot of small businesses that don't provide it already are operating on margins slimmer than 8%. I have friends that own businesses with 1-10 employees that would be driven out of business by this.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 18, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Because the small businesses will be shouldering the burden.
> I think Obama mentioned 8% tax on businesses not provideing health insurance. A lot of small businesses that don't provide it already are operating on margins slimmer than 8%. I have friends that own businesses with 1-10 employees that would be driven out of business by this.


That's OK because Obama eats deficits and craps jobs. The world will be saved in short order.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 18, 2009)

I'll be blunt. If they can't take the rational steps required for self-preservation, why should I have to provide it for them?

Don't get me wrong, I'll help someone if I know them and know they are deserving. On the other hand, I don't feel that I should be forced to pay for people I don't know.

I think your very altruistic, sap, but I don't think the government should force people to be altruistic. that should be a personal choice.


----------



## benbo (Sep 18, 2009)

SapperPE said:


> If you can explain to me why it makes sense to have the "I make the money, I get to spend it" attitude when it comes to the health and welfare of our fellow Americans, then I'll change my opinion.


I never said anything you attributed to me. I just stated a fact with no value judgement.

When people pay sales tax that is a state tax. I don't think any of that money is going to these federal healthcare plans. Again, no value judgement, just a fact.

First, I have no problem paying taxes to help my fellow people. I have no problem with my taxes going up a little to help out the less fortunate. And this is despite the fact that I think the government wastes money. I think there are more effective ways to provide for others. In addition, as a person who tithes to charity, I have no problem donating the thousands of dollars I do every year to charities, such as the March of Dimes, which are healthcare related.

I have a problem with people telling me that I can't put my own family first. I am worried our healthcare will get screwed up by this. I'm also worried about a huge economic change and expense in a time when there is a lot of economic problems.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 18, 2009)

benbo said:


> First, I have no problem paying taxes to help my fellow people.


I don't have a problem if it helps all people, even those in a small region, like the gov building the Hoover dam, and rural electrification (although that department probably should have been killed off years ago). There are some things ONLY the gov can do to benefit humanity, because of the costs.

What chaps my hide is paying taxes and being forced to help those who refuse to participate in their ownself preservation.

Note that I do feel differently about people who are physically unable to do so. They can't help that.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Sep 18, 2009)

The problem is the underlying assumption that we have the wealth available to fill the demand. Part of the problem we have now is that the _price_ paid for health care by the patient is divorced from the actual _cost_ of said care as seen by the patient. For a lot of people with health insurance provided by their employer, the expectation is that a doctor visit will cost whatever the copay amount is (example: $10.00). The cost of that visit is a damn sight more than ten bucks. The remainder of that cost is picked up by the insurance company. The problem is that, as a patient, you usually have no real idea how much money you are spending when you visit a doctor.

When it comes down to it, nothing in this life is free. Just because somebody else is paying the bill doesn't mean the bill doesn't exist. The regulator for supply and demand is price. The problem that arises is that as soon as you make something available for "free", the demand will then go infinite. Since the supply is not infinite, what will then happen is that somebody somewhere will be deciding how and how much is spent on your health care and that somebody will not be YOU. I, for one, have a problem with turning over these decisions regarding the health and well being of my family to some faceless bureaucrat no matter how well intentioned they may be.


----------



## benbo (Sep 18, 2009)

SapperPE said:


> My fault, see my edit in my post above.


No problem. I'm not upset by this argument. I'm actually in the middle of the argument because I also sort of believe that the present healthcare system is unsustainable. I'm just not sure what is the right thing to do about it.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 18, 2009)

Except for major operations, you could really pretty much handle paying for it youself, without insurance.

Maybe we should just have insurance to cover major operations, kind of like your liability insurance for your car. you hope you never need it, but just in case.


----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 18, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Except for major operations, you could really pretty much handle paying for it youself, without insurance.
> Maybe we should just have insurance to cover major operations, kind of like your liability insurance for your car. you hope you never need it, but just in case.


pick and choose coverage...that would be nice. The maternity bill I racking up will probably be the bigger than the compilation of medical costs up to this point in my life. Insurance companies definitely make money off me.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Sep 18, 2009)

^ I'd go for that in a heartbeat. Personally, I think employers shouldn't be in the business of supplying health insurance. That whole deal was a result of trying to avoid excessive income taxes by providing the insurance instead of taxable wages. I have a friend that works for GM and has stated to me that his health insurance is "free". It's not free. His premium payment just doesn't show up on his pay stub and he has no idea what the applicable dollar amount actually is.

I work for a small company that doesn't subsidize the premiums. We do get the premium taken out pre-tax however. I at least know what the whole bill is for my insurance. We recently moved to a high deductible policy that qualifies or use of an HSA. I have a debit card and electronic bill payment with the HSA account and the deposits are in pre-tax dollars just like an IRA.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 18, 2009)

Flyer_PE said:


> That whole deal was a result of trying to avoid excessive income taxes by providing the insurance instead of taxable wages.


Actually it started in WWII. Wages were fixed by the gov, so to attract workers from competitors, companies added non-income benfits like paying for a portion or all of their health insurance.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Sep 18, 2009)

^I stand corrected. However, the point that employer provided health insurance was originally initiated as a response to government meddling in the free market is still valid. Many actions have unintended consequences. What scares me the most about the proposals currently on the table is that there is a lot of predicting how people and insurance companies are going to act under the new rules. People and companies will not behave as they are directed to do so for the good of the many, they will act in their own best interests as the environment they are in dictates.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 18, 2009)

What really bothered me was our elected representatives openly admitting that they hadn't read the bills in question. talk about having utter contempt for your constituents!


----------



## Chucktown PE (Sep 18, 2009)

It has taken me some time to write this today so by the time I hit reply some of the points may have been covered.

To me this all boils down to choice. I want to be able to choose the health care that my family and I receive.

To clear one thing up real quick, there is nothing in the constitution that even remotely mentions a right to health care, or an ability for the government to force me to buy health care. If anything the constitution would prevent the government from forcing me to buy healthcare.

I hate this debate and I hate our government, both Democrats and Republicans for creating the bullshit that we have today. If the government had never become involved in healthcare I would hypothesize that we'd all be better off today.

To start, the government created the current system during WWII. During WWII that fat piece of shit douche bag FDR enacted wage controls on the citizenry so he wouldn't have to pay the "retail" price for fighting the war. He didn't want to pay retail because he needed to enact other unconstitutional measures such as social security and large scale public works funded by the federal government. So he put wage controls in place. As a concession, he made health insurance funded by an employer tax deductible. If you wanted to by health insurance as an individual, well go fuck yourself, no tax deduction there.

That created this system where individuals are not responsible for their own health care. Instead, most of us are dependent on someone else for our health insurance. And since the employer pays most of that bill, we don't see the cost, or really care what those costs are, me included. This drives up cost. There is no elasticity to the demand curve because quantity demanded is almost totally disconnected from cost. Read a macroeconomics book if this doesn't make sense.

In addition to creating the third party system, the government also has bequeathed us with health care mandates. For instance, if you buy health care in Massachusetts your policy has to include mental health treatment, alcohol and substance abuse treatment, pregnancy/prenatal coverage, etc. In my situation, I know that I don't need alcohol and substance abuse treatment, but I have to pay for it anyway. Same thing with mental health treatment (I don't need it although I'm sure some of you will disagree). My wife and I are done having kids but I have to buy a policy with pregnancy/prenatal coverage. Why do I say I have to pay for it, because my company's policy is with a big national firm that has coverage in every state because we have people in almost every state. So this big national company has to meet the demands of every state mandate.

I'll tell you how to get costs in line very quickly and it wouldn't take a frigging miracle to get it passed.

1) Either eliminate the tax deduction for employer purchase coverage or give the same tax deduction to individuals. Two things would happen here, employers would increase wages and drop these massive policies that cover all their employees and these employees would begin shopping policies that met their needs. It's less of an administrative burden on the employer and it keeps people from buying a one size fits all policy. These policies wouldn't cover everything band aid at 100% so people would actually have to (gasp) start paying for their own health care (gasp again). As a consequence people won't go to the doctor every time they have a sniffle and according to the laws of economics (which have worked 100% of the time they haven't been dicked around with by the government) doctors will lower their prices.

2) Get rid of the mandates. Allow people to buy the coverage they need. How much do you think your car insurance policy would cost if it covered every oil change and car wash? Insurance companies are going to make a profit (gasp) and all of these services have a price.

3) Get rid of HIPA. This makes it a total pain in the ass for doctors to share information.

4) Enact some sort of meaningful tort reform. As an example, I have a really good family friend who is an OB/GYN. If someone sues him or his company, they can take his house and his car, not just those things that are owned by his corporation. Not the same for a lawyer with an LLC. Why does a doctor risk losing everything? Ask the government. Tort reform would reduce the cost of "defensive medicine."

Why don't we do these things and see what happens. There certainly isn't any harm in doing it.

As far as comparing our health care to that of other countries, most people throw out the life expectancy statistic. That isn't the only measure of health care. Look at the rate of staph infections in hospitals in the US vs. the UK and/or Canada, that will frighten you. Or look at the time it takes to get a radiological study after being ordered by a physician in the US vs. the UK and/or Canada. Look at the number of MRIs per million people between the two countries. These are much more telling statistics.

Whether you choose to accept it or not, government created this problem. Government and/or whatever central planning they're trying to sell us is not and never will be able to solve it.

And while I'm at it, that 45 million Americans are uninsured line is total bullshit. At least 20 million of those are illegal immigrants. Another 10 million choose not to have health insurance, and 2 to 3 million of those are between jobs/temporarily unemployed. That leaves 12 million without health insurance. And the wonderful, all knowing, imperial federal government is going to "fix" that at the low, low cost of at least $1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

I would also like to point out Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as wonderful examples of government programs. Now what in the world makes anyone think that they will run healthcare for 300 million people any better?

Lastly, our Constitution, what is left of it after our politicians wipe their asses with it, guarantees everyone a right to life, liberty, and property. Healthcare is not a right. For us to receive healthcare, someone else has to give up something whether it is their time (in the case of a nurse or a doctor) or a drug (in the case of a pharmaceutical company). No part of our Constitution gives anyone a right at the expense of someone else's.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 18, 2009)

^ What he said.


----------



## Supe (Sep 18, 2009)

^X2


----------



## udpolo15 (Sep 18, 2009)

What about pizza?

My thoughts on health care go both ways. With respect to the argument that the constitution doesn't provide the ability for the government to provide healthcare, maybe it should. I think that as a civilized nation, everybody should have access to health care. To some extent we do. Anybody (insured, uninsured, legal, illegal) can walk into a hospital and get emergency care. Of course, ongoing treatment isn't included and that is the a big part of the problem. As a human, I believe that everyone should have some level of health care that goes beyond just emergency care and I would be happy to pay for it. However, I don't want to pay for Fat Frank who makes poor health choices and ends up getting yearly angioplasties. Another concept I struggle with is "big government". I know a lot of folks on here complain that the government is inefficient and I won't argue with that, but I think we as voters are partly to blame for allowing it to happen. Any big corporation has the same inefficiencies, red tape, etc. Beyond the waste issue, is where to draw the line? What about hunger? American's go hungry ever day. Food companies make profits, why doesn't the government take over feeding everyone? (In fact, I would probably say food is more of a right than healthcare).

So what do I think health care should look like? First there is a lot of tension between profits for insurance companies and care for the chronic issues or major illnesses. Insurance companies don’t like these people since the severely impact profitability, but they are the ones that need care the most. Insurance companies will always look for ways to get rid of these patients or minimize cost. For that reason, I would support government run healthcare for major illness (i.e., cancer, leukemia, rare disorders etc). I would gladly pay a tax that would absolve me of the financial impact of illnesses that are out of my control. Even for upper middle class families with insurance, having a kid with some rare disorder can be under a huge financial strain due to healthcare costs.

There are some issues with this, mainly were to draw the line between lifestyle choices illness and luck of the draw illness. There are plenty that you can place in its respective box, but there are gray areas. For that reason, I support a sin tax on smoking/booze/fatty foods, etc.

I would follow that up with removal of all the deductions for health insurance premiums. When true health care costs become more internalized to the consumer, they will begin to make better decisions about healthcare. This idea is supported by a lot of economist as a way to control costs.



Some other points:

Up until a couple a days ago I supported tort reform (i.e., limiting caps). However, I was reading an article which made argument about how people would react if Congress implemented damage floors. The more I thought about it, damage caps is not the answer to tort reform. I find it interesting that many that are anti-government involvement support tort reform. Isn’t that government interfering with the free market? I agree it is a problem, but maybe there are free market ways to deal with it.

On the issue of illegals and whether they are covered under the plan. As I said above, these folks can walk into a hospital and get emergency care. Many go for non emergency reasons and would continue to do so after the proposed health care. This is still a cost that we all pay for whether we include them in the bill or not. Of course we can’t start covering them without a corresponding tough immigration policy or else we would be over run.


----------



## Wolverine (Sep 18, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> 4) Enact some sort of meaningful tort reform. As an example, I have a really good family friend who is an OB/GYN. If someone sues him or his company, they can take his house and his car, not just those things that are owned by his corporation. Not the same for a lawyer with an LLC. Why does a doctor risk losing everything? Ask the government. Tort reform would reduce the cost of "defensive medicine."


You want the LAWYERS to pass laws that would make it harder for them to practice law? HAHAHAHA! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, especially since I'm in the middle of getting reamed by the courts (divorce).

You've heard it before, but now I truly know what it means when people say lawyers are scum. They're scummier than scum. They're evil scum, and they run the country, at $350 an hour, *and they conspire to make sure they each get paid first, screw the clients. if they don't like something, they pass a law to legalize the opposite, [SIZE=12pt]or illegalize the.*.. [/SIZE]wait, what? I'm ranting? Oh, sorry.



Chucktown PE said:


> I would also like to point out Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as wonderful examples of government programs. Now what in the world makes anyone think that they will run healthcare for 300 million people any better?


 Kudos for this observation though - we already have a model - no, three models - for how government runs a program.
I saw a good quote the other day about how Government screws something up and then dives in to pass reforms further screwing things up. Verschlimmbesserung is the word in German (a fix that makes things worse).

What this has to do with pizza, I don't know. But now I'm hungry for pizza.


----------



## MGX (Sep 18, 2009)

Come to think of it, in the Framers' time doctors and hospitals were a last resort. If your remedies didn't work doctors put leeches on you hoping they would remove the 'evil spirits'.

With quackery as that, I don't think legislating it to everyone makes sense.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 18, 2009)

^And, the framers wore powdered wigs, lived without electricity and running water, and had no knowledge whatsoever that ilnesses were caused by microscopic "germs".

Clearly, we should base our modern society on a strict adherence to exactly what they wrote.

Nevermind all that stuff they also wrote about the Constitution being a "living" document.

Now, sarcasm out of the way, I have no doubt government will not do anything perfect, no matter what. But the "free market" (which doesn't exist), will also not correct it, either, not if the objective is to ensure that everyone has access to quality health care.

At least Chucktown offered some suggestions how to "fix" it (which implies that he agrees it's broken???). That's what I'm getting at - we need this to be a rational discussion, not a shouting match.


----------



## MGX (Sep 19, 2009)

Dleg said:


> ^And, the framers wore powdered wigs, lived without electricity and running water, and had no knowledge whatsoever that ilnesses were caused by microscopic "germs".
> Clearly, we should base our modern society on a strict adherence to exactly what they wrote.
> 
> Nevermind all that stuff they also wrote about the Constitution being a "living" document.
> ...



It seems logical that if healthcare should be a right to everyone then the constitution/bill of rights need amending.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 20, 2009)

I agree.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Here's what I find puzzling...

Both sides of the aisle agree that everybody is on the same page with 80% of the bill. Issues like portability, pre-existing conditions, and cancellation during illness are universally (pretty much) agreed on.

The big sticking point seems to be single payer.

Soooo....my question is, why don't the Dems give up on single payer and just pass a bill with the 80% everyone seems to be OK with? My wife says it is because there is no way single payer would pass on its own without the 80% people agree on. I can see this, but why is single payer so dang important to them. So important that thye'd rather nothing get passed than a plan without single payer?

Incidentally, I've done research on this and every Democratic President since WWII (except Carter)has tried to get a single payer system passed. Again, why is this so important to the democratic party.


----------



## benbo (Sep 21, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Incidentally, I've done research on this and every Democratic President since WWII (except Carter)has tried to get a single payer system passed. Again, why is this so important to the democratic party.


There are probably a lot of reasons (including, as Obama aid on Sunday, the age old arguent about the scope pf government) , but partly I think it is because of the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that's the way everybody else in the world does it. I say that because I always hear "THe US is the ONLY country in the world that does or doesn't do X or Y."

I think looking at systems in other countries may help shed light on the issue, but I cetainly don't think this is justification in and of itself.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Sep 21, 2009)

So that they can permanently hold that over people's heads as a campaign promise, i.e. "Don't for the Republicans, they're going to take away your free healthcare." Single payer is all about power. The government will have the power to decide what health care you and your family recieve. When they control your health care they control you. At least with a private insurer, if you don't like what they do to you, you can find another company. Not so with the imperial federal government.

One more thing on this, the pre-existing condition thing is a bunch of bullshit as well. That would be like me going and buying flood insurance after a damn hurricane that flooded my house. No insurance company would write that policy without someone holding a gun to their heads. Consequently, the government is going to use force to do this to health insurance companies. So someone decides that they don't want health insurance until they get cancer or some other disease that is going to cost a lot of money. The insurance companies are simply going to pass the costs off for this treatment to all the other policy holders, in effect raising the bill on all of the rest of us.


----------



## udpolo15 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> One more thing on this, the pre-existing condition thing is a bunch of bullshit as well. That would be like me going and buying flood insurance after a damn hurricane that flooded my house. No insurance company would write that policy without someone holding a gun to their heads. Consequently, the government is going to use force to do this to health insurance companies. So someone decides that they don't want health insurance until they get cancer or some other disease that is going to cost a lot of money. The insurance companies are simply going to pass the costs off for this treatment to all the other policy holders, in effect raising the bill on all of the rest of us.


I agree with you that people shouldn't game the system to get insurance until they need it, but some pre-existing conditions aren't by choice where buying a house in a hurricane prone area is. Nobody wakes up and decides to go get leukemia.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> One more thing on this, the pre-existing condition thing is a bunch of bullshit as well. That would be like me going and buying flood insurance after a damn hurricane that flooded my house. No insurance company would write that policy without someone holding a gun to their heads. Consequently, the government is going to use force to do this to health insurance companies. So someone decides that they don't want health insurance until they get cancer or some other disease that is going to cost a lot of money. The insurance companies are simply going to pass the costs off for this treatment to all the other policy holders, in effect raising the bill on all of the rest of us.


DISCLAIMER: I do not endorse the following stance, nor do I endorse government sponsored health care (or government sponsored anything, for that matter). This is simply FYI from what I have heard on NPR.

They are saying that the pre-existing condition clause won't be a problem with the proposed system because everybody is required to have insurance anyway. The only time that clause will come in to play is right after the bill is passed, and currently uninsured people with pre-existing conditions are getting their government mandated health care plan. After that, it will be theoretically impossible to dodge having a health care plan until you have a condition that warrants one.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Sep 21, 2009)

I would like someone to point out to me where in the constitution it says that the government has the authority to make an insurance company insure someone or make someone buy health insurance.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

udpolo15 said:


> I agree with you that people shouldn't game the system to get insurance until they need it, but some pre-existing conditions aren't by choice where buying a house in a hurricane prone area is. Nobody wakes up and decides to go get leukemia.


Very, very true


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> I would like someone to point out to me where in the constitution it says that the government has the authority to make an insurance company insure someone or make someone buy health insurance.


"It isn't in the Constition" ceased being a valid complaint decades ago. That horse has left the barn. Best to accept that and move along.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> "It isn't in the Constition" ceased being a valid complaint decades ago. That horse has left the barn. Best to accept that and move along.


Hey, if politicians keep using the Constitution to back up some of their actions (I hear a sound byte like that every once in a while), and they continue to take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn in, then I think it is still a perfectly valid complaint. You are correct, though, that politicians routinely wipe their ass with the document, often with the complicity, if not outright request, of the populace.


----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 21, 2009)

One of my friends is a bankrupcy attorney, about 60% of their business is due to medical bills people can't afford since they have no health insurance.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You are correct, though, that politicians routinely wipe their ass with the document, often with the complicity, if not outright request, of the populace.


I never said that.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I never said that.


I extrapolated.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Yeah, but I don't feel that way at all. I think the Supreme court made a very bad call on the iminent domain thing a few years back, but even then, I don't believe that anyone 'wiped their a$$' with the Constitution.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Yeah, but I don't feel that way at all. I think the Supreme court made a very bad call on the iminent domain thing a few years back, but even then, I don't believe that anyone 'wiped their a$$' with the Constitution.


You don't think that TSA inspections constitute illegal search and seizure? You don't think that random wiretapping of American citizens without warrant violates the same?

All of the excuses that I hear about "times have changed" or "you can't expect the Constitution to cover every eventuality", I have a simple answer. The 10th Amendment explicitly says that anything not covered by the Constitution is left to the States or the People to cover. That means that if it doesn't say it in the Constitution, then the Federal Government has no right to govern it.


----------



## benbo (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You don't think that TSA inspections constitute illegal search and seizure?


Where exactly is a "right to fly" in the constitution? As far as I'm concerned, the airplane business is commerce and that's interstate commerce. Plus, I don't want to be blown up because of somebody's interpretation of the 10th amendment.

If you don't want to be searched, drive or fly your own plane.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You don't think that TSA inspections constitute illegal search and seizure?


No. It is a PITA



> You don't think that random wiretapping of American citizens without warrant violates the same?


That only applies to overseas calls. Far as I'm concerned, once the call leaves the US, it is fair game for tapping.



> The 10th Amendment explicitly says that anything not covered by the Constitution is left to the States or the People to cover. That means that if it doesn't say it in the Constitution, then the Federal Government has no right to govern it.


Yes, that has been overstepped, in my opinion. But, I will also concede that the loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause makes some of the places I think they overstepped perfectly legal, Constitutionally.

Interpretation of the law can be quite the gray area.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

benbo said:


> Where exactly is a "right to fly" in the constitution? As far as I'm concerned, the airplane business is commerce and that's interstate commerce. Plus, I don't want to be blown up because of somebody's interpretation of the 10th amendment.
> If you don't want to be searched, drive or fly your own plane.


There isn't a right to fly in the Constitution, but there is a clause saying that the Federal Government is not allowed to search a citizen or seize property from them without probable cause that they are committing a crime, or are planning to. I don't have any problem being searched at the airport because it has always been part of the contract that you enter into with the airline when you purchase a ticket. What I have a problem with is the Federal Government "providing" those services to the airlines at the taxpayer's expense. Essentially, an implied, private contract between a citizen and an airline are trumping what is expressly written in the US Constitution. Ta address the last part of your first paragraph, countless studies have shown that since the TSA took over airport security from the private security firms hired by airlines and airports, the amount of contraband making it through checkpoints has either stayed the same, or increased, depending on which report you believe.

If you want to live under an overbearing, all-encompassing government, move to China. I'm tired of hearing that dumbass argument, "If you don't like it, you can just leave" or "fly your own plane" (which, BTW, has it's own hurdles in the licensing process now courtesy of 9/11 and our government).


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Yes, that has been overstepped, in my opinion. But, I will also concede that the loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause makes some of the places I think they overstepped perfectly legal, Constitutionally.
> Interpretation of the law can be quite the gray area.


I don't see how interpretation is necessary. Is Education in the Constitution? No. Therefore the 10th Amendment says that it is up to the States or People to handle. The same applies to Labor, Transportation, Agriculture, HUD and Energy. A case could be made for Health and Human Services under the right to "Life, Liberty, etc.", Commerce under the "Commerce Clause", "Justice" although the only part really mentioned is the Supreme Court, Defense because of the "raise and support armies...navy" clause, and Treasury because of the "coin money" provision. Even though some of those departments are justifiable based on the Constitution, all of the listed agencies are members of the Executive Cabinet although many of them cover powers that are given to the Legislative and/or Judicial branches of government.


----------



## benbo (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> If you want to live under an overbearing, all-encompassing government, move to China. I'm tired of hearing that dumbass argument, "If you don't like it, you can just leave" or "fly your own plane" (which, BTW, has it's own hurdles in the licensing process now courtesy of 9/11 and our government).


How pleasant, resort to namecalling. Typical when your argument is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, I missed your swearing in ceremony. Things are what they are. If anybody is unhappy here, it seems like you.


----------



## udpolo15 (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> There isn't a right to fly in the Constitution, but there is a clause saying that the Federal Government is not allowed to search a citizen or seize property from them without probable cause that they are committing a crime, or are planning to.


I don't think the 4th amendment states anything about crime, just prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. I don't see the TSA searching folks at the airport as unreasonable given the safety implications.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

benbo said:


> How pleasant, resort to namecalling. Typical when your argument is ludicrous.
> I'm sorry, I missed your swearing in ceremony. Things are what they are. If anybody is unhappy here, it seems like you.


Dumbass modifies the word "argument", not the name "benbo".

So, if we are unhappy with the status quo and/or the direction of things to come, the only solution is to leave? And where, pray tell, should I go? About the only options to avoid ridiculous government intervention is to buy my own island or go completely "off the grid". Neither of which is an attractive option since it would result in a lowering in my quality of life....not because of the lack of government, but because of the lack of private enterprise capable of selling me the things I am accustomed to and the lack of an ability to make money to pay for said goods/services. But apparently expressing my views makes you unhappy, in which case, I am completely unconcerned. Likewise with namecalling, I typically see the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument when the Statist runs out of valid arguments against me.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

udpolo15 said:


> I don't think the 4th amendment states anything about crime, just prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. I don't see the TSA searching folks at the airport as unreasonable given the safety implications.





> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


It seems to me that the 4th Amendment only considers a search "reasonable" if there is a Warrant issued that is supported by probably cause, and names the party to be searched and things to be seized. Does me buying an airline ticket give the government probable cause that I am going to hijack the aircraft? Is it a valid substitute for a Warrant?


----------



## benbo (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Dumbass modifies the word "argument", not the name "benbo".
> So, if we are unhappy with the status quo and/or the direction of things to come, the only solution is to leave? And where, pray tell, should I go? About the only options to avoid ridiculous government intervention is to buy my own island or go completely "off the grid". Neither of which is an attractive option since it would result in a lowering in my quality of life....not because of the lack of government, but because of the lack of private enterprise capable of selling me the things I am accustomed to and the lack of an ability to make money to pay for said goods/services. But apparently expressing my views makes you unhappy, in which case, I am completely unconcerned. Likewise with namecalling, I typically see the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument when the Statist runs out of valid arguments against me.


I don't recall telling you to leave, I was under the impression you were telling me to go to China.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I don't see how interpretation is necessary. Is *Education* in the Constitution? No. Therefore the 10th Amendment says that it is up to the States or People to handle. The same applies to *Labor, Transportation, Agriculture, HUD and Energy.*


All of which can be 'justified' if you stretch the meaning of commerce.

I'm not saying I agree; I'm just saying that's how the gov got into a lot of stuff you would think the 10th Ammendment bars them from doing.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

benbo said:


> I don't recall telling you to leave, I was under the impression you were telling me to go to China.


Your argument "If you don't want to be searched, drive or fly your own plane." was simply a variation on a theme. Avoidance doesn't solve the problem.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> All of which can be 'justified' if you stretch the meaning of commerce.
> I'm not saying I agree; I'm just saying that's how the gov got into a lot of stuff you would think the 10th Ammendment bars them from doing.


Even if you did stretch the meaning of commerce to include all of those items, why would we need all of the different Departments? They could just be sub-sets of the Department of Commerce. This is how bureaucracy grows to the point that it has in the country. You make one stretch of a definition to justify one bureaucrat, then that bureaucrat stretches the definition even further, etc. Eventually, you end up with an unsustainable model.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> So, if we are unhappy with the status quo and/or the direction of things to come, the only solution is to leave?


Nah, man. Vote, get involved in campaigning for candidates, or, shoot, run yourself.


----------



## benbo (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Your argument "If you don't want to be searched, drive or fly your own plane." was simply a variation on a theme. Avoidance doesn't solve the problem.


Thanks for the interpretation. I'm sure you would never resort to such a tactic. oops, you did.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Even if you did stretch the meaning of commerce to include all of those items, why would we need all of the different Departments? They could just be sub-sets of the Department of Commerce.


They could be, but that would lead to a bloated Commerce Department with unclear chains of command and responsibilities.


----------



## benbo (Sep 21, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Nah, man. Vote, get involved in campaigning for candidates, or, shoot, run yourself.


True.. If I was really that worried about it, I'd be dedicating my life to solving this fascistic encroachment on our liberties.


----------



## MGX (Sep 21, 2009)

The time for debate is over.

Tomorrow we nationalize everything. You're all on government contract with government benefits from now on.


----------



## benbo (Sep 21, 2009)

MGX said:


> The time for debate is over.
> Tomorrow we nationalize everything. You're all on government contract with government benefits from now on.


Sorry to tell you - these tiresome debates on this message board aren't going to do anything. If you really believe that what are you wasting your time working for?


----------



## MGX (Sep 21, 2009)

Work? Spamming EB is work!

Onwards, comrades!


----------



## benbo (Sep 21, 2009)

MGX said:


> Work? Spamming EB is work!
> Onwards, comrades!


You convinced me! The TSA is the SS and the KGB rolled into one! I’m going to furiously spam every message board in sight to bring this horror to an end to this! Sorry I can’t be back here, it appears my brethren are carrying on the fight for liberty in this pizza thread.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

You can't spell Stazi without TSA!


----------



## FLBuff PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Hey did someone say pizza?


----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 21, 2009)

FLBuff PE said:


> Hey did someone say pizza?


with mushrooms, black olives and extra cheese please!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 21, 2009)

^Yuk.


----------



## csb (Sep 21, 2009)

Don't let the pregnant woman order the pizza!


----------



## MA_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

pizza is only free if you drive a camaro


----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 21, 2009)

csb said:


> Don't let the pregnant woman order the pizza!


Those would be my topping choices even if I wasn't pregnant. Although it is usually plain cheese pizza anyways cuz the hubby and I don't agree on toppings.

Darn, no free pizza for me


----------



## MGX (Sep 21, 2009)

I smell a pizza bailout!


----------



## FLBuff PE (Sep 21, 2009)

snickerd3 said:


> with mushrooms, black olives and extra cheese please!


I'd attend that pizza party. Don't let the haters get you down, snick!


----------



## Dleg (Sep 21, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> So that they can permanently hold that over people's heads as a campaign promise, i.e. "Don't for the Republicans, they're going to take away your free healthcare." Single payer is all about power. The government will have the power to decide what health care you and your family recieve. When they control your health care they control you. At least with a private insurer, if you don't like what they do to you, you can find another company. Not so with the imperial federal government.
> One more thing on this, the pre-existing condition thing is a bunch of bullshit as well. That would be like me going and buying flood insurance after a damn hurricane that flooded my house. No insurance company would write that policy without someone holding a gun to their heads. Consequently, the government is going to use force to do this to health insurance companies. So someone decides that they don't want health insurance until they get cancer or some other disease that is going to cost a lot of money. The insurance companies are simply going to pass the costs off for this treatment to all the other policy holders, in effect raising the bill on all of the rest of us.


Which is exactly why the "system" (cough) is broken and in need of repair....

Honestly, I think you are thinking with the over-confidence of youth on this issue, Chucktown. Imagine, if you will, being a responsible engineer, paying extra for a really premium health care package for you and your family. Now imagine getting fed up with your job and deciding you want to go back to school to become, oh, something else....

And now imagine that, during this time, you remain a responsible family provider, and you still pay for a reasonably good health insurance package while you are in school. Then, somewhere around age 38, after four years of hard studying, no exercize, too much coffee, too many late night BLTs, you start having chest pains....

And suddenly you find yourself with a "pre-existing condition" that will not be covered by the health insurance offered under your new job... Unless, of course, you go into the military and get covered by their (federal) health care system, which does cover pre-existing conditions...

Or, at the very least, you decide not to go back to school, and to stick it out with your employer, and your employer decides to change health care companies. Suddenly you are required to go to the new insurance company office and fill out all their forms, and lo and behold, you discover that you've been dropped for coverage for future heart problems, or future cancer because you had a mole removed when you were 34, etc. etc. etc. - all pre-existing conditions.

BS? I don't know because I haven't had to have any major procedures done, but I have sat through the interview process with new health care insurers after my employer switched coverage, and been told these ^^^ very things. A neat way for an employer to reduce their heatlh care costs, indeed! Just change insurers mid-stream... Hey, it's the free market, baby.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

That's a fanciful situation you describe, Dleg, but it is covered under our current, purportedly "broken", system. The existing federal health care regulations do not allow insurance companies to deny you coverage when you change jobs or your company changes insurance providers. As long as you do not have a lapse in your coverage at any time, they can't deny you for a pre-existing condition. They can rape you on premiums, as well they should be able to because you are going to cost them more money over the long term, but at least you will still be covered.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 21, 2009)

I'll send Aetna to talk to you, then.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2009)

Okay .. okay ... I think somone needs to bring some sanity to this discussion ...

How about something we can all agree upon? A little tart reform ....









JR


----------



## Dleg (Sep 21, 2009)

As long as the taxpayers didn't have to pay for her breast implants.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 21, 2009)

Dleg said:


> I'll send Aetna to talk to you, then.


It's in Title 1 of HIPAA which was passed in 1996. If your discussions with Aetna happened before 1996, then I don't doubt your story. If not, then they were violating HIPAA and could be in for a world of shit.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 21, 2009)

I guess I just don't know my rights, and their representatives out here (smaller local insurance company, subcontracted I guess?) pull anything and everything to get out of coverage.

Just one more reason I think the system is broken - nobody even knows there are rules.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Sep 21, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> They can rape you on premiums, as well they should be able to because you are going to cost them more money over the long term, but at least you will still be covered.


I can agree to paying increased premiums if I am personally a higher risk participant. However, our issue here is that because we are part of a group plan the ENTIRE COMPANY is bent over on premiums when the SPOUSES of 2 employees have "pre-existing conditions" that transferred over when the company changed insurance providers. These two individuals' conditions dropped the entire company's policy to a "lower tier" (higher risk) level and thus raise our premiums by about 40%.

Luckily for me the company splits the premiums 50/50 with the employee so I am only responsible for 20% of the increased rates. I am really glad that my wife and kids are covered under her plan so I'm not raped on 20% more on the entire family...


----------



## Dleg (Sep 21, 2009)

I was just listening to a discussion program on NPR, and it was said that the former CEO of Aetna was making a salary of $225,000 PER DAY.

Does that seem "right" to anybody? OK - you are going to say "well it must mean that he ran the company exceptionally well, so he deserved it" But what definition of "exceptionally well" are you using? Clearly the only definition that would justify a salary like that would be that he ran the company in an exceptionally profitable way. And is that the priority we want our heatlh care providers to be held to? Profits? How do you think that affects the quality of health care you receive, as a customer?


----------



## Supe (Sep 22, 2009)

Dleg said:


> As long as the taxpayers didn't have to pay for her breast implants.



I am shocked, Mr. President. Are you suggesting that you aren't backing the Bucks for Boobs program that was implemented by your very own administration?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 22, 2009)

Dexman1349 said:


> Luckily for me the company splits the premiums 50/50 with the employee so I am only responsible for 20% of the increased rates. I am really glad that my wife and kids are covered under her plan so I'm not raped on 20% more on the entire family...


Do you have the option to switch to your wife's policy too?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 22, 2009)

Supe said:


> I am shocked, Mr. President. Are you suggesting that you aren't backing the Bucks for Boobs program that was implemented by your very own administration?


It seems President Dleg has already mastered the political bait and switch, but I certainly never expected it to occur on this program.


----------



## Supe (Sep 22, 2009)

If I don't have some clarification on this soon, I'm going to resign. This goes entirely against my system of values and beliefs.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Sep 22, 2009)

^^Careful there big fella. You may end up in Greenland if you're not careful.

There is no resigning, you already know too much. I learned the hard way.


----------



## benbo (Sep 22, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> There is no resigning, you already know too much. I learned the hard way.


I heard that in cabinet meetings, Dleg refers to his administration as "this thing of ours."


----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 22, 2009)

pizza pizza


----------



## Ble_PE (Sep 22, 2009)

I wish Mrs. ble liked pizza so I could have it more often. Oh well, I'm probably better off that she doesn't, that way I don't eat as much.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 22, 2009)

ble31980 said:


> I wish Mrs. ble liked pizza so I could have it more often. Oh well, I'm probably better off that she doesn't, that way I don't eat as much.


we are a carb loving family, so pizza is about a once a week thing for us. We also either make tacos or go out for mexican at least once a week too.


----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 22, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


>


although we do avoid the noid...dominos pizza is rather icky. I did play the Noid nintendo game when I was younger though.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Sep 22, 2009)

&lt;---Making homemade grilled pizza for dinner on Friday!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 24, 2010)

So, with Obama signing the healthcare bill, has this become closer to reality?

I think so.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Mar 24, 2010)

Now that we are on the rails toward single payer, I think we'll start to see pressure (read that increased taxes) on activity deemed "unhealthy" by those in power. After all, it's not going to be just you affected by eating that Big Mac, since your health insurance is going to be funded by my taxes, _I_ (through the government) now have a direct interest in making sure _you_ eat the proper things and exercise regularly.


----------



## Ble_PE (Mar 24, 2010)

Considering how they are now going to require restaurants to start posting nutritional info everywhere, I don't think it will be too long before they start _encouraging_ them to reduce the calories or fat, or pay for it in the form of a tax like Flyer said.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 24, 2010)

And now we find out what Obamacare was really about.

Rep. Dingell


----------



## MGX (Mar 24, 2010)

What nonsense. Healthcare is a right. I demand healthy food also, that would reduce my take on the fed system so it should be supplied to me.


----------



## Slugger926 (Mar 24, 2010)

Dexman1349 said:


> Here's an interesting read on healthcare reform titled "The Case to Kill Granny" posted from Newsweek:
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291
> 
> It's basically discussing the insane amount of public money (medicare/medicaid) spent on chronically ill and elderly people, which in the long run does not necessarily increase the quality of life for the extended amount of life given.
> ...


Hey, that every test under the sun saved my life when I was really faking being sick in the 5th grade. They actually found something wrong when I was faking being sick to get out of school. After a couple of weeks, my mom took me to the hospital, and then within the month I was having a kidney surgery.


----------

