Zach's right

This is the best one ever. I love your work.

Zack Wamp has made an employment career out of running for office. I have asked this question and never recieve and answer, if he were not running for office and had to get a real job, what would this man do for a living? His current office selection is more about sustainability in his employment.

Rep. Wamp voted for prescriptions for Medicare, and then opposed a measure to extend medical insurance insurance for children. Of course, children do not have the strongest lobby in Washington, called AARP. Both groups should have healthcare. However, the actions speak louder than words, and always rise to a level of self preservation.

Rep. Wamp should not receive a full salary from the public as a representative, while he runs for governor. How much representation will the tax payers are receiving while he works on his employment strategies?

But it was alright for The One to run for Prez and draw his full Senate salary for TWO YEARS?

Chastise the one, chastise all. Let's not have a double standard here.

Rep Wamp's vote for Medicare and against the extension to cover children was the correct one. Medicare was not designed for those under 65. Rep Wamp recognized that and voted accordingly.

A new plan should have been drawn up to cover unensured children...one that requires only those listing children as dependents on their income tax to pay for the childrens' policy. Everyone pays for MediCare because everyone is supposedly eligible for it...so it is tit for tat.

No one should draw a public salary while running for office, period. You betcha, not even the prez. It is just fundementally flawed.

Rolando, the greatest number of people over 72 drawing Medicare are spouse dependents that never paid one dime into the Medicare system. Medical care is like education, everyone needs it as a matter of quality of life.

This one is good.

I saw this interview the other day on MSNBC. Wamp was disgraceful. After incessantly rambling on about socialism for awhile, Zach came to the startling conclusion that healthcare was not a right, but a privilege. He went on to say that many people decide not to take advantage of health insurance, so any hardship they endure is of their own choosing.

You can see the whole embarrassing interview here: http://tinyurl.com/arwqdm

Rep.Wamp is an East Tn repub. This country has a small fraction wealthy who benefited big-time the past 8 yrs. and the rest depended on what trickled down. Repubs use the disguise of "moral values" and "tax and spend democrats" to snooker enough of the non-wealthy to keep them in power. There was a multi-trillion dollar debt when GW Bush left office, and now they cry Obama is going to break us. Look around, we are nearly broke. They now want to continue wealty tax cuts(which helped get us where we are), when FDR-type jobs stimulus actions are necessary to get our economy out of the ditch.

But they are over the age minimum, aae1049. Much like Social Security, only the amount the husband pays in matters; the wife draws on his. I suppose she continues to pay in, as he did. [Talk about unfair; my wife paid more into SS than I did yet her SS annuity when I am gone will be based on my payments. I have no idea how same-sex marriage works for this; I probably don't want to know.]

This is not a question of everyone NEEDING medical care but who PAYS for it. We are NOT our brothers' keeper in all things. Penalize the ants long enough and they will become grasshoppers...and why not if everything is "free"?

Ah, the ol' grasshopper and ant metaphor. Not bad, Rolando.

The only problem with the comparison is that in the Aesop fable, the grasshopper is lazy by choice. In the real world, you have industrious, hard working men and women who don't make enough money to afford the insurance their employers offer, but make too much money to be covered under Medicaid. So, they go without.

Of course, when they do need medical attention, it could put them in a financial hole they might never escape.

It's the same old argument used against welfare- if you give handouts of people down on their luck, they might not ever do anything to change their luck. That's just not true. According to the U.S. government, the majority of welfare recipients stay on welfare an average of only two years.

That would lead me to believe that recipients are using welfare in the way it was intended

To go on the assumption that anyone, by nature, would want to be a burden to anyone else, is to deny human nature. Those who make those assumptions might be revealing more about their own nature than anyone else's.

The tried and true usually work best, toonfan. Those "ants" [working low-skill McJobs or WalMart part time, no doubt] made a choice somewhere along the line. As it turned out, probably not a good choice.

Those welfare handouts that cause the problems are NOT the ones for those "down on their luck" -- welfare was designed and created to help THEM for the short-term. No, it is the essentially permanent welfare checks now given to those multi-generation moochers and healthy baby-making deadbeats that cause all the problems. But then those groups can get free medical care anyway and are not the subject of the article or your post. I digress.

Funny how so many "cannot afford" health insurance folks still manage with new[er] cars, trucks, big TVs, alcohol, cigarettes, $100 tennis shoes/designer clothes, 3000 calorie/day fast foods, payments of 1/3 their salary to live in a big house, etc.

It was, and still is, a matter of being an ant and working within your income or being a grasshopper and directly or indirectly living off others.

You crack me up, Rolando.

Every argument you make is completely anecdotal. Is your whole view of the world based on the twisted caricatures you've concocted in you head?

People do make bad choices. But sometimes people are just dealt a bad hand. And it's no wonder, when society keeps dealing from a stacked deck. Life is not fair. I think even you'll agree with that. Anything we can do to even out the odds, is good for all of us- even those who may not directly benefit.

You really need to wean yourself from the ultra-liberal MSNBC, OllieH. At least seek a balance...please. TFP is a good start, provided you read both sides. But I digress [again].

Rep Wamp is correct when asserting there is NO right to free medical care; what we DO have is a right to the PURSUIT of free medical care or happiness or whatever. Life here does NOT come with a guarantee of anything but the ability to search and to use God-given skills...and the brain.

Living at the expense of others not willing to pay that expense is certainly NOT a right. I wouldn't even call it a privilege. What it is is an insult to both the payer and the payee -- the latter because it is a tacit admission by the gov't that the payee cannot make it on his/her own -- ever -- but must have preferential or special treatment the rest of his/her life to compete with other people.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So tell me, how can we have an unalienable right to life, without the right to health care?

It seems to me, that if it's incumbent on the government to provide free and accessible health care to the worst among us (state and federal prisoners), then it's not unreasonable to expect that the government provide the same to the best of us- the hard working tax paying citizens.

You create, sponsor and support the victim mentality, toonfan...or is that another of my anecdotes? Here's another -- Some people have the misfortune of being born outside the US and live their whole life outside of Paradise.

Of course life is unfair. Never said it wasn't. Never even implied it wasn't.

If you think taking from the producers [the ants] and giving to the leeches [the grasshoppers] is a good thing, you should be at Obama's right hand and able to enjoy the benefits and privileges of that position while supporting him. For even in HIS utopia, some are more equal than others and therefor more deserving of the good things in life -- Walter Reed type medical care, for instance.

Or is that yet another anecdote?

Rolando-

If someone is lying in a ditch, bleeding to death, is it an insult for someone to render assistance, or is that a tacit admission that the person in the ditch cannot make it on their own?

So go commit a crime, get arrested, and get all that free medical care, is that your advice? Evidently so.

At least you would give a choice.

It is NOT incumbent upon the government to provide anything along those lines, toonfan. There are no such guarantees; laws or judicial legislation, perhaps, but not guarantees.

Again, one may pursue free health care but it is NOT guaranteed...not yet, anyway. The courts have yet to become involved in the legislative effort.

Off subject-

This morning's Sunday New York Times published Clay Bennett's cartoon on Rush Limbaugh from earlier this week.

He's been getting in the Sunday Times quite often lately. I've seen three of his cartoons reprinted there in the past month, or so.

Way to go, Mr. Bennett!

That is a matter for each person to answer within their own conscience, OllieH. It is NOT something to be made law. "All men are created equal", right?

Incidentally, doctors, medics, and [increasingly] military members are no long touching with bare hands anyone bleeding. So, thanks to AIDS, your question might be answered a bit differently than you hoped.

"Healthcare is a privelege", especially for those who are insured while working for government, schools, hospitals, military and veterans and large corporations. These folks are usually the ones who oppose even basic health care for the unemployed, underemployed or uninsurable. How hypocritical, uncaring and plain doggish? Have we gotten so low that our material possesions are more important than our neighbors' basic health needs? This mighty and proud country is sinking fast, especially when the most of the free world has addressed this issue long ago.

Name one program the Government runs well? Do you really want them overseeing Healthcare? The system is flawed but the answer is not the Federal Government.

Also, let's do away with Golden Parachutes for the Congress, Senate, and the President whenever they leave the country in a mess. Why should they care about fixing anything? They have it made for life. The best retirement and benefits in the world. They ridicule Wall Street and they are more pathetic.

How fun, the back and forth with OllieH and Rolando. Clearly, OllieH you won this debate!!

It is a matter of looking at the common good of all, verses the individual. I for one, want every child and person in this country to have access to education and medical care. If that is being a liberal, then I guess that I am.

Name a government program that's run well?

OK, how about the police department, the fire department, water & sewer, interstate highway construction and maintenance? How about the US Military, US customs, or the Federal Aviation Administration? Maybe, unemployment compensation, Medicare, or Medicaid. Perhaps the US Court system, the correctional system, the FBI, CIA and NSA? What about the Parks Service, the environmental protection agency, or public schools and universities.

Shall I go on? Because I can.

Anyone of us in this discussion could haggle over the effectiveness or efficiency of any one of the governmental programs I listed above, but few of us could imagine the private sector jumping in to perform the same duties. If you think the private sector can do better, you haven't been reading the business section. Free-market capitalism hasn't really proven itself as a paragon of effectiveness lately, has it?

Whether you like it or not, the government is the ONLY answer to some of our most pressing needs. Please, try to get over the knee-jerk insistence that everything the government does is done badly.

Rolando stated, "Incidentally, doctors, medics, and [increasingly] military members are no long touching with bare hands anyone bleeding. So, thanks to AIDS, your question might be answered a bit differently than you hoped."

What does this have to do with ANYTHING?

On second though, Rolando... don't answer that?

Picking up on a point made by OllieH-

Could you imagine calling the police department only to be asked if you're insured for their service? Or, after they come to investigate a burglary, you're told that for a few dollars more, they'll dust for fingerprints? How about calling the Fire Department only to find out that you'll be charged by the gallon for the water they use?

These are two institutions that are responsible for emergency assistance and the protection of our health and safety. Sound familiar? It doesn't sound too dissimilar to EMS and medical workers to me.

How are Hospitals different than police or fire departments? To me, they aren't. Why then is one service privatized and profit-based, while the other two are paid for with our tax dollars?

so if a women doesn't have health care so she doesn't get adequate prenatal care and so she miscarries, is that ok?

Or a woman chooses to have a baby even though she is poor, and the baby doesn't have healthcare so she puts off taking the sick baby to the emergency room, it gets pneumonia and dies, is that ok? or the child gets meningitis and spreads it at school, or the mother gets breast cancer and can't get insurance because it us pre-existing, etc. etc.

What if Terry Shavo didn't have healthcare -they should have just pulled the plug years earlier, right? I mean it is a privilege. Forget that inalienable right to life if you can't afford it.

"And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?"

Zack Wamp is the last person on this planet I want to see holding the highest office in the State of Tennesee. Governor of Tennessee, "I say no-a no-a no" Harold Ford or Sen. Burke would be a much better choice, hopefully, the repub's saved that bunny commercial that will go down as the most racist political ad's post 2000.

If you think medical care is expensive now, wait until the Obamacrats make it "free" for everyone.

Well, Oz and jchamb337, looks like we are overwhelmed by the grasshoppers. That's how it usually is; few providers, lots of "gimmies".

OllieH - That statement was a direct reply to YOUR loaded "Samaritan" posit. The answer, whether you want it or not and thanks to the homosexual lifestyle, is "Not without gloves".

Toonfan - Hospitals are paid to save lives; police have NO duty to save ANYONE's life. I suspect it is the same for the fire dept. Personally, I'll depend on the service I must pay for...or myself when I can. [And that is NOT a slam against our police/firemen, it is merely a fact.]

Humphrey -- If a woman must depend on money from others to have a child, then "Go and sin no more" is the phrase of the day. If she depends on others for her support, she has absolutely NO business getting pregnant. Short of rape, there is NO excuse.

aae1079 -- We are all aware of your concern for children...but then it is always "For the chi-i-i-l-l-dren" isn't it?

We are NOT the world's caretakers. Why should the healthy young pay for the unhealthy who have years of self-destructive, self-abusive, poor lifestyle habits and self-indulgent me-first attitudes and can't keep their hands off unhealthy foods. How many porkers are out there heaping plate after plate full of All-You-Can-Eat buffet food? [It is enough to make one bulimic just thinking of it.]

heres the thing you both are missing, some say the republicans are for the rich, some say the democrats are for the poor, that debate goes on and on, when the truth is many of the richest of rich are democrats while many of the poorest are republicans. The real difference is the republicans talk about morals and ethics while democrats live the talk about morals and ethics. In other words don't tell me you are ethical with a high degree of morals, show me.

Simple enough

Name three government agencies that show a profit, toonfan. Ask any military service what it thinks of the efficiency of another military service.

Military/federal hospitals are well run paragons of virtue? Did you read where Murfreesboro VA Hospital is doing 6,400 free AIDS/HIV blood tests for 6,400 vets because its colonoscopy dept assembled its "probes" incorrectly and they passed "material" from one vet to another? Now THAT is efficiency, right? NOT.

Check out old Route 66/new Interstate in New Mexico to discover how efficient the feds are in building/maintaining roads. And how about all those "bridge's falling down, falling down..." Shall I stop? How about the FAA failing to spot mid-airs in the making due to overworked Controllers? They do a great job keeping the bird-strikes down...

Government is the primary cause of the burst housing bubble and the consequent domino effect on Wall Street...it stuck its nose in the mortgage lending business and gave its usual unthoughtout orders to give loans to anybody and everybody. It has no business in the banking industry.

What would be sufficient proof of morals/ethics, thatguy? I raised three great kids who show theirs daily...taught through example. They are passing them on to theirs using the same method...

But then I am an avowed Republican and a recovering Democrat.

Rolando- The way you're flailing around for comebacks, makes me think you've lost the battle of wits. Your bumper sticker debating style leaves much to be desired.

I'll take on your recent arguments, (weak) point by (weak) point, though:

• The homosexual lifestyle did not create AIDS anymore than intravenous drug use did. Bringing that subject into the debate was the height of misdirection. Try to stay on point, if you're able.

• If you truly think that police officers and fire fighters have no duty to save lives, why then, do they risk their own lives to do just that. A fire fighter doesn't rush into a burning building to save the furniture.

• Someone receiving government assistance has 'no excuse' to conceive a child? What would be the punishment- sterilized her, or just turn her out on the street? Perhaps someone who harbors such twisted views of the world should not be allowed to conceive a child.

• In your response to aae1079, you disgraced yourself more than I ever could, so, I needn't reply.

• You're summation, of course, makes it sound as though all personal hardships are a product of someone's own bad decisions. Again, a ridiculous, and quite callous, conclusion. I suppose if you're going to turn your back on those in need, such a rationalization might make it easier to look at yourself in a mirror.

Rolando, you are a hoot!

You betcha, it is all about children, children, children. Please never stop sending in responses, Rolando, your input just reaffirms my liberal, equal rights, baby boomer, registered, active voting, opinioned, self.

Glad to help, aae...

Do you think the same neocon who put the tv commercials on when Corker trashed Harold Ford with the blonde saying "call me Harold" could do a number with a nice babe saying "call me Zach" ?

As do all liberals, OllieH, you ultimately fell back on your final defensive position when unable to silence someone with opinions differing from yours -- Attack the individual.

So much for free discussion, huh?

Rollondough- you fit right in with the new Reagan (Nancy) GOP - "just say NO!" Where were you the last 8 years ? bobbing and weaving and changing the subject, I'm sure.

Looks like the meteor missed one of the dinosaurs.

So, Rolando, how does it feel to have your life judged by someone who doesn't even know you? How do you like being dissected, to have you motivations questioned, and you're ethics demeaned by a complete stranger? How do you like being called names by a guy that doesn't even know your name?

The only difference between you and me, is that you judge strangers by their situations, create some caricature of them, and then blame their hardships on their own bad decisions. I, on the other hand, judge you by your words and ideas.

So, actually, I have a lot more to go on than you do.

Respectfully, Ollie

Please do not be mean to Rolando, we need his perspective, but never in an elected capacity, unless he will try to unseat Curtis Adams.

Now someone find that darn bunny commercial (Call me Zack) for a little dem reckoning in his race for gov.

Liberals have been trying to shut people up and keep them from publishing truth or even a simple difference of opinion for decades, OllieH. That's one of the reasons the last Democrat President I voted for was JFK.

You flatter yourself in thinking you are producing something new.

Our discussion is over on this thread...name-calling and personal attacks against strangers or anyone else in disagreement are not conducive to adult debate; they produce only negative results.

Obama often does that very thing...need I point to his attacks on Rush? Really positive and uniting, aren't they? Not. [He could take a page from Bush on that one.]

See you on the next thread.

With equal respect -- rolando

I stir up -- not trouble, aae -- but thought. Or I try to. It generally takes a four-foot steel pry bar to get through to some folks. But other viewpoints are important. Your posts are interesting; I usually gain insight while reading them.

Times have definitely changed since my family-raising day...but I expected nothing else. Time and tide stop for no man, etc, etc. Keeping a flexible yet logical mind and thinking outside the box without drinking someone's kool-aid is not an easy thing, actually...drinking it and NOT thinking is easy. I have ALWAYS taken the lesser traveled road.

The US government pays 46% of medical bills on a per capita basis. At that per capita dollar amount most industrialized nations cover nearly 100% of their nation's medical costs!

We spend $2500 more per person, per year, on healthcare...

Yet, among OECD Members, only Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czeck Rebublic have lower life expectancies.

We also rank very poorly on amendable death (deaths due to lack of primary care).

Only one country in the OECD has a worse infant mortality rate than the United States.

While we can debate what contributes to these low rankings, I do think we have a right to expect better health care.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield may be a not for profit, but they DO make a profit. It's not a zero sum game. That money is not given as a rebate for patients. For others like United Health, that is a very profitable stock. Where do their profits go? To investors, of course. Who pays the price? Doctors and patients....

I'm not saying we should eliminate private insurance. However, basic needs should be provided by a government plan. If you want to buy supplemental, then by all means get it. But I don't think we should force people to become unproductive members of society before they can receive government sponsored health care.

Of course one thing that makes health care so expensive is the different rates paid by different people. For now, I do like the idea that people can join a group, such as a Church or a neighborhood and buy insurance together to negotiate a better price.

Oh Rolando, don't flatter yourself. You're just as quick to drink the kool-aid as we are, you just go for a different flavor.

Hey everybody you gotta love good old * Zacky Wampster *.