ObamaCare revisited

spike said:
I don't fear what you said because it's not true. There are those foolish enough to believe it though that would fear it.

It depends on if you are gullible enough to believe it or not.
Click to expand...

you got some numbers or stats, or is just the one you know?
 
A government of "negative liberties".
Obama said:
… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy
Click to expand...

Obama said:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society…. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution … that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change…. I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through courts… The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day … The Framers had that same blind spot … the fundamental flaw of this country.
Click to expand...

Using the word SHALL changes the focus of the role of government, just as Obama wanted to do 20 years ago...then backed up 10 years ago.

I'll accept a constitutionally mandated law tell me that I may not do (whatever - kill, steal, cheat) but I'll damn well refuse my government telling me what I shall do. It's time to stand up & take back our nation.
 
Gonz said:
Using the word SHALL changes the focus of the role of government
Click to expand...

Nope "shall" has been used in many many bills for a long time with changing any focus. Quit bitching about a word all the sudden that's been . It's silly.

"Shall" is in the Constitution a whole bunch of times. Would you like that rewritten now?
 
Like in the healthcare bill.

Quit whining about "shall" it's a perfectly acceptable word that's been used in government documents since the founding fathers.
 
chcr said:
Sure you do. Bloody. They don't really have the guts though, it's okay.
Click to expand...
lol at over 12 billion rounds of ammo purchased by US civilians since Obama was elected. Unprecedented.

I don't know how many rounds have been privately loaded, those really are the ones count. one for one they say. :laugh3:

:hippy:
 
He's comparing the USA v the UK in cancer survival rates. Perhaps he should be comparing them v. Cuba or even Canada.
Canada has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world, and doctors are pointing to our much-maligned public health-care system as the reason.

In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.

For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.

"Canadians always tend to complain about our health-care system," Dr. Mary Gospodarowicz, a cancer researcher with Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital, told CTV News. "But this study shows us that in an independent study done by external bodies, the survival of cancer patients in Canada is among the best in the world."

The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent. However, survival rates within the U.S. can vary.

In Canada, the five Canadian provinces included in the study had almost identical results.

"For those five provinces, the survival rate does not differ very greatly from one to the other," said British cancer researcher Prof. Michel Coleman. "That probably indicates the overall effectiveness of universal health care for setting a high standard."

The range of survival rates across the five provinces was quite narrow, from a low of 79.3 per cent in Nova Scotia to a high of 85.4 per cent in British Columbia.

The other provinces studied were Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

However, the survival rate for the seventeen regions in the United States that were included in the study ranged from 78 per cent to 90 per cent.
Click to expand...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top