Why Kucinich is definitely no Dr. Paul
Health Care is a Civil Right
by Rep. Dennis Kucinich
There is only one true health care public option: Single payer. It covers everyone, all basic health care needs, with doctor of choice. No more premiums, co-pays or deductibles. All health care assets in America would become not-for-profit. The bill already exists. It is HR 676. Congressman John Conyers and I wrote the bill. Our bill has the support of 85 co-sponsors in the House. And it is backed by a growing national movement of labor, doctors, and nurses. The movement needs you. Please join me for tomorrow’s national conference call at 10:00pm EDT. Please call toll-free 1-800-230-1096.
The hour has arrived to begin anew the Civil Rights Movement, this time for Health Care for All. I am calling upon you to become a force in this movement. Go to Health Care as A Civil Right at Kucinich.us to learn how you can circulate a single-payer petition and organize in your community. Please help fund this effort. Go to Kucinich.us now, contribute.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution both describe an originating purpose of our United States: to promote the general welfare. Health care is a legitimate function of our government. Health care is a basic right in a Democratic society. It is no more a privilege based on ability to pay than is the right to vote, which was once accorded only to property owners.
Health care is also a moral imperative. Forty seven million Americans are uninsured. Fifty million Americans are underinsured. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their life’s savings, their retirement security and their financial health because they cannot pay medical bills, and despite this calamity Washington looks another way. We must not avert our eyes to this human suffering and this economic injustice.
If you care to continue reading this socialist agenda: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15125
Mind you I am a fan of Dennis Kucinich's foreign policy and if Dr. Paul were President, It would be great to have Kucinich as his Secretary of State.
Ive said it all along DK is bad news!
For Freedom!
For Freedom!
STUGOTS! To the high and felutent establishment!
Paultian Powerhouse!
Government is NOT ...
the solution. Government is the problem.
Tort reform - competition - umbrella policies for catastrophic health events
...and find out why the hospital bills the insurance $8.35 for a cotton swab and you will be on the right track to controlling cost.
Kucinich is better than most
Kucinich is better than most Democratic politicians and he did support Ron Paul during the '08 campaign (he stated publicly that he wanted Ron Paul as his running mate).
However, Kucinich abides by his oath of office to protect, uphold and defend the Constitution only when it is convenient for him.
...
Agree....
That is why he would be great as Paul's Secretary of State.
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
Yeah, its too bad...
Unfortunately Dennis is typical of many of the "more enlightened" progressive liberals. He can see that the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act are unconstitutional; but he has a giant blind spot when it comes to economic freedom.
In other words, he thinks that slave labor is wrong in a conscript army, but its OK to force doctors and nurses to work for free.
******************************
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Natural Law and Natural Rights
http://jim.com/rights.html
******************************
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
I respect Dennis for his integrity of adhering to his principles
but I respectfully disagree with the premise that all should have "free" healthcare.
Why Work?
The government will take money from other people to take care of me.
Please Donate Today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDgz0rODZU&feature=g-upl
Kucinich has his head up his butt
If the term "general welfare" means what he thinks, why even list specific enumerated powers? Wouldn't general welfare include those already?
He's of the type that glances over a dust cover and then claims to have read the book.
Kucinich doesn't know or care what is meant by 'general welfare'
Limited vs. Universal Powers
"I say... to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
"The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385
"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147
"Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:147
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148
"It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm
"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." --Benjamin Franklin
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2146/default...
very interesting new interview with dennis
~
He is not certain he can vote for Obamacare ...
Who will benefit? Dennis Kucinich fills us in
http://thesibylspeaks.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/joint-session...
What we want is never going
What we want is never going to happen anytime soon. What should be done is make a coverage for all plan no questions asked immediately. It would resolve the bickering and anxiety and get to the real debate about fixing the system. Once the universal coverage is put in, it should be understand and designed that it is a transition tool. Probably put some sort of sunshine rule in it and without renewal, or only one renewal. In the short term it takes care of everyone's needs but will eventually be gone cause it's not financially feasible. So you get everyone up to speed with their health and then you start the fight about how to make it the most efficient, cost effective system. No matter the consequences of the long term there is always also the consequences of the short term. Both sides should be factored in, not sacrificed. Plus, by taking care of everyone's health concerns, it will then remove most of the blaming game and focus the issue on personal responsibility
It's not stupid at all.
Sounds to me like you have compassion for your fellow man.
MY disagreement with you, is that it's so hard to pull out of government control, once they get their tentacles around something. That's why I don't support our government running anything other than the basics of infrastructure and defense.
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
Not comapssion
If you have compassion for your fellow man, you take the money from your OWN wallet and pay for his health care. Using the threat of violence to take someone else's money to pay for his health care is not compassion. It is theft.
Not in 2009. You are being
Not in 2009. You are being philosophical. Yes, theoretically that is correct. In fact, it is correct. However, it simply isn't possible and therefore irrelevant. People aren't going to do it or they can't do it. So again, you need a transition period.
Can you please tell me...
When is the US going to transition out of Medicare and Medicaid?
When is the US going to transition out of Social Security?
When is the US going to transition out of the Department of Education?
When is the US going to transition out of a central bank (Federal Reserve)?
and so on.....
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
I don't know. That's not my
I don't know. That's not my point. My point is to oppose what's going on only prevents the chance of achieving those goals or other goals. There is absolutely no harm in changing the game plan and saying, "Okay, fine, you guys are in power, you want this, let's give it a shot. I do not want people dying because of political bickering. Do it. However, if it doesn't work or causes more problems in a year or so, then you now have to forgo your ideas and plans since they are not working. Here is what we should do instead. let's try this." That is a sensible and possible road towards goals. Resistance before the fact isn't a sensible plan because it only creates a catch 22 where NOTHING gets done and thus ZERO chance of achieving goals, regardless of how stupid the ideas may be in the big picture. Trying something and then failing at it is education for those people, and possibly the only education because of their ignorance and convictions to those beliefs.
Unfortunately....
Once you go Socialism, a country does not go back! Trust me, I am Cuban and I know.
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
Yes
That's what I was getting at.
Letting the Government run anything is a one way proposition.
When it comes to things as personal and important as healthcare it also leads to dependence. And dependence leads to Voter support.
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
Right, that is one problem
Right, that is one problem with my suggestion. The inability to move on from it. The problem with that as a legitimate concern is that we are already tangled up with the government in every way possible. Health care is no different. Medicare, medicaid and the all the corporatism. So in other words, to fight the dynamic of government running something is unintelligent...they already run it! They run everything.
So the trick to get to a point where they dont run it is to play ball and accept the fact that they do run it. But instead of it being confusing, piecemeal, deceptive, etc....you just set it up so its clear as day. They run it and its simple. Once that's the case, then youve got something to mess it. You can say get rid of X and put in Y in place of it. That simple logical fundamental argument can't happen with such a fucked up confusing structure.
So really a single payer system would be the best thing cause it would cover everyone immediately and then the opposition can provide focus...clear identifiable focus on the problem in reality instead of some vague philosophical argument that gets confusing and lost in explanation. This would then lead to more understanding.
And talking about this idea or that idea as stupid is pointless because what we want is absolutely NEVER going to happen now. (directed at the other comments)
And, yes I have compassion for my fellow human being, something I often worry lacks with people here or just people so obsessed with what's "right" in the big picture they forget about what's important in the short term.
Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Seriously. That is probably the most retarded idea I've heard yet.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
It is not stupid. What is
It is not stupid. What is stupid is trying to get something that you never will. And the type of health care that is most economically sound will never happen, at least right now. If you believe so, you are delusional. You need a transition period. There's no other way around it.
Mike,
that was priceless! :D
(did you see our 'friend' is back on same thread from yesterday)
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
HAhahahahahahaha
I lack the time to type enough "ha"s to fully express the foolishness of this idea.
"Since every single program government has ever undertaken to provide some service to the public has been a failure, let's go ahead and solve the health care crisis (which was created by government in the first place) by creating the biggest government give away program ever! It is sure to succeed! Besides, we have plenty of money to fund it. The annual deficit is only about $2 trillion and government revenues are plummeting, but we can borrow lots more. So let's saddle our children with a system we KNOW will not work and pay for it with money we don't have. And leave it to them to fix it."
Are you retarded? Just asking . . .
You are not going to get
You are not going to get what you want. To believe that, is more "retarded" than what I'm saying. What I'm saying is logical. A transition period is a smart idea. People will never ever buy into the idea of genuine free market economics with health care. It is too personal a thing for an uneducated people to believe in or want to believe in. Government is security and when it comes to one's own health the first concern is security. That's why people want government to be involved. It's a problem. And this country will not support the idea of market health care when this misunderstanding about security exists. It is impossible.
You don't know
You don't know what I want or what I expect to get. So I will clue you.
I expect things to continue exactly as they are until the economy collapses. That will be within five years at most. Then there will be chaos, blood in the streets, the gloves will come off and the government will make the grab for the last bit of power. But the government will be weak because it has squandered all the country's wealth. There will be a bloody struggle and the last bit of freedom in this country will be crushed. We will then find freedom, if at all, in hidden pockets in the underground economy inside the belly of the groaning behemoth of the American police state. There is also a slight chance of a breakaway republic successfully asserting its independence. And the day after that new republic creates its new Constitution of liberty, the corruption of THAT republic will begin. Repeat a hundred times for a thousand years.
THAT is what I expect because that is a projection of what lies in the human heart. And it will ALWAYS be that way until we evolve as a species, something none of us will live to see.
What I want is irrelevant in this lifetime.
And your "clever" plan of endorsing statism, theft and government thuggery will only change one thing in the foregoing scenario - YOU will be on record as supporting it. And you can go there without me, bud.
I generally agree with that
I generally agree with that except for the graphic nature of it. Either way, i absolutely don't endorse statism. I just accept the fact that it's what's going on at the moment.
We do with food and shelter?
We buy our foods and homes through a free market system and these are also essentials for people. Imagine if you had no other way to purchase food or reside in a home unless you bought it from the government. Talk about a scary sight.
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
Yes and that will probably be the next increment in their
socialization plan after they secure this health care BS. Remember we already have medicaid,section 8 housing ,and food stamps.
"We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt"
Joseph Biden VP , USA
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs