Southern Chicken
Verified User
Who wants to leave the decision up to the government? Tell that to the people in critical care. Government shouldn't have power to make the decision for individual who are offered a chance..
How Can McConnell and Graham Take Oaths Of Impartiality?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Who wants to leave the decision up to the government? Tell that to the people in critical care. Government shouldn't have power to make the decision for individual who are offered a chance..
The ship has already sailed on that front, and universal healthcare would not change any part of it. You need a prescription to get many drugs, and that is regulated by the government. You cannot just decide to take cocaine for your health problems, the government will stop you.
But the Constitution does not ban the government from taxing you for not getting private health insurance. The Supreme Court has already found that to be completely constitutional.
I doubt the Constitution bans the government from hiring doctors to treat people, given that the government was doing that when the Constitution was signed.
Does that mean you want people to be allowed to prescribe anything for themselves? Cocaine? Heroin?
Anyway, not forcing healthcare that is proven not to work is not the same as banning healthcare that is proven not to work.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
None of the above makes sense..
Southern Chicken
Verified User
The first is that healthcare workers in Germany make much less money. While this doesn’t automatically seem like such a terrible thing, because doctors make so much in the USA, it when when you realize how much of a price cut doctors take to work in Germany. You can almost make as much managing a fast food Restaurant. As a result of this, Germany has a hard time keeping their doctors from moving out of the country to work. After all, if you could make 4 to 5 times as much with the same set of skills just for working in another country, why wouldn’t you? So good luck with getting doctors that goes through years of training to settle for low pay
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Taxing and having the choice of treatment are two different things.
The people still have a choice of treatment even when the Constitution was signed.
Yes, very interesting...especially this:
"Canadian health care isn't free.
In general, Canadians pay higher taxes for the country's social safety net, which includes healthcare. In the US,a significant misconception is that people think Canadian health care is free."
Lots of misconceptions being posted on these threads by those with an agenda.
Clarrie Feinstein, Business Insider's Healthcare Fellow:
"As a Canadian reporting on healthcare in the U.S., I've gained insight into the complicated and often misunderstood debate in the U.S. over single -payer healthcare."
Imagine that, it's not free.
Oh, today is a school day (inside joke) TOP can explain.
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
[Sorry - double posting.
Last edited:
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
It is astounding to hear a duck that can apparently read and write quacking this McCarthyite drivel: Manifestly the drugs that the Mexicans are dying in such large numbers to provide you are very effective! You suppose German Big Business backed Hitler to give power to working people do you? When the world was flat, before the Trumps landed, no doubt. Weird!
Welcome to the "real world"......of course in a political atmosphere such as an IMPEACHMENT, which is purely political....what do you expect, the Republicans to suddenly lock their lips unto your asshole?
Welcome to the land of the ORANGE MAN....where FACTS override PROPAGANDA.
You did not appear to have any concerns whatsoever with the Partiality conducted in the basement of the House with a "soviet style" kangaroo court......where they bragged about not having to follow that pesky little thing called the Untied States Constitution and its bill of rights. Why the sudden 180 when the rule of law is invoked? Strike a match to that strawman. As far as Roberts goes? Just a figure head....all it takes is a simple majority head count to override anything he has to say. Remember....this is a political dog and phony show, and Mitch is the ringmaster. Expect.... many more BITCH SLAPS and FACE PLANTS concerning the democrats attempt to seize control of the Senate. Trump hand picked the greatest legal minds in the US to defend him......the left picked CLOWNS ARE US. You are not in KS. any longer.....welcome to the land of ORANGE...follow the orange brick road to acquittal.
Last edited:
Getin the ring
Verified User
Schiff decided to follow the yellow brick road, now he's mad because it lead him to some far away make believe place 
you can't impeach the president unless Mitch say's you can. that is all
you can't impeach the president unless Mitch say's you can. that is all
Schiff decided to follow the yellow brick road, now he's mad because it lead him to some far away make believe place
you can't impeach the president unless Mitch say's you can. that is all
Indeed.
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when President Trump is found innocent..and re-elected?
Precious!
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Southern Chicken,
If that was the most flagrant example you could find I am totally fine with that. Schumer expressed some facts. He said he had an opinion. He didn't say he was not impartial.
What McConnell and Graham both did made a mockery of justice. They should both recuse. Jurors should not reach a conclusion before hearing the evidence and they should certainly not refuse to see evidence. Please present an example of where Democrats in 1999 refused to admit any evidence at all, if you can find one.
And there are no precedents for when McConnell tried at first to refuse to even look at what the House sent over, nor allow it to be admitted. That was too much for even the moderate Republicans who forced him to back down on that outrageous stunt.
If that was the most flagrant example you could find I am totally fine with that. Schumer expressed some facts. He said he had an opinion. He didn't say he was not impartial.
What McConnell and Graham both did made a mockery of justice. They should both recuse. Jurors should not reach a conclusion before hearing the evidence and they should certainly not refuse to see evidence. Please present an example of where Democrats in 1999 refused to admit any evidence at all, if you can find one.
And there are no precedents for when McConnell tried at first to refuse to even look at what the House sent over, nor allow it to be admitted. That was too much for even the moderate Republicans who forced him to back down on that outrageous stunt.
The German Government has no say in how much German doctors make. Germany has 3.4 doctors per 1,000 people, while the USA only has 2.3.
As a practical matter they can do it by saying not under oath at T1 "I am biased and unfair" and at T2 under oath and say, "changed my mind I will be unbiased and fair."
Then do whatever the fuck they want.
As a matter of substance, however, you are absolutely correct, they violate their oaths ab initio and would be challenged and removed for cause by any real jury.
In fact, if the Senate were a jury panel, you would not have to burn a single peremptory challenge on any Republican senator. They are all going to violate oaths of office if they vote to not remove TRump.*
This impeachment is nothing less than a loyalty test to the United States of America.
I have an idea. You are so eager for an innocent ruling, we could change the Senate rules to allow that. We will have three possible verdicts: guilty, not proven guilty, and innocent. And each and every Republican goes on record voting one of those three ways. It would be a good way to get rid of some of these Republicans.
You don’t get to set the Senate rules.
Innocent until proven guilty, the bedrock of American jurisprudence.
A fair and impartial Senate, unlike the circus in the House, then exoneration and then re-election.
Is today a school day?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Walt,
That's the crux of it.
They claim that the capitalist free market should determine the price of health care, but then they seek to rig that market by severely limiting the number of physicians, and the availability of health care.
The best schools which train doctors have not expanded the number of students they accept in direct proportion to US population growth, thus ensuring that the most sought-after degrees from the most prestigious schools become more and more exclusive as time goes on
We should be cranking out doctors and health care people willy nilly and building hospitals and providers left and right so that health care is so available, the price of it would fall until it is on par with the price of health care in other nations.
But no. We are not doing that. If we did that, the profit margin would shrink. And we all know they are primarily in it for the money.
That's the crux of it.
They claim that the capitalist free market should determine the price of health care, but then they seek to rig that market by severely limiting the number of physicians, and the availability of health care.
The best schools which train doctors have not expanded the number of students they accept in direct proportion to US population growth, thus ensuring that the most sought-after degrees from the most prestigious schools become more and more exclusive as time goes on
We should be cranking out doctors and health care people willy nilly and building hospitals and providers left and right so that health care is so available, the price of it would fall until it is on par with the price of health care in other nations.
But no. We are not doing that. If we did that, the profit margin would shrink. And we all know they are primarily in it for the money.