Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2789101112131415161722 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 567
  1. #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No...but hopefully there is about to be.

    They are haranguing about the constitution, but the fact is there's no constitutional delineated right to education either...but we provide it.
    Who provides it? Do your taxes pay for my child's education?
    Why? Because it's the best thing for the country as a whole, AND for individuals. Just like health care.
    So, health care should be decided upon and funded at the state and local levels then. Maybe we can come to an agreement after all.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2.    #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Who provides it? Do your taxes pay for my child's education?

    So, health care should be decided upon and funded at the state and local levels then. Maybe we can come to an agreement after all.
    You tell me...do your taxes support the U.S. Dept. of Education?

    Sure, I have no problem with states funding their own health plans. All they have to do is cover everyone in a consistent manner. Of course, they won't be able to do that. They can't do it now with Medicaid, so it will fail. That's why the government has to do it....so it will work. You know, like Medicare?
  3. #223  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    What makes health care a right? What justifies your position that someone is obligated to provide you with health care. If it is a RIGHT, then it cannot be denied. So, what makes you believe that someone MUST provide you something, just because you need it.
    I believe that it's a right, simply because it's the moral thing to do, and our country should stand for something. Since virtually all other countries also consider it a right, I simply don't see why we can't accomplish it here.

    We have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Health car, IMO, is inherent in that.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    As far as "confirmed to decrease the deficit"--first, how gullible are you, or is you wishful thinking capability just beyond that of mortal man? But let's say this DOES turn out to be true--that doesn't mean there isn't a cost, so in fact, costs do actually increase.
    It's not gullibility or wishful thinking to trust data from the CBO over the opinions of right-wing pundits and conspiracy theorists...it's simply informed decision-making. That's what the CBO is there for, and has been used by Congress forever - until their conclusions don't agree with the spin, and then it's magically not trustworthy.

    I'd bet if they said it increased the deficit, you'd trust it then!
    Last edited by Bujin; 03/19/2010 at 09:57 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  5. #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    No, that was not what he was saying--contrary to YOUR spin.
    Of course, his exact words don't match what you want him to have said ----> therefore, what he actually said wasn't "what he was saying". Got it.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. #226  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    why not?
    Because they simply don't want it to be. And Boehner and the other Republicans don't want to support a bill that lowers the deficit, even though they didn't complain when Bush's tax cuts significantly raised the deficit.

    It's not about the deficit, or taxes, or even health care. It's all about making it "Obama's Waterloo".
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You tell me...do your taxes support the U.S. Dept. of Education?
    That question deserves not an answer, but rather more questions:
    What does the Department of Education do?
    What percentage of funding do they provide to the average school district?
    What is their budget in comparison to the funding that they pass-through?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #228  
    gawd you folks really are up in arms about this whole health care issue. the vid was distrubing to say the least. the latest announcement that it will lower the overall deficit is grand. Mornons are morons folks, no changing the thought patterns of someone who honestly believes that their personal freedom is more important then the good of the whole.
    Will this cost you more in taxes, probably. now, i remember seeing just the other day a lil advertisement, rolling out money, using afghanistan, iraq, and a few other things. I would humbly suggest, end the damn wars. suddenly, you have a **** load more cash. Plus your deficit is now shrinking.
    Look, I dont disagree with what happened after 911. both wars, yes jimmy they are wars, were required. Hell, even my fun loving olympic hockey winning country joined in. lol.
    Is this bill going to be painful dollar wise, YES, will it be more painful if it does not pass, HELL YES. Whether you believe in the status quo, or partial change or complete change, its gonna cost you. Doing nothing at all will cost you far more in the short and long term.

    Teabaggers, lol hell we have our own version here in canada, we call em Albertains, lol joking joking,,, Some, (many) are misinformed, and from the sounds of it can not read, probably only have one or two channels on their tv sets. tuned into the fox network.

    i have sat and listened to limbaugh (sp) and a few others, these guys give new meaning to stupid. Sort of reminds me of a beauty queen of a few months back. Do not get me wrong, i have many american friends, some who think like them, some a little more middle of the road, many who think this needs to happen. makes for some interesting coversations on skype lemme tell you. put a group online, hell its the war between the states all over again.
    you need to make changes, does it need to be what we have here in canada or many other nations, no, but change it must.
    Last edited by daThomas; 03/19/2010 at 12:41 PM.
  9. #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Will this cost you more in taxes, probably. now, i remember seeing just the other day a lil advertisement, rolling out money, using afghanistan, iraq, and a few other things. I would humbly suggest, end the damn wars. suddenly, you have a shiet load more cash.
    I believe I already mentioned that in one of the other health care threads. I say eliminate the standing army (or drastically cut it down) and use the money and manpower to employ people on infrastructure projects hence providing them with insurance. We spend more on 'defense' per year than the rest of the world combined. Either they're not pulling their own weight, or it's being wasted.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I believe that it's a right, simply because it's the moral thing to do, and our country should stand for something. Since virtually all other countries also consider it a right, I simply don't see why we can't accomplish it here.

    We have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Health car, IMO, is inherent in that.
    A "right" exists on it's own, simultaneously among all people and does not require action on the part of another in order for it to manifest itself. I have a "right" to free speech, but I don't have the "right" to demand that taxpayers fund my newspaper. I have the "right" to own a firearm, but I don't have the right to demand that taxpayers buy it for me.

    When it comes to "rights," the only obligation on the part of others is that they don't try to prohibit me exercising my rights.

    This shows how far off-base this fight has come. Those opposed to the government take-over of health care are NOT trying to deny anyone health care. You have a "right" to obtain health care if you so choose, but you do not have the "right" to the earnings of another. Somewhere here, some mentioned how "popular" things like Medicare and Social Security are. Hand money out and people will always love it. Those programs are not popular with people that have to fund them or provide care under them.

    As someone has said, "health care" is not a right, it's a wish. A nice wish, to be sure, but not a "right."
  11. #231  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Let me get this straight. You want me to acknowledge that you complimented Clinton and Gore? So what? You have steadfastly refused to answer the simplest questions by obfuscation and macroeconomic opinionated BS. It's the detail that you run away from. Stop saying you're not opposed to health care reform and tell me what you would do for people, real people, who have no insurance RIGHT NOW. I realize you feel like you have to expound at length, but you still avoid the realities of what not having insurance is like, just like the teabaggers in the video.

    You said you didn't think everyone should have to buy insurance. This is a very simple question. If someone chooses not to buy insurance and comes in the ER in an auto accident, will you send them away? If not, who will pay for their care? Be specific, now. I'm not sure how many times I can keep asking this since you seem to keep saying you aren't opposed to health insurance reform. Fine, if you want your opinion to mean anything, then tell me what you would do in that situation. And stop avoiding difficult decisions, because that's exactly what republicans/conservatives are doing with health care reform.
    OK, whoever demanded all that rebuking, renouncing, etc. I forgot who asked. But, to use your logic, every liberal on this thread should step up and do it. Let me hear that and stop using that "I don't hear the conservatives ever denounce those people" comment to derail the debate. Cowboy up people!

    Now, for my solution. Sorry but I fell asleep last night while catching up on email I should have been working on yesterday while I was engaged in this thread, so I am just now getting back to this. Be respectful and read the whole thing before you start flaming. That way you will see those solutions you don't think I have...

    Also, remember that i'm a hard working dad, and I don't have a staff of researchers. So, you will have to cut me some slack if I'm a little off on my stats or ideas. Consider this a straw man that you could use as a starting point.

    Solutions:

    First, let's all acknowledge that we aren't actually denying healthcare to people today. They may have limited choices, but they can show up in an emergency room ad get treated. Also, I read the study someone posted. It said several interesting things. 20% of uninsured were without insurance for 3 months or less (50% for less than 1 year). That means generally they are between jobs. Let's provide some assistance through unemployment benefits (I'll discuss funding later in the post). So, let's take 20% of the "30 million" out for now. 11% are making more than 500% of the defined poverty level and it says they should be able to afford insurance. 63% are below age 35, and 45% don't have children (i.e. and the report presumes they opt for no insurance.)

    To be generous, lets add the 20% to the 11%, and the 18% that are below age 18 (they don't qualify for existing programs, or perhaps they are starving artists?)

    Assuming those stats don't overlap (because I don't have time to dig further), that means almost 50% of the "30 million" don't need assistance, can get it through something simple like unemployment ins,etc. and don't qualify for anything that would fall in to the category of "poor that need our help...)

    Now we are down to 15 million people. So, if this costs $1trillion over 10 years, we are spending $67,000 per person for the 15 million that we *must* help. And remember, they ARE getting help today, although we can all agree that emergency room visits don't qualify as "quality" or sufficient.

    Just grant that it means we are already spending something on them - and emergency room treatment costs many times standard care, so if that money was redirected to standard coverage, the hospital costs would go down... And that means we are not denying them care, it just isn't sufficient care.

    So, the average COBRA cost per person (which is generally the most expensive insurance on the planet - at least it was when I was between jobs) is $388/month/person. So grant me that we can save 10% below COBRA, and another 10% for reforms in lawsuit abuse reform (I think OMB estimated that would be more, around 25% savings because it causes the current practice of extra "defensive" treatments to cover the butts of doctors and hospitals). Again, some wonk will chime in and argue those numbers, but give me a break for now. That means we can "cut" the COBRA estimate cost by 20%, which puts it at $310/month/person. That $1trillion over ten years now becomes 17 years of COBRA for every one of those 15 million we must help.

    There is the first solution... take the TARP repayments and fund insurance for 15 million people for 20 years. Right now congress is planning to re-spend that money elsewhere... Not one single new govt job, department, tax, or cost. Given the time value of money, let's pretend I can earn interest and get that to cover 20 years - or because I should be able to get a volume discount even from those evil insurance companies... Don't want to use TARP? Use the $Trillion being proposed now, and I've shown you how to provide coverage for double the time period without creating more govt departments.

    And by the way, I haven't subtracted non-citizens yet based on how I understand the data in the posted govt report (interesting that 21% of the uninsured are "non-citizens", but that is for another thread...)

    What if we do nothing? Well, remember that uninsured still get treated. It either gets written off, govt funded, or if the person isn't poor enough, they get a bill. I have several friends that didn't have insurance and had major surgery. They had to cowboy up and make payments to the hospital until it was paid. Tough, but they made it work because they were obligated by not being poor enough. I have to respect that.

    That's important because of this: There are many hospitals that receive huge govt subsidies and they are legally required to treat poor and uninsured. I live in a top-10 city (by metro population). So that means I could look up budgets and see what they are spending on that every year. One of the largest such hospitals in the country spends about $34million per year on such services, most of which is currently funded by current programs. Lets remember that if they provided standard care instead of emergency care, their costs would go down. But just to be conservative, lets assume they save nothing on their current costs, and assume that they have a 25% increase in the subsidized services to cover those 15 million people to provide something better than just emergency care..

    Let's assume that there are 100 such hospitals in every state (fewer in Wyoming off set more in New York - please cut me some slack here). Lets be conservative and assume such hospitals in Wyoming have costs as high as the one's in large cities (so I can stick with averages...). That's $8.5m/year for 5000 hospitals. That's $42Billion/year. That $trillion coming back from TARP will cover 24 years of costs to treat that 15 million people. I'll bet we could get a volume discount and get that up to 25 years.

    Now after the first 10 years, OMB says it will cost another trillion or so to continue. Let's assume they can accurately predict out 20 years. That means that I can use money that congress already borrowed to fund 20 to 25 years - by congressional terms that is free... Or we can borrow another $2trillion and hope we can reduce costs to keep that to maybe $1.5trillion for 20 years... That's another solution for those scoring at home (as well as those that are alone). Google Stewart Scott for that reference...

    So, option A, take the TARP repayments and buy 20-year policies for everyone. Option B, send the checks to the currently subsidized hospitals and cover the next 25 years through them. Use the interest saved on not increasing the national debt to fund years 41 and beyond. I guarantee that the interest on $2trillion over those 40 years will be enough.

    Then, use our time and effort to create competition across state lines, reform lawsuit abuse, and maybe subsidize research into ways to reduce healthcare cost. Any costs for these things are funded out of the money not spent on the buildings needed to house the govt employees to be hired to administer the current plan...

    And in the process, I they haven't started taxing my health "benefits" (which is in the plan) and we haven't created another major government organization.

    Not bad for a couple of hours with a calculator rather than thousands of congressional aides and unlimited research resources...

    Now, would I turn people away at hospitals? No, and we don't do that now. Non-emergencies might get sent to a different hospital, but since they have shiny new 20-year policies, they will be going to doctors much more often...

    If they fall into that 15 million that can afford insurance, but don't have it (remember them?). They get a bill after they get treatment. If they can't pay, it goes to collection and/or gets written off. Every medical bill today has a percent in it to cover write-offs, just like bank loans, credit cards, etc. Seems to be workable.

    So, I think I've provided a method for funding with no additional spending, no new taxes or denied treatment, and no new giant govt department. Over that 20 years, I'm sure we can set enough aside to fund the next 20, and maybe drive the cost down between now and then, like it has come down for telecommunications...

    Don't want to use TARP? Use the first Trillion of the current plan, but use it my way. Or, use the Trillion we save by ending a few wars. Or use the first Trillion we save by eliminating wasteful spending or corruption. Any way you slice it, I gave you solutions that will cover at LEAST twice the time period for less than the first 10-year projection, and do so without creating new govt bloat.

    Of course, if you want to give me a few hundred staffers, access to OMB, and a few years to research it - I'll bet I can come up with better ideas. I could be wrong, of course.

    But for now, I'll sit back and wait for the flaming to commence...

    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/19/2010 at 02:11 PM.
  12. #232  
    One more thing. As hard as it is for us to say "no" to people, this country needs to learn the word. The rest of the world thinks we are suckers. Did you know that there are vacation services set up so people from other countries (in this case eastern europe) can come to the US "on vacation" in their 9th month of pregnancy. Having the baby here makes the baby a US citizen. Our bleeding hearts would never chase out the parents of a citizen, and certainly not those of that poor little baby. And since they probably didn't line up a job as part of planning their "vacation", they will instantly qualify for govt assistance. No other country lets people commit fraud on the tax payers like that (although many commit other sorts of fraud, but that's off topic so leave alone it for now).

    Try that little scheme in any other country. Better yet, try it in those eastern block countries. Do you think they might say NO to you? DO you think there could be jail time? What if you tried that in Iran? How many appendages would you be missing by the time the expelled you. Of course, no one would try, because everyone wants to come HERE, because we are suckers.

    I can't seem to find that particular article at the moment, but here is another that is similar:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4000401.shtml

    So, I'm not advocating that we get mean and start mass round ups to "ship them back where they came from" or anything radical. I'm just pointing out that we are suckers, and there is a HUGE part of our economy spent every year on people that are scamming us.

    And I purposely haven't mentioned the 21% of the uninsured that aren't citizens. There will be this huge flame started over them about whether they will or will not be covered by the current plan. But those will be the flamers that are challenging me to stand at the hospital door and turn people away. (I thikn that's what is known as a red herring, if you want to learn about another logical fallacy, btw.)

    So let's just acknowledge that a huge amount of money goes to fund scams like that which have been going on for years. Let's acknowledge that there is significant corruption in govt, insurance companies, banks, or any other target you want to hate on. and let's acknowledge up to the fact that if we would all cowboy up to a little integrity and honesty - even if we don't work in one of those places.... we could save ourselves a lot of money, know better than to become the next Bernie Madoff, be smart enough to not pass the next Sarbanse-Oxley, and avoid developing any more $trillion ideas to bail out bankrupt companies or create massive new government entitlements that our kids will have to pay for.

    The reality of the current plan is it is the same Ponzi scheme that social security is. My kids and grandkids will fund this thing for me, and they better hope their kids and grandkids can afford to fund it for them. Wow, that sounds just like the current worry about the current entitlements.

    ...those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we are spending $trillions because it's so bad we can't stand it... why didn't the previous $trillions prevent it from getting so bad?
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/19/2010 at 01:39 PM.
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No matter how many times we go through this, you just don't get it. I realize you think in absolutist terms,like "the government is bad" and "all doctors know what is right for the patient".
    Spend some time looking around those websites so you at least have a vague idea of what guidelines and recommendations are about...
    First, its strange that you are reading what I wrote as absolutist at all, but then again, you can't help escalating hostility can you? You also seem to be making a HOST of assumptions based on things I didn't actually say.

    In fact, what I said was pretty simple--in the post you responded to--pointing out what President Obama said.

    Maybe you missed the part earlier where I said: That the statement by the third party may be true (Post 184). I don't believe I made an argument whether this was good or bad--merely that this third party involvement is there.

    Second, I never assumed or stated that a Doctor didn't consult other medical experts, or that they shouldn't. And clearly--these organizations already exist, and presumably doctors consult them when appropriate.

    Exactly why does the government need to be involved in doctors getting information from professional organizations? Why wouldn't a Doctor needing additional information on a given subject go to experts directly like "American College of Obstetics and Gynecology, or the American Lung Association, or the American Diabetes Association."

    Additionally, President Obama didn't seem to be referring to "them" (these organizations), as he said "WE". It seems pretty clear he was referring to the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    We have to have controls over spending.
    Yes, that's what I was originally referring to--stating that this IS what happens when a third party controls the purse strings. I didn't say it was JUST about costs by the way. On the other hand to claim that it ISN'T about costs would be false as well (not that you made that claim here).

    To review--I have stated no opposition to Doctor's doing their job and getting information, but as you have pointed out--that is already in place. It seems clear, based on what President Obama was saying that he was touting the involvement of government.

    As you've pointed out--government officials don't make that determination, and Doctors can and do access this information today.

    SO, going back to the original point, because clearly this has been lost. Government under this plan going to be increasingly involved--if for no other reason, because of the simple fact that the people who pay are inherently involved. Some people don't like that idea. You clearly do.

    Again, it is interesting that you feel the need to throw around a lot of insults and accusing me of being an absolutist, when I haven't even really taken a particularly hard position on this. I was merely pointing out things that you've agreed would be the case.

    KAM
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #234  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Kam is correct here. In the USA healthcare isn't a right. There is no legislation making it a right such as there is in places like Canada, UK, France, etc.....
    I'd go farther than that. I say it CANNOT be an inherent right, because by its nature it requires something from someone else. No one has to pay for your freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

    Someone DOES have to pay (by service, cash, time, etc) for your healthcare. As such, it can be an enshrined BENEFIT, or an Entitlement, but it cannot be a "Right." The reason is of course dependent on the understanding that your rights cannot inherently infringe on the rights of another to exist.

    KAM
  15. #235  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No...but hopefully there is about to be.

    They are haranguing about the constitution, but the fact is there's no constitutional delineated right to education either...but we provide it. Why? Because it's the best thing for the country as a whole, AND for individuals. Just like health care.
    Original response removed and replaced with this apology. Oops, I think I was wrong about the education thing...
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/19/2010 at 01:52 PM.
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #236  
    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    Your analogy is incorrect because it does not factor expected future liabilities. A better analogy:

    If I spend $10,000 on new computers that cause my workers to become productive enough that I don't have to hire a new worker at $40,000, I just saved $30,000. But by your analogy, we would simply look at the balance sheet and say we lost $10,000.

    By spending $940 billion and essentially forcing the lower classes into insurance coverage, you're lowering your total liability among those deemed your highest risk. The CBO has estimated that the government will save over a trillion dollars in the next twenty years by what is essentially, just insuring risk. From a financial standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The side benefit that it happens to save peoples' lives is.. well, it's nice isn't it?

    There is no reasonable viewpoint to dislike the bill financially. There just isn't.
    You are correct that it is not a simple matter of looking at the balance sheet. But of course, that is EXACTLY what people are doing when they claim "it reduces the deficit." Yes, right. You know what else would reduce the deficit? Raising taxes by a trillion dollars (with no spending). It doesn't mean it is beneficial, because that money comes from somewhere.

    That trillion is being taken out of taxpayers pockets, which means it isn't being used for other things. You can't take one side and claim it's all benefits and roses. You have to also look at the losses, and given that it is rare that the costs ever come in on budget...well, these claims of benefit are VERY questionable.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    I'm a business man. For the life of me, I cannot understand how business is not behind a single payer system 100%. The HR costs generated by administering health care to employees is a gigantic sucking black hole, requiring business that has no expertise in this area to hire people to do it for them. Why they don't want to outsource it in order to focus their time and capital on core competencies rather than pumping money into a useless HR department is beyond me.
    Perhaps people are against it because they realize shifting costs to a proven inefficient entity (the government) isn't a great idea. I'd also suggest that most business men/women understand the concept of competition is a beneficial thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    There is also no right to food, yet we provide food at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to housing, yet we provide housing at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to policing, yet we provide policing at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to fire protection, yet we provide fire protection at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to transportation links, yet we provide transportation links at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to food inspection, yet we provide food inspection at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    And we ALREADY provide Health care to our poorest (and older) citizens. We just don't do it sufficiently well, and as a component of a manipulated system, it has led us to an untenable financial situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    That train of thought is a dead end.
    No, you just aren't following it. The question of health care being a right is its own issue. Noting that other things that are not rights that are instead benefits or entitlements does not change the fact that healthcare (or any of these other things) are not rights.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/19/2010 at 02:25 PM.
  17. #237  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Did you say ELIMINATE the standing army?
    Yes, or drastically cut it down. The standing army was an anathema to the founders. Even Ike warned about its dangers as he left office. You do realize that the standing army is a recent phenomenon, right?
    Dude, I'm all for getting out of Iraq and such. But eliminating the entire army? Can any other liberal please chime in and denounce this idea.
    The 'other liberals' are probably confused to the point of silence since many of them assume I'm conservative.
    Feel free to wish for less defense spending. Feel free to be the champion of bringing troops home and slashing defense budgets.

    But if you can't see that ELIMINATING THE STANDING ARMY would be suicide...

    anyone?... anyone... Beuhler?
    How would it be suicide? Again, we spend more than the rest of the world combined in providing 'defense'. Think about that. Is the world really that dangerous? If not, we're wasting a lot of our lives and treasure being the world's policeman without any contributions from those we 'defend'. If so, we're giving away our lives and treasure while other countries spend their money on other things.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #238  
    Welcome to the new reality - the politization of your health care.

    It is irrelevant which side of the debate you are on: expecting our health care to improve now that it will be under the control of 535 reprobates is the height of stupidity.

    Six months from now: "Senator, I'd like to talk to you about your endorsement for our new procedure to be included in the standards Federally mandated to physicians..."

    "Hell, boy, ain't that the one where all them people got killed?"

    "Um, well... How about we contribute $250,000.00 to your campaign war chest?"

    "Son, you've got my endorsement."
    VisorPhone Clone
    (Please do not thank me - I find it scary)
  19. #239  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    -1

    What? Education and the Postal service are BOTH mandated in the constitution. Seriously Dude, I'm really disappointed in you for that. You were doing so well until that comment. What happened?
    Where is education mandated in the Constitution?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I believe that it's a right, simply because it's the moral thing to do, and our country should stand for something. Since virtually all other countries also consider it a right, I simply don't see why we can't accomplish it here.

    We have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Health car, IMO, is inherent in that.
    Hmmm, that's funny. I've heard liberals wailing for years about how people shouldn't use government to forward their "moralistic" views.

    It isn't a right and cannot rightfully be characterized as one. It is clear that you do not understand this concept (Read Toby's post (#237) or Semprini (Post 247) perhaps it will be better accepted coming from them).

    You simply do not understand the concept.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/19/2010 at 01:25 PM.

Posting Permissions