Discussion: Healthcare

[Kelly]

This is true....but I was thinking more of the 2000 election and the take over by the Supreme Court...

 

[dnno1]

And the checks and balance of the 3 branches is a farce.

There is no checks and balances when one side controls 2/3 of the branches.

This is true....but I was thinking more of the 2000 election and the take over by the Supreme Court...

Truth be it known is that that election could have been overturned in Congress if there is an objection to the electoral college ballots by a member of the House and Senate that has been accepted after debate in Congress.

 

[StorminNorman]

Go back and read my post. I said that there are three branches of government that provide a check and balance on the decision making of the Federal government. What you just posted is not what I said. The representatives from each State comprise the Federal government. They debate in congress to determine Federal law, and the business of government.

But that's not how the Constitution was meant to work. The issue of Federalism was not separation of power amongst various Federal Branches but separation of power between Federal and State governments.

Representatives elected by district for Federal Office are not the same as representatives from State Governments.

My meaning of Federalism is the fact that our government and it's legislature is made up of representatives and people from each of the States. That by definition is what federalism is and even though Senators have been elected by the citizens of their respective states, they still represent the people of that State and it does not change the meaning nor the concept of federalism.

Except that the concerns when the Constitution was written was about the protection of the sovereignty of the states. Try reading the Anti-Federalist Papers sometimes. The Constitution as ratified was the creation of battle between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Groups and as such it is important to understand the arguments of both.

Once again you are misconstruing my words. I said certainly the Federal government has the authority to build and improve interstate roads since the Constitution gives them that authority (this was my implication). So long as they can justify its purpose to provide for the common defense and/or promote the general welfare (common good) then they have the authority to use taxpayer dollars to persue a project (such as an interstate highway system that was championed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower). This authority is officially granted once debated and finalized by legislation in Congress. It is not necessary to amend the Constitution to do so since that same document allows them to make laws to "Execute their foregoing powers" (see the last paragraph of Article I, Section 8 - in this case, the foregoing powers would be to regulate/govern interstate commerce as well as provide a strategic highway system for the military to defend the nation ). Thus the Federal government has not exceeded it's powers, else the laws that were made to pursue the project would have been struck down by the SCOTUS.

Again, when all the Federal Government needs to justify their actions is acting in the "General Welfare" or "Common Good", and it is the Federal Government that gets to decide what is in the "General Welfare" or "Common Good" you have a government that poses a grave threat to individual liberties and which history shows typically ends in tyranny.

Politicians and government should always be looked at with the eyes of a skeptic, to give such broad brush ability to any government body is naive, foolish and demonstrates an ignorance of human nature, human history and political science.

That's just it. They didn't need to ban the sale of alcohol. The Constitutional amendment to ban sales of the substance was brought on by pressures from the Temperance Movement. As it turns out alcohol is regulated as interstate commerce just as any other products is. Now of course there are States and counties that do ban the sale of alcohol, but that is their prerogative.

But they did when the Temperance Movement came to be. The obnoxious growth of the Federal Government by FDR is what allowed the Federal government to regulate alcohol.

It is fundamentally immoral for the government to ban the sale of alcohol, as it is immoral for the government to ban marijuana and any other drugs. Of course it's much harder to use a rights argument in a political discussion due simply to how little influence the Enlightenment has on contemporary political scientists (and wannabe political scientists).

In this case there already is a Federal law governing marijuana (see the Controlled Substance Act). Although California has legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, the Federal government does not recognize this law and has prosecuted persons for its possession and cultivation.

And the Federal Government, Constitutionally, has no right for such a law. The Constitution does not anywhere state where the Federal Government can decide what may or may not be sold WITHIN STATE BORDERS.

Enough to know that you have misinterpreted it for your own convenience.

LOLz

You asked how I could justify HCR being a Constitutionally proper use of power and I said it was according to the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses that this law is valid. Those clauses have nothing to do with policy, but rather about the powers that the Federal government has.

Again, you don't want to go around boasting about the General Welfare clause because it demonstrates your lack of knowledge in the area. The General Welfare clause does not allow the Federal Government to create policy based off of it but justifies the Federal Government's ability to tax citizens (which is why the General Welfare Clause is a Clause to the Powers of Tax) the Interstate Commerce Clause is not valid either because you are not allowed to buy Health Insurance across State lines in this plan.

If HCR is Constitutionally proper due to the Interstate Commerce clause, then any policy the Federal Government would ever enact is proper.

But in this case it is and has been since 1913.

Of course we'll ignore the fact that the 1910's was a decade of Constitutional tragedy due to the outright fascist Wilsonian policy.

 

[chaseter]

Truth be it known is that that election could have been overturned in Congress if there is an objection to the electoral college ballots by a member of the House and Senate that has been accepted after debate in Congress.

Why would a Democratic congress overturn the election of a Democratic president

 

[dnno1]

Why would a Democratic congress overturn the election of a Democratic president

It doesn't sound likely, but all it takes is for 1 person in the house to object and a single senator to concur to bring the objecton to debate in both houses. This was done in 2004 over the Ohio electoral votes, although the outcome did not prove. That being said, there was a time in our history when the Congress did pick the president.

 

[dnno1]

But that's not how the Constitution was meant to work. The issue of Federalism was not separation of power amongst various Federal Branches but separation of power between Federal and State governments.

Representatives elected by district for Federal Office are not the same as representatives from State Governments.

I did not say that, I said that the three branches of goverment allow for the checks and balances and the three braches are comprised of a ferderation of representatives from various (if not each of the) states. This is allowed for by the Constituion so you really can't say that this is not the way it was meant to work either.

Except that the concerns when the Constitution was written was about the protection of the sovereignty of the states. Try reading the Anti-Federalist Papers sometimes. The Constitution as ratified was the creation of battle between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Groups and as such it is important to understand the arguments of both.

What does that matter when the state is being represented by someone elected by the people of that state? Furthermore, the Constitution allows for it self to be ammended (see Article V), so it must mean that irrespective of what the framers feelings were about the Constitution or it's intent, they themselves were open to allowing the document and its meaning to change.

Again, when all the Federal Government needs to justify their actions is acting in the "General Welfare" or "Common Good", and it is the Federal Government that gets to decide what is in the "General Welfare" or "Common Good" you have a government that poses a grave threat to individual liberties and which history shows typically ends in tyranny.

Politicians and government should always be looked at with the eyes of a skeptic, to give such broad brush ability to any government body is naive, foolish and demonstrates an ignorance of human nature, human history and political science.

A lot of the decisions made by the Federal government is reactive. They respond to a problem that is already out there in society. They respond to recomendations and requests from normal citizens of this country. To act tyrannically as you say would mean that they would be acting oppressively and that is doubtful if the actions were for the common good. It is not like the goverment speaks in one voice, since it is comprised of many who are supposed to speak in favor of their constituents. I still don't see how that is tyranny and I think you are quite mistaken and misinformed.

But they did when the Temperance Movement came to be. The obnoxious growth of the Federal Government by FDR is what allowed the Federal government to regulate alcohol.

The Temperance Movement had been in existence more almost 150 years before the 18th Amendement was adopted.

It is fundamentally immoral for the government to ban the sale of alcohol, as it is immoral for the government to ban marijuana and any other drugs. Of course it's much harder to use a rights argument in a political discussion due simply to how little influence the Enlightenment has on contemporary political scientists (and wannabe political scientists).

That is a matter of opinion. Those who were in the Temperance Movement felt that alcohol was injurious to your physical and phycological health. To tell you the truth if there were scientific evidence linking alcohol to major health problems in humans, they would certainly prohibit its use not ulike the way they have been treating tobacco over the last 40 years.

And the Federal Government, Constitutionally, has no right for such a law. The Constitution does not anywhere state where the Federal Government can decide what may or may not be sold WITHIN STATE BORDERS.



LOLz

This just prooves how much you don't know about the Constitution. The law you claim to be unconstitutional is the Controled Substances Act of 1970. This law was found to be Constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2005 (see Gonzales v. Raich). The CSA is in direct compliance with international treaties through the World Healt Organization (see the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances). Per Article VI of the Constitution, this would make the CSA supreme.

Again, you don't want to go around boasting about the General Welfare clause because it demonstrates your lack of knowledge in the area. The General Welfare clause does not allow the Federal Government to create policy based off of it but justifies the Federal Government's ability to tax citizens (which is why the General Welfare Clause is a Clause to the Powers of Tax) the Interstate Commerce Clause is not valid either because you are not allowed to buy Health Insurance across State lines in this plan.

Under HCR, citizens will have to pay a fine (i.e. a tax) if they fail to proove that they have adequate health care. That is justified under the General Welafare clause (I am pretty sure I said that before). Furthermore, HCR under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a law not policy. I don't know where you get off trying to call it that. The Interstate Commerce Clause is in effect because many of the health insurers and health care providers operate and do business accross state lines (leaving them subject to federal regulation).

If HCR is Constitutionally proper due to the Interstate Commerce clause, then any policy the Federal Government would ever enact is proper.

If a State can regulate it's own domestic commerce in a manner that does not interfere with interstate commerce, then they are within their right to do so. In any case, if the type of commerce is national in character (like health care and health insurance is) then the power of Congress to regulate it is absolute or even exclusive (see this link).

Of course we'll ignore the fact that the 1910's was a decade of Constitutional tragedy due to the outright fascist Wilsonian policy.

I don't know what that had to do with giving people an incentive (through legislation not policy) to buy a home, but, like I was trying to say before, the mortgage intrest deduction has been in place since 1913.

 

[BlackLantern]

all this disect a quote is really killing the vibe here....all this comes down to is dnno is getting something HE personally wants from the government and that's all that matters to him

he can throw out Constitution this and common good that, but it all comes down to getting what HE wants and screw the rest of us

 

[dnno1]

all this disect a quote is really killing the vibe here....all this comes down to is dnno is getting something HE personally wants from the government and that's all that matters to him

he can throw out Constitution this and common good that, but it all comes down to getting what HE wants and screw the rest of us

Actually, the way I look at it is that there are a lot of services that the governemtn offers everyone. I just try to take advanatage of them as applicable to me (Social Security, Medicare, the motagage intrest deduction, Library of Congres, access to free statistics and data, you get the idea). You certainly could do the same, but you refuse (which I find kind of foolish).

 

[BlackLantern]

pardon me if I don't want to participate in a healthcare program that is going to provide a substandard level of care and insufficiently trained medical care

my doctors office is considering going to direct billing because they know once this new plan kicks in, they aren't going to get paid

a few offices here in CT have already done so

 

[The Interpreter]

Of course we'll ignore the fact that the 1910's was a decade of Constitutional tragedy due to the outright fascist Wilsonian policy.

Did you really just make the statement that women having the right to vote is a tragedy? I'm pretty sure this was also the decade which pushed state senators to be voted in by the population vote rather than the legislation vote, as well as giving them term limits and setting the number of senators per state at two. (This might have been actually made earlier, or later than the 1910's, I'm not 100% sure) And this one WAS a good one, because it prevented problems like NOT having any senators, which sometimes happened in the 1800's.

Though, I'm sort of with you on the whole 16th amendment.

But what I'm saying is, if any decade deserved to be called a "constitutional tragedy", it was the 20's with Prohibition.

pardon me if I don't want to participate in a healthcare program that is going to provide a substandard level of care and insufficiently trained medical care

my doctors office is considering going to direct billing because they know once this new plan kicks in, they aren't going to get paid

a few offices here in CT have already done so

The "substandard level of care" in several countries with such proposed health care sort of beats seven shades of doodoo out of the American health care system currently. No clue about you guys, but I'm into living for a long time.

Seriously, Costa Rica and Chile have better health care systems than the US according to WHO last time they got around to making a list.

 

[BlackLantern]

I (and most Americans) would much prefer a privately run doctors office...properly trained doctors and a high quality level of care

 

[The Interpreter]

Most Americans also don't really understand HOW public health care really works. No offense to my fellow Americans. They sort of just hear, "It's a communist plot to give you health care like they get in Uruguay," and they go on about thinking that other countries with public health care systems are the same. This is generally backed by some story about how people have to wait hours in line behind immigrants from another country, are on some form of lottery program, and/or are constantly refused for treatment due to how bad they're sick/injured. And, in some countries, I'm absolutely sure that is how it works. In most developed countries with a public health option, such is not the case. Generally this is a horrible blanket statement, and really just throws out the much more complex systems other countries use to treat many different cases so people don't go broke. For instance, in some countries, the sicker you become, the less you pay. If you have bronchitis, the government sort of expects you to buck up and pay your way for meds, like they do here somewhat (with the impact reduced by insurance you pay by paycheck or month). If you have a cancer of the brain though, and you require prolonged dragged out treatments and surgeries that will be more expensive than you can afford, the government then steps in to make sure you're not 2 million dollars in debt when all is said and done.

The wait thing is sort of true for Canada and England though. For special type care, they do end up waiting a bit longer based on the type of care needed. However, this wait isn't really all that significant.

Uruguay was an example. Their health care system is actually sort of like ours in the idea they have both public and private hospitals, and ways to get health insurance. Which is either through the private hospitals or through private insurance companies, both of which charge you far out the rearside. But their country is much more poor than ours, so it is not really comparable.

 

[BlackLantern]

your point being?

 

[Kelly]

Did you really just make the statement that women having the right to vote is a tragedy? I'm pretty sure this was also the decade which pushed state senators to be voted in by the population vote rather than the legislation vote, as well as giving them term limits and setting the number of senators per state at two. (This might have been actually made earlier, or later than the 1910's, I'm not 100% sure) And this one WAS a good one, because it prevented problems like NOT having any senators, which sometimes happened in the 1800's.

Though, I'm sort of with you on the whole 16th amendment.

But what I'm saying is, if any decade deserved to be called a "constitutional tragedy", it was the 20's with Prohibition.



The "substandard level of care" in several countries with such proposed health care sort of beats seven shades of doodoo out of the American health care system currently. No clue about you guys, but I'm into living for a long time.

Seriously, Costa Rica and Chile have better health care systems than the US according to WHO last time they got around to making a list.

The WHO rankings are a farce....

YES, we have problems with our healthcare system, there is nothing to dispute there....that is a fact. But most of the information in the WHO ranking is imputed...which makes the rankings unreliable.

Example.....one of the major statistics used in this ranking is "Life Expectancy"...well there are many things that go into this statistic other than Health Care System. Just the fact that we have about 10x the homicide rate than say...the UK, of which has nothing to do with our Health Care system, makes a difference, yet that is not taken into consideration.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

These types of things are not in that ranking, and that is just "one" example.

 

[BlackLantern]

yea...Im with Kel, the WHO, much like the UN, looks down their nose at the US in any regard

 

[The Interpreter]

My point being most Americans aren't really qualified to be entering into the health care debate in terms of public health care is substandard or not.

Though, to be perfectly fair, I don't really find them at fault. Far as we know and have always been told, we've been getting the most excellent health care for years, even if it's not true.

 

[BlackLantern]

but public health care is substandard, as proven by many doctors offices who don't accept medicare or medicaid because the government doesn't pay out for those patients....so it trickles down to a lesser quality of physician because all the good ones only deal with private insurance

 

[Kelly]

My point being most Americans aren't really qualified to be entering into the health care debate in terms of public health care is substandard or not.

Though, to be perfectly fair, I don't really find them at fault. Far as we know and have always been told, we've been getting the most excellent health care for years, even if it's not true.

Well, hell you could probably say that about many of the debates here. Also, I don't think ANYONE here thinks we have the "most excellent health care" system. I think many are like myself. We know there are many problems, but we do not think that a total overhaul was needed. As for myself, I have no problems AT THIS MOMENT with the changes because honestly I have no idea how these changes will impact me as of yet. BUT, I do believe that strong tort reform should have been a part of this....my 2 biggies for this reform were...

1. Tort reform (solid, strong tort reform, not lip service)
2. Able to cross state lines for competition within insurance companies.

I think another problem people have is......IF WE ARE NOT "qualified" as you say to debate the issue, what makes you think our legislature is?

 

[The Interpreter]

The WHO rankings are a farce....

YES, we have problems with our healthcare system, there is nothing to dispute there....that is a fact. But most of the information in the WHO ranking is imputed...which makes the rankings unreliable.

The WHO does no longer make a list due to the large level of difficulty in making one. They generally seemed to have based it mostly on preventable deaths, and actual deaths. And then tried to scale it by income of an entire country and overall population. It's a pretty daunting task, and I'm more than positive some of their numbers aren't exactly on the ball. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they're a total hack job farce.

yea...Im with Kel, the WHO, much like the UN, looks down their nose at the US in any regard

Bro, seriously? The UN and the WHO harbor a deep seated conspiracy to make the US look bad? I'm sure the UN is no friend of ours the past decade, but I doubt they go out of their way to support us in one thing like talks with other countries about nuclear programs, and then as a collective, give a petty attempt at saying our healthcare is lesser than other countries just to spite us. I doubt that many countries will even work together for that. I also doubt they have secret hall meetings where they make lists like these, and say, "Wait a minute, America is on top. Well... wee can't have that. Bust 'em down about 30 spots." This whole healthcare statistic was believed well before America just stopped doing things the UN's way when it wanted to.

While I'm positively sure many countries aren't jumping in line to be our friend, I also doubt they're so petty to just blatantly falsify results to such an extreme degree, and then submit them for peer review. I'm comfortable with saying the UN isn't our friends. I'm comfortable with saying the WHO probably disagrees with our methods as well. I'm generally not comfortable with saying that they group up on the weekends, and enact dastardly plans to discredit us at things like this.

 

[BlackLantern]

it certainly does.....off topic, but look at the Olympics, theyve eliminated sports and events that the US has dominated at simply due to anti US sentiment

the international community feels its their place to show the US its "place" on the world stage

 

[Kelly]

The WHO does no longer make a list due to the large level of difficulty in making one. They generally seemed to have based it mostly on preventable deaths, and actual deaths. And then tried to scale it by income of an entire country and overall population. It's a pretty daunting task, and I'm more than positive some of their numbers aren't exactly on the ball. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they're a total hack job farce.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I do think that it is a "hack job farce" with motives that have nothing to do with the betterment of our world, as I think with many of the UN initiatives. I will legitimately say that I am not a big proponent of ANYTHING that the UN does. I think that there are many within the organization that have clean, simple motives of helping people....but I do not believe that of those that make the decisions, and put the "facts" out there.

Bro, seriously? The UN and the WHO harbor a deep seated conspiracy to make the US look bad? I'm sure the UN is no friend of ours the past decade, but I doubt they go out of their way to support us in one thing like talks with other countries about nuclear programs, and then as a collective, give a petty attempt at saying our healthcare is lesser than other countries just to spite us. I doubt that many countries will even work together for that. I also doubt they have secret hall meetings where they make lists like these, and say, "Wait a minute, America is on top. Well... wee can't have that. Bust 'em down about 30 spots." This whole healthcare statistic was believed well before America just stopped doing things the UN's way when it wanted to.

While I'm positively sure many countries aren't jumping in line to be our friend, I also doubt they're so petty to just blatantly falsify results to such an extreme degree, and then submit them for peer review. I'm comfortable with saying the UN isn't our friends. I'm comfortable with saying the WHO probably disagrees with our methods as well. I'm generally not comfortable with saying that they group up on the weekends, and enact dastardly plans to discredit us at things like this.

I don't know that the UN has this "stick it to the US" mentality as a whole, but I have friends that work/have worked in the UN, and YES, to your face as a UN/US worker they are all smiles, but they will stab you in the back in seconds.....and that is a well known thought process among US workers within the UN. They know that is the framework that they have to work in.

 

[The Interpreter]

but public health care is substandard, as proven by many doctors offices who don't accept medicare or medicaid because the government doesn't pay out for those patients....so it trickles down to a lesser quality of physician because all the good ones only deal with private insurance

That doesn't prove the public option is substandard at all. That really just proves it is really more of a medicare and medicaid issue. Not so much a public option overhaul issue. And that is driven quite a bit by private company lobbying. I'll agree that our Medicare/Medicaid system definitely requires an overhaul.

Well, hell you could probably say that about many of the debates here. Also, I don't think ANYONE here thinks we have the "most excellent health care" system. I think many are like myself. We know there are many problems, but we do not think that a total overhaul was needed. As for myself, I have no problems AT THIS MOMENT with the changes because honestly I have no idea how these changes will impact me as of yet. BUT, I do believe that strong tort reform should have been a part of this....my 2 biggies for this reform were...

1. Tort reform (solid, strong tort reform, not lip service)
2. Able to cross state lines for competition within insurance companies.

I think another problem people have is......IF WE ARE NOT "qualified" as you say to debate the issue, what makes you think our legislature is?

I would agree with a strong tort reform. That would definitely be a very good step in the right direction. It's proven effective in a few states including Texas (even if Texas still pays quite a bit for health care anyway than many other states) in reducing the costs by an amount people can actually see.

And I will definitely agree, high five, crack a beer, and paint my face to the legislature part. I mean, it's obvious the actual legislature body doesn't directly give health care, but they do decide on it. And for the most part, I don't think they're really all that educated in the matter as well. I honestly think most politicians out there are more or less content with simply repeating a hard line to gather votes for themselves to maintain their jobs. They don't completely read bills, do not completely subjugate themselves to the matter of the information, and almost NEVER seem to take the advice of professionals within the field. I wouldn't assign this blame strictly towards liberals or conservatives, because one is literally just as bad as the other at this.

My grandfather used to say, "Never trust people who wave their arms too much, or politicians. They're just looking for attention." Whether it's true or not, I kind of agree with it.

 

[The Interpreter]

it certainly does.....off topic, but look at the Olympics, theyve eliminated sports and events that the US has dominated at simply due to anti US sentiment

the international community feels its their place to show the US its "place" on the world stage

Most of the sports eliminated were due to lack of funding by bigger corporations, or the belief they weren't really as enduring sports like swimming or running. Pistol duels on scarecrows with targets wasn't considered as relevant as some of the other sports. Nor was bowling, cricket, jumping in place, ballooning, golf, baseball, and many others which are more or less deemed a financial pit and not as athletic as some of the ones that remain. The Olympics have to make sure by their sponsors to actually generate buzz. Those sports aren't really well watched on the Olympic program, and only have so much time to do all the games. Also, some of them were just dangerous like holding your breath for a long time, and one armed weight lifting.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I do think that it is a "hack job farce" with motives that have nothing to do with the betterment of our world, as I think with many of the UN initiatives. I will legitimately say that I am not a big proponent of ANYTHING that the UN does. I think that there are many within the organization that have clean, simple motives of helping people....but I do not believe that of those that make the decisions, and put the "facts" out there.




I don't know that the UN has this "stick it to the US" mentality as a whole, but I have friends that work/have worked in the UN, and YES, to your face as a UN/US worker they are all smiles, but they will stab you in the back in seconds.....and that is a well known thought process among US workers within the UN. They know that is the framework that they have to work in.

I definitely agree that people within the UN are just as likely to smile at you as they are to stab you in the back. But I'm sure that applies to pretty much ALL countries within the UN. The US might have a slightly bigger target on their back, I would agree. But I still do not think that they, or the WHO, even if they secretly hated Americans with every fiber of their being, would actually pump out a report with the data for the entire world to see and upon review say, "Wait a minute..." I'd actually think they'd be more prone to simply NOT reporting on something as part of a bias. Like, say, the tort reform. If America underwent a nationwide comprehensive tort reform, and saved 50 billion dollars and improved the health of the nation, while insuring more people, I'd just see the WHO simply not reporting on it as a method of slant against America, if such was their aim.

 

[BlackLantern]

Most of the sports eliminated were due to lack of funding by bigger corporations, or the belief they weren't really as enduring sports like swimming or running. Pistol duels on scarecrows with targets wasn't considered as relevant as some of the other sports. Nor was bowling, cricket, jumping in place, ballooning, golf, baseball, and many others which are more or less deemed a financial pit and not as athletic as some of the ones that remain. The Olympics have to make sure by their sponsors to actually generate buzz. Those sports aren't really well watched on the Olympic program, and only have so much time to do all the games. Also, some of them were just dangerous like holding your breath for a long time, and one armed weight lifting.

do you even pay attention to sports?? both baseball and womens softball were eliminated due to anti US sentiment on the Olympic committee....people who supported these sports (not just US officials) weren't even allowed to make their case, even after being told they would be heard

so it was nothing as dangerous as "holding your breath" or "one armed weight lifting"

 

[The Interpreter]

do you even pay attention to sports?? both baseball and womens softball were eliminated due to anti US sentiment on the Olympic committee....people who supported these sports (not just US officials) weren't even allowed to make their case, even after being told they would be heard

so it was nothing as dangerous as "holding your breath" or "one armed weight lifting"

I do, and it really wasn't nearly as black and white and extreme as you put it. Both sports lost out barely, with softball needing only one vote to make it to the second vote. A large part of that was belief that baseball professionals would not put their season on hold for the Olympics, which is sort of almost absolutely necessary. Neither sport is as big, or as well watched as Basketball or Soccer.

You could look at it from the time side. The Olympics last for only two weeks, and is packed with sports. Sometimes sports don't make it in for several reasons. And it generally isn't because, "Those pigs in America like it." And for the record, baseball and softball are recognized sports by the Olympics, they were simply not put into the games formal.

Or, you can look at it from the financial side. The Olympics is a brand name that sells things. They spend no money on the actual hosting, but rake in all the profits.

The fact of the matter is, and I've said it before, I'm sure many countries aren't the biggest fans of America, but I doubt they really go out of their way collectively and in secret to spite America in games they also want to play.