Not Healthcare, but rationed care...

[Gilby]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007250152,00.html

Coming soon to America?

[john_childs]

I hope American healthcare doesn't end up like that. Fears of a system ending up like that is what killed Hillary's (errr Clinton's) attempt at a national healthcare plan.

But we do need something. Our current healthcare system is broken and based on an old way of life. A way of life where you would go to work for a company like IBM or GM and know that you had a job for life. You'd know that the pension plan there would support you and provide you healthcare after retirement. That way of life no longer exists. People are more mobile. Jobs are more short term and have no guarantees like the old days.

Our current system is based on providing healthcare as an employment benefit. That is the wrong way to go about it. Employers are not who you want controlling your healthcare plans. Every time you change jobs you are faced with selecting a new healthcare plan and getting approved in that plan. God help you if you have a pre-existing condition or some other condition that puts you in what they consider a high risk group. You may find yourself unable to get insurance at all when you need it most. Then once you retire or decide to work on your own you are even more SOL.

We need something different. I looked at Obama's healthcare plan (http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=obama%20healthcare) and was unimpressed. It does not address or solve the fundamental problems. I don't see how his plan would improve the situation at all other than giving him a talkingpoint for the election.

I need to look at what the other candidates are proposing. It will be interesting to see what Giuliani proposes for healthcare reform.

Here's a story from a local TV news station:
Individual Health Care Coverage Hard To Get, Expensive (http://www.kirotv.com/consumer/13422729/detail.html?taf=sea)
Health insurance can eat up much of your household budget, especially if you are forced to find an individual policy.

And for some people, getting individual health care coverage can be complicated -- and expensive.

Here and across the country, insurance companies are looking for reasons not to insure single applicants.

With all her other financial obligations, Dawn Sparrow of King County says she simply couldn't afford an individual health insurance policy.

"If I get hurt or something, basically I'm screwed," she said.

If you don't work for a company that offers health insurance, you can face a double whammy: individual policies are expensive, and even if you have the money, you may be denied coverage.

Jeffery Miles is a former head of the Associates of Health Underwriters.

"The individual market is one of the few markets where a company can basically pick and choose who they want to take, cherry-pick the applicants, if you will," he said.

Around the turn of this century, insurance companies refused to issue individual health insurance policies in Washington State, saying they were too costly.

Then in 2000, the legislature passed a bill that allows insurance companies to reject 8 percent of their highest-risk applicants.

That brought the companies back to the market, but drove those high-risk applicants to a more expensive state-funded policy.

We've found that's a trend across the country.

Dr. Bryan Liang has studied the insurance industry for more than a decade.

"Here is an individual application."

"Have you ever had a headache? Have you ever had an infection? Have you ever had muscle pain?

"Muscle pain. That can be worked against you," Liang said.

Scott Svonkin of Los Angeles is an active 41-year-old. He figured he'd be one of the chosen few.

But he figured wrong -- three different times.

"Blue Shield, Blue Cross and Pacificare all rejected me. One was because my son Sam was about to be born. One was because of asthma. One referred to a spider bite."

In our state, the Washington State Health Insurance Pool offers coverage to those people who fail to qualify for individual insurance through an insurance company.

However, the State Insurance Commissioner admits those state polices are much more expensive than the ones offered by the insurance companies.
The current system is broken.

[Gilby]

Lasik is cheaper now. Cosmetic surgery is cheaper now. Why is that? Because it's a free market. Competition and new technologies bring prices down. The government stuck it's head in everything else so those things covered by insurance are more expensive.

In yesterday's debate, I think Giuliani mentioned something like what Bush's proposal was. But Giuliani is a loser. He's still stuck on the idea that terrorists hate us because we allow women to have rights and are apparently free.

More bureaucracy is not going to fix the problems bureaucracy caused.

[underdog]

Yup. Health care in this country is seriously broken. There'll be no easy answer to fix it and likely we'll never get a workable solution that will benifit those who really need affordable care. Not as long as the very profitable medical companies and insurance companies are all in bed together with the lawmakers. The only reform that's likely to get passed will be to the financial benifit of the aforementioned parties.:(

[MuniAddict]

Yup. Health care in this country is seriously broken. There'll be no easy answer to fix it and likely we'll never get a workable solution that will benifit those who really need affordable care. Not as long as the very profitable medical companies and insurance companies are all in bed together with the lawmakers. The only reform that's likely to get passed will be to the financial benifit of the aforementioned parties.:(Just say you're an illegal alien and you'll get free health care...pay no tax, and be rewarded in all kinds of ways for breaking the law! :D

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Just say you're an illegal alien and you'll get free health care...pay no tax, and be rewarded in all kinds of ways for breaking the law! :D

Their getting free health care has nothing to do with their being illegal. It has to do with their being poor. If you make 3 bucks an hour you can have your emergency room bills erased too :D

We need some sort of social health care though so that hospitals don't have to absorb those costs and pass them on to everyone else using the hospital.

There is certainly some sort of solution out there were everyone would be able to get the care they need without it having a debilitating financial impact on any individual or family.

[MuniAddict]

Their getting free health care has nothing to do with their being illegal. It has to do with their being poor. If you make 3 bucks an hour you can have your emergency room bills erased too :D

We need some sort of social health care though so that hospitals don't have to absorb those costs and pass them on to everyone else using the hospital.

There is certainly some sort of solution out there were everyone would be able to get the care they need without it having a debilitating financial impact on any individual or family.Yes true and I forgot to mention, although it's already evident, that we pay for all that 'free" healthcare through our taxes.

[john_childs]

Yes true and I forgot to mention, although it's already evident, that we pay for all that 'free" healthcare through our taxes.
Not only in taxes but also higher costs for healthcare as the hospitals write off debts from those who can't pay or offer discounts on the cost of care so they at least get some money, and that all ends up raising the cost of healthcare insurance for everyone else.

Are you able to get affordable healthcare insurance as someone who ones their own business? Are you going to be able to continue to get affordable insurance after you retire? Those can be expensive options for those who work their own business and aren't a part of a larger healthcare pool plan.

[Gilby]

We need some sort of social health care though so that hospitals don't have to absorb those costs and pass them on to everyone else using the hospital.

So it should be passed through the government? I would think doing it at the hospital level would make it cheaper instead of sending the money through a heavy bureaucratic system where all the special interests take a cut. As the saying goes, if you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until you see the costs when it is free.

There is certainly some sort of solution out there were everyone would be able to get the care they need without it having a debilitating financial impact on any individual or family.

It's called charity for the very poor. Others can get insurance to cover the costly unexpected cases. If the individual is buying the insurance instead of the employer, the customer will be more price conscious, bring competition, and lower the prices.

It worked before, back when the government wasn't messing with the health care system.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

It's called charity for the very poor. Others can get insurance to cover the costly unexpected cases. If the individual is buying the insurance instead of the employer, the customer will be more price conscious, bring competition, and lower the prices.


Not exactly. Someone making minimum wage who has a pre-existing condition such as diabetes, can not get insurance. If they can even find a company to insure them, they won't be able to afford the premiums.

No one should ever have to make the decision between food and medicine.

[Gilby]

Not exactly. Someone making minimum wage who has a pre-existing condition such as diabetes, can not get insurance. If they can even find a company to insure them, they won't be able to afford the premiums.

No one should ever have to make the decision between food and medicine.
Ah, did you miss the word charity? Have you ever wondered why many hospitals carry a religious-like name? They used to be charities.

Have you ever given to charity? Done a unicycle ride for charity or something? I know, it may be hard for socialists (er... liberals? progressives? whatever you call yourselves these days) to consider charity, as they are in the habit of stealing money from others for these programs.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Ah, did you miss the word charity? Have you ever wondered why many hospitals carry a religious-like name? They used to be charities.


If there was enough charity to cover the medical expenses of those that could not afford it there wouldn't be a problem with the healthcare system and these discussions wouldn't even be happening. So relying on charity as part of a solution to the problem just doesn't cut it.

[Gilby]

If there was enough charity to cover the medical expenses of those that could not afford it there wouldn't be a problem with the healthcare system and these discussions wouldn't even be happening. So relying on charity as part of a solution to the problem just doesn't cut it. You have to get the government out of the meddling they have done which has resulted in the high prices. Then charity can go further.

Further, reduce the taxation and inflation that the government's meddling has done and the people have more money to give to charity. Instead, we get robbed so much by the government that people can't afford the healthcare or to give to charities.

Half the labor every person spends is to pay to the government in taxes. And what do we get for that? They break everything they touch. They give us endless warfare and take away the one thing the government is supposed to protect, our liberty.

[MuniAddict]

They give us endless warfare and take away the one thing the government is supposed to protect, our liberty.Fyi, the average percentage of the US *entire* gross national product (GDP) spent on our [entire] military is UNDER 4%! That's less than HALF the 10% of Saudi Arabia's military budget! The US ranks 26th in terms of Military expenditure, which I found surprising! So overall, while it seems astronomically high, we spend less then FOUR PERCENT of our GDP (annually) on the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

[Gilby]

GDP is meaningless. It includes the value of rebuilding something after destroying it. Bomb something, and rebuild it... no new wealth is created. Make a person sick, and sell them the cure... no new wealth.

Military spending is about 25% of the US revenue. Most the rest is for debt payments to those that make money out of nothing, and then medicare/social security. And that's using the cash based accounting, not the GAAP that the fed requires of corporations. Using GAAP, the federal deficit is $4.2 trillion and the national debt is over $50 trillion.

Yikes!

No wonder why they are inflating the money supply at mid 1970s levels and actual inflation now is over 10%. The world is getting skeptical of the dollar, and it'll take just one country to start dumping their reserves of it for us to see the dollar boom go bust, like all government created booms.

[Gilby]

Ron Paul says it well, about health care, in this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgRUBlNd6fE&mode=user&search=

[MuniAddict]

GDP is meaningless. It includes the value of rebuilding something after destroying it. Bomb something, and rebuild it... no new wealth is created. Make a person sick, and sell them the cure... no new wealth.

Military spending is about 25% of the US revenue. Most the rest is for debt payments to those that make money out of nothing, and then medicare/social security. And that's using the cash based accounting, not the GAAP that the fed requires of corporations. Using GAAP, the federal deficit is $4.2 trillion and the national debt is over $50 trillion.

Yikes!

No wonder why they are inflating the money supply at mid 1970s levels and actual inflation now is over 10%. The world is getting skeptical of the dollar, and it'll take just one country to start dumping their reserves of it for us to see the dollar boom go bust, like all government created booms.Where did you get that "25%" figure?

[lostconch]

Ron Paul says it well, about health care, in this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgRUBlNd6fE&mode=user&search=

I watched it,, pretty good interview with an accurate description of the problem,, but like everyone else purposefully vague on the solution,, though his idea of basically to start the ball rolling in another direction is better than nothing..

Personally,, I think all of the issues of "sucking off the government tit" as a way of life boil down to a need for a change in 2 major areas 1)how our nation votes for our representatives and 2) how we as productive citizens pay our taxes,,

Voting is priveledge not a right..I think the general rule of thumb should be that if you are not a contributor to our society the priveledge of the vote should not be yours,, we are basically at the point of no return NOW,, our society is at the 50% mark of people who in some way are dependant on the government beyond the general need for national security,, they're votes go to the politicians who promise the most $$ to them that come from other peoples pockets,, you start an exponentially growing problem that started with 90% supporting 10%, 70 supporting 30, right now it is 50 supporting 50,, Very soon it will be 40 supporting 60 and no incentive to be in the 40 and things will go down hill even faster than they have for the past 40 years

Taxes,, it is so obvious that this country has to go to The Fair Tax (a national consumption tax),, We are already set up to do it with the way states collect taxes,, There is no downside to it except that it moves the $$ power out of Washington and puts it back into the hands of the people,, Why won't it happen?? Because right now the socially liberal and the uneducated, apathetic and what have you done for me lately crowd vote together,, It has become what I think is an obvious majority in this country and will never be overcome at this point

[Gilby]

Where did you get that "25%" figure? irs.gov and treas.gov. Revenue is about $2.4 trillion. Millitary spending is about $600 billion. Hmmm.... it's probably higher than that though. That's just military spending and might not include the waste before the military gets the funds and does not include veterans and other after effects of war. I think it's around 22 cents per dollar that the IRS wastes before the money gets to the departments.

And I thought you'd question me on my inflation figures, as it differs from the underreported official CPIs (think hamburger replacing steak in their CPI). Using the same CPI methods of the early 80s, gives us the 10% inflation. The fed has incentive to underreport it because they have so many expenses based on it, such as social security, and of course it gives the fiction of the government and economy doing well.


I think all of the issues of "sucking off the government tit" as a way of life boil down to a need for a change in 2 major areas 1)how our nation votes for our representatives and 2) how we as productive citizens pay our taxes,,
Instant runoff voting, and/or what I'd like is to group all the reps in the state to not have geographical districts, but to have each candidate get X number of supporters to be on the ballot, and then take the top Y number of candidates to be the reps. Both would put an end to the two party duopoly.

Voting is priveledge not a right..I think the general rule of thumb should be that if you are not a contributor to our society the priveledge of the vote should not be yours,,
No. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people. That's the only purpose. We need to get back to that purpose. Your inalienable rights are to life, liberty and property, among others. Government can't take your property and you owe nothing to the state, for those basic protections.

Taxes,, it is so obvious that this country has to go to The Fair Tax (a national consumption tax),, We are already set up to do it with the way states collect taxes,, There is no downside to it except that it moves the $$ power out of Washington and puts it back into the hands of the people,,
Nope. The money still goes to Washington. Money is still accessible to special interests. It's revenue neutral for them. All it changes is the efficiency of the theft of the money from the people. Good in that respect, but it still doesn't solve the problem.

The income tax as it's being applied is not constitutional. Ron Paul advocates eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing. No FairTax. The facts are that the only taxation allowed by the constitution is to tax the states directly (per capita), tax imports/duties, and tax the incomes of government chartered entities. Right now the government has first dibs on the fruits of your own labor, all of it, if they want. They have the guns to enforce it. What does that make you? A slave.

The legal situation is that they created a government chartered entity, a trust, with you as the trustee. The trust has the same name as you, and is distinguished from all other entities with the same name by giving it a unique number. The socialist insecurity number (SSN). As the trustee, you hold a card, which clearly states on it that it belongs not to you, but to the SSA. You also hold other assets for this trust. Anytime you use that name and number in a contract, the contract is with the trust, not you. Apply for a job with that name and SSN, it's not you who got the job, it's the trust. If you perform for the trust, they don't care as long as the contract is being complied with. Buy a home with that name and SSN, the home belongs to the trust. Open a bank account with the name and SSN, the account and it's contents belong to the trust. Buy anything with the money in those accounts, the purchased asset belongs to the trust. I'd recommend never using your SSN for any job or when opening a financial account. Then the fruits of your labor belong to you, not the trust, and the assets in your bank accounts belong to you. For now, yes, comply with the income tax, because they have the guns and your efforts to change the system are better spent outside of gitmo or jail. If you really want to not pay taxes, you need to do a lot of studying and the government is usually a step ahead and will highly scrutinize your every move. Yes, war is peace, slavery is freedom...

Maybe we should've listened to Nostradamus, er, I mean Thomas Jefferson, when he said:
The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.
Like all fascist societies, they give the people just enough to not start a revolution and oust them. The tides are turning and like all empires, they will eventually collapse. Who knows what the outcome will be then.

[underdog]

Interesting discourse but, bringing this thread a little more back on the healthcare track, here's an interesting tidbit for digestion;

My wife works for a local hospital that is an official not for profit organization. In their annual report for this past fiscal year thier 'profit' was $17 million. I'm not sure where that money's going but it was paid for, primarily by the insurance premiums of the patients. I don't know if this is a typical profit margin for a hospital but it seems to me that they're overcharging by a good bit in the name of making up for losses imposed by the indigent population who also uses the hospital services. These 'losses' are also the reason that insurance premiums continue to rise to the tune of double digits, annually. So that's two entities who are compensating for those poor people who can't afford medical bills by overcharging. Add to that the doctors and other specialists who provide services to the hospitals and we're getting tripple billed. Pisses me off !! When was the last time you saw a doctor driving a beat up 20 year old Ford station wagon or heard of a health insurance company in financial trouble? They're all making money hand over fist and we're the ones paying the bill.:mad: I'm not against the health care system having to compensate for indigent patients, they deserve decent heathcare too, but when some (insurance company or hospital) CEO is walking away with a multi-million dollar annual bonus on top if it, I get a wee bit upset.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Voting is priveledge not a right..I think the general rule of thumb should be that if you are not a contributor to our society the priveledge of the vote should not be yours

Wow, you are a wacko.

Let's strip any semblance of power from the HAVE NOTS and give it all to the HAVES, they certainly know what's best for everyone.

[Gilby]

Wow, you are a wacko.

Let's strip any semblance of power from the HAVE NOTS and give it all to the HAVES, they certainly know what's best for everyone. Your position is just as bad. Prefering a system where one can vote for a living instead of working for a living... Those who vote for a living feed off the welfare state and provide little real productivity to society because they have little incentive to do so. Government opresses the people in that way, and then for the working by taking half the fruits of their labor. This oppression has caused many families to be required to have both parents working to make ends meet, in addition to meddling with the market and increasing the prices in the market.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Your position is just as bad. Prefering a system where one can vote for a living instead of working for a living... Those who vote for a living feed off the welfare state and provide little real productivity to society because they have little incentive to do so. Government opresses the people in that way, and then for the working by taking half the fruits of their labor. This oppression has caused many families to be required to have both parents working to make ends meet, in addition to meddling with the market and increasing the prices in the market.

You're extrapolating my "position" simply from the fact that I feel that the HAVES should not have ALL the power in government?

Giving only the HAVES voting power is exactly the Aristocratic principles that the founding fathers were trying to break away from. It has nothing to do with welfare states or the like.

Wealth and power are built on the backs of the poor.

[Gilby]

You're extrapolating my "position" simply from the fact that I feel that the HAVES should not have ALL the power in government?

No, your position was a socialist form of health care, as well as other socialist leanings.

Wealth and power are built on the backs of the poor. In a socialist or fascist society, such as we have in the US, that is correct. Government is the use of force. When the wealth and power is concentrated within the government, only a limited few can get the benefits of that wealth and power. Limited government means that the power remains with the people, and you have economic freedom and social freedom. You have the power to pursue happiness. You have the power to enjoy the fruits of your labor. You have the power to choose what you do on your own or with other consenting adults. The only purpose of government is to ensure that someone else does not infringe your rights and to provide justice when when someone does.

I came across this video today that is a good explanation of the differences between the political leanings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZh0IdXSiPk

[MuniAddict]

No, your position was a socialist form of health care, as well as other socialist leanings.

In a socialist or fascist society, such as we have in the US, that is correct. Government is the use of force. When the wealth and power is concentrated within the government, only a limited few can get the benefits of that wealth and power. Limited government means that the power remains with the people, and you have economic freedom and social freedom. You have the power to pursue happiness. You have the power to enjoy the fruits of your labor. You have the power to choose what you do on your own or with other consenting adults. The only purpose of government is to ensure that someone else does not infringe your rights and to provide justice when when someone does.

Unless your statement was tongue & cheek, with all due respect I find your statements above to be beyond naive and ill-informed, and if the far leftist fringe had their way, we would be living in a socialist, communistic society here in the US.

[Gilby]

Unless your statement was tongue & cheek, with all due respect I find your statements above to be beyond naive and ill-informed, and if the far leftist fringe had their way, we would be living in a socialist, communistic society here in the US.
Is totalitarian better for you? The facts are that right now, with the Bush administration, we are very close to the fascist part of the political spectrum. With a democratic administration, we'd move very close to the socialist part. Combine these two, and we are moving closer and closer to the totalitarian part. I personally don't think a socialist or fascist society lasts very long and it jumps right to totalitarian very quickly. A few battle it out for authoritarian and absolute power. Eventually a totalitarian government collapses and we get a brief moment of anarchy, followed hopefully by a libertarian government. In the 1930s, we went towards socialism, which prolonged the depression.

The US is an empire. We have to conquer foreign lands to prop up our economy. Our dollar bills derive its value from the monopoly we had on its exclusive use for oil, with our guns pointed at them to ensure this, and the demand for it in paying taxes, since that's the only thing they accept. Foreign countries had demand for it because they needed oil. This resulted in us exporting slips of paper (or digital records now) in exchange for goods. Good for us economically until they no longer want our paper fiat money. Iraq started accepting Euros in 2000, and you know what happened there. Iran started to do so not too long ago... See any connection?

[MuniAddict]

Is totalitarian better for you? The facts are that right now, with the Bush administration, we are very close to the fascist part of the political spectrum. With a democratic administration, we'd move very close to the socialist part. Combine these two, and we are moving closer and closer to the totalitarian part. I personally don't think a socialist or fascist society lasts very long and it jumps right to totalitarian very quickly. A few battle it out for authoritarian and absolute power. Eventually a totalitarian government collapses and we get a brief moment of anarchy, followed hopefully by a libertarian government. In the 1930s, we went towards socialism, which prolonged the depression.

The US is an empire. We have to conquer foreign lands to prop up our economy. Our dollar bills derive its value from the monopoly we had on its exclusive use for oil, with our guns pointed at them to ensure this, and the demand for it in paying taxes, since that's the only thing they accept. Foreign countries had demand for it because they needed oil. This resulted in us exporting slips of paper (or digital records now) in exchange for goods. Good for us economically until they no longer want our paper fiat money. Iraq started accepting Euros in 2000, and you know what happened there. Iran started to do so not too long ago... See any connection?If you hold those beliefs, than I'll never convince you otherwise. And no, I see no connection between Iran and the US. Live there for a while than come back and tell me if you see a difference. As an American, do you feel free to pursue happiness? I do/have/am. Have you been denied any constitutional rights; rights that are non-exsitent in other countries such as Iran, where you asked if I saw a "connection?"I haven't. Ever.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The connection he was pointing to was not about quality of life in those countries but rather that when they started selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar we started using might and threats of aggression against those countries.

[MuniAddict]

The connection he was pointing to was not about quality of life in those countries but rather that when they started selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar we started using might and threats of aggression against those countries.What were those "mights and agressions" exactly, and who specifically made those "threats". Can you post a non-partisan link that verifies your assertions with cold hard facts, not theory, or speculation? I will admit that my opinion has changed with regard to GWB, and I nowadays I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

What were those "mights and agressions" exactly, and who specifically made those "threats". Can you post a non-partisan link that verifies your assertions with cold hard facts, not theory, or speculation?

On March 20, 2003. Our president said to Saddam Husseien something along the lines of "Step down or we will attack you". The next day we invaded the Sovereign nation of Iraq. If you need reference that either of those things happened you can look them up yourself.

There is also certain proof that middle Eastern countries sold oil in non-US countries around that same time.

You are right of course in the fact that linking those two things IS nothing more than speculation.

However also to say that the oil/currency thing was not taken at all into consideration when the decisions were made about said aggressive actions would simply be naive.

[MuniAddict]

On March 20, 2003. Our president said to Saddam Husseien something along the lines of "Step down or we will attack you". The next day we invaded the Sovereign nation of Iraq. If you need reference that either of those things happened you can look them up yourself.

There is also certain proof that middle Eastern countries sold oil in non-US countries around that same time.

You are right of course in the fact that linking those two things IS nothing more than speculation.

However also to say that the oil/currency thing was not taken at all into consideration when the decisions were made about said aggressive actions would simply be naive.Tuesday, June 29, 2004. Iraq becomes a sovereign nation once more. It ceratinly was *not* a sovereign nation under the brutal, murderous dictatorship of hussein!

[ThisGuyIKnow]

It ceratinly was *not* a [/SIZE]sovereign nation under the brutal, murderous dictatorship of hussein!

If that is what you believe you do not understand the meaning of the word sovereign (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sovereign).

[MuniAddict]

If that is what you believe you do not understand the meaning of the word sovereign (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sovereign).Sure I do. Read ALL the definitions, especially #9. —Synonyms 1. emperor, empress, potentate. 3. government. 5. regal, majestic, imperial, princely, monarchical, kingly, queenly. 7. chief, paramount, principal, predominant. 10. effective, effectual. None of those synonyms applied to that mass-murderer. Well, maybe #10; he was "effective" at slaughtering millions of his own people.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Sure I do. Read ALL the definitions, especially #9. —Synonyms 1. emperor, empress, potentate. 3. government. 5. regal, majestic, imperial, princely, monarchical, kingly, queenly. 7. chief, paramount, principal, predominant. 10. effective, effectual. None of those synonyms applied to that mass-murderer. Well, maybe #10; he was "effective" at slaughtering millions of his own people.

We are referring to how the word refers to nations, not how it refers to Royalty.

Read further down.
American Heritage Dictionary
adj.

1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state

or farther down:

WorldNet
adjective
1. (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state"


The nation of Iraq was a self-governing, independent state not controlled by outside forces. Yes, it was governed by a guy who had some rather brutal tactics to keep some semblance of order, but it was a sovereign nation. Now Iraq is an occupied state. A country who is occupied by the army of another nation is NOT sovereign.

[BluntRM]

Ha. I thought we were arguing about healthcare.


Edit: Then again why shouldn't this war permeate every discussion... systemically, it's interconnected.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Ha. I thought we were arguing about healthcare.

Not arguing, discussing.

I was just trying to clarify what Gilby was trying to explain, but Terry took issue with the word sovereign to describe the pre-occupation Iraq.

The power and use of words to effect meaning sure is incredible.

[MuniAddict]

We are referring to how the word refers to nations, not how it refers to Royalty.

Read further down.
American Heritage Dictionary
adj.

1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state

or farther down:

WorldNet
adjective
1. (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state"


The nation of Iraq was a self-governing, independent state not controlled by outside forces. Yes, it was governed by a guy who had some rather brutal tactics to keep some semblance of order, but it was a sovereign nation. Now Iraq is an occupied state. A country who is occupied by the army of another nation is NOT sovereign.We removed a murderous madman who was paying $25,000 to suicide bombers families, used WMD on his own people, rape rooms, unspeakable torture and on and on. He spit in our faces and laughed at the 17 resolutions that he ignored. Yes, It was a GOOD thing that we removed him. A larger % of Iraqis voted in the elections that followed, than vote in our own country!

The problem was/is, there was no exit stradegy, and Iran and Syria keep sending suicide murderers into Iraq as insurgents. The intial removal of that scumbag Hussein was a good thing, but everything after that has been mishandled and has become increasingly more difficult to contain. If the Iraqis can't step in SOON and fend for themselves, I think we should start pulling out, even though that would be a win for the terrorists big time as they would take over iraq and if you think it's bad now, just wait 'till we leave, and the job unfinished. But again, the irqai people MUST be able to take care of themselves or all the intervention from us and others will be of no lasting consequence. that's reality.

[Gilby]

If you hold those beliefs, than I'll never convince you otherwise. And no, I see no connection between Iran and the US. Live there for a while than come back and tell me if you see a difference. As an American, do you feel free to pursue happiness? I do/have/am. Have you been denied any constitutional rights; rights that are non-exsitent in other countries such as Iran, where you asked if I saw a "connection?"I haven't. Ever.
Iran had a democratically elected government before 1953. The US, along with the British, overthrew their government in 1953, and installed our favored government. We gave BP control of the oil, taking it away from the Iranians. Comparing ourself to Iran, when our own government's actions have played a significant role in the freedoms they don't have, is pretty meaningless.

BTW, there is no such thing as constitutional rights. We have the rights, and the constitution is intended to secure them for us. Yes, many of our rights are being infringed by the organization that was supposed to secure them for us. Definitely it could be worse, but it's definitely not a free country. Our government has first dibs on our property. They have infringed on our right to privacy, and have invaded it without a warrant or due process. They have hindered our right to freely exercise religion. They have hindered our right to peacefully assemble. They have ignored our requests for a redress of grievances. They have hindered our ability to bear arms and have an effective militia. They have defined every citizen to be an enemy to the US. They have taken our property without just compensation. They have convicted us to be criminals, with the same entity being the judge and plaintiff. They have denied our right to counsel that are not officers of the court. They have hindered our ability to be tried under common law. They have ignored the constitution, when convenient. We have to ask our government for permission for many of the things that are inalienable rights.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004. Iraq becomes a sovereign nation once more. It ceratinly was *not* a sovereign nation under the brutal, murderous dictatorship of hussein!
I think the word you're looking for is democratic, not sovereign. That's what we've been told by our untrustworthy government, but none-the-less, we occupy the country, therefore they are not sovereign. We installed the government and we have a lot of political control and especially, control of their oil. Was Hussein really that bad in comparison to our murderous actions against the Iraqis? Before 1996, we killed over half a million of them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8), children. Probably a lot between 1996 and 2003. Then since the war began, the US has killed much more of them (http://www.google.com/search?q=iraqi+death+toll). It's estimated that Saddam killed 1.4 million people, in the wars he started and other actions. We gave Saddam much power and many weapons which enabled his later actions. Has the US actually killed more than he did? Would it have been better for us to just have a foreign policy of non-intervention and allow the people of the middle eastern nations to overthrow their own governments? And especially, leave Israel alone to fend for themselves.