CBS didn't stop Andy Rooney

[yaris-me]

It's gone. My apologies. :bow:

[cali yaris]

whether or not you agree or disagree with the piece, you should at least check to if it's TRUE or not. Which you didn't. And it's not:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/bigcars.asp

[zachryboles]

^+1 OWND

[why?]

i mean seriously, andy rooney is on cbs, do you really think he wouldn't be a died in the wool communist?

[Kal-El]

I was becoming a fan of Rooney while reading the transcript but when I found out that he didn't say those things (and emphatically denies the views), I lost all respect for him (although he is welcome to his Marxist liberal nonsense).

And may I ask where the racism is?? The transcript emphasizes equality and not labeling and grouping as liberals love to do.

[Altitude]

The transcript emphasizes equality and not labeling and grouping as liberals love to do.

Do you see the inherent contradiction within that statement?

[Kal-El]

Do you see the inherent contradiction within that statement?

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring that up.:tongue:

Yes, "liberal" is a label but what I of course am referring to is the practice within our society to group races/ethnicities and label them with "PC" terms like "African-American" which is often inaccurate anyway. And then those groups get special programs and funding just because. To me, that is calling out some perception of inequality where none exists. We are all created equal however different. Sorry to say, but it's the Democratic party that focuses on these groups and operates based on the numbers and counts on people's belief that a liberal government is going to help them. Democrats make minorities believe that they are their party and that they will take care of them. Take a look at inner cities where the Dems normally have power - is that prosperity? :wink:

[eTiMaGo]

I think it's also a case of making up for the inequality they've been subjected to years before (slavery, anyone?).

[cali yaris]

sorry to call you out, yaris-me. I respect that everyone has an opinion and we get to have them.

Part of respecting someone is making an effort not to misread, misquote them or spread information that was made up about them, regardless of their views.

The rest of you guys sure like to complain and bash -- what are you doing to change things?

[RedRide]

sorry to call you out, yaris-me. I respect that everyone has an opinion and we get to have them.

Part of respecting someone is making an effort not to misread, misquote them or spread information that was made up about them, regardless of their views.

The rest of you guys sure like to complain and bash -- what are you doing to change things?

Well said!
There now seems to be a growing culture of blatent lying in the US, the sole purpiose of which is to boster ones point of view.

If the truth is truly on ones side, lying is not only not nessary, it also simply serves to discredit the lier's point of view.

[why?]

I think it's also a case of making up for the inequality they've been subjected to years before (slavery, anyone?).

i've never owned a slave, nor has anyone i've ever been related to. Why should I be forced to pay for something that happened centuries before I was born?

Not to mention these programs do anything but help the people the are supposedly for. What they really do is let them know it is ok to fail and worse, it gives them a ready made reason for failure.

Everyone is born in the USA with an equal chance to do well. After that it is up to each individual.

All you need to do is look at some of the most famous celebrities and then look at where they came from, and then you'll realize anyone can do anything if they put the effort in.

What we need to do? How about listen to MLK and start living that colorblind society he dreamed about. That is a great first step that still hasn't even come close to happening.

[RedRide]

i've never owned a slave, nor has anyone i've ever been related to. Why should I be forced to pay for something that happened centuries before I was born?

Not to mention these programs do anything but help the people the are supposedly for. What they really do is let them know it is ok to fail and worse, it gives them a ready made reason for failure.

Everyone is born in the USA with an equal chance to do well. After that it is up to each individual.

All you need to do is look at some of the most famous celebrities and then look at where they came from, and then you'll realize anyone can do anything if they put the effort in.

What we need to do? How about listen to MLK and start living that colorblind society he dreamed about. That is a great first step that still hasn't even come close to happening.

That is a simplistic, idyllic view of our society.

First off, there are never enough jobs to go around in the best of times.
Given the fact that the sys/ government has allowed (and encouraged with tax incentives) millions of jobs to shipped elswhere to line the pockets of the rich at the expense of the working class, I charge that the sys/government is at least partly responsible for the jobless.

Eveyone can't be on top and our society can only function with the majority on the bottom of the economic scale.
Shure there are some who will take advantage of anything but, the vast majority who apply for it really need some sort public assistance.

Now we have a president who is a champion of the working class, a class that has been raped for far too long, is the very backbone of any society and he is called everthing from the "anti Christ to Hittler etc

This "I got mine so, screw you " attitude in not only unChristian but, it can detrimential to a society as a whole.

BTW, I am 62 yrs old an have worked steady since I was 13 yrs old not only beacuse I have a work ethic, but I have also been very lucky that I am still physically fit and was always able to find good paying job with adequate health insurance.
I acknowledge that many are not so lucky.

[Kal-El]

That is a simplistic, idyllic view of our society.

Fist off, there are never enough jobs to go around in the best of times.
Given the fact that the sys/ government has allowed (and encouraed with tax incentives) millions of jobs to shipped elswhere to line the pockets of the rich at the expense of the working class, I charge that the sys/government is at least partly responsible for the jobless.

Eveyone can't be on top and our society can only function with the majority on the bottom of the economic scale.
Shure there are some who will take advantage of anything but, the vast majority who apply for it really need some sort public assistance.

Now we have a president who is a champion of the working class, a class that has been raped for far too long, is the very backbone of any society and he is called everthing from the "anti Christ to Hittler etc

This "I got mine so, screw you " attitude in not only unChristian but, it can detrimential to a society as a whole.

BTW, I am 62 yrs old an have worked steady since I was 13 yrs old not only beacuse I have a work ethic, but I have also been very lucky that I am still physically fit and was always able to find good paying a job.
Some are not so lucky.

How is the President a champion of the working class? Wealth redistribution does NOT help the working class. Guess what, confiscating more from businesses and the wealthy destroys jobs. The jobs the working class count on. And programs/entitlements only reduce drive and motivation to earn your own way. That will lead to an America that will no longer be a leader in prosperity, innovation, charity, freedom and liberty.

Health reform, upcoming Cap and Trade (God help us), and other government programs do NOT help the working class. These programs and huge new taxes will cripple the working class. Health care costs are now going to skyrocket as they have done in my state of Massachusetts (ever since we started this similar model they just passed for the rest of the country). We pay, by far, the most for health care in the country now. And there are now doctor shortages. Thing is, this health care bill is even far, far worse because it institutes huge government controls and penalties. Millions of jobs will be lost over the next decade just from health care "reform" alone. What do people really think happens when "rich" businesses get huge tax hikes? It's usually a combination of job layoffs and passing costs on to consumers.

Yeah, this will be great for the working class.

:iono:

[RedRide]

How is the President a champion of the working class? Wealth redistribution does NOT help the working class. Guess what, confiscating more from businesses and the wealthy destroys jobs. The jobs the working class count on. And programs/entitlements only reduce drive and motivation to earn your own way. That will lead to an America that will no longer be a leader in prosperity, innovation, charity, freedom and liberty.

Health reform, upcoming Cap and Trade (God help us), and other government programs do NOT help the working class. These programs and huge new taxes will cripple the working class. Health care costs are now going to skyrocket as they have done in my state of Massachusetts (ever since we started this similar model they just passed for the rest of the country). We pay, by far, the most for health care in the country now. And there are now doctor shortages. Thing is, this health care bill is even far, far worse because it institutes huge government controls and penalties. Millions of jobs will be lost over the next decade just from health care "reform" alone. What do people really think happens when "rich" businesses get huge tax hikes? It's usually a combination of job layoffs and passing costs on to consumers.

Yeah, this will be great for the working class.

:iono:

Wealth re-distribution you say ? Just WTF do you call the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the 90% working middle class to to the top 10% of the richest under Bush, and his failed trickle down economic policies?

There is no employer who will hire a worker simply becaouse you give them money via tax brakes etc. An employer wiil only hire a new woker if they absolulty need one because buisnes is that good and working existing workers overtime wiil not meet demand, not out of some goodnees of their heart as some suggest they will. Buisnesses boom when the masses (the middle, working class) have disposible income to pay for their products and services.

After WWII, the US made about 90% of the world's products. Now, we only make about 10% of our own products. Anyone who doesn't seee this as a major problem is not paying attention to reality.

As far as health reform, name one "penality that wiil be imposed.
The fact is, there is absolutly no penalty for not getting health insurance as the tax for not getting it is actually voluntary and the law specificaly states that there will be absolutly no penalty for not paying it.

Also, there are some new tax incentives for supplying health insurance and there are many cases where it will actually cost businesses less than it now does.

[Kal-El]

Wealth re-distribution you say ? Just WTF do you call the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the 90% working middle class to to the top 10% of the richest under Bush, and his failed trickle down economic policies?

There is no employer who will hire a worker simply becaouse you give them money via tax brakes etc. An employer wiil only hire a new woker if they absolulty need one because buisnes is that good, not out of some goodnees of their heart as some suggest they will. Buisnesses boom when the masses (the middle, working class) have disposible income to pay for their products and services.

After WWII, the US made about 90% of the world's products. Now, we only make about 10% of our own products. Anyone who doesn't seee this as a major problem is not paying attention to reality.

As far as health reform, name one "penality that wiil be imposed.
The fact is, there is absolutly no penalty for not getting health insurance as the tax for not getting it is actually voluntary and the law specificaly states that there will be absolutly no penalty for not paying it.

Also, there are some new tax incentives for supplying health insurance and there are many cases where it will actually cost businesses less than it now does.

Wealth redistribution is government forced redistribution from the wealthy to the poor (the very definition of Marxism). What you describe, if accurate, is the free market working. It is the best and brightest working hard and earning to their potential. They should be congratulated, not punished for their success. BTW, the bottom 47% of Americans pay NO federal income tax. We are already redistributing plenty to them. Shall we just send them bigger checks as reward for not earning their own way?

As for your assessment on health reform, you're suggesting you don't have to pay the penalty fees for not buying insurance. It's not what Obama, Pelosi, Reed, and the rest of them have been saying. They've not even denied imprisonment, when asked, as a penalty for not buying insurance. So explain to me this. How will the system work if you don't have to buy insurance, you don't have to pay penalties, and you can't ever be denied coverage even with preexisting conditions? A mathematical and fiscal miracle? Cool!!! Sign me up!

:confused:

[RedRide]

Wealth redistribution is government forced redistribution from the wealthy to the poor (the very definition of Marxism). What you describe, if accurate, is the free market working. It is the best and brightest working hard and earning to their potential. They should be congratulated, not punished for their success. BTW, the bottom 47% of Americans pay NO federal income tax. We are already redistributing plenty to them. Shall we just send them bigger checks as reward for not earning their own way?

As for your assessment on health reform, you're suggesting you don't have to pay the penalty fees for not buying insurance. It's not what Obama, Pelosi, Reed, and the rest of them have been saying. They've not even denied imprisonment, when asked, as a penalty for not buying insurance. So explain to me this. How will the system work if you don't have to buy insurance, you don't have to pay penalties, and you can't ever be denied coverage even with preexisting conditions? A mathematical and fiscal miracle? Cool!!! Sign me up!

:confused:

Have you even read an accurate transcript of the law that pertains to the tax penalty?

I do not get my info from lying, fear merchants who get filthy rich misrepresenting the truth.:wink:

BTW the majority of the 47% you mentioned includes workers who can only find part time work or are full time workers earning minimumum wage supporting a family and are below the so called poverty level .

[Kal-El]

Have you even read an accurate transcript of the law that pertains to the tax penalty?

I do not get my info from lying,fear merchants who get filthy rich misrepresenting the truth.:wink:

Should I not be listening to what Obama is telling us? He clearly told us that the tax penalty is there, otherwise the system wouldn't work. His words.

You're avoiding what I asked you. So how will it all work out if no one has to pay anything but they receive everything they need?

[RedRide]

This is a copy of the text concerning the "mandate tax" as written in the bill:

2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.


So, in realty there is no real provision to collect the so callked mandate tax.
They can tell you to pay it but it can't be legally collected.

BTW the refom bill was writthen by countlees commities and constantly changed and perverted into the bill that was finally passed and is now law. I admiit that it's not perfect.
However, the staus quo was no longer a viable option and the biil is at least a start.
Refinements etc are shure to follow in the comming years and I hope we as a county can agree on sensible changes.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that a mandate to purchase health insurance was first proposed by some republicans in response to The Clinton adminitration's health care reform discussions.

[yaris-me]

:laugh: You guys can have fun, even without the post. Interesting.:rolleyes:

[Kal-El]

:laugh: You guys can have fun, even without the post. Interesting.:rolleyes:

What do you mean "without the post"?

Health care issues were just a part of the false transcript we're talking about
and it just happened to become the discussion.

I don't see anything wrong with a friendly discussion about one of life's most critical issues. :smile:


This is a copy of the text concerning the "mandate tax" as written in the bill:

2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.


So, in realty there is no real provision to collect the so calked mandate tax.
They can tell you to pay it but it can't be legally collected.

BTW the reform bill was written by countless committees and constantly changed and perverted into the bill that was finally passed and is now law. I admit that it's not perfect.
However, the status quo was no longer a viable option and the biil is at least a start.
Refinements etc are sure to follow in the coming years and I hope we as a county can agree on sensible changes.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that a mandate to purchase health insurance was first proposed by some republicans in response to The Clinton administration's health care reform discussions.


Well, my point is that there is now a huge problem with the whole structure of the bill (of course almost the entire bill is a disgrace but I'll try not to get into all that :tongue:). Of course a federal mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional which is the first flaw. But the realization that no one will be forced to pay into the system anyway is quite remarkable. I continue to believe that nearly half this country believes that government programs happen without having to be paid for. We're are talking about trillions of dollars here and now we find out that we can indeed "game the system". By law, we can't be turned away for any health service. Yet not a single American will be required to pay for coverage. I may be crazy, but it looks like there may be a slight mathematical problem. No?

[RedRide]

Every Constitutional scholar says the health insurance madate is constitutional.
It speaks volumes that the right wing did not bat an eyelash when the republicans (like Mitt Romney and John McCain) proposed the same mandate.

The pupose of a madate is to insure that there is a lage enouigh pool to cover claims and to insure that those who have insurance are not paying for health care for those who choose not to have insurance. Unless someone is very rich, I can't imagine the mindset that would make someone decide that they don't need health insurance other then a selfish "let society pay my medical bills" attitude.

The madate will help insure that that people will pay their own way as far as health insurance is concerned. Republicans liked the idea in the past but, now that Obama agrees, they no longer like it? It sounds like pure politics to me. :wink:
It does seem that the madate details is a bit of a compromise and it's more intended to change the mindset of the US poulation.

Like I said the bill is not perfect but is is closer to acceptable than the status quo.:smile:

[cali yaris]

What do you mean "without the post"?

He (being the OP), meant without the original Andy Rooney post, which he withdrew (since Andy Rooney didn't say it).

Carry on...

[yarrr]

Every Constitutional scholar says the health insurance madate is constitutional.

I don't mean to interrupt the essay contest, but, throwing around completely false statements like that isn't winning any arguments for you. Took me exactly 2 seconds in google to prove that wrong.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/abbott-some-scholars-disagree-on-constitutionality-of-health-174086.html

If "every constitutional scholar" could agree on ANYTHING, the world might explode.

[RedRide]

I don't mean to interrupt the essay contest, but, throwing around completely false statements like that isn't winning any arguments for you. Took me exactly 2 seconds in google to prove that wrong.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/abbott-some-scholars-disagree-on-constitutionality-of-health-174086.html

If "every constitutional scholar" could agree on ANYTHING, the world might explode.

I do believe you are confusing legal scholars with constitutional scholars. You are also confusing politics with reality. The Texas state attorney general (Greg Abbott) is not exactly non patisan.

From youk link:
...........Several legal scholars, however, say Abbott's constitutional analysis falls short because it underestimates congressional power and relies on a selective reading of prior Supreme Court rulings.........

So, even the link you posted bolsters my statements. :wink:

Granted, there might be a constitutional scholar or two who may have a question about the legality of the mandate but the madate does stand on solid legal constititional ground.

BTW, Obama was himself a "constitutional law professor" so, I believe he would personally be aware of any potential problems in this area. :smile:

[Kal-El]

Every Constitutional scholar says the health insurance madate is constitutional.
It speaks volumes that the right wing did not bat an eyelash when the republicans (like Mitt Romney and John McCain) proposed the same mandate.

The pupose of a madate is to insure that there is a lage enouigh pool to cover claims and to insure that those who have insurance are not paying for health care for those who choose not to have insurance. Unless someone is very rich, I can't imagine the mindset that would make someone decide that they don't need health insurance other then a selfish "let society pay my medical bills" attitude.

The madate will help insure that that people will pay their own way as far as health insurance is concerned. Republicans liked the idea in the past but, now that Obama agrees, they no longer like it? It sounds like pure politics to me. :wink:
It does seem that the madate details is a bit of a compromise and it's more intended to change the mindset of the US poulation.

Like I said the bill is not perfect but is is closer to acceptable than the status quo.:smile:

Where in the Constitution does it allow for the federal government to force a citizen to purchase a product/service and from a private business no less? This is the first time in US history that such a law has passed.

What's next, a mandate that each US citizen must purchase a new GM vehicle every 5 years to insure the prolonged success of the US auto industry for the benefit of our economy? Sound ridiculous? Well that's what we're dealing with here.

I'd like to know what these so called scholar's argument is for this. The commerce clause? It does NOT apply.

[TLyttle]

I can't believe that the US has screwed up health care to such a level! It seems that they worked at it. And some of the statements made here are truly bizarre.

The way you guys say it, I should have NO health care at all. For many years, I did not make enough money to pay for US-style health care: low-paying jobs, jobs where much of my productive time was spent helping the handicapped, yet I had high-level health care the whole time. Canada solved the health care problems decades ago by getting rid of the middle men, both in the health insurance and hospital systems, yet this concept is lost on the US. Communism! Really? We all pay taxes to support the system, and those taxes are used equitably for all citizens: how can that be wrong??

At first, the doctors and administrators howled about it (doctors went on strike(!) for a few weeks), but everyone survived fine, certainly the patients. The hospitals became government-monitored (NOT government-run), and the doctors lost no wages; they could still afford their new boat.

Is the US so paranoid about such a system that they really believe all the hype put out by the health companies? Is Canada the only country that is getting far more bang for the health care buck? Good grief, be open-minded enough to look around at what the rest of the free, civilised world is doing, and soon you will see that the US pays more than anyone else, yet gets squat for their money: you pay the most for the 20th-best health care. Gee, real bargain there, alright...

[Altitude]

^^ The worst part is that the people that rail against it willfully ignore the fact that our health care is - in part - so expensive because hospitals and insurance companies jack up their prices and premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured. We're all paying for it one way or another.

[RedRide]

Where in the Constitution does it allow for the federal government to force a citizen to purchase a product/service and from a private business no less? This is the first time in US history that such a law has passed.

What's next, a mandate that each US citizen must purchase a new GM vehicle every 5 years to insure the prolonged success of the US auto industry for the benefit of our economy? Sound ridiculous? Well that's what we're dealing with here.

I'd like to know what these so called scholar's argument is for this. The commerce clause? It does NOT apply.

You got it a bit backwards
Where in ther constitution does it say you can't?

Fact is, the mandate is intended to persuade stupid people who think they don't neeed health insurance to get insurance so they will cease to be an economic burden on society.

The health care bill is not designed to insure the succes of any industry. It is to insure health care for the citizens of the richest country on the planet.
Its really sad the we need a law to insure this particulurly in a country that claims to have "Christian values".

I can say "what's next" also.
What's next, people who refuse to purchase food and expect others to pay for it to keep them alive as they do with health insursance that they also refuse to purchase?

BTW, we are all required by laws to purchase car insurance.
But you dont need car and therefore they/you don't need insurance you say.
Can you also say that you will never have health issues? It's a given, you are alive and you will have a need for health care even if you never owned a car.

[yarrr]

Car insurance IS different because as you pointed out, you have a choice to use roads. I still disagree with the fact that people make a profit off of something required by law, though.

"Fact is, the mandate is intended to persuade stupid people who think they don't neeed health insurance to get insurance so they will cease to be an economic burden on society."

Ok, except I've only gone to the doctor's once in seven years, and that cost me $650, not $50,000. I guess that makes me stupid...

If this travesty passes, I'm gonna become a shaman and claim separation of church and state.

[RedRide]

Car insurance IS different because as you pointed out, you have a choice to use roads. I still disagree with the fact that people make a profit off of something required by law, though.

"Fact is, the mandate is intended to persuade stupid people who think they don't neeed health insurance to get insurance so they will cease to be an economic burden on society."

Ok, except I've only gone to the doctor's once in seven years, and that cost me $650, not $50,000. I guess that makes me stupid...

If this travesty passes, I'm gonna become a shaman and claim separation of church and state.

I guess you are a psychic, super human individual and you know will never need health care in the future. You know you will never get sick or get injured for the rest of your life.

I assume you don't have a family. Not having health insurace when you have a family is not only stupid but, immoral IMO.

You went to the doc once and it only cost you $650?
As Frank Barone would say....... HOLY CRAP!!!!


BTW, I got a flash for you, it already passed. :smile:

[TLyttle]

You're not far off on the food analogy, true enough. I don't know how prominent a part food banks play in the survival of the poor in the US; up here food banks are necessary. Choosing between food and rent is a tough one, so food banks keep many people alive. Add to rent, power, heat, etc, the cost of health care would make it impossible for some to survive ANY illness requiring treatment.

By the way, I had a stroke: the only card I had to show at the hospital was my health care card, no Visa, no Mastercard, no bank records. We are not in the best part of Canada, either; most Provinces charge nothing for health care, but BC residents get charged $52 a month. Everyone is covered, and the charge is dropped for those below a certain income level. And my "previously existing condition" (the stroke) changes nothing, ever.

Why is this impossible in the US? Because "private enterprise" won't allow it: profits before people...

[RedRide]

You got it, "profits before people" is the name of the game with health care insurance and that's why we needed reform.

It's the free enterprise sys run amuck driven by blatent greed.

[Kal-El]

You guys are under the impression that the insurance companies make big profits. Reality check: it's about 6%. That's very low for any business. They already pay out much higher cost reinbursements than the government (Medicare/Medicaid). Doctors would be out of business if all of their reimbursements were through Medicare. Everything that government touches goes bankrupt. Why is there so much confidence in government? Social security, Medicare, the post office, ect. are all bankrupt. Expecting it to change now is insanity.

[Kal-El]

Also, guess who's the biggest denier of healthcare is? You guessed it - government. They turn away a higher percentage than any insurance company. Yet we believe that a government takeover will give everybody coverage. Remarkable.

[yaris-me]

Govt doesn't have to turn a profit and congress never tries to balance the budget. Wake-up people! It's not about who should or should not have healthcare. Who should profit or not profit. Govt can't manage anything without messing it up. Social Security, Medicare are bankrupt, full of IOUs. Obama spent $1.4 trillion without thinking that there is no money. The deficit is at $14 trillion and the unfunded deficit is at $57 trillion. That is $71 trillion and the burden is on our children and grand children. Is this the legacy you want to leave for the future generation? They'll say that our generation had its head up you know where.:iono:

[Rick]

It has been asked,

"Where in the constitution does it say you can't?" (fedgov controlled healthcare)

Try the tenth amendment. You don't need constitutional scholars to understand it. The whole document was written for the common folk to understand. Constitutional scholars are only needed to obfucate what it means. You all should read it some time. It's not that odiously long!

If you can't show me (and everyone else) where the constitution says fedgov can control healthcare then the tenth amendment says they can't. Period. The States can, the People can, but NOT fedgov.

All fedgov has done well is wreck shit and kill people. (The military is the only great success they can claim.) Over my lifetime I have observed that most of what's wrong they caused. We need much less of them, not more! I'm not anti-American, just anti historical progressivism.

Amendment X

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.

[Kal-El]

^Exactly.

I don't know why it's so difficult for some to understand.

The Constitution clearly restricts the FEDERAL Government from implementing such sweeping legislation that effects states individual rights. These matters are to be left to the states and their people. With this bill, a majority of states oppose it. 60% of all US citizens want it repealed. How can the Federal Government force such an act that clearly violates the wishes of The People.

It's why Massachusetts was able to do it individually. That's the state's right. If a state wants to bankrupt themselves, they're free to. The Federal Government, in this case, has just imposed legislation that forces huge costs to state budgets that want nothing to do with it. Texas along with a handful of other states have played responsibly and are among the few who are doing well financially. Now, they will be crippled like the rest of the liberal states under mountains of debt.

It's just like all of the other social issues. Guns laws, gay marriage, DMV laws, state tax laws, and endless state regulations involving industry and everything else is all left to the state. Notice that the federal government has no power in these matters (or at least very limited).

[frownonfun]

it's not a government takeover. for or against the legislation i don't really care. but please stop calling it a government takeover of healthcare. best i can figure we are still dealing with the insurance companies... not the government.

also the post office isn't technically run by the government either. just sayin.

[TLyttle]

Sure, Kal-El, the margins on health care are so low that people are flocking to invest in it at any level possible. To us, it is really strange to hear about portfolios that include HMOs (or whatever they are called) and hospitals. Typically, the investment community is only interested in the welfare of the shareholder, and doesn't give a damn about the sick; otherwise, no one's health care would be cancelled for "pre-existing conditions". As I said, profits before people.

Get rid of a couple of wars, and the US would have no trouble affording truly universal health care, plus a better education system.

[Kal-El]

it's not a government takeover. for or against the legislation i don't really care. but please stop calling it a government takeover of healthcare. best i can figure we are still dealing with the insurance companies... not the government.


You're missing the big picture or the planned and inevitable end result of all this. Yes, I said planned. Obama and many other liberals at the top have said it in clear words that this is just the first step to a single payer system (government of course). Obama has said it not just once, but many times.

The whole structure is designed to eliminate private insurance - even though they are currently not admitting it. All of the regulations set into place will, without a doubt, bankrupt private insurance. It's only a matter of time that government will be the only entity left.

That, my friend, is a government takeover. :smile:

[frownonfun]

Just as long as we can all agree the (very mild) reform that was just passed is really and truly far from a government takeover.

As far as what the future holds for health care, well, I'm all for a single payer system. It's hard to steer a proponent of socialism away from nationalized health care. But that's just my opinion and I'm not looking to start a debate with anyone about that.

[Kal-El]

Just as long as we can all agree the (very mild) reform that was just passed is really and truly far from a government takeover.

As far as what the future holds for health care, well, I'm all for a single payer system. It's hard to steer a proponent of socialism away from nationalized health care. But that's just my opinion and I'm not looking to start a debate with anyone about that.

Wow, you're admitting to being a proponent of socialism. And a Texan no less.

:iono:

You're free to have those beliefs but there's no point in arguing with you about them. Won't get us anywhere. :smile:

[TLyttle]

So.... uhhhh... Canada is a Socialist country? I really must relate that to my friends and neighbours, I'm sure they still thought we were free enterprise! Britain would be surprised to hear the news as well, along with every other Western nation whose health care system doesn't depend on private investment.

Your fear of any form of socialism is surprising, considering the number of social programs operating nicely in the US, most notably the military, the police forces, or any other program where the taxpayers support its existence. Yet when it comes to a program where American lives can be saved, you start screaming "Commies".....

[RedRide]

So.... uhhhh... Canada is a Socialist country? I really must relate that to my friends and neighbours, I'm sure they still thought we were free enterprise! Britain would be surprised to hear the news as well, along with every other Western nation whose health care system doesn't depend on private investment.

Your fear of any form of socialism is surprising, considering the number of social programs operating nicely in the US, most notably the military, the police forces, or any other program where the taxpayers support its existence. Yet when it comes to a program where American lives can be saved, you start screaming "Commies".....

Excactly!
It has everthing to do with partisain politics and nothing to so with reality.

We have a goup of ignorant, hypocritical, hysterical fear mongers in the US whos only goal is to destroy the political oposition.
They have no interest in the truth, only Obama bashing.

[Kal-El]

Excactly!
It has everthing to do with partisain politics and nothing to so with reality.

We have a goup of ignorant, hypocritical, hysterical fear mongers in the US whos only goal is to destroy the political oposition.
They have no interest in the truth, only Obama bashing.

And Bush didn't get any criticism throughout his presidency. I was just imagining it when he was called Hitler, Satan, ect. Not saying I'm a fan of Bush as he was too liberal, but just pointing out that he was trampled upon in office. It was OK though because he was just a regular white dude.

[RedRide]

And Bush didn't get any criticism throughout his presidency. I was just imagining it when he was called Hitler, Satan, ect. Not saying I'm a fan of Bush as he was too liberal, but just pointing out that he was trampled upon in office. It was OK though because he was just a regular white dude.


You are kidding right? Comparing the ligitimate criticism of Jr with the constant, asinine blatent lies about Obama is rediculous to say the least.

[Kal-El]

You are kidding right? Comparing the ligitimate criticism of Jr with the constant, asinine blatent lies about Obama is rediculous to say the least.

So criticism of Bush is legitimate because you don't like Bush but it's illegitimate criticism when it's someone you agree with.

Got it.

Tell me one lie about Obama. I'm curious.

[RedRide]

So criticism of Bush is legitimate because you don't like Bush but it's illegitimate criticism when it's someone you agree with.

Got it.

Tell me one lie about Obama. I'm curious.

You don't know about how JR trashed the constitution and nearly destroyed the economy etc?

You really do not know of at least "one lie" (of many) about Obama?

Are you just "kiddiing", or are you actually that uninformed? :wink: