Very well said Mumble.  For the same reasons the majority of the civilized world cannot be proven correct.

Ah Jesus...now a sermon.

Ah, a spelling nazi!  Sorry, I did not spell check my reply (oh wait, Websters does not include proper names!  My bad again).

And I guess you were an english major since your math sucks.  The difference is 12,500 not 13,500.

Yes, I know and Obama single handedly passed health care - to those only interested in hystrionics.  Clearly the only thing I said was what you quoted, which stands on its own.  The rest is your hysteria.

One termite is not going to hurt your house.  A colony of them will do a good job of it. So which termite do we prosecute?

Uh, because if not for war, then you would be speaking Japanese?  You cant sit on your fat ass and eat bon bons all the while demanding to be taken care of without someone making sure you have the right to do so.  And unfortunately, since not all men are live and let live types, that means going out and defending those who dont want to fight so they can criticize those that do.

And the rest of your premise is false, apparently.  You have UHC.  America has UHC (before 3-23).  3-23 did not give America anything except new taxes and bureaucracy.  If you would like, you can read the bill in toto, but it does nothing for health care.  And did not create some magical mystery tour of wellness.  But it sure did relieve us of some rights that we had before.

I would love to get into a discussion with you on this subject on another blog, as this does not seem to be the place for it here.  But I will only remind you that Japan was at war long before 12-7-41 and there are a lot of people that were grateful that America came in on their side against the japanese.  Indeed, the reprecussions of the Japanese "peace" before 1941 are still being heard to this day.

Well, blame it on the hysterics of the proponents of the law.  They were yelling "rights" for one reason only.  A right is something that the government cannot take FROM you.  But in this world of jabberwocky speak, it seems they have contorted that to mean the government has to GIVE it to you.  The government cannot GIVE a right.  It can take it away, but it is inherant to living.  So they do have it ass backwards.

A right is something you can enjoy in society, or in seclusion.  It is not something that must be done at the point of a gun.  The US was founded on certain inalienable rights that could not be compromised by the government.  period.  They cannot pass a law restricting your rights.  No other nation has tied its very existance to rights the way the US has (for sure the "right" of free speech in Canada is a misnomer - it is just a privelege).  That is why all center around rights in the debate - erroneously.

Another misconception.  The USA does, to a higher degree than almost all other nations (feed, cloth, take care of the sick etc.).  What no country can do is "heal the sick" through any type of mandate, law or desire.  How many AIDS patients have been cured?  All they can do is TRY. America sure does try in that regard.  We can debate that if you like.

First of all... get over yourself Mumblefratz.  How arrogant can you be?

Second of all... my "plagiarism" was purely unintentional.  Hence, looking back at the post, I did not claim or sign the piece as mine.  I suppose, I could explain it... as just getting off work of a 12 hour shift for the 6th night in a row and really did not think to give acknowledgement... just a quick copy/paste is merely the case.  For that... I apologize Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger, for your most excellent piece "Health Care is not a Right" still rings true now matter how much someone tries to discredit the content out of spite.  I can admit a mistake, yes I made a mistake though as it was unintentional.  I did not attempt to sell the piece to a newspaper, I did not publish it in a book on Amazon, I merely put on a forum at a skinning site.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to plagiarize means: Plagiarism is an act of fraud.  It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

I suppose that just goes to show you that your generalizations are fruitless and have no foundation.

So in the end, this whole problem: The "Health Care Law" will be found unconstitutional at it's core. Guaranteed.

Good luck with that, don't hold your breath.

Mumblefratz... I looked at your member page because I was wondering if your age was on there.

I was wondering if you were a stereotypical college student full of grandiose ideals. (young and naive).  Come to find out, I was surprised by what I found.  You sir cannot be pidgeon-holed so easily.

Although, I am curious.  How can someone so full of energy concerning "sharing of the wealth", ie. we should all pitch in and pay for everyone to have health coverage, post on his member page as his motto "He that would not work should not eat"?

ps. If anybody in the U.S. goes into a hospital for treatment, that person will be treated 100% of the time... regardless of possessing insurance. (ahem, regardless of the lies Obama and his minions will tell you.)

ppss. goin' to bed... work another 12 hours tonight (8th night in a row).  "WHEW!, glad i get the next 4 nights off after that, I need a break.

Taking money from a 'discredited' company only matters if you want it to.  Krugman can take $50 large from Enron & that's no problem, but anyone who ever bought a quart of Pennzoil is DQ'd as a tool of Big Oil.

I find a lot of biblical sayings to be words to live by. "He that would not work should not eat" is among them. These are words that I strive to live by and these are also words that I encourage others to live by as well. However striving to live by these words is a far different than believing this should be enforced as a criterion on the lives of others. Who am I to judge whether or not someone really is lazy or not?

I think the difference is one of our premises. My premise is that most people that are poor are in fact hard-working. It's not for a lack of trying that people are poor but it's a lack of education, perhaps a lack of ability and also the lack of a certain amount of luck.

Of course, I have no real idea of what your specific premises are since I don't know you from Adam. However I have a generalized stereotypical view of how I think most "conservatives" view this and while I realize there are a lot of qualifiers in such a statement ultimately what else do we know about the other guy over and above our own stereotypical assumptions?

Anyway "it seems to me" that conservatives tend to view the (chronic) poor as lazy and stupid. And while I can possibly buy the stupid part I don't view stupidity as an innate character flaw but rather as the luck of the draw at birth. Is this something that someone deserves to be punished for? Not in my book it isn't.

I view true laziness a bit differently because that is a choice however most of the poor people that I’ve known in my life that were about as far from lazy as you can get. My grandmother supported herself by cleaning other people’s houses and taking in laundry that she did on a scrub board with lye soap she made by hand. Do you even know what a scrub board is? Google it if you don’t. If you do then perhaps you can understand that no one ever worked harder for less money than my grandmother did.

So no I don't see any great dichotomy in my believing that “he that would not work should not eat” and that in a country where CEO’s “earn” yearly $100 million dollar bonuses that the basic minimum necessities of life should be a right.

http://metaverse.galciv2.com/?g=sdnetaccount&acid=2547964

Or is there some other way to view this?

Some people just can't google. REALLY

Stabilizing treatment for an EMC is NOT the same as receiving the required medical treatment for the underlying condition. If a homeless person presents at the hospital with cancer requiring long term Chemo or Radiation Therapy the hospital is under no obligation to provide it.

Some people just can't READ.

If you click a person's username, you get a dropdown with several choices. The top one sends you to their profile. So he meant he was looking at this page

But they are obligated to assist in enrolling that individual who needs on-going care in Medicaid or its equivalent (they also have a financial interest in doing so).  A large percentage of Medicaid patients enter the system this way, and they are able to get Chemo &/or Radiation Therapy if needed once enrolled.  I suspect you know this.

This also *presumes* that someone without routine medical checkups happens to present themselves to the hospital at precisely the right time for treatments to be effective.

Also while the truly destitute certainly qualify for Medicare, there are still many people who fall into the "donut hole" of not meeting poverty requirements yet still not being able to afford insurance. Those people are the ones that can end up screwed. Again, yes I know that there are potential charitable solutions out there, but particularly when it comes to cancer and Chemo/Radiation therapy there is a certain immediacy of starting treatments and a small window which if missed due to financial issues can never be recovered later, again as you well know.

My point is that in many and in fact probably even most cases someone can present at a hospital with a life threatening condition and receive the same treatment whether they have insurance or not. But not in *all* cases.

The bottom line is that people do die at a measurably higher rate all other things being equal based on whether they have insurance or not. This results in 45,000 people a year that die because they don't have insurance. Again, as I'm sure you know.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

It used to be different when the sites were a bit more independent which is why I asked if there was some other way to view someone's motto, since it doesn't seem that narby is a GalCiv2 guy, although I could be mistaken.

These days there are only minor site differences between profile pages. For example if you view a person's profile from JU you get a link to the person's JU blog (if they've setup a blog on either JU or Implusedriven), same with Impulsedriven. On GalCiv2 you get a link to the person's Metaverse profile whether or not they even know what the metaverse *is*. But otherwise your profile is pretty much the same from one site to the next and in no site that I know of is your motto displayed.

That is a false statement, for which no scientific evidence exists.  It is an extrapolated guess based on an association.  I know the ears are deaf, but I repeat "Association is not causation."  There is no evidence that 45,000 uninsured people would not have died had they been insured last year.

"Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993."

It's not a matter of 'disproving' their study - they haven't proven that it's lack of insurance that is the 'cause' in the first place, only that there is an association.  There are many potential reasons for the difference which may have as powerful an association as insurance status, or it may be multifactorial including insurance status.  Gangbangers are less likely to be insured, too, and they certainly have a much higher death rate, just to mention one factor.  And, in general, health is likely to be a higher priority among the insured than a large segment of the uninsured.