How to Really Fix Healthcare. Conservatives, take a Nitro before reading this

Only someone who wants a return to slavery could possibly believe that any good or service is a right. Do you foolishly believe that you are owed someone's labor just because you believe you have a right? Where did you become so evil? Is this a public school problem?

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever wondered if you just simply do not know enough to be posting in public?

 

Promoting the general welfare is executing the enumerated responsibilities in Article 1 section 8. No program that takes wealth from one person to give to another individual is covered. All welfare programs that give money or other forms of wealth to individuals are unconstitutional.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

I don't see any requirement for anyone to be a member of a militia in order for them to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. It is not the same at all.

Do you understand what the purpose of insurance is? When you buy insurance from me you are transferring some of your risk to me for a fee. If you are already sick then it is not insurance. It is pre-paid health care. You do not have a right to someone else's labor because you are sick.

What? Of course they should have to pay more. And if you are serious you should step up and agree to pay a portion of some sick person's bills.

Right. No one has any responsibility for anything. This is not an effective argument.

From each to each, right Comrade?

 

I believe you are completely evil. Only an evil person would believe they have a right to hold another individual in bondage, using them for their own purposes.

I have made no such claim. I am not surpised that an evil person who is promoting slavery would also lie.

I do regularly. Sometimes I look a little tired. I think it comes from fighting the little totalitarian Marxists I find on these boards.

 

Ohhh please, educate me exhalted one.

With all those synonyms.. you (and every other conservative on this forum) chooses enslave. Coincidental rhetoric?

 

typical liberal response "Dam throwing gas on the fire didn't put it out. it made it worse. maybe because we didn't use enough so lets try throwing more on it"

It is never about result with liberals. it is always about the intent. they ignore empirical evidence. it is the definition of an ideologue

 

Why are you so obsessed with slavery?

 

Liberals are smart enough to realize you don't throw gasoline on a fire. That must be a memory of yours from Uncle Bubba's farm out in the country....

I opposed the law from the time it was proposed. It's only now that I realize just how beautiful the law is. Too bad Conservatives who can't wander too far into the deep end of the pool called "thought" without drowning haven't seen it, you would have been right on.

 

I do not believe it is possible to educate you. If it were possible you would have already become better educated.
Enslaved is the best term to use. It has exactly the right connotation. You want someone else to labor without compensation so that you can have the benefit of that individual's labor. How is that not slavery?

 

I find I am required to fight it every time a liberal-Progress-ve-socialist-Marxist claims they have a right to someone elses life. I am obsessed with my anti-slavery campaign because the task of defeating all of the liberal slavers is so great a task.

 

I can tell the concept of an analogy is totally lost with you

my point was liberals never learn from mistakes of their own or others. they never learned what work and what doesn't. they never conceder the consequences of their ideas and agendas. it is always about the idea the intent never about the results or consequences. they live in the abstract never in the reality . they ignore empirical evidence. they are a prime example of an ideologue

 

.... Ok.

You receive compensation and the same benefits. Therefore, the term "slavery" is inaccurate in the context you are trying to use it in.

 

Oh, I get analogies, the thing is they have to be intelligent. I've long given up hope that about 90% of the Conservatives of the United States can beat a chimpanzee at an intelligence test.

Actually, this Liberal learned from the mistakes of the Conservative sellout that is Obama.

The result of the ACA is that the insurance companies are doing business with the government. That means that the government can easily audit the books. THAT means that if there are any anomalies, the federal government can file charges against the insurance companies and seize their assets as proceeds of a criminal enterprise, thus nationalizing the healthcare industry.

 

You throw the term slavers around with little comprehension of its significance. Like I said, try a different analogy. You listed over half a dozen synonyms. You seem determined to repeat slave, enslave, slavers. What are you saying subconsciously?

No liberal is out here taking someone's life. You are a sensationalist.

 

"Liking its potential" is an adolescent and undeveloped hope. It's sophistry. I can "like the potential" of nearly everything, but doing so requires only rationalization.

Which you can do with anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Then allow me to lay down the gauntlet with you - and we can do this easily, because I live in Wisconsin as well.

I bet you $1000 I handily beat you in an IQ test.

*edit* ROFLMAO "conservative sellout which is Obama". Holy lunacy.

 

you are exactly what im talking about how liberals ignore empirical evidence. look around communist has failed and socialism is failing and you are still pushing communist and socialist ideas and agendas

want to I know the definition of insanity? continuing to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different results
said by Albert Einstein

and I will leave you with this study showing Tea Party members are smarter then a non members
http://www.culturalcognition.net/bl...ce-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true

Dam it is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) when your false narrative is crushed by reality, but I guess you are use to have your false narratives get crushed by reality. the truth is the worse enemy to a liberal

 

Using "all taxation is theft" as an argument doesn't work, unless you're an anarchist (who literally believes in no govt or public institutions like the military) since even basic services like military defense are taxpayer funded

The founders weren't against "all taxation" - they were against unjust taxation as well as taxation with no representation, so the argument should be over which taxpayer services are just and beneficial, versus which ones are unnecessary or unjust - just using "all taxation is immoral" as an argument is a bad one

 

Always about the intent is right.

 

Wow, socialist systems are failing? Did I miss the news where Sweden suffered a massive recession in the past years?

Wow. Your own link points out that it's basically insignificant.

Plus, we don't know what methodology the person used, nor whether or not it can be reproduced, which is the main point of an experiment, that its results can be reproduced. I can show just by pointing to various members of this forum that the Tea Party's main membership is comprised of people no smarter than a dog turd.

By the way, my idea would have seen the system nationalized, streamlined, and then within two decades, privatized with Congressional oversight. Not communist at all.

By the way, want a banana?

 

stop try to compare a country with less of a population as some of our states it is a ridiculous comparison

and socialism is not doing as well as you think it is in Sweden

Swedish Socialism: the failure of elitist planning and intervention
http://www.eclectecon.net/2010/03/s...ure-of-elitist-planning-and-intervention.html

The failure of socialism in Sweden

At the beginning of the 1970s Sweden also had the fourth highest GDP per capita measured in purchasing power parity. Sweden was blooming. Then came Sweden's mad quarter of a century.

Growth fell off. Unemployment rose. The quality of welfare declined. What, then, were the factors that made the Swedish model stop working?
http://dbarf.blogspot.com/2008/03/failure-of-socialism-in-sweden.html

another false liberal narrative crushed

 

Great post. Liberals love to crow and lionize socialist homogenous States - small States at that, who should (if anyone would) have an inside track in pulling off a Socialistic State - but they never look under the hood.

And even if they did, they emulate a 5th grader looking under the hood of a GTR. No comprehension of what they see at all.

 

Do you see what I mean? You are wholly incapable of learning.

 

LOL. If you had enough brains to be a Tea Party member you would not be a Marxist. I am a Tea Party member. Who do you believe has the highest IQ? Which ever way you answer I shall be amused.

 

It is entirely possible that a better answer for you would have been, "You are right MisterVeritis. I really don't know enough to be posting in public."

I have never claimed that all taxation is theft. All taxes collected to fund programs that are unconstitutional are theft. It is okay if you do not know enough about the base documents to realize there is a difference. Defense, by the way, is one of those enumerated responsibilities of the federal government. No welfare program is covered. These include social security and Medicare.

Until you understand the difference between what the Constitution permits and what the government does you will continue to miss the mark. If you are interested in learning I can offer helpful suggestions for where to begin. Many people find they can go from idiot to patriot in less than six months. The trick is that you have to want to.

 

We have, of course, delegated the responsibility to Congress to determine what is necessary spending and what is unnecessary spending. We might not agree with what they authorize but we can't argue against the fact that we provided Congress with the authority to make this determination.

We can note that the founders were against taxation without representation which is exactly what Congress does when it authorizes borrowing to pay for current expenditures. The obligation to pay for the expenditures represents a tax burden placed upon future generations that are not represented by the current Congress. As I've noted before, even with the highest budget ever authorized by Congress (i.e. $3.6 trillion), there was ample income by the American People to fund these expenditures. There was no need to borrow to pay for the expenditures which ultimately represents "taxation without representation" as those that will have to eventually pay the costs of the borrowing are not old enough to vote today.

 

"Higher."

Photo finish.