Go and read up on "natural-born citizen" davdah:

Natural born citizen of the United States

There has never been a definition of what a natural-born citizen is. Seems it's been left up to the individual State to determine what that is.

Looking at McCain, it seems he wouldn't qualify either as he was born in Panama which was a US territory at the time but it was never a US State. And before you say it...

Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

He would have had a right to Citizenship through his parents of course but simply being born on a military base didn't make him birth-right USC. Food for thought eh? If you're trying to narrow it down to a natural-born USC meaning birth-right citizen then he wouldn't qualify.

quote:

Originally posted by Robin Horton:
My daughter has a choice to stay with her job or find another one that offers her insurance. Her choice.

Medicad, Medicare, SSI, and other state run programs are available to those without but you must search for them, and apply. That takes responsiblity and effort to do such.

I have great compassion but I do not think my Government needs to give and give when fellow American's are struggling to make it.

I have met many illegal aliens the last 9 years of my life and they have all used public health in NY and here in PA. You guys know the truth there is no point in arguing.

Please never confuse when I use the term illegal aliens with LEGAL IMMIGRANTS! There is a huge difference. One enters with dignity and respect for our nations laws and the other doesn't.

Koller there are people like you that I believe waiver's should be made available to. Your husband brought you here and then ditched you, scumbags come in all shapes, nationalities, and color.

Your daugher has the option to go out and buy her own insurance while being with this employer. Employers are not the ones that offer insurance, they only offer the little cheaper group plans available from the carriers. If she is employed, most likely she will not qualify for Medicad, Medicare, or SSI. I wish her well and hope she'll never get sick while she is working for this employer.

Nobody has to rely on group plans. Come to think of it, "Group Plans" that's the magic word as that's what everybody wants, because its cheaper - right? Now imagine there would be one or more "National Group Plan" that would make health insurance affordable for everybody - wouldn't it?

Robin - and you know what? Now he is saying I came here by myself . My friends (who know him) tell me I should forgive him as this will be the only way I will ever find peace.

I am an "illegal alien"! I have never used public health and I have paid the required tax on every dollar I have ever earned since I set foot on this land (can proof it too - have every little receipt). I don't want sorrow - I want respect!

When I go to court, there is no doubt in my mind that the government lawyer will try to "tar and feather" me, but unless she is using crazy glue, I highly doubt it'll stick on me.

Exactly Koller, spread the cost over everyone proportional to earnings. It's the only fair way to do it and yes taxes will increase but I bet it'll be cheaper than paying for your own policy. A family of 4 (employer provided) currently runs at an average of $12k per year !
Talking about waste and inefficiencies in the current system I just got a rebate check for over $1100 from a payment made in March for some hospitalization I had. These guys are just thinking up numbers plucked from thin air and charging it. Double billing is very common.

These companies are big, bureaucratic, over-staffed and they pass the extra costs onto you. Do you really think they have your best interests at heart and that they are fully accountable? Think again.

One of several issues I disagree with. Even if this is put in place, doubtful, how is it fair to make it a progressive based system? Why is it fair to charge one person 3 or 4 times as much for the same thing? Would you be willing to pay 30K for a car that someone working at Mcdonalds can get for 5K? Would you still say it's fair?

That 12k a year cost accounts for what? Where is the 12k going? Any guesses as to why there is so much bureaucracy in insurance? Why it's so expensive? Much of that is used to minimize fraud. There is a lot of it. Not the kind rooted in bogus claims, no. Some there but not much. The kind where people claim malpractice and run to a lawyer seeking a lottery win. With the government running it, deepest pockets of all, what do you expect will happen?

The number of frivolous claims and the lawyers filing them will create a tidal wave called bankruptcy. Will Obama insert language eliminating punitive awards all together? No, hell no, he is a lawyer. And not one congressman or senator will either. They are all lawyers. Will they risk being blackballed once they're out of office by cutting out the huge business opportunity this creates? Nope, not on his watch.

Imagine the size and scope of the bureaucracy the government will have to create in order to manage this. This is new territory for them and as being such will get burned numerous times by sheisty lawyers taking advantage of their ignorance. Also, the government by design is not run on the basis of efficiency. If you think the number of workers in insurance is high, a system based on efficiency, wait til you see obama's version.

Canada and the European models are sited as the examples to promote this. How difficult is it to sue a doctor in Canada or England? Much more so than here. From what I understand they are nearly untouchable. Here, just the opposite. Look at your yellow page phone book. Chances are, there is a picture and ad for some law office on it. What does the cover of your average Canadian or British phone book look like? How many pages of lawyers are listed in either one? This will assuredly create the richest bunch of lawyers in history at the expense of taxpayers. That is, if it passes, which I very much doubt will happen.

quote:

The number of frivolous claims and the lawyers filing them will create a tidal wave called bankruptcy. Will Obama insert language eliminating punitive awards all together? No, hell no, he is a lawyer. And not one congressman or senator will either. They are all lawyers. Will they risk being blackballed once they're out of office by cutting out the huge business opportunity this creates? Nope, not on his watch

The number of frivolous claims and the lawyers filing them will create a tidal wave called bankruptcy. Will Obama insert language eliminating punitive awards all together? No, hell no, he is a lawyer. And not one congressman or senator will either. They are all lawyers. Will they risk being blackballed once they're out of office by cutting out the huge business opportunity this creates? Nope, not on his watch.

Lawyers run The country!!! control the country, protecting self!!! It really is that simple!!

Davdah on the ball as Usual!!!

Common sense. The beauty of this is that old adage about power.

The people in D.C. are there because they crave power, not money, over all other things. Because of that, and the known affect this will have, it will die.

The number one consideration to the average voter is their money. The D.C. types already know the catastrophic financial affects this will have on the average person. Will they approve it given the electorate's paycheck will shrink substantially as a direct result? I don't think so.

Watch, all repubs will vote NEY!, of course. There will be enough dems who vote no to kill it. The dem excuses given will be obscure and reference specific items in the bill that appear protectionist for their constituency, or some such nonsense. Idea being, to protect the party and keep up appearances. A close call, really.

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!

quote:

Originally posted by MakeItRight!:

This is so disrespectful. I am disappointed about you MIR!

quote:

How difficult is it to sue a doctor in Canada or England?

I think you're arguing against yourself here davdah. You don't like lawyers, especially medical malpractice ones and now here you are saying good for them they exist and you can sue

Agreed fraud exists but so do the 47m uninsured which is the bigger amount the private insurance companies have to cover by charging those who have insurance.

No, I'm not saying lawyers are a good thing when it comes to going after doctors. Just the opposite. The point of that comment is it is difficult to sue a doctor in England, as it should be. Otherwise, you Brits would be broke if your lawyers were like the riffraff we have here.

Hey Brit could this be true?

If so did you know that all diabetes isn't due to obesity? I had it when I was pregnant and only gained 10 lbs during the pregnancy. Juvenille diabetes isn't due to obesity either.

I'd like to hear you and Spring comment on this article.

"Can you believe denying health care to people with dementia is being considered?" If you do your homework you'll find in the UK if you smoke you are denied Heart care ,if your over weight you won't get knee or hip replacements , socialized medicine has not worked well in other countries and your a BIG FOOL to think it will here. Name a program the Government has that the private sector does not do better. they spend your money so there is no reason for oversite.If they need more they just raise taxes . The private sector does not have that option. Next friday watch 20/20 there's a segement on the Canadian Health care . One town even has a lottery once a month ot pull a name to be added to the list for care. If you believe this plan is a cure all there's a big hole in your gene pool ...ya can't fix stupid.. http://www.fosterfriess.com/articles/20512/ http://www.thelancet.com/journ...(09)60137-9/fulltext

RH, I doubt they'd consider denial to dementia. The article is probably a scaremonger thing. It's not denied in UK under the NHS.

Davdah, it is possible to sue the US Government. I almost did that last year with the Writ of Mandamus.

I still say having some form of national health cover will benefit all. If they want to keep the status quo, the insurance companies/health industry MUST become more efficient and much cheaper. If they don't, this country WILL have an NHS of sorts in the future, by design (now) or by default (future). The latter being the much more expensive option.

Pay $10 now or $1000 later. It's up to you which.

Sure, it's possible to sue the government. More easily than most I would imagine.

The insurance companies are operating as efficient as they can. It's in their best interest to. Plus the fact there is open competition. There is no collusion or price fixing. The market would correct that real quick. The problem isn't 10.00 now or 1000 later on. The problem is the absence of tort reform.

Litigation is what drove the costs up more than anything else. Something absent in any country where there is a national plan of sorts. No suing doctors at the drop of a hat.

This plan is wrong on two counts. One being, no barriers to lawyers bleeding the majority of good intended tax dollars out of the system. The second is the notion that one person should pay more for the same thing as someone else. That is obscene and ridiculous. Truth is, the higher taxed person is less likely to use medical service. As a rule. The better a person does in the work world the more likely they are to be responsible with their health. Joe the accountant is not the same as John the union thug who chugs six packs on the weekend and needs a bypass at 40.

With as much complaining as people do about jobs leaving the country this will provoke more of the same. That is life. For as much as you think you are somehow entitled to part of my earnings, I will do what I can to prevent it. I have yet to hear a valid justification for it. Aren't you guys the least bit offended? What does that say about your abilities? Do you like having it said since you can't do for yourself we'll steal someone else's resources for you.

Employers will shift jobs out of the country if this is passed. I guarantee it.

quote:

Employers will shift jobs out of the country if this is passed. I guarantee it.

I 100% agree with this statement. What should be happening is finding ways to bring back jobs to the US!!!!

The most galling of all is the presumption of obligation to assist people who make less. That somehow the person must, by virtue of their bank account, have resolve to redistribute their funds in the name of imagined fairness. By the same token. Those of lesser means are under no such pressure. No discipline is required below a certain economic threshold. That baseline knowingly shifts to just above the earnings of the democrat being asked. What is conscionable? The union slob making 30 an hour would without hesitation say the person making 40.00 an hour doesn't need it. The mcDonalds burger flipper at 8.00 an hour would say the bar is at 10.00 per hour. This shifting sand dogma is what allows the party to stick it to everyone.