- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Whoever it was predicted liberalism and it's ruin of America.
Yeah. At the White House passing out other people's money.
Never mind those who promote the destruction of America by expanding teat suckling. You are correct. The dems want a majority of voters to be teat sucklers realizing 1000 unproductive or underproducing parasites and addicts can out vote 50 industrious employers
The only three cornered hats I have seen anywhere near the White House was across the street in the park and two secret agents were keeping very close tabs on him since he kept yelling something about the British coming .
You just like saying that word over and over. :roll:
The only three cornered hats I have seen anywhere near the White House was across the street in the park and two secret agents were keeping very close tabs on him since he kept yelling something about the liberals are here .
Teat. Is that like a farm thing or a baby thing? There's so much I don't know.
Teat. Is that like a farm thing or a baby thing? There's so much I don't know.
Have to admit, you got me. For awhile, it seemed this was going to be a rational post. But the highlighted sentences burst my bubble. I wonder if the mortgage company you did work for is still in business, most went bankrupt.
This happened becuase of low tax rates on hedge funds. This would be funny if it were not so sad. What hedge funds were involved in a major way in this issue. Other than taking sides like Paulson did, which BTW made he billions.
You miss the point. The quote you mention is related to this point. It is as I always try to get you to see, you should read for comprehension and not to pick out individual lines as if they don't relate to each other. All of it relates to the overriding point, often refered to as the thesis. So, it isn't about regulating all mental activity, it's about the fact that they can't opt out of health care, so their choice can be regulated. Again, read to get the point, the thesis, the overriding argument. Until you do that, you'll be fooled by sites like NRO.
Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem
I have to wonder how many of those who oppose entitlement cuts are sucking at the teet of the taxpayer.
ah yes, the point is the thesis which is the other element of a 5 pronged argument which is the thesis point which points to the element thesis which.... wait... who's on first?
the Judge claimed that the individual mandate was constitutional because Congress had the right to regulate the choice not to purchase health insurance because it wasn't inactivity, it was "mental activity". your complete inability to defend that atrocious position is noted. I am simply happy to content myself with the image of someone trying to argue that logic in front of Justice Scalia. That rebutall is going to be legendary.
It's called reading for comprhension. The point is in is not inactivity. You cannot opt out of health care. You get injuried, you will be treated. That's a simple fact. Now, you can be as dishonest as NRO, pretend there is no connection between the ideas. Many do that that type of dishonest arguing. But the fact is the point is a simple and honest one. You cannot opt out of health care. No one can be certain they will never need care. In fact, it is almost a certainty that they will need care at some point. Serious care.
Boo I am a bit surprised with your post. Let me note up front that I have not kept track of the posts on this thread. That being said the bolded areas while being true misses a basic truth. That is some people for a variety of reasons are willing to understand the risk you mention above but do not want to pay the cost of insuring that risk. Sort of like saying that everyone dies, with that comes a cost of funerals etc. So why not have a law saying that everyone needs at least enough insurance to cover their burial costs. You can take this line of thought to just about anything that happens in life. So does the government have an unlimited right to have us insure whatever is their hotbutton issue is this week.
That's just not true. Saying you're willing to accept the risk is not the same as being capable of accepting the risk. You would ahve to be capable of paying the extreme possibility in order to honestly accept responsibility, or to say that while you're lying there bleeding to death that you won't let anyone treat you. This is largely not possible. Only a very small number could possibily afford such a thing, and those people are almost certainly insured.
If you break out the segments of the population that would be asked to buy insurance, while there is some probability that this could/would happen is very small. It gets smaller still when you count the people who do not take the insurance, but can in fact pay the bill. I do support a universal program just not the one put forth in this law. A single payor system not only helps get everyone insured but also helps business compete in the world. Not sure why the dems could not better explain how a single payor system would HELP the employment picture. Maybe they don't really believe in it either.
How often it happens is never the point. The fact is it can happen is the point. No one can say with any certainty that it will never happen. The fact is it does happen. And few, if any, who don't have insurance can actually pay a huge bill.
Good to see however that you support a single payer system.
I was bitterly disappointed that we did not get single payer. Even with this "mandatory" insurance policy, there will be many who choose to pay the fee than buy insurance. Those are the people who also fall into your category of not being able to pay even a mid level cost.
To me, while we got a few good insurance fixes, not enough versus either what needed to be done, or the opportunity cost of working on some other issue that would have had a more beneficial impact to the country long term. If I am correct, they did not even fix the thing dems complained about with the bush medicare pill thing. That is the ability for medicare to fight to get the best prices for drugs!
Which is why we became the empowered populace in the history of mankind. Thank you.
How many times do you have to see this fail before you guys learn? Socialism fails because you eventually run out of other people's money to spend.
Raise taxes and watch unemployment skyrocket to 20+ percent, which is common elsewhere in the world.
and the mandate is murder
Dems up for reelection under pressure to nix healthcare mandate - TheHill.com
seeya on the floor, folks
It's called reading for comprhension. The point is in is not inactivity. You cannot opt out of health care. You get injuried, you will be treated. That's a simple fact. Now, you can be as dishonest as NRO, pretend there is no connection between the ideas. Many do that that type of dishonest arguing. But the fact is the point is a simple and honest one. You cannot opt out of health care. No one can be certain they will never need care. In fact, it is almost a certainty that they will need care at some point. Serious care.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?