Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[thereisnospoon]

No, 15 states do have high risk pools. Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states. Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more. Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it. Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.

So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need? That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey. Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.

I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled. I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.

No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs. All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible. Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do. But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.

After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else. What's wrong with that? If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that. I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.

That is true of all people.
That is true of local communities.
That is true of states.
That is true of nations.

A healthcare system in which 1 in 7 people cannot afford healthcare is not working well.

No, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their financial success. However, I do not believe that one's access to healthcare should depend on that success. Whether you are rich or poor regardless of whether you live in Florida or Washington, you should be able to go to the doctor if you're sick. You shouldn't have to loose your home and declare bankruptcy because you can't get insurance and a family member is stricken with cancer.

One in seven people "cannot "afford healthcare? Prove it.. 310 million divided by 7 is 45 million..Oh I get it ....the government straw man argument to go down the road of socialized medicine...Look, this number has been moved all over the place.
It includes the 12-20 million illegals living the US. It also includes the 10 million young people who earn in excess of $40k per year but refuse to buy coverage from their employer or the private market. And it also includes the several million workers who are contractors and do not have employer provided coverage but do supply their own Worker's Comp insurance.
The fact that number of those who cannot buy coverage can be skewed any way one wishes. The democrat party which until this year controlled the congress and of course the executuve branch, has a vested interest in creating dependency for political purposes.
That is what the basis is for Obamacare. To create dependency on government.
I agree we should not have a system where we must decide between financial ruin or getting needed life saving care. However, this (Obamacare) does not come close to addressing that issue.
Government needs to get out of the way and allow the marketplace to function.
Let us decide what coverages we want. Let us buy health insurance from the vendor of our choice without regard to state boundaries. Let us choose catastrophic coverage. Let us open medical savings accounts.
If health insurance was available as a consumer commodity similar to other items, competition would increase and that alone would lower premiums. Consumer protections could b e put into place to safeguard the insured from being dropped by the insurer except for a tightly regulated for cause criteria.
In other words an insured could not by law be summarily dropped by their insurer simply because they filed a claim.
This would take about 10 pages of double spaced type to write such a law.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't have to do anything other than respond to a false claim. You have to do far more than just post an essay, article, or whatever as proof. You have to show why it so. You have never done that, so I don't expect it here.

Why the red herring about statism? If you are asking "does socialism exist in the world", why, yes. 'Statism' is a nonsense term made up for nonsense reasons. Government ipso facto is not statism by any competent definition. You will have to do better than that, Neo.

No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..

So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
Is that your final answer?


Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments"

Red herring would be- In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post
See the difference- good
lesson over


It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
Funny how that works.



To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....

Here is the rest of the post enjoy

Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?

Jakey edits posts on a regular basis. Precisely why he accuses others of editing his nonsense.
He once accused me of editing him. I copy/pasted the post in question. He subsequently spent the next day wiping the egg off his mug.
Do not listen to or pay attention to or what the liberal says/writes. Pay VERY close attention to what they do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't have to do anything other than respond to a false claim. You have to do far more than just post an essay, article, or whatever as proof. You have to show why it so. You have never done that, so I don't expect it here.

Why the red herring about statism? If you are asking "does socialism exist in the world", why, yes. 'Statism' is a nonsense term made up for nonsense reasons. Government ipso facto is not statism by any competent definition. You will have to do better than that, Neo.

No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..

So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
Is that your final answer?


Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments"

Red herring would be- In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post
See the difference- good
lesson over


It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
Funny how that works.



To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....

Here is the rest of the post enjoy

Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?

Jakey edits posts on a regular basis. Precisely why he accuses others of editing his nonsense.
He once accused me of editing him. I copy/pasted the post in question. He subsequently spent the next day wiping the egg off his mug.
Do not listen to or pay attention to or what the liberal says/writes. Pay VERY close attention to what they do.

This I can agree with jake is full of liberal shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You did rewrite what I wrote, and looked quite stupid the next day tap dancing around the issue. Editing itself is fine as long as the response is to the remainder of the earlier post.

Now to the point: is your concept of "statism" (what a nonsense term) wrong in and of itself?

Are you willing to provide your own police and fire protection, sanitize your water, provide your electricity, guarantee the safety of your food and drugs?

I love how you guys try to pretend that your political philosophy is somehow part of mainstream conservatism. It's not, never has been, and never will be.

Who will you run out with the flag now that Sarah is discredited?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You did rewrite what I wrote, and looked quite stupid the next day tap dancing around the issue. Editing itself is fine as long as the response is to the remainder of the earlier post.

Now to the point: is your concept of "statism" (what a nonsense term) wrong in and of itself?

Are you willing to provide your own police and fire protection, sanitize your water, provide your electricity, guarantee the safety of your food and drugs?

I love how you guys try to pretend that your political philosophy is somehow part of mainstream conservatism. It's not, never has been, and never will be.

Who will you run out with the flag now that Sarah is discredited?

Blow it out your ass faker you make that claim with me all the time.

 

[Neotrotsky]

You did rewrite what I wrote, and looked quite stupid the next day tap dancing around the issue. Editing itself is fine as long as the response is to the remainder of the earlier post.

Now to the point: is your concept of "statism" (what a nonsense term) wrong in and of itself?

Are you willing to provide your own police and fire protection, sanitize your water, provide your electricity, guarantee the safety of your food and drugs?

I love how you guys try to pretend that your political philosophy is somehow part of mainstream conservatism. It's not, never has been, and never will be.

Who will you run out with the flag now that Sarah is discredited?

Again Jake the same fake association ? As said before...

Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to pretend such choices do not exist. Therefore, things like "Statism does not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal of gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more intrusive gov't functions that they so desire. There is even the naive belief by some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop the erosion of individual rights...
​

I do find it funny how you have shown my statement about the fake comparison to banal gov't functions, to be true.


Individual rights, not main stream, who do you actually hang out with these days?



Your approach is attempting the false notion of people be accepting of some gov't should be accepting of all. Of course using that approach, one could say "hey if you like how the Post Office is run, wait till we get you health care" or if you like the way DMV works......etc


In fact, it is based on the Rousseauian vision (Jean Rousseau) holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.




Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist groups are all based and have their "roots" in the Rousseauian vision.

Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights by the people.

Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to pretend such choices do not exist. Therefore, things like "Statism does not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal of gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more intrusive gov't functions that they so desire. There is even the naive belief by some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop the erosion of individual rights...

Good luck with that one

 

[Synthaholic]

So how much is this symbolic time-wasting costing the taxpayers?

 

[Neotrotsky]

So how much is this symbolic time-wasting costing the taxpayers?

less than it did to pass PapaObama care

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So how much is this symbolic time-wasting costing the taxpayers?

less than it did to pass PapaObama care

ouch thats going to leave a mark

 

[Foxfyre]

The best possible thing Congress could do for any of us is to repeal every single bill that costs money that we do not HAVE to spend.

And then not pass a single new bill that costs money for anything that we do not HAVE to have.

And spend their time focused on monitoring whatever entities are likely involved in racketeering that tread on the rights of the citizens. . . .AND . . . .making sure the USA has the best possible playing field in a world market. . . .AND. . . .keeping an eye on those who intend us no good. . . .and creating the best possible business climate for American commerce and industry which, coupled with spending restraints, is the only chance we have to balance the budget and start paying down the debt.

Repeal of Obamacare, being the most expensive, most intrusive, and likely unconstitutional legislation ever passed by a U.S. Congress is an excellent place to start.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky. Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison et al. To deny that is to deny history.

Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government. To suggest otherwise denies reality.

To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky. Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison et al. To deny that is to deny history.

Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government. To suggest otherwise denies reality.

To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.

To form an opinion, accept it as fact then base a conclusion on that opinion is an activity enjoyed by those of weak mind.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky. Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison et al. To deny that is to deny history.

Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government. To suggest otherwise denies reality.

To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.

Are you preparing for your openning on the comedy channel?

 

[Neotrotsky]

You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky. Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison et al. To deny that is to deny history.

Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government. To suggest otherwise denies reality.

To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.

I have denied nothing. Perhaps, your inability to hear the truth is upsetting to you.


Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights by the people.

Since even Rousseau (you spelled his name wrong again) recognized that as well, there are no untruths here.

Again, for the record do you want to say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke?
I look forward to adding this to your "collective works" of my favorites.

My definition of statism is the most common and accepted one. Once again your ideas find themself outside the mainstream
Funny how that works





Ignoring the truth does not make it go away

In fact for some, it can become painful

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky. Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison et al. To deny that is to deny history.

Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government. To suggest otherwise denies reality.

To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.

To form an opinion, accept it as fact then base a conclusion on that opinion is an activity enjoyed by those of weak mind.

The weak minds, such as yours and Neo's, try to alter the facts to fit your philosophy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo, I can't apologize for being dyslexic my entire life.

Do you deny that Rousseau, along with Locke and others, informed Madison and the Founders' political philosophy.

One mus twist the philosophy to fit the facts, not the facts to fit the philosophy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neo, I can't apologize for being dyslexic my entire life.

Do you deny that Rousseau, along with Locke and others, informed Madison and the Founders' political philosophy.

One mus twist the philosophy to fit the facts, not the facts to fit the philosophy.

Madison knew Benjamin Franklin, Franklin was a political philosopher

 

[Neotrotsky]

Neo, I can't apologize for being dyslexic my entire life.

Do you deny that Rousseau, along with Locke and others, informed Madison and the Founders' political philosophy.

One mus twist the philosophy to fit the facts, not the facts to fit the philosophy.

I twist nothing... you, my friend are the one who twist.

I do not deny that Rousseau had a influence, you only claim that I do to change (poorly) the argument.

We are however, speaking on who had a greater influence.


Speaking of twisting....

Now do you deny that Locke had a greater one?

Would you have us believe the founding of this nation was based more in Rousseau than Locke?

Do you really want to make such a statement?


Do you deny that Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism
and all the other collectivist groups are all based and dependent on the Rousseauian vision more than Locke ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question is not of Locke's influence but the extent of that of Rousseau's. As well as where does the legitimate social compact end and the beginning evil of your statist principles. I will aid you, though, in your quest. Go study John Randolph, for you may find an ally in the Founders there. You have not found one elsewhere.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The question is not of Locke's influence but the extent of that of Rousseau's. As well as where does the legitimate social compact end and the beginning evil of your statist principles. I will aid you, though, in your quest. Go study John Randolph, for you may find an ally in the Founders there. You have not found one elsewhere.

Actually, the question is one of comparative importance and influence; a question of who's influence was greater
(nice try on your part though)

The questions are still posted.
Your "silence" is one kind of an answer.