Page 36 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2631323334353637 LastLast
Results 701 to 720 of 726
  1. #701  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    It has a lot to do with education level...

    PolitiFact | Are federal employees overpaid?
    whateverator......I disagree.....I think it is perfectly correct to count benefits as a part of pay...are you not receiving something in return for work? Benefits are clearly a part of anyone's pay package. One reason Federal employees are with their job for longer periods of time is because it's very difficult to lose your job when you are with the Federal government. My wife worked for the Federal government for quite awhile and it was amazing the stories she told about employees and what they did (and sometimes didn't do), but yet the would never be fired. Once you are in.....you are there for life and every year your paycheck is increased until you retire with a nice pension. Like I said, a nice gig if you can get it.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2.    #702  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Of course it's socialism......davidra = obama and obama = socialism, so it's only logical that davidra believe in a socialistic society. Spread the wealth baby....spread the wealth.....everyone needs to share or obama will come for ya.
    I know you like to hear yourself talk, but as you well know, the only "wealth" that I think should be provided to all is health care. I have never once suggested anything else. So why don't you take your generalizations about what I think and place them carefully where the sun don't shine?
  3.    #703  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Isn't it State and local governments that provide for the vast majority of education funding? So "we" is actually the States, not the Federal government. Everyone loves to use education as an example of something the Federal government does....but....really, isn't it the State and local governments that fund education? And the reason for this is because since education is not mentioned in the Constitution it falls on the States to handle....and therefore, I have no problem with them providing it.

    If any government entity is to get involved in healthcare it should be the States for the same reason as mention above....it isn't a specific power of the Federal government to provide it. Sorry.....just isn't.

    And davidra, no, not everyone agrees that a "massive amount of money" would be saved by the Federal government running healthcare. You say that, but no, not everyone believes that. In fact, it's kind of funny to even think of the Federal government saving a massive amount of money....spending a massive amount of money....yes....saving a massive amount of money....no.

    I have no problem whatsoever with states providing universal health care. If every state implemented what Massachusetts did, which of course was developed by a republican, why....we'd have the current health care bill, wouldn't we? Fine, go for it. Just make sure people are treated fairly. States sometimes have a tendency to ignore certain segments of their populations. Like yours, for example.

    Dumping 25-30% of every health care dollar into the pocket of you and your cronies is pretty wasteful as far as I can see. PUtting that into direct care might not save money, it would just provide more care for the same money. You haven't addressed what you actually provide for patients any more than Micael has. Some people consider insurance companies parasitic...I can see why.
  4. #704  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I have no problem whatsoever with states providing universal health care. If every state implemented what Massachusetts did, which of course was developed by a republican, why....we'd have the current health care bill, wouldn't we? Fine, go for it. Just make sure people are treated fairly. States sometimes have a tendency to ignore certain segments of their populations. Like yours, for example.

    Dumping 25-30% of every health care dollar into the pocket of you and your cronies is pretty wasteful as far as I can see. PUtting that into direct care might not save money, it would just provide more care for the same money. You haven't addressed what you actually provide for patients any more than Micael has. Some people consider insurance companies parasitic...I can see why.
    What does an insurance company provide? Well...that's easy. I'll use me as an example since I recently had approximately $20,000 in medical bills. So, for a number of years my wife and I paid a monthly fee (premium) that should something major happen I would be protected against a major financial loss. Out of that $20k, I ended up paying $4000. Our insurance company dealt with the providers in advance to negotiate the lowest rate possible and then they (insurance company) was involved in the payment of the bills. So, what they gave me was peace of mind knowing that had the bill been whatever, I would have limited financial exposure. And by the way, while the initial bills were around $20,000, thanks to the pre-negotiated rates, the hospital and doctors ended up with about $12,000....if my math is correct that is about a 40% savings to the health care system. In addition, the insurance company followed up with me after the surgery to see if I had questions regarding my recovery and if they could be of any help.

    Now, had I not had health insurance I would have been responsible for dealing with each of the bills on my own and trying to avoid getting ripped off by some greedy providers. Of course, I would have ended up paying about $20,000 in medical bills out of my own pocket. I am very happy with what my insurance company provides for me. I don't have to carry health insurance, but my wife and I made the decision to do so because we know it protects us against a major financial loss. I can't speak for Micael, but that is what I feel the insurance company provides for me and I am quite comfortable paying them a monthly fee to offset the risk of a larger claim.

    What does my insurance company provide me that I pay my life and disability premiums to? Peace of mind. I know that if I die, or if I'm disabled, either my wife will be protected or I will. Do I have to carry these coverages? Of course not....but I sleep better at night knowing I have them. Some people could care less about such things or would rather spend their money on more "important" things. I asked a girl in my office yesterday how much her pack of cigs cost these days and she answered $4. She smokes about a pack a day...for about $28 per week, or close to $120 per month. You think people don't waste a ton of money? (By the way, she also spends money every day at a fast food restaurant when she lives about 1 mile from the office.) But you would rather me provide protection for myself, and then tax me to provide protection for this girl who chooses to smoke and spend $120 per month to give her even more health problems down the road for me and you and everyone else to pay for. Just makes no sense to me. She has decided what is more important to her and that is her decision. $120 per month....up in smoke....and will likely cause her more problems down the road. My problem? It should not be.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #705  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    https://www.pnc.com/webapp/unsec/Req...bc87fc6d630ad7



    DemocracyForAmerica.com Blog Analysis of Private Health...


    How many do you want? Yes, there's some variability in the numbers....but not much.

    Of course, you can act like Clem and say "well, you keep posting data and real numbers, but it just doesn't seem right to me, so it must be lies".
    No, not lies, just not the whole story. For instance, how much do you think of that 30 cents on the dollar is actually costs associated with overhead imposed by your wonderful and efficient state and federal agencies?

    Do you really believe that health insurance companies are autonomous? Every rate we charge is reviewed and approved by the very people you want to put in total control.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6.    #706  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    No, not lies, just not the whole story. For instance, how much do you think of that 30 cents on the dollar is actually costs associated with overhead imposed by your wonderful and efficient state and federal agencies?

    Do you really believe that health insurance companies are autonomous? Every rate we charge is reviewed and approved by the very people you want to put in total control.

    Simply, then, it makes financial sense to deal directly with the payor...instead of paying the middleman.
  7.    #707  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    What does an insurance company provide? Well...that's easy. I'll use me as an example since I recently had approximately $20,000 in medical bills. So, for a number of years my wife and I paid a monthly fee (premium) that should something major happen I would be protected against a major financial loss. Out of that $20k, I ended up paying $4000. Our insurance company dealt with the providers in advance to negotiate the lowest rate possible and then they (insurance company) was involved in the payment of the bills. So, what they gave me was peace of mind knowing that had the bill been whatever, I would have limited financial exposure. And by the way, while the initial bills were around $20,000, thanks to the pre-negotiated rates, the hospital and doctors ended up with about $12,000....if my math is correct that is about a 40% savings to the health care system. In addition, the insurance company followed up with me after the surgery to see if I had questions regarding my recovery and if they could be of any help.

    Now, had I not had health insurance I would have been responsible for dealing with each of the bills on my own and trying to avoid getting ripped off by some greedy providers. Of course, I would have ended up paying about $20,000 in medical bills out of my own pocket. I am very happy with what my insurance company provides for me. I don't have to carry health insurance, but my wife and I made the decision to do so because we know it protects us against a major financial loss. I can't speak for Micael, but that is what I feel the insurance company provides for me and I am quite comfortable paying them a monthly fee to offset the risk of a larger claim.
    So what they provide, from your perspective, is the ability to deal with only one payor who has already negotiated the cost. As best I can tell, that is the summary of the benefit. Now...tell me just why Medicare doesn't meet both those needs for Medicare recipients? You just made another strong pitch for a single payor, expansion of Medicare health care system. If companies want to compete for additional benefits, great. They can be optional.

    You've not made a very strong pitch for benefits of insurance companies over Medicare...but that's not surprising, since Medicare beneficiaries rate Medicare higher than private companies, as you well know.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #708  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Simply, then, it makes financial sense to deal directly with the payor...instead of paying the middleman.
    If you're talking about between the provider and the patient, bingo. Lets get the government totally out of the picture.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #709  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So what they provide, from your perspective, is the ability to deal with only one payor who has already negotiated the cost. As best I can tell, that is the summary of the benefit. Now...tell me just why Medicare doesn't meet both those needs for Medicare recipients? You just made another strong pitch for a single payor, expansion of Medicare health care system. If companies want to compete for additional benefits, great. They can be optional.

    You've not made a very strong pitch for benefits of insurance companies over Medicare...but that's not surprising, since Medicare beneficiaries rate Medicare higher than private companies, as you well know.
    Apparently I am like obama (oh, that is painful to write), a poor communicator. I thought the biggest reason was in front of everyone's face, Medicare is the government and I and many, many, many other people simply don't have confidence in them to take over such a large endeavor. And secondly, in my opinion and many, many, many other people, it is un-Constitutional. I apologize for my not communicating that very well. Funny, obama isn't able to communicate well and he has people writing his material and he has a tele-prompter....I just have me.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. #710  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Wow, that's just plain socialism. We have to start with core principles. Everything you argue is "the ends justify the means" and I can't accept that. America wouldn't be what it is today if our founding fathers embraced that crap.

    further, the cost of healthcare would still be too much even if admin costs were reduced to zero. just as a car wouldn't be free if the auto workers didn't get paid. We have to stay true to our principles, which include protection of private property, personal liberty, and restrictions on federal powers.

    On the topic of costs, here is an interesting article. I'm assuming the author is writing it to prove his bias, but it's still an interesting read:
    http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/re...ublication.pdf
    hmm your right, lol, America wouldnt be in the sinking health care boat its in, if the founding fathers had of done it right in the first place. Again, I have read here that what Obama has done regarding health care is unconstitutional. Really, wow, life expectancy was what back in 1776, 35-40, leeches were the local docs go to item, comon, what was is no longer.
    Free market medicine, hmmm we already know that the so called Death Panels that Obamas health care system was suppose to bring in, were already there, the insurance company's called them something else. oh and if they were so legal, why didnt they keep minutes of the meetings, lol nada nyet zilch.
    The one thing I see and read here over and over again, is the fear of change. if it was good for my great great grandfather, than its good for me. wow. Forget the socialst crap, as I have posted before, as have others, what is being enacted, is not socialist. No where near. Or is that Macarthy I hear being brought out of cyrogenic suspension. Wow people. 50 plus million people uninsured, a major cholera outbreak just off your shores. hmmmm lemme see, I cant afford to go to hospital or to a doc as I have no insurance, hmmm ill just keep going to work and spread it around the work place.
    I guess thats a good way to "thin" out all those illegals, not to mention those nasty union people,, oh an all those out of work people.. hmmm

    The other little thing, govt is such a lousy lousy manager of things like this,,, hmmmm ok,, but arent you folks the govt? You elected your reps, your sens, your president. You set this system up, no one else. You bare the burden of precieved screwed up mess. Based on your own statements, you should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan, hell its the govt, they screw things up, why wouldnt you have say some mercinary company going to war for you. You pay em, and off they go. But nope, that is not the American way. Its always some one elses fault. Here is a suggestion, instead of complaining, ( I wanted to use another word ) look in the mirror and ask what the heck can I do to help make it better, and than go out and damn well do it. I see a lot of arm chair generals, second guessing and what ifing, put together a comprehensive plan that addresses ALL Americans regarding health care, and go out and sell it to your reps and sens.
    I give Obama this, at least he is trying, so far the right, has done nothing but moan and complain about socialist ideas, and that they have a plan, but I and Many Many Many others have seen nada, zilch. Just a lot of rhetoric and more moaning and b.....g. or is that just me..
    Last edited by xForsaken; 11/12/2010 at 10:31 AM.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  11. #711  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Apparently I am like obama (oh, that is painful to write), a poor communicator. I thought the biggest reason was in front of everyone's face, Medicare is the government and I and many, many, many other people simply don't have confidence in them to take over such a large endeavor. And secondly, in my opinion and many, many, many other people, it is un-Constitutional. I apologize for my not communicating that very well. Funny, obama isn't able to communicate well and he has people writing his material and he has a tele-prompter....I just have me.
    I have a question for you clem, do you actually know on what grounds this bill could be considered unconstitutional? I don't mean the usual BS line that people give about some big government take over of health care because in actuality that would be constitutional if done correctly. There is a reason this could be unconstitutional but it's not the popular reason people like to spout out.

    And since we're touching on unconstitutionality, how about that USA Patriot Act? When do we start seeing equal outrage about the constitutionality of that and real efforts toward its repeal?
  12. #712  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    I have a question for you clem, do you actually know on what grounds this bill could be considered unconstitutional? I don't mean the usual BS line that people give about some big government take over of health care because in actuality that would be constitutional if done correctly. There is a reason this could be unconstitutional but it's not the popular reason people like to spout out.

    And since we're touching on unconstitutionality, how about that USA Patriot Act? When do we start seeing equal outrage about the constitutionality of that and real efforts toward its repeal?
    Thanks for the question Orion. I guess everyone interprets things differently, but for me the reason it is unconstitutional has to do with the 10th Amendment. That is, since providing such a benefit is not specifically mentioned as being a power delegated to the Federal Government, it is then a benefit that should be "reserved" to the States. Or, as the actual Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I believe others believe that the Federal Government can't require someone to purchase a product (as is required under the PPACA) or be hit with a fee.

    Now, the Preamble does say to "promote the general Welfare" and I believe this is where some people say it gives the Federal Government the right or power to provide health care. So let me ask you a question, other than those 4 words, can you tell me where in the Constitution it says the United States should provide such a benefit to it's citizens? I realize there was not "health insurance" back then, but, maybe something that would even resemble such a benefit?

    As for the USA Patriot Act....well....I admit I haven't studied much of it. I guess I'm not worried about being wire tapped or whatever. So not ignoring your comment but just don't know enough about it. Will I be required to pay a fee for a product under this act?

    ADDED: Sorry....trying to work here and can't always concentrate on these topics....but.....I think it is also whether the Federal Government can pass additional expenses along to the States. There are likely many reasons this is unconstitutional.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. #713  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    So let me ask you a question, other than those 4 words, can you tell me where in the Constitution it says the United States should provide such a benefit to it's citizens?
    It does not sound like you have taken the time to actually read the Constitution, because if you did, in the first Article you will see there are more than those 4 words that you mention. Specifically, take a look at Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which states: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

    Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation.

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

    This was affirmed in the decision United States v. Butler in 1936 and has since been the prevailing view, namely that Congress is entitled to provide spending to ensure the general welfare of the United States which includes its citizens.

    United States v. Butler: Information from Answers.com

    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I realize there was not "health insurance" back then, but, maybe something that would even resemble such a benefit?
    How can promoting good health not promote general welfare?
  14. #714  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    ADDED: Sorry....trying to work here and can't always concentrate on these topics....but.....I think it is also whether the Federal Government can pass additional expenses along to the States.
    This here would be the issue and this is in particular relation to Medicaid. The bill wasn't really setup to mitigate the extra costs that would be passed on to the States for expanding Medicaid. This would be about the only thing that could really be challenged on Constitutional grounds.

    The "fee" for not purchasing insurance would make it through challenge because it's being implemented as a tax increase/deduction rather than an actual fee. In spirit it may be a fee but in legal terms it's not. And a couple of states that passed laws and are trying to do State constitutional amendments to say "people can not be forced to purchase health insurance" really wouldn't effect that either since they're not being forced, they're just not going to receive the "deduction". But then again, the Constitution is a living document written in a broad fashion to be open to final interpretation by our third branch of government. They could interpret on spirit or they could interpret on letter. By letter the "fee" would go through, by spirit it would fail (and ironically fall under the catch-phrase "judges legislating from the bench"). But really it's the wrong thing for those states that filed suit to have tried challenging. They'd be more likely to be successful on the grounds of the added cost burden being passed on to the States through the expanded Medicaid program.
  15. #715  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    It does not sound like you have taken the time to actually read the Constitution, because if you did, in the first Article you will see there are more than those 4 words that you mention. Specifically, take a look at Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which states: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

    Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation.

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

    This was affirmed in the decision United States v. Butler in 1936 and has since been the prevailing view, namely that Congress is entitled to provide spending to ensure the general welfare of the United States which includes its citizens.

    United States v. Butler: Information from Answers.com



    How can promoting good health not promote general welfare?
    I prefer this little bit of history which explains how/why Social Security got by the Supreme Court: Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

    I'm not an attorney and won't try and play one in here.....I'm just an average citizen who thinks that based on what you believe is general welfare could stretch to an endless number of things. Does everyone deserve to have housing provided to them? Does everyone deserve to have a free college education? Does everyone deserve to have 3 free meals a day? Does everyone deserve to have a vehicle that can get them to and from a job or schooling? Won't these things promote general welfare? Where does it end that I should fund someone else's welfare? Does the person who decides to smoke 2 packs of cigs a day, eat junk food, and sit on their **** deserve to have my tax dollars treat them when it was their decision to be unhealthy? It would be one thing if the Federal Govt had their own money to do these wonderful things, but, it is my money that is spread around to promote these folks welfare. I should make the decision what welfare I wish to promote.

    So....I disagree with you and fortunately many, many, many other people do as well.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. #716  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    This here would be the issue and this is in particular relation to Medicaid. The bill wasn't really setup to mitigate the extra costs that would be passed on to the States for expanding Medicaid. This would be about the only thing that could really be challenged on Constitutional grounds.

    The "fee" for not purchasing insurance would make it through challenge because it's being implemented as a tax increase/deduction rather than an actual fee. In spirit it may be a fee but in legal terms it's not. And a couple of states that passed laws and are trying to do State constitutional amendments to say "people can not be forced to purchase health insurance" really wouldn't effect that either since they're not being forced, they're just not going to receive the "deduction". But then again, the Constitution is a living document written in a broad fashion to be open to final interpretation by our third branch of government. They could interpret on spirit or they could interpret on letter. By letter the "fee" would go through, by spirit it would fail (and ironically fall under the catch-phrase "judges legislating from the bench"). But really it's the wrong thing for those states that filed suit to have tried challenging. They'd be more likely to be successful on the grounds of the added cost burden being passed on to the States through the expanded Medicaid program.
    Has obama decided yet whether it is a fee or a tax? Seems like he's called it both. I'll have to look into this deduction part....what I've read clearly says there will be a penalty or fee....I have not heard that it is a deduction that you don't get. So you got me there....and it's late....and I have to be in the pool at 7 AM so I'm off to bed.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  17. #717  
    I must apologize to Davidra....not easy....because apparently this Medicare system really is as good as he has been claiming. And, doctors seem to think quite highly of it:

    Doctors brace for possible big Medicare pay cuts - 24-Hour Business News - The Buffalo News

    The craziest quote is from some looney doctor, breast cancer surgeon Kathryn Wagner who says, "My frustration level is at a nine or 10 right now," said Wagner, who practices in San Antonio. "I am exceptionally exhausted with these annual and biannual threats to cut my reimbursement by drastic amounts. As a business person, I can't budget at all because I have no idea how much money is going to come in. Medicine is a business. Private practice is a business."

    Davidra....seriously....you need to communicate with this so called doctor and explain to her that medicine is not a business and she should be happy with what Medicare reimburses her. I mean seriously, the nerve of this doctor thinking that her practice is a business. What's up with that?

    The article says that repealing this formula for cutting reimbursements would cost more than $280 billion over 10 years. And davidra wants to add everyone into this system? LOL Oh but wait...sorry....forgot....obama and the liberals can do this and actually save money....keep forgetting that.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #718  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I prefer this little bit of history which explains how/why Social Security got by the Supreme Court: Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

    I'm not an attorney and won't try and play one in here.....I'm just an average citizen who thinks that based on what you believe is general welfare could stretch to an endless number of things. Does everyone deserve to have housing provided to them? Does everyone deserve to have a free college education? Does everyone deserve to have 3 free meals a day? Does everyone deserve to have a vehicle that can get them to and from a job or schooling? Won't these things promote general welfare? Where does it end that I should fund someone else's welfare? Does the person who decides to smoke 2 packs of cigs a day, eat junk food, and sit on their **** deserve to have my tax dollars treat them when it was their decision to be unhealthy? It would be one thing if the Federal Govt had their own money to do these wonderful things, but, it is my money that is spread around to promote these folks welfare. I should make the decision what welfare I wish to promote.

    So....I disagree with you and fortunately many, many, many other people do as well.
    You're just an average citizen and many many other people agree with you?

    Like who, people from the website you linked to? Run by the guy who used to write Ron Paul's racist newsletters?

    People who think that:
    "Abraham Lincoln was the most evil, damaging, aggressive, abominable, and destructive president ever"
    Beheading the "Great Messiah"

    Well I did not realize that this type of thinking existed but yes I think you're right, many people do disagree with me after all and I'm glad of it.
  19. #719  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Its disappointing seeing you manufacture all this crazy sounding stuff (like buying cars for everyone) and then try to pin it on me as if it were some type of valid argument. Or to see you let the website of Lew Rockwell (the guy who wrote Ron Paul's racist newsletters) argue for you on what the founding fathers believed.
    Liberals love to throw the race card at everyone that disagrees with them, not sure why that is, other than I guess you can't attack them on anything else so I guess that is the best you can do...."Oh him? Well he's a racist!" I think there were many Founding Fathers that would be on my side and so that's fine with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    If you had looked directly at the documents written by our founding fathers, like the Federalist papers, you would have found that while Alexander Hamilton was at odds with you on the general welfare clause that you disagree with, James Madison would have largely have supported you on the restriction of Federal power in this area.

    The reason I bring this up is that there's a trend in our country to let ideological echo chambers, (especially libertarians) dictate to us what our "founding fathers intended" as if it were some sort of monolithic indisputable truth.

    But no one has to "play being an attorney" to understand that the Constitution was written by individuals with very different views. This argument between Madison and Hamilton is just one of a great many examples of the differences between our founding fathers on many issues.
    Yes, there are different views on the Constitution, no argument from me on that. You believe one view, and I believe the other. I think one way to get past this is to simply have the liberals propose an Amendment to the Constitution to say that providing health coverage for all will be granted to the Federal Government. You guys seem to think this is a no brainer, right? So why not end this stupid debate, follow the steps to get an Amendment added, and have universal health care? If this was accomplished, then we would have one less disagreement, right? Don't you think the States would vote for this? Should be easy, right?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  20. #720  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    You're just an average citizen and many many other people agree with you?
    Yes....I have many friends who believe the government is taking on way too many functions that we feel they shouldn't. And I believe this election showed that many more people believe this to. I guess you forgot about the election already, huh? The funny thing is when I tell my friends what some of you people say in here, they just shake their head like they can't believe people think like you do. I guess you'll be like davidra shortly and start to call me a racist...go ahead...that is what you liberals do best, call someone a racist when they disagree with you. Of course, you over look that obama spent 20 years with a racist minister that he once called his "mentor". Good grief.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Posting Permissions