jeff f
New Member
dude, you are completely killing them. this beatdown is fucking hilarious. two thumbs up!!
And the Majority of America takes a SIGH of relief!
- Thread starter lopezri
- Start date
jeff f
New Member
ouch motherfucker. now you are really taken it to em. awesome!! keep the uppercuts coming their fucking great.
what is your profession?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I submit there can be two simultaneous arguments. One of statutory law and one of natural law. I tend to disagree with statutory laws that violate natural law. Intutitively many others do too. However they tend not to be as consistent as they could be.
The problems with allowing states unlimited province over individuals are the same as allowing the Feds province over the states. It is just a difference of scale. If it is wrong (by natural law) for a Federal government to dictate to States, shouldn't it be wrong for States to dictate to municipalities and municipalities to individuals? Why is trading a large master for a smaller one a benefit?
The problems with allowing states unlimited province over individuals are the same as allowing the Feds province over the states. It is just a difference of scale. If it is wrong (by natural law) for a Federal government to dictate to States, shouldn't it be wrong for States to dictate to municipalities and municipalities to individuals? Why is trading a large master for a smaller one a benefit?
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
it was fear of the large central government that the founders sought to remedy. The constitution is a union of states and the document is concerned with the limitations on the central government. States have constitutions that address the relationship between the state and counties and cities, and they are free to amend them.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
"This campaign is all about getting people to understand the frightening reality of the massive federal debt," said EPI Executive Director Richard Berman. "People do not realize what it will take for our country to get out from under a $12 trillion debt when the government is expected to be adding over $1 trillion in new budget deficits each year. Last year, all of the government's tax revenue was used to cover Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a few other entitlement programs. Funding for everything else, from the Department of Defense to the National Park Service, went onto the nation's credit card. We're even borrowing to pay the $500 million in daily interest payments we owe on the debt. How insane is that?"Good for you guys.
But question, what has been passed that makes washington so out of control?
Besides maybe the stimulus package that consisted mostly of tax cuts to the majority of americans?
Berman continued, "America's current level of spending is unsustainable. The country has never before been in such a precarious financial position where we are so indebted to foreign governments. The government must defeat the debt now, or we will live to regret it."
The Senate just had to raise the legal allowable national debt ceiling to $12.4 trillion to cover all the borrowing this tax and spend gov't is doing.
How much do we owe the Chinese for the stimulus package which includes gems like a 13-foot tunnel under U.S. Rte. 27 in Lake Jackson, Fla., -- you might call it the Turtle Tunnel because it primarily designed for turtles that are frequently killed as they cross the highway. The cost to taxpayers? $3.4 MILLION!!!!!
That my friend is wasteful spending.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Yup, that you have regurgitated facts that have not been double checked before you believed them. Altoona is in Blair County, and they run the homeless shelter for the area. See you can travel to get to a homeless shelter, you don't just have to have it where the homeless actually are in the street.
Also they can be the hub of a much larger area, so yeah I disagree.
And who do you think did all the work to (do you have the company name that received those lights?) build all those things? Who do you think was able to pay their mortgage and bills that month, because of that spending?
A lot of the economy essentially stopped buying, and the government had to step up and buy our services while we were paralyzed or it may have been a long time before it started back up.
Now when it starts to pick back up (which there are a lot of things pointing to it happening pretty quick) the government should step back and put the money to the building a surplus again. But not in the middle of a meltdown, that would just make things worse.
Jeff:
beyond stupid. and absolutely no clue of how business works. we could educate you buy you wouldnt listen.
yes, you are better off just doing like han....ignore all the people who are telling the truth and what is going on. you may as well b e just like him.....dumb and all
dude, you are completely killing them. this beatdown is fucking hilarious. two thumbs up!!
Do you actually add anything besides noise? I think I found your cheerleading squad captain!
And onto Jonny,
I am sorry if it seemed like I said that, when I wrote this:
I meant that it is equally closed minded to believe that we don't have stuff that we have done that is wrong and needs to be changed as it is to believe that we have nothing to add to what they built with the constitution. I did not mean for it to come off that I was calling you closed-minded.
There are things that even though it forces people to buy things (like auto insurance) or essentially pay for the systems that everyone pays for. And we all pay for healthcare eventually. Or at least we should all pay for our portion, and today it is set up that people can pass off the costs to other people which is wrong in my opinion. And if people understand that by using the fact that we don't all need the care we can just pay a little into the system, instead of some huge chunk when we need it and cannot afford it, the costs will go down for the people responsible.
And like auto insurance helps stop people going into bankruptcy when they wreck their car, health insurance (that fully covers people and does not get denied) will help stop people from doing the same (or just walking out on the bills which is similar right), which means that we have to pay for them either through higher hospital bills, or through taxes paying for their bankruptcy.
And just because we are not going to need to go to the doctors more, we will be just as sick, just as injured, ect as we were 5 years ago, as we will be 5 years from now as a whole society. And when you figure fixing things early is far cheaper and easier than fixing problems when they are so out of hand you end up in the ER, you save money all around.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
It was the 'equally' that threw me off.
You can call me closed-minded all day long for all I care.
The 'equally' indicated to me that you may have thought I initially said the same about you. Hence my rebuttal.
Automobile insurance and health insurance are two separate issues entirely.
The government does not force anyone to own a car. Therefore, mandatory automobile insurance is not the same as the proposed health insurance scheme. My state requires mandatory coverage for automobiles, and there is upwards of a 20% non-compliance rate in my state. The problem of uninsured drivers did not simply vanish with the enactment of the law.
We all pay for health care now. Medicare, Medicaid, and the V.A. are all publicly funded. Medicare is estimated to be flat broke in a matter of years. And Medicaid is riddled with corruption.
The proposed health insurance scheme will only make existing costs skyrocket. Meanwhile research and development of new medical technology will decline. Rationing and long waiting lists will be the eventual result once the government drives the private sector out business. The inevitable result will be a decline in care for everybody. If you don't believe me, ask Robert Reich. He said it first.
The Democrats expect us to pay more for less.
No thanks.
Illegal aliens can look to their home countries for health insurance.
Those eligible for existing programs who choose not to enroll can enroll anytime they wish.
Those who can afford it now, but would rather purchase non-essential items can continue to roll the dice.
That does not leave many from the estimated 46 million currently doing without health insurance.
The U.S. has the best health care in the world. No one is denied health care in this country. Go to any emergency room needing treatment and you will be treated regardless of ability to pay. That's the law.
It's really not the crisis the Democrats ginned up. So they made it about health insurance instead of health care hoping nobody would notice.
We did.
You can call me closed-minded all day long for all I care.
The 'equally' indicated to me that you may have thought I initially said the same about you. Hence my rebuttal.
Automobile insurance and health insurance are two separate issues entirely.
The government does not force anyone to own a car. Therefore, mandatory automobile insurance is not the same as the proposed health insurance scheme. My state requires mandatory coverage for automobiles, and there is upwards of a 20% non-compliance rate in my state. The problem of uninsured drivers did not simply vanish with the enactment of the law.
We all pay for health care now. Medicare, Medicaid, and the V.A. are all publicly funded. Medicare is estimated to be flat broke in a matter of years. And Medicaid is riddled with corruption.
The proposed health insurance scheme will only make existing costs skyrocket. Meanwhile research and development of new medical technology will decline. Rationing and long waiting lists will be the eventual result once the government drives the private sector out business. The inevitable result will be a decline in care for everybody. If you don't believe me, ask Robert Reich. He said it first.
The Democrats expect us to pay more for less.
No thanks.
Illegal aliens can look to their home countries for health insurance.
Those eligible for existing programs who choose not to enroll can enroll anytime they wish.
Those who can afford it now, but would rather purchase non-essential items can continue to roll the dice.
That does not leave many from the estimated 46 million currently doing without health insurance.
The U.S. has the best health care in the world. No one is denied health care in this country. Go to any emergency room needing treatment and you will be treated regardless of ability to pay. That's the law.
It's really not the crisis the Democrats ginned up. So they made it about health insurance instead of health care hoping nobody would notice.
We did.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
One more thing.
Mandatory automobile insurance does not bother me because my state decided it was appropriate. It conforms to the Constitution. It is not Federally mandated.
If I did not like it I would move to New Hampshire.
Mandatory automobile insurance does not bother me because my state decided it was appropriate. It conforms to the Constitution. It is not Federally mandated.
If I did not like it I would move to New Hampshire.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
No problem man, sometimes I am typing one thing, go look up some stuff come back and forget where I left off, so it can be kind of like reading pieces at times, sorry about that.
Here is what I disagree with:
I would argue the point that many people that get ill are able to be booted, and too many do when they get expensive under the old system, that has to stop.
The dice rollers should have their dice taken away, because they are going to cost us money. The ones that make it fine, they are a zero cost to us, but it is the ones that don't make it and use the facilities we all pay for that cost us money, and that should be stopped.
I disagree about 'best healthcare' we do a awesome job, but that is due to us having far more resources than any other country in the world, and it varies from place to place far wider than some more socialized systems like france or norway where people get a very similar level of great care regardless of how wealthy their city is.
And having everyone with insurance will not equal soviet lines like people that pout about this pretend.
Think about the fact if you have a cold, you have insurance do you go to the ER or make an appointment with your doctor? If you cannot get in for a few days, chances are you are better by then and decide not to go. If you decide on the ER, you usually have to wait for a long ass time anyway. It wouldn't stop people from seeking treatment (like you pointed out) it will just lessen the costs by giving people the option of seeking a much less expensive doctor, and not going bankrupt due to insane hospital costs.
Eventually the system doctors have for their patients will alter, and there will be new efficiencies that develop for schedualing, like asking if it is an emergency. Or faster checkups on people that are sick (just thinking off the top of my head here).
As Americans we don't really wait for anything, our time is very valuable, doctors and hospitals will continue to try to attract customers and if you have shitty waiting times you will lose people to others that are more expedient. Hell it is already happening, look no further than wallgreens/CVS/Walmart nurses, this is extremely efficient for things like colds or headaches.
And as far as it being constitutional for everyone to be forced to carry auto insurance because they chose to have a car, should we not look at the fact that eventually everyone ends up in the healthcare system? And with medicare/aid already being forced on everyone, doesn't that mean that it has had to be deemed constitutional at some point to have Americans pay for it? That is more a curiosity than a statement, because again I dare not assume things about the constitution on this website.
Here is what I disagree with:
I am not worried about non citizens, so we can both scratch them off our lists.
I would argue the point that many people that get ill are able to be booted, and too many do when they get expensive under the old system, that has to stop.
The dice rollers should have their dice taken away, because they are going to cost us money. The ones that make it fine, they are a zero cost to us, but it is the ones that don't make it and use the facilities we all pay for that cost us money, and that should be stopped.
I disagree about 'best healthcare' we do a awesome job, but that is due to us having far more resources than any other country in the world, and it varies from place to place far wider than some more socialized systems like france or norway where people get a very similar level of great care regardless of how wealthy their city is.
And having everyone with insurance will not equal soviet lines like people that pout about this pretend.
Think about the fact if you have a cold, you have insurance do you go to the ER or make an appointment with your doctor? If you cannot get in for a few days, chances are you are better by then and decide not to go. If you decide on the ER, you usually have to wait for a long ass time anyway. It wouldn't stop people from seeking treatment (like you pointed out) it will just lessen the costs by giving people the option of seeking a much less expensive doctor, and not going bankrupt due to insane hospital costs.
Eventually the system doctors have for their patients will alter, and there will be new efficiencies that develop for schedualing, like asking if it is an emergency. Or faster checkups on people that are sick (just thinking off the top of my head here).
As Americans we don't really wait for anything, our time is very valuable, doctors and hospitals will continue to try to attract customers and if you have shitty waiting times you will lose people to others that are more expedient. Hell it is already happening, look no further than wallgreens/CVS/Walmart nurses, this is extremely efficient for things like colds or headaches.
And as far as it being constitutional for everyone to be forced to carry auto insurance because they chose to have a car, should we not look at the fact that eventually everyone ends up in the healthcare system? And with medicare/aid already being forced on everyone, doesn't that mean that it has had to be deemed constitutional at some point to have Americans pay for it? That is more a curiosity than a statement, because again I dare not assume things about the constitution on this website.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Under the proposed Democratic scheme, the dice rollers will simply pay the penalty because it will be cheaper than purchasing insurance. If they get sick, the scheme requires an insurance company to pick them up. How will that save money?
Once government seizes control of health care and rationing occurs, Americans will have no choice but to wait. Just like the Drivers license bureau or the county tax assessors office. We wait because we have no other choice.
Automobile ownership is not mandatory. Hence automobile insurance is only mandatory if you choose to own an automobile.
But as I said previously, automobile insurance is mandated by the state government. The federal government has no authority whatsoever to determine if any individual had automobile insurance.
This is why mandatory automobile insurance is Constitutional. It is determined by each state. If the federal government were to mandate automobile insurance coverage, that would be Unconstitutional.
Like mandatory automobile insurance, mandatory health insurance should left up to each state. The 10th Amendment is very clear.
Once government seizes control of health care and rationing occurs, Americans will have no choice but to wait. Just like the Drivers license bureau or the county tax assessors office. We wait because we have no other choice.
Automobile ownership is not mandatory. Hence automobile insurance is only mandatory if you choose to own an automobile.
But as I said previously, automobile insurance is mandated by the state government. The federal government has no authority whatsoever to determine if any individual had automobile insurance.
This is why mandatory automobile insurance is Constitutional. It is determined by each state. If the federal government were to mandate automobile insurance coverage, that would be Unconstitutional.
Like mandatory automobile insurance, mandatory health insurance should left up to each state. The 10th Amendment is very clear.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ky5XNoX7Sw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ky5XNoX7Sw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
They tried this Kucinich tried to get this into the bill and it got nixed.
And then they have in the bill that each state decides if they wanted to enroll or not, and the republicans still nixed it.
So how exactly is this the Dems issue?
Besides a line of people I have never had to wait long for a drivers license, so I guess I should be pissed that at grocery stores I have to wait? It is a fact of life that there are going to be people that arrive before you do. To think that somehow this is going to cause some unmanagable shift in waiting times is silly. Do you really think we are unable to deal with this?
Figured that there was something, what about medicare/aid?
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
A federal bill needs to say nothing about whether and how states deal with insurance. And yes, republicans nixed giving states an opt out from a bill that was still fundamentally flawed. States should opt in by passing their own laws, and the feds should butt out.
As for waiting, in health care this doesn't mean in line for people who get there before you do. It means waiting months for a needed surgery. I personally know of a case in Canada where the patient waited several months for treatment and by the time it was offered the condition had progressed too far. I don't want to live or die based on what some union clerk in a government office decides to put down as a code in my computer file.
As for waiting, in health care this doesn't mean in line for people who get there before you do. It means waiting months for a needed surgery. I personally know of a case in Canada where the patient waited several months for treatment and by the time it was offered the condition had progressed too far. I don't want to live or die based on what some union clerk in a government office decides to put down as a code in my computer file.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ky5XNoX7Sw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ky5XNoX7Sw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
What is that showing us? Who, what, when, where. We can do without the why at this point, but a 2 minute clip of someone talking stupid shit doesn't really say anything.
Was he talking about his views, was he mocking the people that take those views, was he reading what someone else had said?
What is that showing us? Who, what, when, where. We can do without the why at this point, but a 2 minute clip of someone talking stupid shit doesn't really say anything.
Was he talking about his views, was he mocking the people that take those views, was he reading what someone else had said?
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
What was the condition?
I also know many people that have insurance and found they have issues and have had to wait months for treatment too, but that is in America, so I am not sure what that is telling us. Are you saying that if people have insurance, they will be able to get their problem treated, so they will use up time of other people that need it done too? Either way you slice it the system needs to accommodate them, if it doesn't someone is going without their needed surgery right?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The opt out argument is irrelevant because the bill should not even be under consideration by the Federal government in the first place per the 10th Amendment.
Why must I keep repeating myself?
Democrats wish to downgrade my level of health coverage while at the same time making it far more expensive; all for the benefit of illegal aliens, people already eligible for existing government programs, and people who can afford coverage yet choose to roll the dice.
I am unwilling to deal with it.
They are Unconstitutional as well, but we're stuck with them. Thank you, LBJ.
Once you give an entitlement, it is impossible to take away. Entitlements are very easy to demagogue. The Democrats have been doing it for decades, but they got a taste of their own medicine this past summer.
Even when an entitlement becomes insolvent, as both of those programs will be very soon, they are too big to fail.
Apparently you didn't even bother to watch it. Who, what, when, and where is all covered.
Robert Reich states clearly at the beginning that this is the way a candidate would explain the health care goals of Democrats if said candidate could be honest with voters.
I think we're done here.
You are unwilling to listen to a two-minute audio of an Obama supporter explaining the scheme to a friendly audience, and apparently refuse to even acknowledge the 10th Amendment.
That's fine....
The bill is deader than fried chicken anyway.