I miss the good old POLITICS.COM days -

I miss the good old POLITICS.COM days - (you know when people commented on news stories) Submissions are great but only if they interest people or they get comments that invoke othe thoughts.

Please become more interested in politics people and make comments....the "what's bubbling tab" used to have more streaming information and streaming comments. Not from 3 hours ago

I know Patriot Watch posted a blog like this previously but I don't remember it being this bad. There were much more interesting stoies and more interesting. Come on people- Comment on more stories everyone.

In the old politics.com days - they didn't do a "daily most active" - it was the active all time users - maybe that is a factor that has lessened motivation.

I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!

So far - not liking the new format......they of course must attempt to make money off of the google ads, etc - through our news settings....what if you wrote the news story?

Politics.com just has a bunch of usernames but only a handful of us use it!

discussion is open to talk up or talk down any part of what "politics team" has recently altered to the current site

After watching Micheal Moore's film, Sicko (part 1)

My initial response after watching this film is that universal healthcare in America is necessary. I think that Hillary's idea was great to keep the health insurance companies at the table, but now they had their chance. This film made me angry, SICK! It really is common sick. A human life is priceless. What would you pay to save your life? What amount would you pay to save your life? It is infinite. They know this and yet you don't act on it.

We have socialized fire department. We have a socialized school system - A socialized library. The view that you might want to argue: Why should I pay for someone else? Well that is a rather individualistic view. Is it not. I would say that the individualistic view is selfish. You want a child to not receive a surgery because the health insurance company doesn't want to pay for it? This film isn't about the child without health insurance. It shows stories about those that do have health insurance. It is people's jobs to deny claims. Then if you are not somehow denied, after the health company is paid, they look for reasons to retroactively take their money from you. (by looking at your medical records  and creating a pre-existing condition) - that means if you had a headache ever so now and then that you reported to your doctor, prior to coverage, they could say that your brain surgery was a pre-existing condition and retro-actively cancel your health insurance.

The current system is broken. I have spoken with a person here on politics via email. Yes, there is something wrong with profiteering off of people. These employees that work for these health insurance companies get bonuses for denying claims that could save your life. Meaning, chemotherapy for cancer. The health insurance company could deny your claim if you have cancer and say that it isn't terminal yet. The film Sicko is filled with people who have health insurance.

Basically to quote the film, "If they weren't able to weed you out in the application process or deny you the care your doctor said you needed and somehow ended up paying for the operation, they send in Lee. [Lee's] job is to get the company's money back any way he can. All he has to do is find one slip up on the application or a pre-existing condition you didn't know you had."  - They go through your health history for the last five years and look for stuff that you may of concealed or jack the rates so high that you couldn't pay them. Lee says, "They're supposed to be fair and even handed, but with an insurance company, it's their freaking money. So it's not un-intentional. It's not a mistake. It's not an oversight. You're not slipping through the cracks. Somebody made that crack and swept you towards it. And the intent is to maximize profits." People this is

Folks this is unacceptable! What health insurance companies are doing...The idea not to cover pre-existing conditions are ridiculous. Do you breathe? Exist? Are you mortal? The film showed an airing on CSPAN on May 30th 1996. Dr. Linda Peeno, former medical reviwer at Humana,  testified before US Congress, "I am here today to make a public cnnfession. In the Spring of 1987, as a physician, I denied a man a necessary operation that would have saved his life, and thus caused his death. No person and no group has held me accountable for this, because, in fact, what I did was I saved the company a half a milion dollars for this. And furthermore, this particular act secured my reputation as a good medical director, and it insured my continued advancement in the healthcare field." 4 times as many healthcare lobbyist than congressman.

 

 

 

 

Marbury V. Madison ??? Supreme law of the Land (ranting)

That other thing is, who is to decide if a law contradicts or interferes with the Constitution's authority? Did the Constitution say Judicial Branch? In an article published at Cornell, they went so far to say that they didn't even explicitly state for there to be a separation of powers, but didn't say explicitly state that they should all be together either. Now, Marshall makes this huge statement on how the Supreme Court gets to decide on Constitutionality on issues. Boom! All of this power that he just granted a group of people with which would be just as corrupt as some elected officials. Lincoln and his executive order called the Emancipation Proclamation. Boom! All of this power. It is like, they sat in this corner pondering to themselves, how can I give myself more power? And someone yells, 'I know destroy the constitution and call it the USA PATRIOT ACT.' This Supreme Law of the Land, where was that phrase coined? It doesn't say Supreme United States Constitution or Supreme Declaration of Independence. And if no state may contradict or interfere with their authority then that is something rather scary. Word choices: pick yours~ Pro-life/Pro-choice and/or Anti-Abortion/Pro-Abortion Now, in South Dakota, doctors are forced "to inform women that abortions “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being” — using exactly that language —" "this past June, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7 to 4...allow the statute to take immediate effect. The majority argued that it is objectively true that human life begins at conception, and that the state can force doctors to say so." This occurred in June 2008. So, this Constitution is the highest law; who argues with that? I don't know. But who is to tell me that the Supreme Court is the one to rule on it? Do we have a law saying so? The statute was created out of thin air and should hold up like a steel brick floats in thin air. This strategy by the Founding Fathers was to create in their minds to attempt a balance among people. Spending two months without air conditioning arguing over a cause of hope that this document could somehow work. Yes, they left a lot out and thereby flawed, but in order to fix it, certain laws in place would need to be fixed along with certain practices that are in place such as the "Supreme Law of the Land" That is too much power! Executive orders are too much power! These powers were not granted to them in Constitution nor have the people or legislators passed laws to allow it. 1.Posts categorized "Fifth Circuit" 2008 October. 29 http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/fifth_circuit/index.html 2. Cornell Article http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag1_user.html