***Bullcrap. The Founders viewed a pure democracy as dangerous with an assured result of a few ruling the many! In reality, the U.S. is a democracy ***No, it is a republic, and this is affirmed in the Pledge of Allegiance. Not since the 17th Amendment and the 'New Deal' court it's not.  The Founders tried to give us a Republic, sadly we haven't kept it. As Mr. Franklin worried:   Inquirer: Mr. Fanklin, what kind of government have you given us?   Franklin: A Republic, madam, if you can keep it. The notion of finely tuned separation of powers, among the branches and between the federal, state and local government has been cast away freely by the court, at the behest of the statists who can not brook even the slightest deviation from their distopian plans.  -Stephen

We have to keep in mind, in any case, that democracy and republicanism describe two entirely independent things. A republic is a particular kind of governmental structure, mainly distinguished from a monarchy. A democracy describes a system of orderly rule by the people; a monarchy can be just as democratic as a republic. ***The last statement is pure bull. How so? Are you saying that England is not a democracy?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_event... Voters Say They Know Health Care Bill Better Than Congress Tuesday, August 25, 2009 Most voters think they understand the health care reform legislation proposed by President Obama better than Congress does - and about as well as the president himself. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of voters rate their understanding of the health care plan as good or excellent. Only 21% say their understanding of it is poor. By contrast, just 22% say Congress has a good or excellent understanding of the plan. Thirty-five percent (35%) say Congress' knowledge of the proposal is poor. Voters give the president more credit than that. Forty-seven percent (47%) say Obama's understanding of his own plan is good or excellent, while 27% rate his knowledge of it as poor. A closer look at the numbers reveals that just 11% of voters believe that Congress understands the health care legislation better than they do. Forty-six percent (46%) hold the opposite view and think they understand the bill better than Congress does. Nearly as many (43%) rate their understanding of the legislation as equal to Congress'. Thirty percent (30%) of voters believe they understand the bill better than the president does. Thirty-four percent (34%) say the president understands his own health care plan better, while 36% rate their understanding of the legislation as the same as Obama's. (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. Rasmussen Reports asked survey participants to rate their own understanding of the legislation and then to rate congressional and presidential understanding. They were not asked to compare their own understanding with that of Congress or the president. Rather, the ratings were compared to derive those figures. For example, suppose someone rated their own understanding as good and the president's understanding as poor. They would be counted as believing they understood the plan better than the president. Younger voters are more generous than older voters in their assessment of Congress. Liberals tend to give Congress more credit, too. Thirty-six percent (36%) of those on the political left say Congress has a good or excellent understanding of the plan. Just 16% of conservatives agree while 51% of conservatives rate congressional understanding as poor. Most Democrats (52%) say the president understands the bill better than they do. A plurality of Republicans (44%) hold the opposite view. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 34% say they understand the legislation better than Obama does, but 27% say the president knows the bill better. Voters are divided on the president's accusation that critics of the plan are bearing false witness against it. Thirty-six percent (36%) agree with the president, but 38% do not. Most Democrats agree, and most Republicans don't. Unaffiliateds, by a 46% to 33% margin, disagree with Obama on this point. Earlier surveys have found that people overwhelmingly trust their own economic judgment more than that of the average member of Congress. By a two-to-one margin, voters also trust their own economic judgment more than the president's. Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low with just 42% of voters now in favor of the plan. Opposition to the plan has increased to 53%. Intensity remains stronger among opponents of the plan than among its supporters. In early August, 49% of voters said those protesting the health care plan at congressional town hall meetings were genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% said they had been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.

insurance is better than a 9 percent overhead for medicare. Please, just explain that simple math for us all. ***Medicare is rife with fraud and waste. Private insurance companies are not...they would go out of business if they ran their companies like the federal government runs its projects. You can't. You can toss words around like socialism or other obfuscation, but you will not address that simple equation above. ***I just did. Nothing the federal government touches has ever been cost-effective...absolutely NOTHING. NO you did not. You just tossed words around, that amount to your opinion. Again, I dare you to explain why a 30 percent overhead is better than a 9 percent overhead. By your own reasoning private enterprise should be the lowest number. It is not. Simple reason. The feds are not trying to make an obscene profit providing medical care. I also assume from your statement that you include our armed forces, highway construction, social security, medicare, and medicaide as examples of waste. You said federal government. Does that mean you give a pass on all state, country, and city governments. Are they magically perfect? If so, I would say you are truly misguided. Every private business, or public corporation wastes money and often steals public money. However, this process evidently sounds good to you. Michael

In view of stuff I've seen around the blogosphere and Twittersphere, and interesting topic to discuss might be Christian approaches to health care. Though I've already blogged on that here http://su.pr/2orWR6 and here http://su.pr/9WvM43 in case anyone is interested. I got my health care insurance, screw the minority who want health care. I ain't payin for it. ***With the record-setting debt the current administration is piling up, we won't be able to pay for the current commitment let alone the unconscionable added cost of government run/screwed up health care and the ridiculous Cap and Trade scheme. ***Nothing the U.S. government touches is run with anything resembling efficiency. Well then, I suggest we get now get rid of socialized veterans care, socialized defense department, socialized school systems, socialized road construction and maintenance, socialized city infrastructure maintenance and construction, and socialized law enforcement. Don,t forget to get rid of social security, medicare, and medicaide. Private insurance companies skim off 30 percent of every health care dollar. Medicare takes 9 percent. If you love private insurance so much I think you should continue to pay that 30 percent yourself, I'll take the 9 percent myself. I think you have gotten the new religion that everything the government does is bad. If so, stop driving on my tax supported road system. Go build your own. We pay 8 times the regular price for health care every time an indigent person gets his or her health care from the emergency room. What interests me is hearing these Americans claiming that having a social health care system would kill off private insurance. In the UK private health insurance is alive and well, but there would be no greater vote loser here than for any political party to suggest dismantling the National Health Service. It would be political suicide. So, after more than 60 years we overwhelmingly want to keep it (whatever our politics), we still have the *option* of private insurance, and whereas most agree there is room for improvement, most people perceive the Health Service as at least reasonably good. Since it works for us, why wouldn't it in the USA? It may. That's not really the issue in the US, though. The issue is if it's the proper role of government as _frame_d by the US Constitution. JG It depends on how seriously one takes the 10th Amendment. I take it very seriously. Unfortunately, the courts do not. If the courts respected the Constitution, they would see that the federal government has no authority to compel people to sign up for health insurance‹particularly if they would rather not. U.S. Constitution - Preamble The Preamble We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html promote the general Welfare , gee wonder what welfare means? ***Definately not what welfare means today. Zec 11:7 - And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. It has occurred to me that many of the people in the USA who might benefit most from National Health provision are African-Americans, particularly in the poorer areas. Tim.

Michael James < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message news:934fde96-ff90-4d1c-a535- Tim if I am not mistaken the UK system is similar to that in Canada. *AND* to please some of our American friends, yes it is not perfect. Nothing is perfect and there are always room for improvement. The system on a whole works fine. There are situations where there are problems. For example hip-replacements. Their are many people waitng for tht type a treatment and not enough doctors etc. Why? because the system has only so much money, and EVERYBODY has a right to treatment, since we ALL contribute to the cost of healthcare through a percentage of our taxes. Do we want to pay more taxes so their will be more doctors? ***So, some people could end up crippled for life? Ah! Just like they do in the USA if they haven't got enough money! I see... Tim. One option people are considering is the two-tiered' system, where private cliniques are available. for people who do not wish to 'wait in line' Many people could afford that, Not only would that leave the present system intact, but it would lessen the load of the public system making it more efficient as well. ,When it comes to emergency, life threatening situations our health care system is fine. If an emergency case arrives at a hospital,any elective-surgery is postponed until after emergency patient is treated. And the treatment they give is excellent . I can verify that from persona experience as well as the experience of others in my millieu. We are alive and well BECAUSE OUR SYSTEM WORKS. One last point. I noticed while watching some American TV that they think the elderly do not get the same care as younger people . that is a pile of crap. Old people are treated the same as young people. ***They are in America, too. The TV program you watched was wrong. Not quite..Everyone in Canada get a Honda Civic, if you want a Mercedes then pay for it. You seem to think that everyone should have a Mercedes, when a Honda Civic is a good car and will get you where you wnat to go. despite traffic jams. ***I think everyone should have whatever car they can afford. Personally, if I had the money, I would have a Lamborghini to run around in for fun. Forget that it only has a city MPG rating of 8 and 12 highway. Well am glad to see that the UK has enough money so that everyone gets a Mercedes (or a Rolls) but unfortunately we are obviously not so well off as you Brits, * but* we can afford to give everyone a Honda Civic. I am sorry if that does not meet your standards. I hope this analogy is crystal clear. EVERYONE IS CARED FOR ***Correction: Everyone is cared for if you live long enough for your name to reach the top of the list. That American actress who died in the ski accident in Canada last winter died as a result of lack of care by the Canadian system. Correction you are obviously ignorant about our health system.  She diedbecause she refused treatment and when she changed her mind and hour later it was too late. Enough of your lies!! I live here and I know may people who are alive because of the efficacity of our health system.  The fact that I am alive and typing this reply is just on person's proof. I had a stroke two years ago. The ambulance got there is minutes got me to the hospital;where I received immediate care and the emergency room the switched to intensive care for a week, a ward for two weeks. I was treated by top neurologistsm, using the most up to date equipment. After three weeks they  tranfered me to a Reab hospital for two months, where I was cared for and fed and washed, I received physio therapy and went froma wheelchair to be a cane .  I had courses in Ergo therapy learning how to do common things . THAT IS A TRUE STORY...are you going to say I am lying? AND IT HAD NOTHING TOP DO WITH WATING ON A LIST I could tell other stories of how well our system works and  people whose lives have  been saved. You read my  post I stated QUITE CLEARLY where some things could be improved. But I am telling the truth and you are not! Yes, I can imagine that in the USA time would have been lost while they checked on your ability to pay, before they even started any treatment. Also, there is a perception here in the UK (perhaps a wrong one) that if someone falls ill in the USA in public, people are afraid to offer them assistance in case they end up landed with medical bills because the person was uninsured and couldn't pay. Tim.