I'm so very glad you found this article helpful. I don't have all the answers to questions people will ask you but there are a lot of answers out on the web. Good luck.

I think the Act would be more effective with a majority of states enacting it but I do think there are some states (Texas for one) that could, in fact, be strong enough to fight the federal government. The Feds, of course, would immediately try to withhold federal money from the states. This can be countered by the States by refusing to send any money (taxes or any other) to the federal government.

I tend to agree. The above mentioned Act is pretty good, but it might need to insert language that would inhibit the federal government from trying to punish the citizens in a state that enacts this Act by using federal agencies.

You're right. I didn't catch the sarcasm. Sorry about that.

What's your point? A liberal group of Europeans gives Obama a prize that he didn't earn and which he himself says he doesn't deserve and this somehow justifies his actions? The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. Heck, they even gave one to the terrorist Yassar Arafat - http://bit.ly/25zxvG.

How is a family supposed to get an "additional means" of paying for the non-provided care? No family would be able to afford healthcare out of pocket for an older family member who most likely has an expensive disease or malady. And almost every single analyst (and common sense) tells us that most, if not all, health insurance companies would be driven out of business if they have to compete with government healthcare. There's a good chance there won't be any company around to offer any "additional insurance" plans. Furthermore, all of us grow old (unless we die young) which means we'll all eventually have to take out such a plan right at the point in our lives where we have the fewest means to pay for it. And I can't even imagine how expensive such a plan would be! Heck, I can't even imagine how or why any insurance company would want to offer such a plan - their payout would be near 100%. There's no money in that.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion. Since no private insurance company could cover these people denied benefits by the government plan they would simply be out of luck. At that point the most any older person could hope for would be a new government plan to then cover them. That would be unlikely to happen, but it if did, it would just be one more thing bankrupting the country.

OK, I'll try one more time...

Well you've surely proved yourself to be yet another conservative OR right wing Libertarian making buffoonish statements without supporting or backing them up with proof.
So you accuse me of doing what I accused you of doing...? How original for a liberal.

You're obviously so gullible, naive or just plain ignorant Jason that you actually believe all the right wingnut 'Deather' lies you've been told on Fox about Obama's plans for death panels, killing off the elderly and/or taking away health care.

Tell me where, other than Fox News, World Nut Daily, or some other right wing whacko site of corporatist lies that cites exactly where the Dem party or the White House has Death Panels or killing off the elderly planned..
I have no idea why you are so angry. However, it's ignorant of you to say that I must be believing lies from Fox news concerning death panels and killing off of the elderly. You know nothing about me so why do you presume I heard something and believed it? Isn't it possible that I actually listened to/read all of the evidence and formed my own opinion?

The truth is, yes, this plan will lead to something that people have started calling "death panels." It's common sense and a logical conclusion. If the government is paying for health care and there comes a time when there isn't enough money to go around, they will, of necessity have to limit the treatments they provide. Now, the very people who drew up this legislation and are advising President Obama on health care have written and have said numerous times that it makes more sense to deny treatment to people who have less to give back to society than those who have a full life ahead of them and are likely to contribute more. I didn't have to make that up or have Fox news tell me what it means. It's pretty easy to understand. It's also easy to understand that this means, once again by necessity, that some sort of group (a panel of "experts" perhaps) will have to be the ones that make the decisions about who gets health care and who doesn't. If those people buy into the same thinking that the current administration and its officials subscribe to then they will logically deny benefits to elderly people or disabled people and give it to those who can contribute more to society. That's completely logical. I didn't need anyone to tell me to reach that conclusion.

Although, I must point out that I NEVER claimed that anyone was going to "kill off the elderly." That's your interpretation, not mine.

Surely you jest by using mainstream media to point out how I'm somehow wrong... Even Obama would admit that the media practically works for the administration. Of course they dispute what the other side says.

I mean, you denounce me for using information from a news source or sources and you call anyone who prints or says the same thing I'm saying a "right wingnut 'Deather'" or a "right wing whacko" then you try to use media (or as some might say, left wing nuts) to prove your point. In an intelligent argument you can't refute all the opposition's sources as being unreliable and then claim that all of yours are correct - that's a one sided argument - I'm always wrong and you're always right.

I still have no idea where you get that Bush had people with "anti-war t-shirts jailed for peaceful anti-war protests against him." I'm sure you probably picked that up from one of your "always right" media organizations and then didn't bother to do any research on your own to find out of that's really true.

You are not going to change my mind with your ignorant and spiteful arguments. Please go away and stop wasting my time.

There is no evidence to support what you just said.

It is the democratic congress members who are accusing their constituents of being "un-american" and "evil mongers" for wanting to voice their opposition to the proposed legislation of their representatives.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Your arguments are absurd and you are ridiculous. Seriously, you sound like a liberal spokesperson. If we aren't for Obama's liberal health care "reform" then we MUST be evil, greedy, capitalists who want to see the sick and poor die a horrible death for lack of medical care... Get real.

The socialist countries you use as examples and our own socialized examples of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all horrible failures. Even those countries are now saying their health care plans aren't sustainable. Medicare and Medicaid are on a short trip to bankruptcy and the fraud rate is astronomical. To use those as examples of success shows your ignorance of the subject.

Besides, who ever said that our current health care system doesn't have problems? I never claimed that. That doesn't mean I think we need to nationalize it and run every single insurance company out of business so the government can use my tax dollars to care for illegal immigrants who have colds.

You're incapable of actually participating in a logical argument. The "death panels" and elderly euthanization isn't exactly my idea of obscene lies. Rather, they are the logical conclusion any sane person would reach after reading the health care "reform" bill and reading the writings of people like Rahm Emmanuel's brother and other administration insiders who have previously and publicly voiced support for such measures.

Are you even a real person? Is this some kind of joke? Are you and Adnihilo one and the same?

This article DOES NOT compare the health care reform itself with anything the Nazis did. It compares the White House program to monitor American citizens’ speech opposing Obama's health care policies with Nazi policies which also sought to limit opposition.

You spent four minutes researching your comment but you couldn't spend two minutes actually reading the article? Don't be stupid.