Universal Health Care...

[brvheart 1,752]

The #1 function of the judiciary, imo, is to stop the general populace from legislating prejudice, discrimination, or anything else that is unconstitutional.

Gross.“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”-Patrick Henry

[CaneBrain 95]

Gross.“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”-Patrick Henry

And yet the Constitution gives the judiciary this power and history is full of examples of where it came in handy. So gross! This feature of the judiciary shepherded the civil rights movement, the abolition of bans on interracial marriage and a host of other goodies. I won't even get into the irony of you and BG objecting that the Constitution empowered the judiciary to stop the populace from legislating UNCONSTITUTIONAL things. How does that not make perfect sense exactly?So gross.

[hblask 1]

You say this like there is something wrong with it. The #1 function of the judiciary, imo, is to stop the general populace from legislating prejudice, discrimination, or anything else that is unconstitutional.I am sure if 65% of voters in DC wanted a handgun ban and the judiciary overruled them you would be extremely outraged.

Gross.“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”-Patrick Henry

I'm going with Cane on this one. I don't think Patrick Henry's quote meant that judges should allow mob rule -- the "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner". The judiciary's role is to make sure we stay a republic, not a pure democracy.

[Balloon guy 158]

And yet the Constitution gives the judiciary this power and history is full of examples of where it came in handy. So gross! This feature of the judiciary shepherded the civil rights movement, the abolition of bans on interracial marriage and a host of other goodies. I won't even get into the irony of you and BG objecting that the Constitution empowered the judiciary to stop the populace from legislating UNCONSTITUTIONAL things. How does that not make perfect sense exactly?So gross.

The latest over turn was when we voted that illegal immigrants should not get driver's license the year after the democrats made it possible to register to vote with only a driver's license.I doubt the fore fathers were worried about the constitutional rights of illegal immigrants.

[CaneBrain 95]

I doubt the fore fathers were worried about the constitutional rights of illegal immigrants.

I doubt they even understood the concept of an illegal immigrant since they envisioned an America that welcomed all immigrants with open arms.Also, just because the judiciary is sometimes wrong does not mean the function is wrong. Again, would you be upset if the courts overturned a handgun ban that a majority of voters in a state favored? Because that has happened. Everybody loves the idea of pure democracy until the other side has the votes.

[Balloon guy 158]

I doubt they even understood the concept of an illegal immigrant since they envisioned an America that welcomed all immigrants with open arms.Also, just because the judiciary is sometimes wrong does not mean the function is wrong. Again, would you be upset if the courts overturned a handgun ban that a majority of voters in a state favored? Because that has happened. Everybody loves the idea of pure democracy until the other side has the votes.

Oh I will be mad if one judge in the state doesn't re-criminalize marijuana immediately after it is voted legal.I want to be clear, are you for completely open borders like Henry?

[CaneBrain 95]

Oh I will be mad if one judge in the state doesn't re-criminalize marijuana immediately after it is voted legal.I want to be clear, are you for completely open borders like Henry?

I wouldn't hold your breath in California for a judge to strike down a pot is legal law but I bet it does happen somewhere else. That's the deal.I am not for open borders like Henry; we don't have that kind of room anymore. However, I believe in a serious overhaul of the legal immigration system. There are several countries where the wait time for someone trying to immigrate legally here is so absurdly long that it is either immigrate illegally or just not bother. I think that kind of overhaul would solve a lot of problems. Immigration law is a byzantine mess. I am also in favor of conditional amnesty in large part because the alternative is impractical at this point. So there you go.I was really just pointing out that the founding fathers were unlikely to have an opinion on illegal immigration because the concept did not exist at that time.

[hblask 1]

I doubt the fore fathers were worried about the constitutional rights of illegal immigrants.

Presumably because they were the ultimate illegal immigrants themselves, arriving on the end of a gun.At least the ones now just want to pick strawberries at ridiculously low wages.

[colonel Feathers 5]

I'm going with Cane on this one. I don't think Patrick Henry's quote meant that judges should allow mob rule -- the "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner". The judiciary's role is to make sure we stay a republic, not a pure democracy.

Whats wrong with the wolves and sheep voting on dinner?In real life, the wolves would just kill the sheep, at least here they are giving it a vote. Who knows, maybe one of the wolves is mutton intollerant.

[Balloon guy 158]

I wouldn't hold your breath in California for a judge to strike down a pot is legal law but I bet it does happen somewhere else. That's the deal.I am not for open borders like Henry; we don't have that kind of room anymore. However, I believe in a serious overhaul of the legal immigration system. There are several countries where the wait time for someone trying to immigrate legally here is so absurdly long that it is either immigrate illegally or just not bother. I think that kind of overhaul would solve a lot of problems. Immigration law is a byzantine mess. I am also in favor of conditional amnesty in large part because the alternative is impractical at this point. So there you go.I was really just pointing out that the founding fathers were unlikely to have an opinion on illegal immigration because the concept did not exist at that time.

The notion that the waiting lines in other countries should dictate our immigration laws is flawed. Of course people in countries run by atheist want to leave en masse. That doesn't mean our immigration laws should be changed.The reality that we have 40 million people here illegally now, or over 10% of the country says we already have a saturation level of immigrants, and the waiting lines are still packed.Nobody wants to live in a country run by atheist, that's the real lesson, nothing else.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yep all those mexicans fleeing atheism. Are you serious? I thought it was obvious I was referencing mostly nearby Christian countries like Mexico and central America.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yep all those mexicans fleeing atheism. Are you serious? I thought it was obvious I was referencing mostly nearby Christian countries like Mexico and central America.

You know Central America isn't a country...

[CaneBrain 95]

You know Central America isn't a country...

On an iPad didn't feel like typing them out.

[Balloon guy 158]

On an iPad didn't feel like typing them out.

Its okay, your ideas come from lazy thinking, I guess its only natural that your posts should be equally lazy.BOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM

[All_In 0]

man, america sure is one messed up place....Why do Americans die younger than Britons?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14070090"Then there's the big issue - about one in three adults is classified as obese. That's about 10 times as many as in long-living countries like Japan...""...a more even distribution of wealth, even if the average were lower, could mean longer lives for everyone."--"If you have most health spending just going on a few people who have the best health to begin with - [as in] the US system - that is hardly efficient."In a more unequal rich country more doctors are working on things like plastic surgery. More dentists whiten teeth than fix bad teeth and so on."---"Prof Dorling argues that the rich may suffer too."Top income groups are badly affected because their doctors are not necessarily mainly interested in their health but work for organisations that have to make an income," he says. "---""It's likely not the quality of medical care itself that is the problem but access to it. Medical insurance for all might help."This is one goal of the healthcare reform signed into law in March 2010, which will oblige American adults to have health insurance when it comes into force in 2014."btw, the more replies by bg and his pitiful band of fanboys, the more i realize just how clueless and ignorant they are. pretty freaking funny!

[Balloon guy 158]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWe are HAHAHAHAHAHAHa unhealthy because doctors HAHAHHA Doctors are too busy HAHAHAHHAHAHHA doing plastic surgery AHAHAHHAHAHHHAAAND THE BESTEST part is in a 'post' telling us that Brits are living longer than Americans, one of the "Proofs" is that the DENTIST are too busy whitening American's teeth to fix them......LIKE they do.......in Britian....... :D :D HHHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHHAAWow you are a genius....

[brvheart 1,752]

man, america sure is one messed up place....Why do Americans die younger than Britons?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14070090"Then there's the big issue - about one in three adults is classified as obese. That's about 10 times as many as in long-living countries like Japan...""...a more even distribution of wealth, even if the average were lower, could mean longer lives for everyone."--"If you have most health spending just going on a few people who have the best health to begin with - [as in] the US system - that is hardly efficient."In a more unequal rich country more doctors are working on things like plastic surgery. More dentists whiten teeth than fix bad teeth and so on."---"Prof Dorling argues that the rich may suffer too."Top income groups are badly affected because their doctors are not necessarily mainly interested in their health but work for organisations that have to make an income," he says. "---""It's likely not the quality of medical care itself that is the problem but access to it. Medical insurance for all might help."This is one goal of the healthcare reform signed into law in March 2010, which will oblige American adults to have health insurance when it comes into force in 2014."btw, the more replies by bg and his pitiful band of fanboys, the more i realize just how clueless and ignorant they are. pretty freaking funny!

I just flew in from a beheading, and BOY, are my arms tired.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I just flew in from a beheading, and BOY, are my arms tired.

I actually did laugh out loud at this.

[hblask 1]

"...a more even distribution of wealth, even if the average were lower, could mean longer lives for everyone."--

Don't let

cloud your thought process.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Don't let

cloud your thought process.

while I found that video entertaining it did nothing to refute the idea from the BBC article that raising the wealth of the poorest members of a society even if it means the overall wealth were to drop might lead to increased life expectancy. In fact it might have reinforced it.

[hblask 1]

This is one goal of the healthcare reform signed into law in March 2010, which will oblige American adults to have health insurance when it comes into force in 2014."

[hblask 1]

while I found that video entertaining it did nothing to refute the idea from the BBC article that raising the wealth of the poorest members of a society even if it means the overall wealth were to drop might lead to increased life expectancy. In fact it might have reinforced it.

It had been a while since I watched it, I was going off memory, but doesn't it show how wealth increases lead to longevity increases?How about the static version:

[FCP Bob 1,312]

It had been a while since I watched it, I was going off memory, but doesn't it show how wealth increases lead to longevity increases?How about the static version:

That graph shows perfectly the point that they're trying to make in the article I think.Big differences in average wealth are of course the most important thing but look at the countries at the very top of the list like Sweden and Japan and Canada. They don't have as high a per capita income as the US does but the poorest people in the US are poorer than the poorest people in those countries.The US is probably the best country in the World to be rich in but it's a lot better to be poor in a place like Sweden or Canada in general than it is the US. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying things are perfect in other places and I don't really know how you can magically lift up the bottom section of the American society but there is no doubt that the wealth gap between the richest and poorest in the US should be very concerning for everybody.

[brvheart 1,752]

They don't have as high a per capita income as the US does but the poorest people in the US are poorer than the poorest people in those countries.

What are you basing this comment on? Common sense?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

What are you basing this comment on? Common sense?

Common sense and OECD studies.http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2...1_1_1_1,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdf

The United States is the country with the highest inequality level and poverty rate across theOECD, Mexico and Turkey excepted. Since 2000, income inequality has increased rapidly, continuinga long-term trend that goes back to the 1970s. Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind.This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in theUnited States. The average income of the richest 10% is US$93,000 US$ in purchasing powerparities, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of the US citizens have anincome of US$5,800 US$ per year – about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries. The distribution of earnings widened by 20% since the mid-1980s which is more than in mostother OECD countries. This is the main reason for widening inequality in America. Redistribution of income by government plays a relatively minor role in the United States. Onlyin Korea is the effect smaller. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefitssuch as unemployment benefits and family benefits is low – equivalent to just 9% of householdincomes, while the OECD average is 22%. The effectiveness of taxes and transfers in reducinginequality has fallen still further in the past 10 years. Child poverty – that is, children in a household with less than half the median income – hasfallen since 1985, from 25% to 20% but poverty rates among the elderly increased from 20 to23%. Both of these trends are in the opposite direction to those of the other countries in theOECD. Social mobility is lower in the United States than in other countries like Denmark, Sweden andAustralia. Children of poor parents are less likely to become rich than children of rich parents. Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% control some 25-33% oftotal net worth and the top 10% hold 71%. For comparison, the top 10% have 28% of totalincome.