The Week Obama Lost The American People

It’s not just Obama’s lack of substance, it’s his lack of understanding of America in general. Perhaps if he’d spent more time studying American history instead of Alinsky, Wright and Ayers, he’d have been a little better prepared for the rigors of the post.

The best part of this, if there is any good to be found in the debacle that is this administration, is that the American people are awakening to see just how destructive left-wing policy is to the country. High unemployment, record federal deficits, cities and states shutting down for lack of money, a seemingly simple government program that destroys useful vehicles mismanaged to the point of running out of money in four days, the list goes on. While I’m sad to see such ineptitude in Washington, I’m glad that the failures are on display for all to see. To quote an old bumper sticker, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention”

After six months of failure, I feel that America will be far less forgiving of leftism and Democrats than we were of Republicans. A large part of the result of the last couple of elections was a general disillusionment with Repubs. We gave the Dems a chance, which was answered with the all the effectiveness of a Keysone Cops raid. Soon, even the most wild-eyed Obama supporter won’t be able to deny the damage he’s inflicted on the country.

With the increased attention that average Americans are paying to politics today, whoever is elected will be on notice. We are watching your every move and vote. If you refuse to vote our will in Washington, you will be replaced with someone who will.

I am so proud of Americans standing up against the tyranny of the takeovers by government. Yes, STAND UP FOR AMERICA AND FREEDOM !

This stand up for America and Freedom is long over due. This hole they are putting us in didn’t happen over night, no this was 50 years in the making. We are just now ( those who rely on the MSM) waking up to the fact that the Demoncraps are all about power and the destruction of the American way. I guess it’s better late then never.

The true strategic aim behind this “Health Care” package is in it’s economic warfare agenda that is already so clearly underway by The Great 0, the CHICOM’s Economic Manchurian Candidate.
It will invite terrorism or even military attack so big time: Imagine, for example, a plane blowing up over NYC with plutonium dust after this entitlement bill passes. Since everyone “Deserves Health Care,” the initial two weeks of heavy causalities will be but the beginning. Very expensive, LONG-TERM radiation sickness will cause the necessary building of a thousand hospitals for that attack alone!
Who will pay, now that The Great 0 has destroyed our productive economy and plundered the rich? LIke The Joker in that Batman movie, throwing out money for mass support while he truly plans to gas the city? (Makes one wonder why Mexico City & NYC got the brunt of the “Swine Flu” after AF1 flyovers, even? Perhaps someone at the labs managed to swap the warfare quality stuff with something less deadly, as with the Anthrax thing?)
We already can’t borrow any more from the CHICOMS, and their economy is suffering from “Natural Disasters” … So the cities of the “Me Generation” masses will demand taxes upon the rural areas – The West. Many of whom already have passed resolutions of secession from the Fed. Civil War, the use of US military against Americans within the country already being prepared for since Clinton.
And The Great 0 will, of course, turn to the UN and the great masses of CHICOM soldiers, wearing blue bonnets, will come to “Restore Civil Order.” Hawaii and CA have long been “Softened” in this regard.
One of the quiet little bills that Sen. Reid put into this last “Stimulus Package” was quite strategic: Authorizing the building of a rail line from the former US Navy San Diego Harbor (The one the CHICOMS tried to buy before) over the mountains to the heart of the West – Nevada. How militarily convenient, as all Armies and their tanks travel by ship and rail. I imagine former Alaska Sen. Steven’s “Bridge to nowhere” will soon be pushed again, as that bridge to that port island is thusly linked by highway to the heart of Canada.
The good news is that the overwhelming public support for such Police State takeover actions, as occurred after 9/11, is simply not there. Perhaps somebody (The Bushes) preempted that plan in 2001, so that it didn’t happen in 2008, just before the elections? And we protected the free world’s oil in Iraq, instead of having senseless and loosing wars of attrition with “The Axis of Evil.” To Afghanistan, where The Great 0 is headed to while inviting attack upon our retreating soldiers in Iraq.
Farfetched? But I have inside information about The Great 0 being a Commie Economic Manchurian Candidate, for I was unknowingly designed to be one, too. From birth. “To teach them well, train them young.” Like for how long The Great 0 has been groomed for his salesmanship role. How long the Legend created, as in birth announcements, etc., in HI papers.
My biological father is actually none other than the master spy, former East German Stasi General Markus Wolf. The family album is available on Picassa and more at http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com
All this should be coming down from the Federal Phoenix court system this 25th or so, I hope. God knows they treat me like a mushroom in the meantime…

Obama has been the perfect choice for the America’s shadow government. He has been a long term plan coming.

He’s been propped up by his image. He is a lier and deceitful man and as Webster Tarpley said he is the most dangerous choice of president for both the national and international policies.

**He’s Black for convey his bosses lies to the American blacks and the African countries.

**He’s supposedly got a Muslim background, recites verses the Quran when his in Egypt to promise the Muslim population under occupation and war a better future, and has drinks with the members of the bilderberg group and discusses other ways of war.

**He’s got his “good looks” for the Europeans…

People need to wake up.

http://lookfromabove.com

As anyone reading this knows, Obama didn’t lose me this week. No, he lost me the week he came on to the national stage and sparked enough of my interest in possibly supporting him that I did the homework to learn who he really was.
Some people you can know by looking straight at them. Such people are a blessing to us all. People like my mother. There is no pretense, no camouflage. It is a principle trait all her children have adopted, for good or ill.
Other people, most in the public eye, are like vampires, able to shape their direct appearance. To truly see and know such people, you need to look for their reflections. Not in mirrors, but in those around them. I looked at the people surrounding Obama and saw the worst that America allows, not the best.

@Weemaryanne asks: “Why does the elected party owe it to the losing party to pass legislation that the losers approve of? In thirty years of watching Canadian and American politics, I’ve never heard this claim before. Where does it come from?”

It comes from Democrats. You may recall their demands that we share power with them when we were in the majority. WE DID! They spit in our faces anyway.

Now, they shut us out completely then moan about how they want bipartisan solutions. What a crock!

Just wait, when they are in the minority again, they’ll demand we compromise with them. No dobut we will make the same mistake again.

I agree that Obama has been groomed since childhood for the positon he holds. What does the American people actually know about this man? Nothing. He wrote two books about HIMSELF to deflect investigation. “Oh, just read my books and you will know all about me”. The fact that all of his records have been sealed including his original birth certificate causes me huge moments of pause. That he has spent millions on attorney fees for attorneys who challenge any attempt to unseal those records. A Harvard education, not cheep, paid by whom? There is just too much missing background on Obama. I too believe that the “shadow government” has nurtured this man and they guaranteed his election on September 15, 2008 when 500Billion dollars began mysteriously withdrawing from banking interest in the US. The money men panicked at the mysterious sucking sound of money going away and declared that “we are sinking!” To this very day there has been no explanation as to who was doing this and where did all that 500
Billion went. Orchestrated? I think so. The economy pushed Obama into office. The Perfect Storm. Now we have “the shadow government” controlling all branches of government and a president with a mandate. This is the first time in my lifetime that I have ever been afraid for my country.

Obama says this health care debate atleast needs to be an honest debate; well honest to me means telling the truth, and Obama and his democrats have not spoken one word of truth since he started his campaign. I’m sorry my more liberal friends didn’t discover that as quickly as I did and ended up voting for this crook. Now, I have many of my friends who are so sorry about that that they want to know what we can do. I can only say ” I hope many more like you will or have already discovered what a lying crook Obama is and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and others of his socialist party and will vote them out of the house and senate when those elections roll around. Obama has done enough damage to us already; he needs to go before irreparable damage is done. If this socialized health care bill can be defeated, we still have a chance to fix our economy and provide health care to those who do not have it; if we don’t stop this now it will be nearly impossible to fix what the “IGNORANT ONE” has forced upon all of us.

There’s just no other way to look at it

Actually Scott there’s several ways of looking at it. You’ve chosen the ODS route. Yeah the far left is frustrated, but they haven’t stated refering to him as <a href="@Tom in CA: #comment-243407″>”Ol purple lips” yet. The fact that you an blog author on site where this type of language is not only tolerated but embraced is a sign you’re filled with more rage than reason.

Alas, Mike’s America, my memory fails me. I do not “recall their demands that we share power with them when we were in the majority. WE DID! They spit in our faces anyway.”

If you care to, you could assist me by providing evidence of such events. Please specify the nature of the alleged demands, the names of those who made the demands, and date and place of publication of the alleged demands. Links will do nicely. Thank you.

It occurs to me that if your claim is true, then the Republicans are currently doing the same thing that you accuse the Democrats of doing. Pres. Obama consulted with the GOP on the bailout bill* and they all voted against it anyway. Some of them have already declared their intention to vote against health care reform no matter what the final bill contains. This brings up the question, when your opponents “spit in your face” then what’s the point of continuing negotiations with them?

BTW: The Republican majority of 2000-2008 was rather smaller than the majority currently enjoyed by the Democrats. That much I do remember. And (f’r instance) it wasn’t the Democratic Congressional minority that kiboshed one of Pres. Bush’s big-ticket items, the proposed Social Security reforms. That was done by old people and by somewhat younger people who plan to become old people. Don’t take my word for that; please look it up for yourself.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/0921governance_galston.aspx

———
*For the record: I’m not sure the bailout was either a good idea or good legislation.

Tom in CA, I confess you lost me when you retorted: “When does the losing party lay down their principles and say, OK walk all over me? By the way, it’s called compromise.”

To which Republican Party principles do you refer?

The principle of sound fiscal management? — I fear that going to war in two distant places without raising taxes to pay for either war was the death knell of that principle.

The principle of small government? — I’ll grant you the Democrats have never believed in that, but the Republicans have given no recent indications that they do.

The principle of individual liberty? — Allowing government agents to spy on citizens without probable cause gives the lie to that principle.

What else is there? Please educate me on this point.

And how does one “compromise” with people whose stated aims include the “breaking” of the President?

@Mike’s America:

I recall that the Democrats made a half-hearted argument against the invasion of Iraq. I also recall that a number of Democrats ended up voting Yea, including the current Secretary of State.

Is that what you were referring to as “the Democrat caterwauling that the GOP must share power”?

I’m sorry you don’t like my argument. In my defence, I will note that at least I offered evidence to support it, while you have offered none in support of yours.

As for looking it up myself: I tried. Alas, I failed.

I searched for “Democratic party demands share of Republican power.” No success. The Google results included news stories about Condoleeza Rice in Kenya and the recent confusion in Honduras.

So I tried “Democrats demand concessions from President Bush.” This led to stories about the congressional debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 — a debate whose end result I have noted above.

Frankly, I don’t know what else to try. Ever the optimist, though, I would still appreciate any concrete suggestions you may have to offer. Please note: “Are you kidding me” does not constitute a concrete suggestion.

weemaryanne: This brings up the question, when your opponents “spit in your face” then what’s the point of continuing negotiations with them?

That’s funny, Maryanne. Many of us say the same about negotiating with terrorists who, via every truce they’ve had with the Pakistanis, do plenty of “spitting”. So do I assume you agree with Dem party leaders that we should have tea and negotiate with terrorists, but that they should shut out conservative America for legislative input? Bizarre priorities…

weemaryanne: Even if the far-leftists aren’t entirely pleased with it, won’t Pres. Obama get a lot of the credit for passing it? And won’t that make his poll numbers rise again?

Then what? With a popular and successful (or at least not-completely-unsuccessful) Democrat in the White House, will the Repubs be able to pull off another 1994-style recapture of the House? or will the Dems maintain their majority?

It’s interesting that you assume the American public is in support of O’healthcare, and will give kudos to a WH occupant that passes BS that a majority of Americans oppose. Reality and even those pesky polls show the opposite.

There will be some who will be happy with a nuclear option passage, however the Dems and the Big Zero prefer not to go that direction. When the fiscal bankruptcy happens, and bureaucratic red tape nightmare rears it’s ugly head proving their plans result neither in better health care, nor more affordable health care in the years following it’s implementation, the Dems will be shouldering that blame and anger from the American citizens solo. Their glory and approval will be short lived. Small comfort to us, the citizens, who must bear the brunt of their piss poor judgment.

Whether that fiscal reality happens in time for the mid terms is out of my crystal ball range. The latest I saw was a prediction that the Dems would lose as many as 20 House seats. Who knows. Our only hope is to stave off both cap and trade and healthcare to beyond that time, and demand return of our ARRA funds that haven’t yet been spent.

Allow me to reiterate. Your entire argument on “Obama approval” and the risk of opposition – a very American activity – is predicated on the notion that Americans want what they plainly do not. Obama’s trying to sell what will be a legacy of national bankruptcy both financially and in health care quality. And he wants to do so with bipartisan cover so he has someone to blame when it all comes crashing down.

If you’re looking for the party battles during the Dubya years, you might want to remember there was Kennedy’s NCLB educational bipartisan education… that same legislation that the Dems now whine is inadequate (tho better accountability than before) and is another blame Bush bit… forgetting their own involvement. Just as they forget their involvement in the AUMF in Iraq.

Immigration and a path to citizenship for the illegals here was another partisan battle and never happened in any form. Social Security reform also never happened.

Another thing that never happened was reform of the GSEs and lending debacle between the CRA and the securities packaging legislative changes.

I will suggest that Bush, in the “compromise” spirit, often yielded to the Dems in order to keep the troop funding a’coming. I will agree that in all instances, it always took RINOs standing on the wrong side of issues. Unfortunately, their power hold in Congress, and abandonment of what conservative principles they were supposed to guard, led to their downfall, and resulted in this one party lawnmower we have for government today. Frankly, I see room to blame both sides on most issues, and you will not find me a blind supporter based on an “R” behind a name.

However what the Republicans did or did not do for bipartisan legislation in the past is not justification for what is going on today. Quite simply, two wrongs do not make a right. Thus the absurdity of giving a pass to Obama and the Dem Congress (since 2007) by comparing it to doubling plus that already unacceptable high budget in the first six months under this one party Euro-socialist government. Bush’s budget was Ebenezer Scrooge by comparison. I do not accept the “but Bush did…” argument.

The Dems erroneously perceived “landslide mandate” (which it wasn’t) is but fantasy. Fact is, even TARP last fall was opposed by most Americans. Congress and Bush passed it anyway because, in their arrogance, they think they know better and citizen representation be damned.

ARRA is a boondoggle whose chickens will be returning when we’re handed the bill when they finally spend the cash they’ve robbed… long after the economy would be attempting to recover without the spending. Even today we’re on the path to a second housing catastrophe with Bernanke’s announcement last week that there will be no more purchases of MBSs. Rates are going to increase very soon, and how high they go is but a guess. You think we have toxic mortgages now? Wait until these lending rates go up, and someone’s 5.5% $200K mortgage becomes something only the upper middle class can afford on a resale. And in case you havent’ looked around, the “upper middle class” and “middle class” is steadily becoming part of the almost poverty level…. on it’s way to virtual extinction.

The Omibus was another example of both parties demonstrating Congress has no more discipline than a spoiled Beverly Hills teenager running loose in Bloomingdales with Daddy’s credit card. Cap and trade looms as another economic spoiler, right along with this “remaking” instead of “reform” of healthcare.

Obama get “credit” for passage of O’healthcare, a’top all the rest of the spending? Yeah… sure. I’ll give the big zero “credit” for bankrupting the most affluent nation in the world. He can carry that all by his lonesome if he chooses. But the man who continually points fingers at any and ever one else will not accept that. That’s why he’s adamant about “bipartisan” blame. And the fact is, even the nuclear option cannot be accomplished without those dodos, Pelosi/Reid, and “blue dogs” who failed Economy and Money Management 101.

It’s bad enough we have an economic idiot at the helm. We also have a power hungry mongrel Congress, frothing at the bit to do his bidding.

MataHarley, no doubt I am indeed clueless. But I do occasionally offer evidence in support of my claims. You have offered none in support of yours (even though it would be easy for you to find in your archives). Therefore, I’ve saved your predictions with a note to check on them in November 2010. I plan to offer you my sincere congratulations if you turn out to be correct.

PS: As for “what most Americans want,” perhaps you would consider this mother’s story:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/the-view-from-your-sickbed-29.html

@Missy: Why, Missy, is this the best argument you can offer? A surly mutter of “well it’s her own fault, ain’t it, I’M smart enough not to do things like that, why is her sick kid MY responsibility” ?

Reminds me of an old story about a young fella named Cain whose BFF inquired after the welfare of Cain’s brother, one Abel. “Well, that ain’t MY problem, is it?” was Cain’s history-making response.

One can forgive Cain, though. He lived Before Christianity. You don’t have that excuse.

@Weemaryanne:

The situation that Sophie’s mother finds herself in is indeed one of her own making.

She made the decisions that ultimately brought her to where she is. She, after all, is the person who chose to cancel one policy prior to the other one being in effect. Had she not been so hasty she would have gotten the notice of limited coverage from the new ins. co. prior to cancellation of the old policy.

Much like people who sign purchase agreements, loan documents, or legal papers without fully understanding what they mean or what they contain, Sophie’s mother bears the responsibility.

Freedom, it is said, comes with responsibility.

Let me ask you Wee, have you researched to find out where Sophie and her Mom live? (Here’s a hint: Tulsa, OK)

If so, have you offered her any sort of financial contribution or support to assist her in her current situation?

If not, it’s best not to be lobbing stones at Missy or anyone else here in regard to their reaction to the situation that they find themselves in because, after all, Cain is dead and you’re living in a post-Christianity period of history. You, by your own standards, don’t have any excuse.

Glass houses. Stones. You know the rest.

Exit question: You’re Canadian, yet you take an inordinate interest in American politics. From the vast expanse of knowledge that you seemingly wish for us to believe that you have, can you tell me where in the US Constitution is the President or the Congress given the enumerated power to establish any sort of health care system for this country?

One final note. Sophie’s mom weaves a tale of woe regarding health insurance, income limits, etc, etc. She states that they have to live at or below the poverty level in order to qualify.

Not buying it.

@Aye Chihuahua:

...can you tell you tell me where in the US Constitution is the President or the Congress given the enumerated power to establish any sort of health care system for this country?

Why, yes. Yes, I can:

Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….

That’s Article 1, Section of the Constitution of the United States. Your governing document, unless I’m greatly mistaken.

You see, being Canadian may mean a number of things but it does not mean complete ignorance.

@Tom in CA: @Aye Chihuahua:

And is it not the individuals who create and sustain the nation?

Apparently you and I are using different dictionaries.

But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance?

In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress’s reach.

The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress’s authority to regulate the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use. In doing so, however, the justices emphasized that — as in the wheat case — “the activities regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic.” That simply would not be true with regard to an individual health insurance mandate.

The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the “production, distribution or consumption of commodities,” but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.

This leaves mandate supporters with few palatable options. Congress could attempt to condition some federal benefit on the acquisition of insurance. States, for example, usually condition issuance of a car registration on proof of automobile insurance, or on a sizable payment into an uninsured motorist fund. Even this, however, cannot achieve universal health coverage. No federal program or entitlement applies to the entire population, and it is difficult to conceive of a “benefit” that some part of the population would not choose to eschew.

The other obvious alternative is to use Congress’s power to tax and spend. In an effort, perhaps, to anchor this mandate in that power, the Senate version of the individual mandate envisions that failure to comply would be met with a penalty, to be collected by the IRS. This arrangement, however, is not constitutional either.

Like the commerce power, the power to tax gives the federal government vast authority over the public, and it is well settled that Congress can impose a tax for regulatory rather than purely revenue-raising purposes. Yet Congress cannot use its power to tax solely as a means of controlling conduct that it could not otherwise reach through the commerce clause or any other constitutional provision. In the 1922 case Bailey v. Drexel Furniture, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not impose a “tax” to penalize conduct (the utilization of child labor) it could not also regulate under the commerce clause. Although the court’s interpretation of the commerce power’s breadth has changed since that time, it has not repudiated the fundamental principle that Congress cannot use a tax to regulate conduct that is otherwise indisputably beyond its regulatory power.

Of course, these constitutional impediments can be avoided if Congress is willing to raise corporate and/or income taxes enough to fund fully a new national health system. Absent this politically dangerous — and therefore unlikely — scenario, advocates of universal health coverage must accept that Congress’s power, like that of the other branches, has limits. These limits apply regardless of how important the issue may be, and neither Congress nor the president can take constitutional short cuts.

@Missy:

BTW, how’s that insurance thing you got going in Canada? From recent reports I’ve read, I don’t want it.

Then you are misinformed. Canadians are fond of our Medicare. The man who founded it, Tommy C. Douglas, was voted Greatest Canadian in a nationwide popular poll held by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2004.

http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/

@Weemaryanne: Everything including case law is here for your perusing.

@Weemaryanne: Ok, what is your argument now? That it’s a constitutional right or socialized health care is possible to achieve. Of course Socialism is possible to achieve. And coming from parents who are Canadian and live in Canada I can tell ya….it blows. Especially waiting four months for a MRI and paying an inordinate amount of tax.

Ummm wee, the claim about universal healthcare is that it will be a boondoggle in every way and provide poor care.
Nice strawman. Where has anyone here said otherwise?

@Hard Right: Then the claim is mistaken. Once again, I point toward the example of Canada and other nations.

Of course it is not required that you agree with me on this point.

@Weemaryanne:

The only thing I have lobbed at Missy was a rebuke of her attitude which strikes me as uncharitable at best. I believe such exchanges are permitted, indeed encouraged, in and between citizens of Christian nations.

Matthew 7:3. Motes. Splinters. And such.

Are you deliberately ignoring the questions I posed to you in #34?

Are they inconvenient? Uncomfortable?

Let me ask you Wee, have you researched to find out where Sophie and her Mom live? (Here’s a hint: Tulsa, OK)

If so, have you offered her any sort of financial contribution or support to assist her in her current situation?

If not, shame on you for not giving life to the expectations you would expect others to live by.

Cain is dead and you’re living in a post-Christianity period of history.

By your own standards, don’t have any excuse.

My argument is that there seems to be some support in the Constitution for the premise that the government has the power to provide for the general welfare.

This issue has already been laid out and explained to you in meticulous detail. Providing for the general welfare of the NATION is an enumerated power of Congress.

The welfare of the individual citizen does not fall within the powers of the fed gov’t.

Neither does charity, wealth redistribution, and a myriad of other things that Congress has engaged in.

@Aye Chihuahua: No, I have not ignored your questions in #34. However, I choose not to answer, being of the opinion that neither my interactions with others outside of this site nor my personal financial business are matters for discussion on this site. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry I cannot satisfy you on this point.

@Scott: At least one recent poll suggests that they do want such a plan:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357

As for the midterms: I’ve already made a note to congratulate MataHarley on her powers of prognostication should the House change hands next year. I’ll make a note to include you in my red-faced grovelling snivelling apology, if it becomes necessary to make such.

Of course your imagination will have to supply the red face, the grovelling, and the snivelling.

@Weemaryanne:

However, I choose not to answer, being of the opinion that neither my interactions with others outside of this site nor my personal financial business are matters for discussion on this site.

I translate your response as follows: “I have helped neither Sophie nor her mother in their difficult situation, yet I felt it perfectly OK to call Missy out for giving what I interpreted as an ‘uncharitable’ response.”

Is that pretty close to accurate?

Perhaps you should reread your response in #32 and issue the mea culpa that is due.

Issuing an apology after wronging someone is, after all, what Christians do. Right?

@American Voter:

What would happen to the Canadian healthcare system without the “supplemental” doctors/care in US…that so many Canadians are able to access?

It is certainly true that many Canadians access health care in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. (Please note that such care is covered by the Canadian Medicare plan.) If you are suggesting that the Canadian system actually depends on American input for its day-to-day survival, that is of course an opinion to which you are entitled. However, I do not think it can be accepted as fact, at least not without plenty of detailed evidence to support it.

In addition to the past and most recent, well-publicized, focus on the collapse of the Canadian Health Care System, how are Americans to believe that the Canadian System is the model of health care?

You are misinformed. The Canadian health care system has not collapsed. There are funding and delivery problems, and there are always political disagreements to be resolved. That is a far cry from “collapse.”

@Weemaryanne:

You are misinformed. The Canadian health care system has not collapsed. There are funding and delivery problems, and there are always political disagreements to be resolved. That is a far cry from “collapse.”

The word that Dr. Anne Doing used was “imploding” rather than collapse. A distinction without a difference really.

The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country’s health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country – who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting – recognize that changes must be made.

“We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

“We know that there must be change,” she said. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.“

Budget issues make patients wait longer and longer and longer for surgery. What a great system. People are just dying to be a part of it:

Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper

VANCOUVER — Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.

Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.

Of course, making people wait is an inherent characteristic of the Canuk system, eh?

Operations cancelled
Royal Alex ordered to cut costs through fewer surgeries

@Aye Chihuahua: The incoming head of the Canadian Medical Association is certainly entitled to her opinion but she may be premature in claiming that “everybody agrees” with her.

Budgetary shortfalls are indeed a problem, especially in today’s economy. I think it is unnecessarily cynical, however, to claim that the system is killing people.

I know no Canadians who wish to trade our system for that of the United States. I know I could not afford to buy health insurance for myself, not even at the lower overall tax rate which is currently operative in the U.S.

And now, I really must turn in for the evening. Thank you, and all the Flopping Aces commenters, for a most interesting and informative discussion.

Oh my… did my work day mean I arrived too late for the all knowing Maryanne? pshaw…

I’ve few things to address. First, Ms wee’s assertion that the US Constitution allows Congressional power for health insurance by citing the “general welfare” taxation powers of Congress. Canadians… sigh. Must be a language barrier.

Word to the wise, Maryanne. Keep your day job. A US Constitutional scholar you are not. You will learn more about the meaning of general welfare as was the intent of the founders/framers by doing some reading, and stop assuming what you don’t know. (as both Curt and Aye have been coaxing you to do). Which, of course, negates your comment…“You see, being Canadian may mean a number of things but it does not mean complete ignorance.”

I might also question your “complete ignorance” since you are obviously having some reading comprehension problems. For example not once, but twice you made a comment about revisiting some prediction you think I made about our US midterm elections. (emphasis on *our*, if you please…)

First in comment #30

Therefore, I’ve saved your predictions with a note to check on them in November 2010. I plan to offer you my sincere congratulations if you turn out to be correct.

And again in comment #58

As for the midterms: I’ve already made a note to congratulate MataHarley on her powers of prognostication should the House change hands next year.

Let’s help you out here, since you obviously see words, then attach whatever you want to their meaning and pronounce that as fact…. i.e. “general welfare”. In this case, what I said in my comment #36 was… verbatim…

Whether that fiscal reality happens in time for the mid terms is out of my crystal ball range. The latest I saw was a prediction that the Dems would lose as many as 20 House seats. Who knows. Our only hope is to stave off both cap and trade and healthcare to beyond that time, and demand return of our ARRA funds that haven’t yet been spent.

hummmm… “out of my crystal ball range”….. “who knows”…. yeah, that sounds like some serious “prognostication” to me. My suggestion is that you spend less time trying to fit in big words, and concentrate on putting the little ones together in a comprehensive sentence.

Then again, perhaps you are attributing Charlie Cook’s “predictions” days ago to me. Or more likely, you don’t know who Charlie Cook is, nor the Cook Political Report. Again, I’ll let you exercise your own research abilities. It’s neither here nor there since I plainly said what happens in 2010 was “beyond my crystal ball” and “who knows”. But we’ll look forward to you checking in again in 2010, and I’ll pass on your congratulations to Charlie.

Here’s one of my Ms. wee wee’d out favorites…

But I do occasionally offer evidence in support of my claims. You have offered none in support of yours (even though it would be easy for you to find in your archives).

I’m not sure what “claims” you think I made in my only two posts here that need “substantiation” for you. Nor what definitive links you believe you supplied.

Rather, I simply ran thru a historic litany of events of partisan battles. Any of which you may simply move your finger to the clicker and select a plethora of posts and links for those events in which you demonstrate curiousity. Since I did not rest on any particular one when highlighting how often the parties went head to head, I find no need to do your research for you. We’re all pretty well read here. I didn’t realize we needed to educate you to recent current events like the DW World’s port deal, our SS and immigration battles, etal.

BTW, I see you deftly dodged reconciling your belief in the futility of “compromise” with conservative America, but likely support “compromise” and negotiations with terrorists and despotic regimes. Dang… dichotomy can be so inconvenient, eh?

While you’re not reconciling, I’m also guessing you won’t see the fly in your mental ointment for the below:

And (f’r instance) it wasn’t the Democratic Congressional minority that kiboshed one of Pres. Bush’s big-ticket items, the proposed Social Security reforms. That was done by old people and by somewhat younger people who plan to become old people. Don’t take my word for that; please look it up for yourself. [cites Brookings]

Seems odd to have to point out that the US citizens do not get to directly vote up or down on legislation. Therefore all legislation is either passed, or killed, by Congressional members. And lest you think the US public always gets their way, you need look no further back than to TARP last fall, and the ARRA a few months ago. Congress does what it wants unless they find it politically expedient to cave.

SS reform was “kiboshed” by “old people” and baby boomers only in the same way health care will be “kiboshed” by the majority of opposition that is comprised of all party flavors. The public will speak out louder than normal. That’s as much as we can do until election time. The Dems up for election know they walk a fine line playing along with a nuclear option.

The parallels between Bush/SS and Obama/health are there, even noted by reading your own cited Brookings ditty. POTUS embarks on a tour to encourage his proposal (Bush, SS reform… Obama, O’healthcare). The more the POTUS talks, the more no one likes what they heard. The poll numbers start reflecting the voices of the people, despite the media and pols’ attempts at damage control.

In the end, to save their collective elective hides, it’s legislation that goes down in flames. Just as the GOP had enough of their own opposed to muddy the SS reform (altho they never had the power of a nuclear option as the Dems do now…), the liberal/progressive O’faithful in Congress don’t have enough of their Blue Dogs today, panting to follow them down to health care fiscal ruin. Especially with many facing a mid term campaign.

As for what appears to be your glowing endorsement of Candian care, then I’m pleased you’re pleased with your country’s health services. Suspect you’re young and haven’t taxed it much yet. You speak, however, only for yourself. Which brings us to your comment about the CMA’s assessment of the Canadian system financially:

The incoming head of the Canadian Medical Association is certainly entitled to her opinion but she may be premature in claiming that “everybody agrees” with her.

Budgetary shortfalls are indeed a problem, especially in today’s economy. I think it is unnecessarily cynical, however, to claim that the system is killing people.

I wouldn’t classify analysis of the financial health of your system as an “opinion”, but a statement of fact. But if that’s what you consider it, I suspect time will certainly reveal the truth to you.

Nor is it any kind of stretch that when you must slash the budget for care, not only due to financial reasons, but also many reasons you yourself admit to (i.e. shortage of doctors, limited services of private clinics, etc), for many that is a death sentence. Perhaps I may evoke the scenario that if you have one defibrillator, and five patients in simultaneous cardiac arrest, there’s going to be those that die simply because there’s not enough defibrillators (or analogous: money, doctors, clinics, etal) to go around.

When you run out of cash to treat everyone, you triage who gets treated. In ERs, the criteria is who is not only saveable, but in need of care most urgently. For money shortages, it will be triaging those who can contribute the most productively back to society (financially)… the young with many years left? Or the old?

After reading most of your comments here, I’m gonna guess that doesn’t bother you one iota.

@American Voter:

1) Are you sure you are not an American liberal writing from Chicago or NYC?

Quite sure. I’m a Canadian liberal writing from Toronto. It’s very nice to meet you.

I’ve never visited either New York or Chicago. I’m informed by persons who have personal knowledge of these cities that Toronto bears some resemblance to both, having a very large Italian community like that of New York while experiencing Great-Lakes-effect-snowfall much like Chicago. (I suspect that the latter was not intended as a compliment.

I am inclined to be impressed with President Obama and I hope he is successful in at least some of his legislative plans.

2) From your posts, I take it you think Americans should not speak up/object to Socializing our entire way of life?

If this is your understanding of my position then clearly I have failed to make that position plain. I’m very sorry. I’ll try to do better in this and future posts, as I have the greatest respect for freedom of speech and uncensored expression of opinion and I feel very strongly that these must be preserved, both in North America and elsewhere.

3) (Links have been offered to you by other readers in this thread)

Yes they have, and I should have offered my thanks for that yesterday. Mea culpa.

I’ve saved those links but have had no time as yet for more than a brief glance at some of them, and responses to one or two. Again, I apologize, this time to all who responded to my request for such links and to whom I have not yet replied. My only excuse for the delay is lack of time, and I wish I had more time to devote to this discussion as it’s fascinating. Though you will have to take my word for it (and though you and others may disagree), yet I will say that I am making a good faith effort to learn from others and to offer evidence to support the claims that I choose to make.

Alas, my efforts fall short and for all I know, perhaps those efforts could not have produced any better outcome. Regardless, please be assured that no one could be more dismayed and disappointed with the quality of my work here than I. As I said before, I hope to improve in this and other respects, and plan to bend my efforts to that goal.

4) If we do speak up against ObamaCare — it must mean we do not care about people that cannot truly afford health care?

I hope I have made no insinuations about anyone’s motivations, as that is something I cannot know. If I have, then that is hardly a fair or reasonable debating tactic and I hope that you and others will call me out on it, as I deserve.

I readily concede that I have been critical of certain expressed attitudes. I submit that such criticism is fair practice on a web site. If that is not the case on this particular web site, I hope someone will tell me so, so that I may excuse myself and seek other sites which may prove more congenial to honest criticism and civil disagreement.

5) No other opinion counts and the only way USA can go is to follow the lead of Canada, UK, Italy, et al?

I have referenced the Canadian Medicare system because I have some acquaintance with some of its workings. I have made references to health care in other nations as a matter of comparison and contrast, when that seemed pertinent to the discussion. I have never claimed that contrary opinions should be dismissed out of hand, and frankly I’m astonished to be accused of this.

Having said that, it does seem strange to me that the United States should be the only industrialized nation that does not provide healthcare insurance to all. It also seems strange that generally positive recommendations from Canada, France, Japan and elsewhere should be received so coldly in your country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_pf.html

6) Instead, maybe you could educate by telling us about the Canadian HealthCare System — what you would keep, what you would definitely throw out — and where improvements could be made. That would be very educational.

I will tell you what I can, and I hope that it may be helpful. Please see below.

7) I would also suggest you talk to someone that lives in a former Soviet satellite country…specifically about health care.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. In any case, I must regretfully decline, as I am presently unacquainted either with any such person or with the health care system that was used by the late and unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Back to your question at 6) above:

First, a few disclaimers are in order. I am not a health care or health policy expert, rather an ordinary a Canadian citizen and a user of Canadian Medicare and – as you note – a liberal by political inclination. My own state of health is generally not too bad for a middle-aged woman with a chronic illness whose diet and exercise habits are, shall we say, something less than ideal. It should also be noted that Canadian Medicare began when I was a child in the 1960s so I have no memory of a different system.

What to throw out? — Inefficient record keeping and scheduling. As in any large and complex system, there’s a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy that produces little or nothing of value.

Improvements? — An integrated electronic record keeping system would be a big improvement, with serious privacy controls and a watchdog office or agency equipped with tools to ensure implementation of such controls. I’ve been in hospitals/doctors’ offices where everything seemed to be written in a single large ledger-style book, and others where someone had only to tap a keyboard to retrieve my medical history. I’ve taken my turn in the queue for diagnostic tests, and ended up receiving some tests at very odd hours. That can’t be necessary, IMHO.

What to keep? — The basic principles of the system are 1) public administration, 2) comprehensiveness, 3) universality, 4) portability, and 5) accessibility. I can find little fault with these, so I would keep them all. Health Canada provides a fuller explanation here:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/cha-lcs/overview-apercu-eng.php

I will end this very long post here, with thanks for your interesting questions and observations.

@Curt: Thank you. I was recently reminded that I hadn’t yet responded to this kind offer, so I must also apologize for my tardiness. I plan to read up on the matter as soon as time permits.

@Weemaryanne:

Unable to address the logical points of Missy’s argument, WeeWee takes the personal attack path.

Is there a particular reason why you continue to refer back to the Bible when you’ve made it clear that you neither believe in it nor live by it?

I would think that a 47 year old self-proclaimed sarcastic female Canuck atheist who occasionally commits doggerel could do better than that.

Also, there are a series of unanswered queries still pending for you in the earlier portion of this thread. Would you like for me to copy/paste them down here for easier reference?

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman in 2007 stating the public option will lead to to a single payer system:

That darned US Constitution.

It’s so inconvenient: