You've proven to everyone that you don't know a damn thing about American Health care yet you continue comment on it.
--- On Mon, 12/13/10, geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > From: geoff <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [OT] Federal Judge finds Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL! > To: "'ProFox Email List'" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, December 13, 2010, 5:00 PM > It is amazing watching your Americans > rant on about your healthcare system. > Widely regarded as the most expensive and least accessible > in the western > world, you seem utterly and totally determined to ensure > that it remains > that way. Someone on this actual thread dies because of the > expense and > deficiencies of your system and yet you have the audacity > to condemn a > President trying to improve it. Are the changes flawed? > Absolutely. Will it > make a huge improvement? Not a lot. But it is SOMETHING and > something > positive and it establishes a direction to go towards. And > what is the > Republican alternative? Oh that's right... NOTHING. This > argument isn't > about money, it isn't even really about politics. It is > about the arrogance > and evil attitudes of so many who would ACTIVELY seek to > deny healthcare to > the disadvantaged. I can understand benign indifference. I > can even tolerate > people who throw blame at the poor. But to then make sure > that they suffer > for it - that is truly evil which I cannot accept. > > Your country has lost its way in the world. But that > doesn't happen because > a President or Congress loses the plot. It happens because > the people say it > is ok to do so. It is because the nation's residents say it > is ok to > torture, to execute, to deny justice and now... to allow > the poor to suffer > and die. Your country is rich (for now) and powerful, but > your moral > authority wanes every time you put the dollar ahead of your > principles. This > debate ISNT about politics. It isn't about Republican vs > Democrat. It is > about the moral fibre and integrity of a nation founded on > impressive > principles who year by year is casting them aside for > convenience and > self-interest. > > It has been often said that you can judge the true state of > any nation by > how they look after their poor and disadvantaged. This is a > matter of > PRINCIPLE. Unfortunately, if life runs true to form I will > find that very > few of you even know what PRINCIPLE is. Perhaps that is the > true tragedy. > > Geoff Flight > Managing Director > > Sustainable Resources Industry Training Pty Ltd > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf > Of Michael Oke, II > Sent: Tuesday, 14 December 2010 7:46 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] Federal Judge finds Obamacare > UNCONSTITUTIONAL! > > I'm not talking about semantics. What passed, did > they actually pass > it?, didn't beat what we currently have, not by a long shot > but feel > free to think that it does. > > No, you obviously don't understand but that's okay, barry > doesn't either > and it isn't stopping him. > > Actually no, we don't have a start. This fuster-cluck > of a bill, and > the way that congress rammed it down everyone's throats, > will set back > the attempts to implement something of this nature in the > U.S. in ways > that I'm not sure that anyone understands. > > Get it through your head, or try reading the bill, it isn't > Universal > Health Care. Universal wouldn't have an out in it > that people could > elect to accept. > > ::michael > > On 12/13/2010 12:48 PM, Leland Jackson wrote: > > On 12/13/2010 02:19 PM, Michael Oke, II wrote: > >> Leland, > >> You do realize that you are assuming that the bill > that Obama rammed > >> through regardless of what the majority of > Americans wanted, is > >> universal health care. > > > > This isn't about stemmatics. What passed, > whatever you want to call it, > > sure beat what we had, at lease for almost all > American, but probably > > not for the Health Insurance Companies, and Health > Care Industries > > including Doctors, Hospitals, Pharmaceutical > Companies, medical > > equipment manufacturers, and all the others that were > ripping off the > > system for every last nickle they could get their hand > on. > > > > > >> It isn't and never was but > you are probably not > >> capable of understanding that. > > > > Oh, I understand ok. LOL > > > >> Perhaps if a president, > any president > >> not just this one, could actually craft a bill > that provided for > >> universal health care, Americans might actually be > for that. > > > > Well, at least we now have a start, thanks to the > Democrats. I'm sure > > Universal Health Care will evolve over time to address > problems, but > > Just because this legislation wasn't predominately > written by > > Republicans doesn't make it bad. > > > > Regards, > > > > LelandJ > > > >> ::michael > >> > >> On 12/13/2010 11:18 AM, Leland Jackson wrote: > >>> If Universal Health Care is unconstitutional, > then so is Social Security > >>> and Medicare. I'm anxious for the > Supreme Court to hear this case; > >>> because, I'm sure they will not rule against > fair congressional > legislation. > >>> > >>> After all you have strongly supported the idea > that it is congress that > >>> makes laws, not activist judges ruling from > the bench. LOL > >>> > >>> #--------------------------- > >>> Excerpt: > >>> > >>> Opponents, including Cuccinelli, have argued > the feds are stepping on > >>> the Constitution's handling of interstate > commerce by enforcing a > >>> mandate. Specifically, shouldn't a person be > free to make his or her own > >>> decision about insurance coverage? > >>> > >>> The feds have maintained that's a false choice > because everyone, at some > >>> point, becomes a consumer of health care > services. Indeed, the feds have > >>> argued, deciding not to buy insurance coverage > has a profound economic > >>> effect that crosses state lines. So, either > way, you're already part of > >>> interstate commerce when it comes to health, > and that means the > >>> government has the authority to regulate your > behavior. > >>> > >>> http://healthreform.kff.org/video-explainers/individual-requirement.aspx > >>> > >>> > http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/12/13/132025701/virginia-judge-rules-ag > ainst-coverage-mandate-in-health-overhaul > >>> > >>> #--------------------------- > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> LelandJ > >>> > >>> > >>> On 12/13/2010 12:45 PM, Michael Madigan > wrote: > >>>> Bye Bye Barry! > >>>> > >>>> > http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/13/breaking-virginia-judge-rule > s-parts-of-health-care-reform-unconsti[excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
