Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.
Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
You think PMZ is using logic?
Dumbicrats don't use logic (which is why they get annihilated in a debate with conservatives). They use irrational emotion. They feel about an issue, they don't think about an issue. And that is exactly why their policies are such catastrophic disasters.
Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.
Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
I think that I've explained about 100 times here that I have experience with countries that can only afford letting people die in the streets. What that leads to is unacceptable to me and most Americans.
The fact that people like you, Americans, are even willing to consider it is appalling, and is huge evidence at how fall we've fallen as a country from the scourge of conservatism.
We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
This is like a civics 101 class. Didn't you people go to school?
Once again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displays astounding ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly he never took Civics 101. Is it too late for us to sign him up? We can even split the cost just to educate this buffoon (hell, he expects us to cover the cost for him in life with everything else).
The fact that you don't understand the different between state government and federal government is simply unbelievable.
Republican Mitt Romney instituted "Romneycare" at the state level and it was perfectly legal. Obama illegally tried to take his concept to the federal level.
PMZ, sweetie, even Democrats are tearing you apart here. Do you notice you are 100% alone? Everyone who has weighed in as agreed that you are completely wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). Doesn't that tell you something?
Easiest way to tell you have a coward in a corner... They start begging you to leave.It also points out that all laws and government actions have recursive repercussions throughout society. We have a law that it is illegal to murder people, this causes us to form a justice system, we have to fund that justice system. Essentially, taxes paid and spent on the justice system is a form of insurance against any one of us committing murder for the purpose of putting us away if we do. What would be better is a system where all of the assets of guilty people are used to fund the system thus not penalizing the innocent. But there we have it, our system is somewhat backwards in so far as we have decided to punish the innocent with taxes as well as the guilty. Worse, if you are rich you get punished progressively for our wars on drugs, gangs, gun crime, etc.
Why does nobody here take the obvious solution to the problems that you can't stop whining about?
Move! Dead simple. Dead effective. No risk. All your problems solved.
PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats. He says he follows the constitution, but as far as can be seen he only follows it to find something to urinate on.
Easiest way to tell you have a coward in a corner... They start begging you to leave.Why does nobody here take the obvious solution to the problems that you can't stop whining about?
Move! Dead simple. Dead effective. No risk. All your problems solved.
Such a simple, free market solution to your incessant whining. But, obviously, your purpose is not to solve your problem but to be a problem to others.
Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes? Don't they have rights?
The Constitution guaranteed us freedom, stupid. It did not guarantee us safety.
If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats. He says he follows the constitution, but as far as can be seen he only follows it to find something to urinate on.
Everyone in the world, with the possible exception of the Taliban, is to the left of American media extreme conservatives.
Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes? Don't they have rights?
The Constitution guaranteed us freedom, stupid. It did not guarantee us safety.
If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
The Constitution doesn't apply to you. Only to our Federal Government. It spells out, among other things, areas of life that they have to stay out of. So they have. You don't get to write your own Constitution.
PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.
His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.
First off that is a lie. Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state position that Mitt held as Governor for a Democrat State, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate. Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?
PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.
His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.
Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
I think that I've explained about 100 times here that I have experience with countries that can only afford letting people die in the streets. What that leads to is unacceptable to me and most Americans.
The fact that people like you, Americans, are even willing to consider it is appalling, and is huge evidence at how fall we've fallen as a country from the scourge of conservatism.
See dblack? Anything other than PMZ is in absolute control and we are accused of killing people in the streets. Because prior to OCA we were letting people die in the streets right PMZ? PMZ is nothing more than an authoritarian socialist troll.
The Constitution guaranteed us freedom, stupid. It did not guarantee us safety.
If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
The Constitution doesn't apply to you. Only to our Federal Government. It spells out, among other things, areas of life that they have to stay out of. So they have. You don't get to write your own Constitution.
ROFL... ok that was the dumbest statement EVER RECORDED IN AMERICAN HISTORY... Gratz!
Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats. He says he follows the constitution, but as far as can be seen he only follows it to find something to urinate on.
Everyone in the world, with the possible exception of the Taliban, is to the left of American media extreme conservatives.
You say that like you hate America. Do you have any proof you are American?
We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
This is like a civics 101 class. Didn't you people go to school?
Once again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displays astounding ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly he never took Civics 101. Is it too late for us to sign him up? We can even split the cost just to educate this buffoon (hell, he expects us to cover the cost for him in life with everything else).
The fact that you don't understand the different between state government and federal government is simply unbelievable.
Republican Mitt Romney instituted "Romneycare" at the state level and it was perfectly legal. Obama illegally tried to take his concept to the federal level.
PMZ, sweetie, even Democrats are tearing you apart here. Do you notice you are 100% alone? Everyone who has weighed in as agreed that you are completely wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). Doesn't that tell you something?
I think that the Rotweiner continues to pretend that he lives in a country where each of us has our own Constitution that says whatever we want it to.
Aren't we glad that the founders were smarter than Rotweiner? Of course so is a box of hammers.
Once again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displays astounding ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly he never took Civics 101. Is it too late for us to sign him up? We can even split the cost just to educate this buffoon (hell, he expects us to cover the cost for him in life with everything else).
The fact that you don't understand the different between state government and federal government is simply unbelievable.
Republican Mitt Romney instituted "Romneycare" at the state level and it was perfectly legal. Obama illegally tried to take his concept to the federal level.
PMZ, sweetie, even Democrats are tearing you apart here. Do you notice you are 100% alone? Everyone who has weighed in as agreed that you are completely wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). Doesn't that tell you something?
I think that the Rotweiner continues to pretend that he lives in a country where each of us has our own Constitution that says whatever we want it to.
Aren't we glad that the founders were smarter than Rotweiner? Of course so is a box of hammers.
So you are admitting that you don't know the difference between the federal government and state government?
Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes? Don't they have rights?
The Constitution guaranteed us freedom, stupid. It did not guarantee us safety.
If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
The Constitution doesn't apply to you. Only to our Federal Government. It spells out, among other things, areas of life that they have to stay out of. So they have. You don't get to write your own Constitution.
UThe Constitution doesn't apply to you. Only to our Federal Government. It spells out, among other things, areas of life that they have to stay out of. So they have. You don't get to write your own Constitution.
ROFL... ok that was the dumbest statement EVER RECORDED IN AMERICAN HISTORY... Gratz!
Prove me wrong. A good place to start would be a conviction of someone for violating the Constitution.
The Constitution guaranteed us freedom, stupid. It did not guarantee us safety.
If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
The Constitution doesn't apply to you. Only to our Federal Government. It spells out, among other things, areas of life that they have to stay out of. So they have. You don't get to write your own Constitution.
So the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion) is for the federal government and not for me?
So the 2nd Amendment (right of the people to keep and bear arms) is for the federal government and not for me?
So the 3rd Amendment (no soldier shall be quartered in my home without my permission) is not for me?!?
You continue to prove over and over that you're too lazy to read the Constitution
