Historic Democrat Pelosi healthcare fraud barely passes House, 220-215.
Loony Left
The 220-215 vote marks the first such victory in decades of efforts to
expand insurance coverage. The bill wins a lone GOP vote and loses many
Democrats, pointing to challenges awaiting in the Senate.
Reporting from Washington - The House of Representatives on Saturday
approved the most sweeping healthcare legislation since the creation of
Medicare 44 years ago, giving a boost to President Obama's campaign to
guarantee health coverage to almost all Americans.
The gargantuan Democratic measure passed 220 to 215, with a single
Republican vote, capping a contentious daylong debate that underscored the
ideological divide separating the two parties over healthcare.
The narrow Democratic victory underscored the difficult road ahead as the
issue moves on to the Senate. But it also meant that the party had reached a
historic landmark: It has been trying since the Depression to win a vote to
extend the government's social safety net to include healthcare.
The House plan would cover an additional 36 million people by 2019, leaving
4% of the nation without coverage, compared with the estimated 17% who do
not have insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office.
"For generations, the American people have called for affordable, quality
healthcare for their families. Today, the call will be answered," said House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who rallied her members behind the
legislation after weeks of cajoling and deal-making.
The Democratic side of the House cheered loudly when the vote count reached
218, a majority. Like a crowd waiting for the final gun at a football game,
they counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and
roared their approval when Pelosi went to the speaker's chair, grabbed the
gavel and declared, "The bill is passed."
President Obama hailed the vote in a statement from Camp David, saying:
"Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from
achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate
must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely
confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health
insurance reform into law by the end of the year."
Republicans, who have fought Obama's healthcare campaign for most of the
year, charged Democrats with pushing the nation toward government-run
healthcare and threatening to bankrupt the treasury at a time when the
deficit is skyrocketing.
"People have a grave concern about what Washington is doing to them, not for
them," Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, said
Saturday, citing last week's GOP electoral victories in Virginia and New
Jersey.
Louisiana Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao was the only Republican to cross the aisle
and vote for the bill. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against it.
The legislation -- which includes more than $1 trillion in new healthcare
spending over the next decade while also reducing the deficit by an
estimated $106 billion -- will ultimately have to be reconciled with the
Senate bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is working to unite his members
in time to hold a vote on the Senate bill before Christmas.
With the unemployment rate continuing to rise and the public increasingly
jittery about Obama's healthcare campaign, Democrats are racing to push
through an overhaul before what many see as a historic opportunity slips
away.
Pelosi had hoped to get a bill through the House sooner than November. But
she and her lieutenants had to spend months hammering out a series of
difficult compromises to satisfy the liberal and conservative wings of the
party.
New requirements on businesses and insurance companies have alienated major
industry groups, many of which actively fought the House bill, charging that
it would actually make healthcare less affordable.
"The healthcare reform bill just passed by the House of Representatives
fails the crucial test of reducing the soaring cost of health coverage for
businesses or individuals," U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice
President Bruce Josten said after the vote.
But even as opposition to the bill stiffened, Democratic leaders managed to
defuse major disagreements over the shape of a new government insurance plan
and the scope of new income taxes on wealthy Americans.
They picked up major endorsements from AARP and the American Medical Assn.,
which joined a collection of leading consumer and patient groups and labor
unions that have backed the healthcare campaign all year.
And facing the possible collapse of the legislation late Friday night,
Democratic leaders brokered a deal to settle a debate within party ranks
over abortion.
Under pressure from a group of socially conservative Democrats and the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pelosi and other lawmakers who favor
abortion rights were forced to accept a last-minute compromise that placed
tight restrictions on federal funding for abortion services.
The amendment was added to the bill Saturday by a coalition of 240
Republicans and conservative Democrats; 194 Democrats voted against the
amendment.
The move outraged many liberals. But in the end, just enough rallied behind
the bill after a furious several days of lobbying by party leaders,
including the president.
"There comes a time [when] men must act according to the dictates of their
conscience and not according to political expediency," Rep. John Lewis
(D-Ga.) said on the House floor. "We have a moral obligation to lead this
nation into a new era where healthcare is a right and not a privilege."
Obama, too, called on lawmakers to seize the moment, reminding them during a
midday visit to Capitol Hill of the party's successful fights to create
Social Security and Medicare.
"If we do not get it done this year, we will not get it done any time soon,"
the president said at a closed-door meeting, according to a senior
Democratic aide who was in the room.
The more than 2,000-page legislation is designed to largely preserve the
employer-based healthcare system in which most Americans get insurance
through work. But the bill would also dramatically expand federal regulation
of healthcare and provide more than $1 trillion in new aid to poor and
middle-class citizens.
Federal law would for the first time require insurance companies to cover
all Americans, regardless of their health status, and would prohibit
insurers from denying coverage to people who become sick.
Individuals would be required to buy insurance. And large employers would
have to provide employees with health benefits or face a penalty.
The bill would open the nation's 44-year-old Medicaid insurance program for
the poor to all Americans making less than 150% of the federal poverty
line -- $16,245 for an individual or $33,075 for a family of four.
The government would also create new insurance marketplaces for millions of
Americans who do not get coverage through work.
Commercial insurers, as well as the government, would offer plans in these
marketplaces, or exchanges, and be required to provide a minimum set of
benefits, including mental health services, maternity care and preventive
care.
The most expensive feature is a commitment by the federal government to
provide nearly $600 billion in subsidies over the next decade to help
millions of low- and moderate-income Americans buy insurance in an exchange.
The bill is also designed to give relief to small businesses, providing
about $25 billion in tax subsidies to help them offset the cost of offering
their employees health benefits.
And the legislation would make prescriptions more affordable by closing the
Medicare drug coverage gap, known as the "doughnut hole."
The major expansion in federal assistance to tens of millions of Americans
is not without a cost.
To pay for their legislation, Democrats approved a 5.4% surtax on
individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples that make more
than $1 million.
The bill would also cut more than $400 billion from Medicare payments to
hospitals, nursing homes and insurance companies that provide Medicare
Advantage plans, a provision that proponents hope will ultimately help make
the system more efficient.
Republicans contend that many seniors will lose benefits, and they more
broadly attacked the bill as a costly government invasion of the medical
system.
Dudley Hanks
his radical Rightoffs want to get rid of ours...
"It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack."
Take Care,
Dudley
"Loony Left" <loon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hd5srr$7s4$1...@news.mixmin.net...
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2313228.html
$29,000 bill for 5 minutes in ER shines light on health costs
Published: Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 20A
For five desperate minutes, emergency room doctors at UC Davis Medical
Center frantically tried to revive Scott Hawkins.
In those five minutes, the 23-year-old California State University,
Sacramento, student was hooked up to life support monitors, air pumped
into his weakened lungs as he bled on a gurney.
Hospital officials said Hawkins was given the highest level of emergency
care, with a phalanx of surgeons, specialists and nurses at the ready.
His parents called the effort "heroic."
Five minutes later, doctors pronounced him dead.
Few question the extent to which doctors tried to save the student's life
on Oct. 21, but the amount billed for his emergency care has provoked
outrage – a further example, critics said, of what is wrong in a health
care system that is roundly maligned for its escalating costs.
The charge for those five minutes: $29,186.50 – including a single-ticket
item for $18,900.50, described on the itemized bill as "Trauma Rescue
Service."
What's more, the Hawkins case may be a dramatic and brutal example of the
wide disparities in the sticker price for medical care provided to those
with insurance and those without it. With millions of Americans
unemployed and increasingly uninsured, emergency rooms have become part
of the focus of the high cost of medicine in this country.
"Part of the outrage is that those with the least are charged the most,"
said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a
consumer advocacy group.
The bill sent to Hawkins' family was an undiscounted "rack rate" that
hospitals charge the uninsured – patients who do not have the benefit of
having an insurance company negotiate deep discounts.
Hawkins was mistakenly classified by the hospital as medically indigent.
Had the hospital realized that the student was insured, the bill would
have been sent to his insurer, Kaiser Permanente, which would undoubtedly
have paid thousands of dollars less.
A Kaiser spokeswoman said she could not discuss the Hawkins case because
of privacy reasons.
However, an agreement is in place between Kaiser and UC Davis, including
provisions for compensation for care.
"If you're covered by an insurer, the contract is intensely negotiated
between the insurer and the hospital," said Maribeth Shannon, director of
the California HealthCare Foundation's market and policy monitor program.
Wright of Health Access said uninsured patients who use emergency rooms
are often billed at "an inflated price – three or four times what insured
people pay."
UC Davis officials declined to discuss their billing practices, or how
negotiations with insurance companies are conducted.
But Dr. Lynette Scherer, a general surgeon and chief of trauma at UC
Davis Medical Center, said the public simply doesn't understand how
expensive it is to run a sophisticated emergency room and trauma center
like the one at UC Davis.
"If he survived, we wouldn't be even talking about the cost. We'd be
saying: 'That was money well spent,' " Scherer said.
"The unfortunate thing, obviously, was that the outcome in this case was
horrible," she said.
"I think people are just uneducated about the cost. … If people actually
knew what they were getting – yes, the cost is high, but it's your only
opportunity to save a life," she said.
Not only are emergency rooms available at all hours of the day, they are
staffed by some of the most highly trained – and highly paid – personnel,
including surgeons, trauma specialists, registered nurses and others
trained specifically for emergency medicine.
"It's an extraordinary amount of resources at the ready for this patient
who we haven't met yet," Scherer said.
Emergency crews at the hospital did everything they could to save the
young man, Scherer said. He was not dead on arrival.
"When he arrived here, he met our criteria that he might still have a
chance of surviving," she said. "We never want to stop short with a
patient with a chance of surviving."
The federal Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the
uninsured accounted for one in five emergency room visits in 2006.
Federal law prohibits hospitals from refusing emergency care to those who
need it, regardless of their ability to pay.
"The expectation is that there should be an emergency department that's
open nearby, open 24 hours a day seven days a week," said Elena Lopez-
Gusman of the California chapter of the American College of Emergency
Physicians.
"We want it all, we want it now," she said. "And we don't want to pay for
it."
A groundbreaking "fair pricing" law enacted three years ago limits how
much hospitals can collect from low- and moderate-income consumers who
are uninsured or underinsured.
Still, bills can pile up quickly.
"A person without insurance must be wealthy, or so poor as to be not
worth pursuing by bill collectors," said Patrick Johnson, chief executive
officer of the California Association of Health Plans.
The House voted 220-215 late Saturday to pass health care legislation
intended to bring relief to the 46 million Americans who lack health
insurance, including nearly 7 million in California. The measure must be
reconciled with the Senate's version.
There is little debate that the uninsured pose burdens to the country's
health care system. The legislation being considered in the Senate and
House would require nearly all Americans to carry health insurance, with
the poor getting government subsidies to pay for coverage.
The uninsured are now at a disadvantage because they lack the bargaining
power of insurance companies, Shannon said, but consumers should
nevertheless attempt to negotiate their bills with doctors and hospitals.
"Often hospitals are willing to negotiate the amount with families," she
said. "There's always room for negotiation."
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>So, the States are seeing the worth of a social safety net while Harper and
>his radical Rightoffs want to get rid of ours...
>
>"It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack."
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
In less than 3 yrs..there wont be a living Leftwinger in the US.
Shrug..its all moot
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."
HH&C
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:43:49 -0800, "Loony Left" <loonyl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-healt...
> >The Democratic side of the House cheered loudly when the vote count reached
> >218, a majority. Like a crowd waiting for the final gun at a football game,
> >they counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and
> >roared their approval when Pelosi went to the speaker's chair, grabbed the
> >gavel and declared, "The bill is passed."
>
> quite a while. Another point in favor of that theory. It's about
> "us" beating "them"; it has nothing to do with what might be a wise
> and prudent policy for the long run.
>
>
>
> >The bill wins a lone GOP vote and loses many
> >Democrats, pointing to challenges awaiting in the Senate.
> >and vote for the bill. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against it.
>
> Collins.
>
> >The legislation -- which includes more than $1 trillion in new healthcare
> >spending
>
> out of a distressed economy.
>
> >Under pressure from a group of socially conservative Democrats
> >Republicans and conservative Democrats;
>
> are Ds or are they evil because they are the dreaded wingers?
>
> >The move outraged many liberals. But in the end, just enough rallied behind
> >the bill after a furious several days of lobbying by party leaders,
> >including the president.
>
>
> >"If we do not get it done this year, we will not get it done any time soon,"
> >the president said at a closed-door meeting, according to a senior
> >Democratic aide who was in the room.
>
>
> >The more than 2,000-page legislation is designed to largely preserve the
> >employer-based healthcare system in which most Americans get insurance
> >through work. But the bill would also dramatically expand federal regulation
> >of healthcare and provide more than $1 trillion in new aid to poor and
> >middle-class citizens.
>
> any changes in the legislation to appease wavering
> members could force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to break a pledge to post the
> final bill online for 72 hours before lawmakers vote.
>
> I guess that's another promise down the drain. Transparency, huh
> Nancy?
>
> >The most expensive feature is a commitment by the federal government to
> >provide nearly $600 billion in subsidies
>
>
> >The bill is also designed to give relief to small businesses, providing
> >about $25 billion in tax subsidies
>
>
> >To pay for their legislation, Democrats approved a 5.4% surtax on
> >individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples that make more
> >than $1 million.
>
>
> >The bill would also cut more than $400 billion from Medicare payments to
> >hospitals, nursing homes and insurance companies
>
Noooo. The hospitals, nursing homes, and insurance companies will
just give away their services.
Welp, at least Alberto Curmudgeon, TMT, and Hawke get their free
health care. Yeah!
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:54:09 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>
> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> >So, the States are seeing the worth of a social safety net while Harper and
> >his radical Rightoffs want to get rid of ours...
>
> >"It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack."
>
> >Take Care,
> >Dudley
>
> In less than 3 yrs..there wont be a living Leftwinger in the US.
>
> Shrug..its all moot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:hd5srr$7s4$1...@news.mixmin.net...
> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-healt...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess it is moot for Gunner when someone else is paying his medical
bills.
Parasitic conservative winger.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:43:49 -0800, "Loony Left" <loonyl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-healt...
> >218, a majority. Like a crowd waiting for the final gun at a football game,
> >they counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and
> >roared their approval when Pelosi went to the speaker's chair, grabbed the
> >gavel and declared, "The bill is passed."
>
> quite a while. Another point in favor of that theory. It's about
> "us" beating "them"; it has nothing to do with what might be a wise
> and prudent policy for the long run.
>
>
>
> >Democrats, pointing to challenges awaiting in the Senate.
> >and vote for the bill. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against it.
>
> Collins.
>
> >spending
>
> out of a distressed economy.
>
> >Republicans and conservative Democrats;
>
> are Ds or are they evil because they are the dreaded wingers?
>
> >the bill after a furious several days of lobbying by party leaders,
> >including the president.
>
>
> >the president said at a closed-door meeting, according to a senior
> >Democratic aide who was in the room.
>
>
> >employer-based healthcare system in which most Americans get insurance
> >through work. But the bill would also dramatically expand federal regulation
> >of healthcare and provide more than $1 trillion in new aid to poor and
> >middle-class citizens.
>
> any changes in the legislation to appease wavering
> members could force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to break a pledge to post the
> final bill online for 72 hours before lawmakers vote.
>
> I guess that's another promise down the drain. Transparency, huh
> Nancy?
>
> >provide nearly $600 billion in subsidies
>
>
> >The bill is also designed to give relief to small businesses, providing
> >about $25 billion in tax subsidies
>
>
> >To pay for their legislation, Democrats approved a 5.4% surtax on
> >individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples that make more
> >than $1 million.
>
>
> >The bill would also cut more than $400 billion from Medicare payments to
> >hospitals, nursing homes and insurance companies
>
I am starting to conclude that Winston is just winger in disguise.
Sad..he had so much potential. ;<)
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean how you get yours Winger?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps HH&C needs to lose his medical access to understand why this
change is needed.
TMT
HH&C
Nope, I paid for mine in advance... 20+ years of military service.
I also purchase insurance through work, but I might let it go after I
see how much it costs to carry a bunch of bums like you on my policy.
Dudley Hanks
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:rc6ef59kpgstsrg5k...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:54:09 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>>So, the States are seeing the worth of a social safety net while Harper
>>and
>>his radical Rightoffs want to get rid of ours...
>>
>>"It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack."
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>
> In less than 3 yrs..there wont be a living Leftwinger in the US.
>
> Shrug..its all moot
>
>
>
Of course, there's always a backwards step, here and there, but then a
couple more forward steps make up for lost ground and advance the cause a
bit further...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:kvtef5phk8j5t7u4c...@4ax.com...
> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I guess it is moot for Gunner when someone else is paying his medical
>>bills.
>
> shame in mooching off the government. In fact, it's the patriotic
> thing to do.
So, perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why government health care is
"mooching" but profit isn't?
In the case of government administered healthcare, the country benefits as a
whole because the population is healthier, happier, and more productive;
but, in the case of profit, the rich get nicer toys?
Take Care,
Dudley
Strabo
> "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>> "Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> I guess it is moot for Gunner when someone else is paying his medical
>>>> bills.
>>> No problem. Obama has made it the right thing to do. There is no
>>> shame in mooching off the government. In fact, it's the patriotic
>>> thing to do.
>> So, perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why government health care is
>> "mooching" but profit isn't?
>
> attempt that would be to make the false assumption that there is
> reasoning behind it.
>
>> In the case of government administered healthcare, the country benefits as a
>> whole because the population is healthier, happier, and more productive;
>
>
>> but, in the case of profit, the rich get nicer toys?
>
> system? They will still get their profit and we will have to pay for
> a little government graft added to our bill.
>
Looks like you reeled in another genuine Communist!
>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
Strabo
> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps HH&C needs to lose his medical access to understand why this
>> change is needed.
>
> to use ObamaCare as a political weapon. Thank you for being so open
> and honest.
>
It's been clear TMT was a flaming Communist all along. Soon he'll
be bragging about it.
Dudley Hanks
>>>
>>>>I guess it is moot for Gunner when someone else is paying his medical
>>>>bills.
>>>
>>> No problem. Obama has made it the right thing to do. There is no
>>> shame in mooching off the government. In fact, it's the patriotic
>>> thing to do.
>>
>>So, perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why government health care is
>>"mooching" but profit isn't?
>
> attempt that would be to make the false assumption that there is
> reasoning behind it.
I didn't ask you to explain the government, only why taking money for taxes
to provide services to disadvantaged demographics is wrong, but taking money
from the efforts of others for your own enjoyment isn't...
>
>>In the case of government administered healthcare, the country benefits as
>>a
>>whole because the population is healthier, happier, and more productive;
>
> Nice if we get it. Rest assured, we will not.
I take it you're American? If so, do you have an army? a navy? Do you
have a police force near you? Are there schools near you? Is there a road
for you to drive on as you take your children to school?
If the government provides these services, why is health care any different?
I realize you may not be happy with the quality of the service, but it's a
bit unfair to say the government will take the taxes and give you nothing in
return...
>
>>but, in the case of profit, the rich get nicer toys?
>
> Who do you think is going to do the day to day management of the
> system? They will still get their profit and we will have to pay for
> a little government graft added to our bill.
Not really, they'll get their wages, which will be considerably less than
profit...
Try corelating a typical government bureaucrat's salary with the profit
generated by one of America's famous HMO's, drug companies, even a typical
doctor's salary... You'll probably be pleasantly surprised...
>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:4aMJm.8373$_b5....@newsfe22.iad...
The problem with you RightOffs is that you label anyone with different views
as a "communist." I doubt you know what a communist really is...
You obviously don't know what a social democrat is...
But, that would take a bit of cerebral activity, something you zealots
aren't that familiar with....
Take Care,
Dudley
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:rc6ef59kpgstsrg5k...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:54:09 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>So, the States are seeing the worth of a social safety net while Harper
>>>and
>>>his radical Rightoffs want to get rid of ours...
>>>
>>>"It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack."
>>>
>>>Take Care,
>>>Dudley
>>
>> In less than 3 yrs..there wont be a living Leftwinger in the US.
>>
>> Shrug..its all moot
>>
>>
>>
>Actually, I think humanity, on the whole, is progressing the other way...
>
>Of course, there's always a backwards step, here and there, but then a
>couple more forward steps make up for lost ground and advance the cause a
>bit further...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
So you think that the Founders intended to establish a Socialist
American?
is that your claim?
Fascinating. Now.....can you provide any proof of this?
If not...then either you are in error..or are simply a 5th columnist.
Gunner
Dudley Hanks
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
Nope, never gave a second thought to what the Founding Fathers wanted
hundreds of years ago...
The point is that civilization has progressed to the point where it costs
too much to maintain an authoritarian tyrany, and there's too many people
with too many different ideas of what is right and wrong to let them go
running around without a bit of direction, and the economy is getting far
too complicated to just leave EVERYTHING up to that hand nobody can see, and
...
So, governments can't function well without enough resources to get the jobs
done...
It would be nice if we could take a government from the 1700s or 1800s and
get it to work today; but it ain't gonna happen...
Take Care,
Dudley
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you have government care...the public option....so how do you like
socialized medicine?
Of course you don't want to lose it...nor have others have what you
get for always getting the weather wrong.
Your insurance through work is subsidized....trying pricing it solo.
You do realize that you are one of the reasons why health care in
America is screwed up.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Perhaps HH&C needs to lose his medical access to understand why this
> >change is needed.
>
> to use ObamaCare as a political weapon. Thank you for being so open
> and honest.
LOL...Winston is carrying a torch for me.
HH&C benefits from socialized medicine...and that is why he doesn't
want a change.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Winston_Smith wrote:
> > Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps HH&C needs to lose his medical access to understand why this
> >> change is needed.
>
> > WOW. The ink isn't dry yet and already the Democrats are threatening
> > to use ObamaCare as a political weapon. Thank you for being so open
> > and honest.
>
> >
>
> It's been clear TMT was a flaming Communist all along. Soon he'll
> be bragging about it.
A flaming Communist?
Is that like when Larry Craig catches on fire in the toilet stall?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Winston_Smith" <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote in message> >>"Winston_Smith" <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Winston benefits from the current medical system...socialized health
care for some...and doesn't want it to change.
TMT
ne...@millions.com
wrote:
>"Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I guess it is moot for Gunner when someone else is paying his medical
>>>>bills.
>>>
>>> No problem. Obama has made it the right thing to do. There is no
>>> shame in mooching off the government. In fact, it's the patriotic
>>> thing to do.
>>
>>So, perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why government health care is
>>"mooching" but profit isn't?
>
>I am not foolish enough to try to explain the government. To even
>attempt that would be to make the false assumption that there is
>reasoning behind it.
>
>>In the case of government administered healthcare, the country benefits as a
>>whole because the population is healthier, happier, and more productive;
>
>Nice if we get it. Rest assured, we will not.
>
>>but, in the case of profit, the rich get nicer toys?
>
>Who do you think is going to do the day to day management of the
>system? They will still get their profit and we will have to pay for
>a little government graft added to our bill.
>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
Wait until the US Senate gets through fiddlin' with their
version of the Health Care bill.
DCI
Dudley Hanks
<ne...@millions.com> wrote in message
news:ajfff5pel0gg7bijh...@4ax.com...
Yeah, and ours could look rather similar if we're not careful...
Take Care,
Dudley
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
Thats pretty fucking obvious. So when will you be moving to a country
more to your liking?
>
>The point is that civilization has progressed to the point where it costs
>too much to maintain an authoritarian tyrany, and there's too many people
>with too many different ideas of what is right and wrong to let them go
>running around without a bit of direction, and the economy is getting far
>too complicated to just leave EVERYTHING up to that hand nobody can see, and
Not a problem. In less than 3 yrs...alll the Leftwingers will be dead
and we can go back to the contract that the Founders came up with. Its
called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
>...
>
>So, governments can't function well without enough resources to get the jobs
>done...
>
We have more than enough resources to have the government the Founders
specified.
Can you give cites as to where we dont? Be specific
>It would be nice if we could take a government from the 1700s or 1800s and
>get it to work today; but it ain't gonna happen...
Sure it can..and will. Once the Leftwingers are gone..we go back to the
default setting of the Constitution.
Works for me.
Gunner
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
HH&C
It's called Tri-care, not "the government option." And I don't like
it. That's why I pay for real health care through my employer.
But I've told you this before and you still don't get it. You should
ask your two mommies to have you checked for ADD.
> Of course you don't want to lose it...nor have others have what you
> get for always getting the weather wrong.
I never had a problem being accurate. I do recall having to work with
a guy in remedial training, though.
> Your insurance through work is subsidized....trying pricing it solo.
So get a job.
> You do realize that you are one of the reasons why health care in
> America is screwed up.
Wow. My blood pressure meds and every 6 month office visit really add
up.
Sorry about your luck, Tool.
> TMT
HH&C
That's why I work... to have better access to medical care for myself
and my family. Once I have equal access for no work, I'll quit and
fall back on Tri-Care. A lot of people will quit working. Just like
you.
HH&C
I hope Obama opens the doors of the VA to all Americans. You won't
even notice the mold anymore.
hal
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:54:09 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
><dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>>So, the States are seeing the worth of a social safety net while Harper and
>>his radical Rightoffs want to get rid of ours...
>>
>>"It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack."
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>
>In less than 3 yrs..there wont be a living Leftwinger in the US.
LOL
hal
can you provide any proof they didn't? Obviously, The People have the
right to legislate government run social services.
Curly Surmudgeon
Gummer told us last November that the economy was just peachy.
Gummer told us that John McCain was going to win the 2008 elections.
Gummer told us that he was a 16-year old CIA secret agent in Vietnam.
Gummer told us that he was responsible.
Gummer told us that he lived on a vast ranch.
Gummer told us that he was married.
Gummer told us that he was single.
Gummer told us that he had a black girlfriend while married.
Gummer told us that he had a threesome 2 weeks after open heart surgery.
Gummer told us that he was broke.
Gummer told us that he was wealthy.
Gummer told us that he was working at $75/hr.
Gummer told us that he was considering bankruptcy.
Gummer told us that he was self sufficient.
Gummer told us that he was hiding his wealth from debt collectors.
Gummer tells us lots of shit.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dudley Hanks
>>> American?
>>>
>>> is that your claim?
>>>
>>> Fascinating. Now.....can you provide any proof of this?
>>>
>>> If not...then either you are in error..or are simply a 5th columnist.
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>>
>>Nope, never gave a second thought to what the Founding Fathers wanted
>>hundreds of years ago...
>
> Thats pretty fucking obvious. So when will you be moving to a country
> more to your liking?
Already there...
>
>>
>>The point is that civilization has progressed to the point where it costs
>>too much to maintain an authoritarian tyrany, and there's too many people
>>with too many different ideas of what is right and wrong to let them go
>>running around without a bit of direction, and the economy is getting far
>>too complicated to just leave EVERYTHING up to that hand nobody can see,
>>and
>
> Not a problem. In less than 3 yrs...alll the Leftwingers will be dead
> and we can go back to the contract that the Founders came up with. Its
> called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Have you even read the Constitution...?
>
>>...
>>
>>So, governments can't function well without enough resources to get the
>>jobs
>>done...
>>
> We have more than enough resources to have the government the Founders
> specified.
>
You're kind of hung up on the whole Founding Fathers thing...
Did anybody ever tell you Constitutions are "living documents," because they
need to grow?>
Can you give cites as to where we dont? Be specific
Healthcare...
>
>>It would be nice if we could take a government from the 1700s or 1800s and
>>get it to work today; but it ain't gonna happen...
>
> Sure it can..and will. Once the Leftwingers are gone..we go back to the
> default setting of the Constitution.
>
If all the left wingers were gone, who'd be around to stop all you RightOffs
from shooting each other?
> Works for me.
>
Actually, now that I think about it, that could be a good idea...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hd9g3a$fbs$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
Guys like this make retroactive abortion look like a good idea...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
<hal> wrote in message news:4af825f3...@news.newsguy.com...
"By the People, for the People" sounds fairly socialistic to me...
Obviously, The People have the
> right to legislate government run social services.
>
And, it's in keeping with that whole pursuit of happiness thing...
Take Care,
Dudley
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
Fascinating. Old Girly managed humm...9 lies in his list.
Im curious Dud...can you do better?
Gunner
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>> So you think that the Founders intended to establish a Socialist
>>>> American?
>>>>
>>>> is that your claim?
>>>>
>>>> Fascinating. Now.....can you provide any proof of this?
>>>>
>>>> If not...then either you are in error..or are simply a 5th columnist.
>>>>
>>>> Gunner
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope, never gave a second thought to what the Founding Fathers wanted
>>>hundreds of years ago...
>>
>> Thats pretty fucking obvious. So when will you be moving to a country
>> more to your liking?
>
>Already there...
>
Odd..I dont see any reference to Cuba in your header info
>>
>>>
>>>The point is that civilization has progressed to the point where it costs
>>>too much to maintain an authoritarian tyrany, and there's too many people
>>>with too many different ideas of what is right and wrong to let them go
>>>running around without a bit of direction, and the economy is getting far
>>>too complicated to just leave EVERYTHING up to that hand nobody can see,
>>>and
>>
>> Not a problem. In less than 3 yrs...alll the Leftwingers will be dead
>> and we can go back to the contract that the Founders came up with. Its
>> called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
>
>Have you even read the Constitution...?
Repeatedly..In fact..I have a copy in my wallet at all times.
>
>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>So, governments can't function well without enough resources to get the
>>>jobs
>>>done...
>>>
>> We have more than enough resources to have the government the Founders
>> specified.
>>
>
>You're kind of hung up on the whole Founding Fathers thing...
>
>Did anybody ever tell you Constitutions are "living documents," because they
>need to grow?>
Yes. A lefttwinger did. He lied of course as you are doing.
"Justice Clarence Thomas has routinely castigated "living Constitution"
doctrine. In one particularly strongly-worded attack, he noted that:
Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret
the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers
intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully
put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent
of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the
latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort
to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is
flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least
originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add,
impartial.[27]
Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed similar sentiments. He commented,
[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like
this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It
has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become
brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that;
the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It
says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the
living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but
by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for
legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right
to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to
be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.""[28] "
>
>Can you give cites as to where we dont? Be specific
>
>Healthcare...
Ok...now what about health care? Are you claiming we dont want
healthcare?
>
>>
>>>It would be nice if we could take a government from the 1700s or 1800s and
>>>get it to work today; but it ain't gonna happen...
>>
>> Sure it can..and will. Once the Leftwingers are gone..we go back to the
>> default setting of the Constitution.
>>
>
>If all the left wingers were gone, who'd be around to stop all you RightOffs
>from shooting each other?
>
Why would we shoot each other? Of course the Klan will die, and the
Nazi party guys...but they arent Right Wing by any stretch of the
imagination. They are fascists, closer to Democrats than anything else.
>> Works for me.
>>
>
>Actually, now that I think about it, that could be a good idea...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>
Will a crew need to chase you down, or will you come willingly when they
knock on your door? Or would you consider doing away with yourself and
saving a crew from being bothered with putting you down?
Gunner
Dudley Hanks
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
gunner, you need to learn to read. The list wasn't mine.
Take Care,
Dudley
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
Your evasion is noted with interested contempt.
>
>"By the People, for the People" sounds fairly socialistic to me...
>
>Obviously, The People have the
>> right to legislate government run social services.
The People control the Government, not the Government controls the
People.
You Leftards seem to always mess that up.
>>
>And, it's in keeping with that whole pursuit of happiness thing...
So its actually being allowed to pursue happiness..and not having other
people pay for your?
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous
phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three
aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.
Now about those other "unalienable rights"...such as the right to keep
and bear arms that you Leftards are so much against?
Gunner
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
hal
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>Obviously, The People have the
>>> right to legislate government run social services.
>
>The People control the Government, not the Government controls the
>People.
Like I said, The People have the right to legislate social services.
>
>You Leftards seem to always mess that up.
What you mess up is confusing socialism with totalitarianism.
hal
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>Why would we shoot each other? Of course the Klan will die, and the
>Nazi party guys...but they arent Right Wing by any stretch of the
>imagination. They are fascists, closer to Democrats than anything else.
You're a moron, gunner. I suggest you try some reading on political
science. Fascists, like the KKK, and Nazis, are all as right wing as
you can get. Get a clue.
>>> Works for me.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, now that I think about it, that could be a good idea...
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>
>Will a crew need to chase you down, or will you come willingly when they
>knock on your door? Or would you consider doing away with yourself and
>saving a crew from being bothered with putting you down?
and where are all these "crews" coming from, other than your twisted
imagination.
Dudley Hanks
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:50:39 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>> So you think that the Founders intended to establish a Socialist
>>>>> American?
>>>>>
>>>>> is that your claim?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fascinating. Now.....can you provide any proof of this?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not...then either you are in error..or are simply a 5th columnist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gunner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope, never gave a second thought to what the Founding Fathers wanted
>>>>hundreds of years ago...
>>>
>>> Thats pretty fucking obvious. So when will you be moving to a country
>>> more to your liking?
>>
>>Already there...
>>
>
> Odd..I dont see any reference to Cuba in your header info
Well, if you had read what you responded to, you'd know where I'm from...
Assuming you can read...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The point is that civilization has progressed to the point where it
>>>>costs
>>>>too much to maintain an authoritarian tyrany, and there's too many
>>>>people
>>>>with too many different ideas of what is right and wrong to let them go
>>>>running around without a bit of direction, and the economy is getting
>>>>far
>>>>too complicated to just leave EVERYTHING up to that hand nobody can see,
>>>>and
>>>
>>> Not a problem. In less than 3 yrs...alll the Leftwingers will be dead
>>> and we can go back to the contract that the Founders came up with. Its
>>> called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
>>
>>Have you even read the Constitution...?
>
> Repeatedly..In fact..I have a copy in my wallet at all times.
Keeping it close to your ass? How patriotic...
Wouldn't taping it over your heart be more appropriate?
>>>>So, governments can't function well without enough resources to get the
>>>>jobs
>>>>done...
>>>>
>>> We have more than enough resources to have the government the Founders
>>> specified.
>>>
>>
>>You're kind of hung up on the whole Founding Fathers thing...
>>
>>Did anybody ever tell you Constitutions are "living documents," because
>>they
>>need to grow?>
>
> Yes. A lefttwinger did. He lied of course as you are doing.
Perhaps you can explain how a document, hundreds of years old, can account
for every development since its publication... Be specific....
Or, perhaps you're claiming the States should stay frozen in time,
politically, while the rest of the world advances? Detail your answer.
>
> "Justice Clarence Thomas has routinely castigated "living Constitution"
> doctrine. In one particularly strongly-worded attack, he noted that:
>
> Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret
> the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers
> intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully
> put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent
> of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the
> latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort
> to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is
> flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least
> originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add,
> impartial.[27]
>
The problem with that approach is it tries to justify the "reading" of the
original as being without interpretation, therefore, legitimate...
Whenever written language is involved, there is always interpretation.
RightOffs just think that they "know" what the authors originally meant,
when in fact theirs is only one interpretation of many...
> Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed similar sentiments. He commented,
>
> [There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like
> this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It
> has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become
> brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that;
> the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It
> says something and doesn't say other things . . .
I rest my case...
[Proponents of the
> living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but
> by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for
> legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right
> to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to
> be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.""[28] "
Gunner, you're not reading again, like most RightOffs.
First you say that left-wingers are stupid because they say the Constitution
grows and changes. Then, you attack them for wanting abortion and
homosexuality embedded in the Constitution so it can't be changed...
You really are an amateur when it comes to spinning your opponents words...
Now, Gunner, repeat after me: Proponents of the Living Document school
argue nothing is written in stone, nor should it be...
>
> Can you give cites as to where we dont? Be specific
>>
>>Healthcare...
>
> Ok...now what about health care? Are you claiming we dont want
> healthcare?
>>
>>
Gunner, are you really that dense? Or, do you just need a remedial reading
course?
>
>>>>It would be nice if we could take a government from the 1700s or 1800s
>>>>and
>>>>get it to work today; but it ain't gonna happen...
>>>
>>> Sure it can..and will. Once the Leftwingers are gone..we go back to the
>>> default setting of the Constitution.
>>>
>>
>>If all the left wingers were gone, who'd be around to stop all you
>>RightOffs
>>from shooting each other?
>>
> Why would we shoot each other? Of course the Klan will die, and the
> Nazi party guys...but they arent Right Wing by any stretch of the
> imagination. They are fascists, closer to Democrats than anything else.
>>> Works for me.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, now that I think about it, that could be a good idea...
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>
> Will a crew need to chase you down, or will you come willingly when they
> knock on your door? Or would you consider doing away with yourself and
> saving a crew from being bothered with putting you down?
>
Careful, Gunner, you're sounding like a Nazi, are you sure you're just a
RightOff?
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
>>>>>way...
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, there's always a backwards step, here and there, but then a
>>>>>couple more forward steps make up for lost ground and advance the cause
>>>>>a
>>>>>bit further...
>>>>>
>>>>>Take Care,
>>>>>Dudley
>>>>
>>>>So you think that the Founders intended to establish a Socialist
>>>>American?
>>>>
>>>>is that your claim?
>>>>
>>>>Fascinating. Now.....can you provide any proof of this?
>>>
>>> can you provide any proof they didn't?
>
> Your evasion is noted with interested contempt.
>>
>>"By the People, for the People" sounds fairly socialistic to me...
>>
>>Obviously, The People have the
>>> right to legislate government run social services.
>
> The People control the Government, not the Government controls the
> People.
Your simplistic attempt to spin the issue is noted with contempt...
>
> You Leftards seem to always mess that up.
The part you RightOffs can't accept is that you aren't always the majority.
Since you're not going to get consensus on just about any issue of
importance: some of the people control the government, and the government
does, indeed, control the rest of the people...
So, Gunner, your simplistic spin just doesn't work...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's a bit of both...
>
>>>
>>And, it's in keeping with that whole pursuit of happiness thing...
>
> So its actually being allowed to pursue happiness..and not having other
> people pay for your?
It's whatever the majority of the People legislate...
>
> "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous
> phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three
> aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.
>
> Now about those other "unalienable rights"...such as the right to keep
> and bear arms that you Leftards are so much against?
>
Hey, Gunner, I'm from Alberta, I have no problem with people bearing arms,
as long as it's done responsibly and there are sufficient, legitimate,
controls in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and to ensure
they aren't left lying around for kids to blow each other's brains out...
You shouldn't have a problem with that. Right?
But, I'm not sure that bearing arms has the same status as Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of Happiness. After all, which right takes precedence if, shall
we say, your right to bear arms interferes with Joe's right to life?
After all, you're the guy talking about crews coming around and picking
people off the street, even from their homes, simply because their political
views differ from yours? You really don't take that right to freedom of
speech very seriously, do you?
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
<hal> wrote in message news:4af878b4....@news.newsguy.com...
But, he seems to like the idea of right wing totalitarianism...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
<hal> wrote in message news:4af87a87....@news.newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:57:08 -0800, Gunner Asch
> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Why would we shoot each other? Of course the Klan will die, and the
>>Nazi party guys...but they arent Right Wing by any stretch of the
>>imagination. They are fascists, closer to Democrats than anything else.
>
> You're a moron, gunner. I suggest you try some reading on political
> science. Fascists, like the KKK, and Nazis, are all as right wing as
> you can get. Get a clue.
>
>>>> Works for me.
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, now that I think about it, that could be a good idea...
>>>
>>>Take Care,
>>>Dudley
>>>
>>Will a crew need to chase you down, or will you come willingly when they
>>knock on your door? Or would you consider doing away with yourself and
>>saving a crew from being bothered with putting you down?
>
> and where are all these "crews" coming from, other than your twisted
> imagination.
>
seem to give a shit about freedom of speech. He's too caught up in that gun
thing, and bringing back a 200++ year old style of government...
Take Care,
Dudley
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
I know it wasnt yours. It was Gurlies. Along with his 9 lies.
I asked if you could do better.
Reading comprehension problems still bothering you?
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:2esgf59h81vs2imfj...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:50:39 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So you think that the Founders intended to establish a Socialist
>>>>>> American?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is that your claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fascinating. Now.....can you provide any proof of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not...then either you are in error..or are simply a 5th columnist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gunner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, never gave a second thought to what the Founding Fathers wanted
>>>>>hundreds of years ago...
>>>>
>>>> Thats pretty fucking obvious. So when will you be moving to a country
>>>> more to your liking?
>>>
>>>Already there...
>>>
>>
>> Odd..I dont see any reference to Cuba in your header info
>
>Well, if you had read what you responded to, you'd know where I'm from...
>Assuming you can read...
So you are indeed posting from Cuba? Fascinating.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is that civilization has progressed to the point where it
>>>>>costs
>>>>>too much to maintain an authoritarian tyrany, and there's too many
>>>>>people
>>>>>with too many different ideas of what is right and wrong to let them go
>>>>>running around without a bit of direction, and the economy is getting
>>>>>far
>>>>>too complicated to just leave EVERYTHING up to that hand nobody can see,
>>>>>and
>>>>
>>>> Not a problem. In less than 3 yrs...alll the Leftwingers will be dead
>>>> and we can go back to the contract that the Founders came up with. Its
>>>> called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Have you even read the Constitution...?
>>
>> Repeatedly..In fact..I have a copy in my wallet at all times.
>
>Keeping it close to your ass? How patriotic...
Of course. Along with my government ID.
My Democrat Party card..that goes in my shoe..so I can walk on it all
day long.
>
>Wouldn't taping it over your heart be more appropriate?
With my chest hair? Frankly..that would be a real pain in the chest
whenever I need to teach you Leftards something.
>
>>>>>So, governments can't function well without enough resources to get the
>>>>>jobs
>>>>>done...
>>>>>
>>>> We have more than enough resources to have the government the Founders
>>>> specified.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're kind of hung up on the whole Founding Fathers thing...
>>>
>>>Did anybody ever tell you Constitutions are "living documents," because
>>>they
>>>need to grow?>
>>
>> Yes. A lefttwinger did. He lied of course as you are doing.
>
>Perhaps you can explain how a document, hundreds of years old, can account
>for every development since its publication... Be specific....
It cant. But there are methods for Amending the Constitution. And they
dont include a bunch of pouty little retarded leftards whining and
sniveling. You do know the Constitution has already been amended some 20
odd times...right? Each time (with 2 exceptions) increasing our
freedoms, not taking any away, as you Leftards would do if you could
change it at whim.
>
>Or, perhaps you're claiming the States should stay frozen in time,
>politically, while the rest of the world advances? Detail your answer.
See below. I think that covers my (and most real Americans) view on
change involving the Constitution.
>
>>
>> "Justice Clarence Thomas has routinely castigated "living Constitution"
>> doctrine. In one particularly strongly-worded attack, he noted that:
>>
>> Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret
>> the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers
>> intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully
>> put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent
>> of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the
>> latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort
>> to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is
>> flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least
>> originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add,
>> impartial.[27]
>>
>
>The problem with that approach is it tries to justify the "reading" of the
>original as being without interpretation, therefore, legitimate...
Of course it does. Its only when Leftards are involved with their spew
and mental illnessess does
"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."
get interpreted as a total ban on firearms in Leftard fuckspots.
Or
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."
Get interpreted as universal welfare for millions of generational
welfare recepients and trillions of dollars of free shit to be passed
out to a very small portion of our society.
>
>Whenever written language is involved, there is always interpretation.
>RightOffs just think that they "know" what the authors originally meant,
>when in fact theirs is only one interpretation of many...
Oddly enough..that sounds like most Leftwingers and their interps doesnt
it?
>
>> Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed similar sentiments. He commented,
>>
>> [There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like
>> this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It
>> has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become
>> brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that;
>> the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It
>> says something and doesn't say other things . . .
>
>I rest my case...
>
>[Proponents of the
>> living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but
>> by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for
>> legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right
>> to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to
>> be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.""[28] "
>
>Gunner, you're not reading again, like most RightOffs.
Your not thinking again..like most Leftards.
>
>First you say that left-wingers are stupid because they say the Constitution
>grows and changes. Then, you attack them for wanting abortion and
>homosexuality embedded in the Constitution so it can't be changed...
>
Frankly..I could give a shit about gays or abortion. Those are personal
rights and really dont need clarification..anymore than the 2nd
Amendment does. Though with Leftards fucking with things...its best to
put them on paper. Though..Leftards always try to reinterpret things to
fit their agendas.
>You really are an amateur when it comes to spinning your opponents words...
Spinning my opponents words? Frankly..there is no need to do so. They
are condemned by their own words.
>
>Now, Gunner, repeat after me: Proponents of the Living Document school
>argue nothing is written in stone, nor should it be...
Yet you belive its a moving bowl of Jello and can be changed at a
moments notice, even if the People dont want the change.
Your position is indeed noted..noted with deep contempt.
>>
>> Can you give cites as to where we dont? Be specific
>>>
>>>Healthcare...
>>
>> Ok...now what about health care? Are you claiming we dont want
>> healthcare?
>>>
>>>
>
>Gunner, are you really that dense? Or, do you just need a remedial reading
>course?
>
So you are unable to answer the question? Send a ping to DNC
headquarters through that USB plug in the back of your skull and see if
they can give you a download or two.
>>
>>>>>It would be nice if we could take a government from the 1700s or 1800s
>>>>>and
>>>>>get it to work today; but it ain't gonna happen...
>>>>
>>>> Sure it can..and will. Once the Leftwingers are gone..we go back to the
>>>> default setting of the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If all the left wingers were gone, who'd be around to stop all you
>>>RightOffs
>>>from shooting each other?
>>>
>> Why would we shoot each other? Of course the Klan will die, and the
>> Nazi party guys...but they arent Right Wing by any stretch of the
>> imagination. They are fascists, closer to Democrats than anything else.
>>>> Works for me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, now that I think about it, that could be a good idea...
>>>
>>>Take Care,
>>>Dudley
>>>
>> Will a crew need to chase you down, or will you come willingly when they
>> knock on your door? Or would you consider doing away with yourself and
>> saving a crew from being bothered with putting you down?
>>
>
>Careful, Gunner, you're sounding like a Nazi, are you sure you're just a
>RightOff?
Nazi? No..thats Leftwing Socialist territory and thats no place for me
to be hanging out, unless Im heavily armed with more than a basic load
of ammo on me.
But your terribly flawed interpretation of anything beyond your world
view..pitiful and retarded and restricted as it is..is noted with amused
contempt and some pity.
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
Same to you, Comrade
Gunner Asch
<VBG> The Soviet Union was only less than 75 yrs old when your beloved
totalitarian state went tits up.
I as a liberty loving and freedom loving individual am really going to
hate seeing all of you totalitarian Leftwingers all being killed,
but..shrug..I agree..after all this time trying to keep a lid on you
bastards...the only remaining thing to do is simply put you all in a
hole in the ground, along with the USSR.
But hey..you do have less than 3 yrs to live, or move to someplace you
might love more..like...hummm Cuba
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>Actually, I think humanity, on the whole, is progressing the other
>>>>>>way...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, there's always a backwards step, here and there, but then a
>>>>>>couple more forward steps make up for lost ground and advance the cause
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>bit further...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Take Care,
>>>>>>Dudley
>>>>>
>>>>>So you think that the Founders intended to establish a Socialist
>>>>>American?
>>>>>
>>>>>is that your claim?
>>>>>
>>>>>Fascinating. Now.....can you provide any proof of this?
>>>>
>>>> can you provide any proof they didn't?
>>
>> Your evasion is noted with interested contempt.
>>>
>>>"By the People, for the People" sounds fairly socialistic to me...
>>>
>>>Obviously, The People have the
>>>> right to legislate government run social services.
>>
>> The People control the Government, not the Government controls the
>> People.
>
>Your simplistic attempt to spin the issue is noted with contempt...
>
Your pathetic attempts to weasel and deflect is noted with vast
amusement.
>>
>> You Leftards seem to always mess that up.
>
>The part you RightOffs can't accept is that you aren't always the majority.
>Since you're not going to get consensus on just about any issue of
>importance: some of the people control the government, and the government
>does, indeed, control the rest of the people...
Shrug...the Nazis werent the majority in Germany either between
1933-45..but like Leftards..they managed to kill the country and about
75 million people. But unlike Germany..when you leftards try to kill
off the population..we will kill off you. All of you.
Works for me.
>
>So, Gunner, your simplistic spin just doesn't work...
Your denial, bias, and attempts to deflect simply dont work. I let you
set the pace to see how you were going to try to handle the
argument..and its obvious that you are no smarter than any other
Leftard. Frankly..they are a pathetic bunch of losers and the mentally
ill.
Shrug.
>
>Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's a bit of both...
Thats a sudden change.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>And, it's in keeping with that whole pursuit of happiness thing...
>>
>> So its actually being allowed to pursue happiness..and not having other
>> people pay for your?
>
>It's whatever the majority of the People legislate...
So if we had the Leftards suddenly decide that they wanted slavery
again..you would be all for it if the Left voted it in. Right?
Sigh..that would bring about your death even sooner than 3 yrs.
Yawn.
>
>>
>> "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous
>> phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three
>> aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.
>>
>> Now about those other "unalienable rights"...such as the right to keep
>> and bear arms that you Leftards are so much against?
>>
>Hey, Gunner, I'm from Alberta, I have no problem with people bearing arms,
>as long as it's done responsibly and there are sufficient, legitimate,
>controls in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and to ensure
>they aren't left lying around for kids to blow each other's brains out...
>
>You shouldn't have a problem with that. Right?
Of course not. However...I fail to see anywhere in the Constitution any
restrictions of any kind being put on arms.
Now about the Canadian version of the 2nd Amendment? Oh damn..you dont
have one, do you? Ottawa could pass a law and pull every fucking gun
from you at a moments notice couldnt they?
>
>But, I'm not sure that bearing arms has the same status as Life, Liberty and
>the Pursuit of Happiness. After all, which right takes precedence if, shall
>we say, your right to bear arms interferes with Joe's right to life?
How the hell could that happen? Its only if Joe tries to harm me or
mine unlawfully, does he lose the protections of his right to life.
So its quite historically correct that my right to keep and bear arms
takes precidence in Joes right to attempt to harm me and mine.
Of course much of Canada believes the same way. Too bad you are too
leftwing to understand this.
>
>After all, you're the guy talking about crews coming around and picking
>people off the street, even from their homes, simply because their political
>views differ from yours? You really don't take that right to freedom of
>speech very seriously, do you?
Actually.Im going to be right pitiful about it happening, but after
all..it will be the majority killing the minority. And as you stated
repeatedly..the majority wins over the minority. Right?
<VBG>
Gunner Asch
How so? And of course..you are in love with Leftwing Totalitarianism.
Must have broke your heart when the USSR imploded and the Wall came
down.
HH&C
> On Nov 8, 7:36 pm, "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 2:37 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:43:49 -0800, "Loony Left" <loonyl...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-healt...
> > > >The Democratic side of the House cheered loudly when the vote count reached
> > > >218, a majority. Like a crowd waiting for the final gun at a football game,
> > > >they counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and
> > > >roared their approval when Pelosi went to the speaker's chair, grabbed the
> > > >gavel and declared, "The bill is passed."
>
> > > quite a while. Another point in favor of that theory. It's about
> > > "us" beating "them"; it has nothing to do with what might be a wise
> > > and prudent policy for the long run.
>
> > > >The bill wins a lone GOP vote and loses many
> > > >Democrats, pointing to challenges awaiting in the Senate.
> > > >and vote for the bill. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against it.
>
> > > Collins.
>
> > > >The legislation -- which includes more than $1 trillion in new healthcare
> > > >spending
>
> > > out of a distressed economy.
>
> > > >Under pressure from a group of socially conservative Democrats
> > > >Republicans and conservative Democrats;
>
> > > are Ds or are they evil because they are the dreaded wingers?
>
> > > >The move outraged many liberals. But in the end, just enough rallied behind
> > > >the bill after a furious several days of lobbying by party leaders,
> > > >including the president.
>
>
> > > >"If we do not get it done this year, we will not get it done any time soon,"
> > > >the president said at a closed-door meeting, according to a senior
> > > >Democratic aide who was in the room.
>
>
> > > >The more than 2,000-page legislation is designed to largely preserve the
> > > >employer-based healthcare system in which most Americans get insurance
> > > >through work. But the bill would also dramatically expand federal regulation
> > > >of healthcare and provide more than $1 trillion in new aid to poor and
> > > >middle-class citizens.
>
> > > any changes in the legislation to appease wavering
> > > members could force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to break a pledge to post the
> > > final bill online for 72 hours before lawmakers vote.
>
> > > I guess that's another promise down the drain. Transparency, huh
> > > Nancy?
>
> > > >The most expensive feature is a commitment by the federal government to
> > > >provide nearly $600 billion in subsidies
>
>
> > > >The bill is also designed to give relief to small businesses, providing
> > > >about $25 billion in tax subsidies
>
>
> > > >To pay for their legislation, Democrats approved a 5.4% surtax on
> > > >individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples that make more
> > > >than $1 million.
>
>
> > > >The bill would also cut more than $400 billion from Medicare payments to
> > > >hospitals, nursing homes and insurance companies
>
>
> > Noooo. The hospitals, nursing homes, and insurance companies will
> > just give away their services.
>
> > Welp, at least Alberto Curmudgeon, TMT, and Hawke get their free
> > health care. Yeah!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Perhaps HH&C needs to lose his medical access to understand why this
> change is needed.
>
> TMT
I can never lose my health insurance... it's prepaid via military
service. You should try it sometime...military service, that is.
HH&C
> On Nov 8, 9:45 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
> > Winston_Smith wrote:
> > > Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Perhaps HH&C needs to lose his medical access to understand why this
> > >> change is needed.
>
> > > to use ObamaCare as a political weapon. Thank you for being so open
> > > and honest.
>
> > >
>
> > It's been clear TMT was a flaming Communist all along. Soon he'll
> > be bragging about it.
>
> A flaming Communist?
>
> Is that like when Larry Craig catches on fire in the toilet stall?
>
> TMT
It's more like when you run around and blow smoke up everyone's ass.
HH&C
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I am starting to conclude that Winston is just winger in disguise.
>
> >Sad..he had so much potential. ;<)
>
> >TMT
>
> You liked me when I was bitching about Bush.
Liked you? His little pink thing was sticking out.
Dudley Hanks
>>>>is
>>>>"mooching" but profit isn't?
>>>
snipped ...
>>>>In the case of government administered healthcare, the country benefits
>>>>as
>>>>a
>>>>whole because the population is healthier, happier, and more productive;
snipped ...
>>>
>>I take it you're American? If so, do you have an army? a navy? Do you
>>have a police force near you? Are there schools near you? Is there a
>>road
>>for you to drive on as you take your children to school?
>
> All nations need defense. There is virtually unanimous agreement on
> that. Not so on the if, what, how, nor why of healthcare.
Outside the States, in the Western world, agreement is more in favour of
universal health care than you'll admit. Britain, France, Canada all
provide it for sure. I think that Germany, Australia, Spainand Italy do as
well. These are all capitalistic democracies, and they all see the sense in
ensuring that all citizens receive proper health care paid for by tax
dollars...
>
> Police, schools, and most roads are local affairs, down to the
> individual municipality in most cases. They are not a mandate from
> the federal government. A mandate that half the people oppose.
But, they are services which make life better for all...
>
> Well, not that they oppose health care or giving the needy a hand up,
> it's that they oppose a central government, that is already so
> powerful it's out of control, nationalizing yet another industry.
I wouldn't say that providing a "public option" is nationalizing an
"industry." Besides, I think it's sick to view health care as an industry;
a service is more like it...
Would you rather see your tax dollars spent on keeping people healthy, or
for foreign invasions?
>
> The bill just passed basically says they will work something out and
> tell us what it is in 18 months. But it may be law within weeks.
> It's like your bank giving you a loan today and they will tell you
> what the interest is 18 months from now. Do you see why some folks
> may have some problem with that?
Nope, you can always vote against the politicians if you don't like the
"interest rate" they give you, you can't fire your bank manager. Hence, the
end result won't be as outrageous as you pretend...
>
>>If the government provides these services, why is health care any
>>different?
>
> You are confusing different levels of government.
Nope, I'm just pointing out that all governments provide services to tax
payers. It doesn't matter whether you're talking State, Federal or
Municipal, important services tend to be delivered most equitably when
administered and regulated by a government...
The government is
> always happy to grow, get more powerful, and get its hooks deeper into
> everyday life.
So is business. GM and AIG were real happy growing. Did they fair any
better than any given government?
The question is, are the people happy to have it done
> to them.
If the majority voted in favour of it, I'd say the majority are...
>
>>I realize you may not be happy with the quality of the service, but it's a
>>bit unfair to say the government will take the taxes and give you nothing
>>in
>>return...
>
> They will return dimes on dollars.
10% is pretty good interest, nowadays. Have you checked what kind of
interest you get at the bank, lately? Have you checked to see what the cost
is for government provided health services in other countries and compared
them to what you pay in the States?
And they will make ever increasing
> rules on what hoops we must jump through to get even that.
Have you checked the private "hoops" your insurance companies insist you
jump through? If they allow you to jump through them at all? You are
misleading people here. The idea of government run health services is to
ensure that everyone has access to good health care. In many cases, private
companies just cut you off or deny you service if administrators think
you're a liability... The guaranteed access should be enough, by itself, to
convince most the bill is a good idea... If you have to fill out a form or
two, so be it...
>
>>>>but, in the case of profit, the rich get nicer toys?
>>>
>>> Who do you think is going to do the day to day management of the
>>> system? They will still get their profit and we will have to pay for
>>> a little government graft added to our bill.
>>
>>Not really, they'll get their wages, which will be considerably less than
>>profit...
>
> They are private companies. The workers get wages. The owners and
> shareholders get profits. They will get at least what they are
> getting now. Plus there is the governments cut. Even if it's not
> corrupt - a big if - their involvement has a cost - if only because
> the government overseers get wages in addition to the people that have
> been doing the job until now.
Once again, you are misleading folks here...
I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to your American system, but it is
my understanding that, yes, the services will still be rendered by doctors
and physicians and hospitals, which
in your American system are profit generating businesses, so, in that sense,
profit will still be made. However, the public option will eliminate a good
chunk of the profit from the insurance end of things. Instead of having to
pay premiums to a profit seeking insurance company, taxes will cover the
costs, and those costs will be lower than an equivalent privatly run
insurance company or HMO. The rub here is that the tax will be applied to
families earning more than a million dollars per year and the services
consumed by individuals around or below the poverty line.
>
>>Try corelating a typical government bureaucrat's salary with the profit
>>generated by one of America's famous HMO's, drug companies, even a typical
>>doctor's salary... You'll probably be pleasantly surprised...
>
> Again, you are trying to equate the individual worker with the company
> they work for. You are saying the burger flipper at McDonalds gets
> the corporate profit. That is simply in error.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
The point I'm trying to make is that, in the realm of insurance, the
government administrator looking after paying for health services for poor
individuals will be paid a wage, not a dividend. Hence, the system will not
be as expensive to run as alternative, privately insured, benefit
programs...
BTW, you still haven't explained why it's so evil to fund by taxes, but
perfectly acceptable to make a profit on somebody's heart attack...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
Actually, yes, and now your writing skills do too...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
>>>>>>> So you think that the Founders intended to establish a Socialist
>>>>>>> American?
government of the people, by the people, for the people = social democracy
...
fascinating...
snipped ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The point is that civilization has progressed to the point where it
>>>>>>costs
>>>>>>too much to maintain an authoritarian tyrany, and there's too many
>>>>>>people
>>>>>>with too many different ideas of what is right and wrong to let them
>>>>>>go
>>>>>>running around without a bit of direction, and the economy is getting
>>>>>>far
>>>>>>too complicated to just leave EVERYTHING up to that hand nobody can
>>>>>>see,
>>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a problem. In less than 3 yrs...alll the Leftwingers will be dead
>>>>> and we can go back to the contract that the Founders came up with. Its
>>>>> called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>Have you even read the Constitution...?
>>>
>>> Repeatedly..In fact..I have a copy in my wallet at all times.
>>
>>Keeping it close to your ass? How patriotic...
>
> Of course. Along with my government ID.
So you view the Constitution with the same disdain as you have for your
government ID? Fascinating ...
>
> My Democrat Party card..that goes in my shoe..so I can walk on it all
> day long.
You're a RightOff, but you're a member of the democrats? No wonder you're
so angry... Fascinating...
>>
>>Wouldn't taping it over your heart be more appropriate?
>
> With my chest hair? Frankly..that would be a real pain in the chest
I was thinking of that when I wrote the above, but opted not to go there ...
:)
snipped ...
>
>>>>>>So, governments can't function well without enough resources to get
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>jobs
>>>>>>done...
>>>>>>
>>>>> We have more than enough resources to have the government the Founders
>>>>> specified.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're kind of hung up on the whole Founding Fathers thing...
>>>>
>>>>Did anybody ever tell you Constitutions are "living documents," because
>>>>they
>>>>need to grow?>
>>>
>>> Yes. A lefttwinger did. He lied of course as you are doing.
>>
>>Perhaps you can explain how a document, hundreds of years old, can account
>>for every development since its publication... Be specific....
>
> It cant. But there are methods for Amending the Constitution. And they
> dont include a bunch of pouty little retarded leftards whining and
> sniveling. You do know the Constitution has already been amended some 20
> odd times...right? Each time (with 2 exceptions) increasing our
> freedoms, not taking any away, as you Leftards would do if you could
> change it at whim.
So, you feel that government of the people by the people for the people
shouldn't include anybody who disagrees with you ... Fascinating...
BTW, I'm aware of your amendments. And, I'm aware that they tend to
increase freedoms, as opposed to restricting them. But, isn't allowing
abortion increasing the freedom of women? Isn't allowing gay marriage
increasing the freedoms of homosexuals? Isn't restricting firearms making
the streets safer so anybody has the freedom to walk about in safety? Or,
isn't it increasing the freedom of women so that a woman doesn't have to
worry that her RightOff significant other will blow her head off when he's
drunk?
>>
>>Or, perhaps you're claiming the States should stay frozen in time,
>>politically, while the rest of the world advances? Detail your answer.
>
> See below. I think that covers my (and most real Americans) view on
> change involving the Constitution.
I like how you slipped "real" in there. It's just another attempt for you
to disregard what your Founding Fathers wanted, for government of [all] the
people by [all] the people for [all] the people...
Like most RightOffs, Gunner, you talk a good talk, but you stumble when you
try to walk the walk...
>>
>>>
>>> "Justice Clarence Thomas has routinely castigated "living Constitution"
>>> doctrine. In one particularly strongly-worded attack, he noted that:
>>>
>>> Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret
>>> the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers
>>> intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully
>>> put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent
>>> of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the
>>> latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort
>>> to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is
>>> flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least
>>> originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add,
>>> impartial.[27]
>>>
>>
>>The problem with that approach is it tries to justify the "reading" of the
>>original as being without interpretation, therefore, legitimate...
>
> Of course it does. Its only when Leftards are involved with their spew
> and mental illnessess does
>
> "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."
>
> get interpreted as a total ban on firearms in Leftard fuckspots.
>
I can't speak for all "leftards," but I personally don't know many who want
a "total ban on all firearms." Some would like to see a total ban on
assault weapons; some would like to see gun registries to help the police
track down criminals, and the movement of weapons; and some would like to
see concealed carry permits severely limited, but I doubt you'll find many
calling for a complete, universal ban on all weapons...
Once again, Gunner, you are making RightOffs look like they are stubborn,
closed minded, and 200 years behind the times...
Oh, sorry, Gunner, that's what most RightOffs are...
> Or
>
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
> of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution for the United States of America."
>
> Get interpreted as universal welfare for millions of generational
> welfare recepients and trillions of dollars of free shit to be passed
> out to a very small portion of our society.
So you have no social conscience, fascinating...
Gunner, it doesn't mandate universal health care, but I'd say it allows for
it... whether you like it or not...
And, if the government of the people by the people for the people decides
that's what is needed, I doubt you'll accept the verdict, so you might want
to go talk to your shrink and get some of those free meds... You'll be much
happier ... Really, you really will be much happier ....
>
>
>>
>>Whenever written language is involved, there is always interpretation.
>>RightOffs just think that they "know" what the authors originally meant,
>>when in fact theirs is only one interpretation of many...
>
> Oddly enough..that sounds like most Leftwingers and their interps doesnt
> it?
Oddly enough, that sounds like most RightOffs dismissing the opinions of
others because it is different than their own... Doesn't it?
>
>>
>>> Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed similar sentiments. He commented,
>>>
>>> [There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like
>>> this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It
>>> has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become
>>> brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that;
>>> the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It
>>> says something and doesn't say other things . . .
>>
>>I rest my case...
>>
>>[Proponents of the
>>> living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but
>>> by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for
>>> legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right
>>> to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to
>>> be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.""[28] "
>>
>>Gunner, you're not reading again, like most RightOffs.
>
> Your not thinking again..like most Leftards.
>>
Gunner, I don't have to agree with you in order to think... But, you do
have to understand the words and their intent in order to read... And,
isn't that what you RightOffs are supposed to excel at? Understanding what
somebody meant wen they wrote something? You're not setting a good
example...
>>First you say that left-wingers are stupid because they say the
>>Constitution
>>grows and changes. Then, you attack them for wanting abortion and
>>homosexuality embedded in the Constitution so it can't be changed...
>>
> Frankly..I could give a shit about gays or abortion. Those are personal
> rights and really dont need clarification..anymore than the 2nd
> Amendment does. Though with Leftards fucking with things...its best to
> put them on paper. Though..Leftards always try to reinterpret things to
> fit their agendas.
You're failure to not admit you talked yourself into a corner is noted, with
great amusement...
>
>>You really are an amateur when it comes to spinning your opponents
>>words...
>
> Spinning my opponents words? Frankly..there is no need to do so. They
> are condemned by their own words.
I'd say you just did a fabulous job of condemning yourself with your own
words, Gunner... (really big grin!)
>>
>>Now, Gunner, repeat after me: Proponents of the Living Document school
>>argue nothing is written in stone, nor should it be...
>
> Yet you belive its a moving bowl of Jello and can be changed at a
> moments notice, even if the People dont want the change.
Nope, Gunner, you're exaggerating again in order to scare everybody else and
try to make yourself look like a rational being.
Your country has an accepted mechanism for amending your Constitution, you
noted its been done a few times already... And, it's not easy. But, it
works...
If I were an American, I'd be happy with that.
>
> Your position is indeed noted..noted with deep contempt.
How can you note my position when you don't understand it?
snipped ...
>
>>>
>>> Ok...now what about health care? Are you claiming we dont want
>>> healthcare?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Gunner, are you really that dense? Or, do you just need a remedial
>>reading
>>course?
>>
> So you are unable to answer the question? Send a ping to DNC
> headquarters through that USB plug in the back of your skull and see if
> they can give you a download or two.
So, you don't understand these words either? Log into your Republican
headquarters and see if you can get a firmware update that works...
>
>>>
>>>>>>It would be nice if we could take a government from the 1700s or 1800s
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>get it to work today; but it ain't gonna happen...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it can..and will. Once the Leftwingers are gone..we go back to
>>>>> the
>>>>> default setting of the Constitution.
Your inability to accept or appreciate others is duely noted, with dismay
and sadness...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If all the left wingers were gone, who'd be around to stop all you
>>>>RightOffs
>>>>from shooting each other?
>>>>
>>> Why would we shoot each other?
Because, even RightOffs don't agree on everything. And, if more moderates
weren't around, we'd be back slinging guns in the streets...
snipped ...
>>>>
>>> Will a crew need to chase you down, or will you come willingly when they
>>> knock on your door? Or would you consider doing away with yourself and
Isn't that the sort of thing your Declaration of Independence is supposed
to guard against?
Your disdain for your own revered documents is duely noted, with surprise...
snipped ...
>>>
>
> Nazi? No..thats Leftwing Socialist territory and thats no place for me
> to be hanging out, unless Im heavily armed with more than a basic load
> of ammo on me.
When you get that far, either left or right, Gunner, you end up in the same
place...
>
> But your terribly flawed interpretation of anything beyond your world
> view..pitiful and retarded and restricted as it is..is noted with amused
> contempt and some pity.
Ditto ...
Dudley Hanks
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
So, Gunner, you still can't recognize that government of the people by the
people for the people = social democracy?
Your failure to recognize what type of country you, yourself, live in is
duely noted, but expected...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
>>>>"By the People, for the People" sounds fairly socialistic to me...
>>>
>>> The People control the Government, not the Government controls the
>>> People.
>>
>>The part you RightOffs can't accept is that you aren't always the
>>majority.
>>Since you're not going to get consensus on just about any issue of
>>importance: some of the people control the government, and the government
>>does, indeed, control the rest of the people...
>
> Shrug...the Nazis werent the majority in Germany either between
> 1933-45..but like Leftards..they managed to kill the country and about
> 75 million people. But unlike Germany..when you leftards try to kill
> off the population..we will kill off you. All of you.
> Works for me.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating... Gunner, you need your
meds...
>>
>>So, Gunner, your simplistic spin just doesn't work...
>
> Your denial, bias, and attempts to deflect simply dont work. I let you
> set the pace to see how you were going to try to handle the
> argument..and its obvious that you are no smarter than any other
> Leftard.
Your inability to admit defeat is noted, with no great surprise...
Frankly..they are a pathetic bunch of losers and the mentally
> ill.
That was Hitler's stance... Still say Nazi's are left wing?
>
> Shrug.
>
>>
>>Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's a bit of both...
>
> Thats a sudden change.
How so?>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>And, it's in keeping with that whole pursuit of happiness thing...
>>>
>>> So its actually being allowed to pursue happiness..and not having other
>>> people pay for your?
>>
>>It's whatever the majority of the People legislate...
>
> So if we had the Leftards suddenly decide that they wanted slavery
> again..you would be all for it if the Left voted it in. Right?
Why would the left vote it in? They tore your country apart trying to get
rid of it. It was the Right that wanted it to stay, Right? Let me repeat
the question, Right?
>
> Sigh..that would bring about your death even sooner than 3 yrs.
It brought about a lot of deaths, and you don't seem to understand what
happened, what the ramifications of the struggle are, nor do you seem
prepared to treat the issue with any degree of rational thought...
The fact you are living in your own little world is duely noted, with
wonder...
>
> Yawn.
>
>>
>>>
>>> "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous
>>> phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three
>>> aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.
Yet you seem prepared to deprive a whole segment of the population of these
rights...
Once again, your disdain for your own Constitution is duely noted, with the
hope other RightOffs will learn from it...
>>>
>>> Now about those other "unalienable rights"...such as the right to keep
>>> and bear arms that you Leftards are so much against?
If you don't care about a left winger's right to Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness, why should a left winger care about your obcession
with phalic symbols?
>
>>>
>>Hey, Gunner, I'm from Alberta, I have no problem with people bearing arms,
>>as long as it's done responsibly and there are sufficient, legitimate,
>>controls in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and to
>>ensure
>>they aren't left lying around for kids to blow each other's brains out...
>>
>>You shouldn't have a problem with that. Right?
>
> Of course not. However...I fail to see anywhere in the Constitution any
> restrictions of any kind being put on arms.
Did you know that your right to bear arms derives from the British
principle? That principle was actually intended to guarantee that wealthy
protestants could bear arms, but Catholics and the poor could not. So, The
history of your right is steeped in the intent to deprive a large sector of
the population of that very right.
Besides, your second amendment clearly states its for the purpose of
maintaining a militia, not for carrying concealed weapons around to protect
yourself from your neighbours...
Once again, Gunner, learn how to read...
>
> Now about the Canadian version of the 2nd Amendment? Oh damn..you dont
> have one, do you? Ottawa could pass a law and pull every fucking gun
> from you at a moments notice couldnt they?
Not if they wanted to stay in power. You see, Gunner, in Canada, most of us
try to take democracy seriously...
>
>>
>>But, I'm not sure that bearing arms has the same status as Life, Liberty
>>and
>>the Pursuit of Happiness. After all, which right takes precedence if,
>>shall
>>we say, your right to bear arms interferes with Joe's right to life?
>
> How the hell could that happen?
Oh, I don't know, Gunner... Shall we say that some people are a bit
paranoid about their personal protection. And, let's say Joe is lost in
central park, and he's a rough looking kid, and he goes up to some guy (you)
hoping to ask for directions. And, let's say he sticks his hand under his
coat because his cell phone just vibrated as he's walking towards you, and
you misinterpret what he's doing, and you think you're about to get mugged,
so you pull out your Gloc and blow his brains out. Possible? I think so,
and so do many others...
But, with you being a RightOff, and you being able to perfectly interpret
and understand what everyone else is writing, saying and doing, you would
never make such a mistake RIGHT?
Its only if Joe tries to harm me or
> mine unlawfully, does he lose the protections of his right to life.
See above...
>
> So its quite historically correct that my right to keep and bear arms
> takes precidence in Joes right to attempt to harm me and mine.
Only a RightOff would be more worried about keeping his property than making
a mistake that could kill another...
Your complete introversion is duely noted, with anguish...
>
> Of course much of Canada believes the same way.
Happily, not the majority...
Too bad you are too
> leftwing to understand this.
Too bad you are too much of a RightOff to realize their are better ways...
>>
>>After all, you're the guy talking about crews coming around and picking
>>people off the street, even from their homes, simply because their
>>political
>>views differ from yours? You really don't take that right to freedom of
>>speech very seriously, do you?
>
> Actually.Im going to be right pitiful about it happening, but after
> all..it will be the majority killing the minority. And as you stated
> repeatedly..the majority wins over the minority. Right?
Right, the majority wins. Happily, it's been a while since a majority has
shared your views. Thankfully, Gunner, even for a RightOff, you're the
extreme case. And, your posts will make it a good idea for others who might
share your vitriole to lay low a while longer, so they can maintain at least
a shred of dignity and public acceptance...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:51:05 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>><hal> wrote in message news:4af878b4....@news.newsguy.com...
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:01:45 -0800, Gunner Asch
>>> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Obviously, The People have the
>>>>>> right to legislate government run social services.
>>>>
>>>>The People control the Government, not the Government controls the
>>>>People.
>>>
>>> Like I said, The People have the right to legislate social services.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You Leftards seem to always mess that up.
>>>
>>> What you mess up is confusing socialism with totalitarianism.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>But, he seems to like the idea of right wing totalitarianism...
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>
> How so? And of course..you are in love with Leftwing Totalitarianism.
>
> Must have broke your heart when the USSR imploded and the Wall came
> down.
>
Gunner, you wouldn't recognize a social democracy if you stumbled over a
ballot box...
Kind of strange that America tries to export democracy to others, yet some
of its citizens don't adhere to its principles...
Take Care,
Dudley
Strabo
> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Winston benefits from the current medical system...socialized health
>> care for some...and doesn't want it to change.
>
> How so? I pay for my own insurance, haven't needed a doctor for
> anything but annual physicals since I was a child. I pay for my own
> drugs for hypertension out of my own pocket. It's covered by my plan
> but I can pay the full tab for them at Costco for less than the plan's
> co-pay at their chosen super-duper negotiated to be cheap pharmacy.
>
> Please elaborate on these "benefits" I'm getting. Please explain how
> your "socialized health care for some" quip is remotely true.
>
>
>
>
> Here we have a typical TMT debating tactic. With zero facts he makes
> up something to discredit his opposition. As usual he is completely
> wrong. That won't stop him though. He will be making up something to
> lie about someone else tomorrow. If his ilk is the standard by which
> to run this country in the future, all is lost.
>
The Ilk is oblivious, clueless.
The Sea of Reality will wash away their sand castles.
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
Ok...then its obvious that you are in the same class..untermenschen as
the other scum cell.
Nobody I need to bother with.
<plink>
Dont call us..we will call you....not
Gunner
DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything;
all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that
you may distribute the post and all its associated parts freely but you may
not make a profit from it or include the post in commercial publications
without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other
copyright laws for specific posts apply wherever noted or not noted, either
deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; posts are subject to change without
notice; posts are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental;
hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as is"
without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities;
not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse
employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last; if
defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return to an
authorised post service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk;
parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers
may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; not suitable for
children; not suitable for adults; not for human consumption; keep away from
sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no
purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some assembly
required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no
preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required
during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is
broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness,
irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper
ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place; keep
away from open flames, naked flames and old flames; avoid inhaling fumes;
avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store
above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source;
smoking the post may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second
only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is
made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were
used to test the hilarity of this post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt,
MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of replies to
peanuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult
your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet;
must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; post offer
valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia;
allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage from hurricane, lightning,
tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse,
self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation,
broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered
serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from
nuclear blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken
glass, falling rocks, mud
Gunner Asch
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Must have broke your heart when the USSR imploded and the Wall came
>> down.
>>
>
>Gunner, you wouldn't recognize a social democracy if you stumbled over a
>ballot box...
>
>Kind of strange that America tries to export democracy to others, yet some
>of its citizens don't adhere to its principles...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
Its a pity that the Founders planned for a democratic Republic, not a
social democracy and you idiots have managed to turn it into a social
democracy.
But..shrug..in less than 3 yrs...we go back to the Constitutional
defaults.
And you will of course, be dead, or out of the country.
Works for me. Shrug
Dudley Hanks
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>> Must have broke your heart when the USSR imploded and the Wall came
>>> down.
>>>
>>
>>Gunner, you wouldn't recognize a social democracy if you stumbled over a
>>ballot box...
>>
>>Kind of strange that America tries to export democracy to others, yet some
>>of its citizens don't adhere to its principles...
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>
> Its a pity that the Founders planned for a democratic Republic, not a
> social democracy and you idiots have managed to turn it into a social
> democracy.
>
> But..shrug..in less than 3 yrs...we go back to the Constitutional
> defaults.
>
> And you will of course, be dead, or out of the country.
>
> Works for me. Shrug
>
> Gunner
Gunner, a democratic republic is just a social democracy that doesn't have a
monarch... Didn't you know that?
BTW, what are you going to do in three years if Obama and the democrats get
re-elected?
I'm afraid your poor, delicate constitution (personal, not political) won't
be able to handle the shock...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Toxic" <staring@my_hd.tv> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@cdc.gov...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:38:47 +0000, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, what are you going to do in three years if Obama and the democrats
>> get re-elected?
>
> Gummer will continue to egest the pus of his fantasies here on usenet,
> a nice safe place with few consequences.
Alas, if it keeps him from going postal...
Take Care,
Dudley
Observer
You assume much.
>it's prepaid via military
>service. You should try it sometime...military service, that is.
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
HH&C
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:48:59 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
>
>
>
>
Are you sure?
List the names of all the military retirees who have lost their Tri-
Care. Take all the white space necessary.
Observer
Yes. I am sure you assume much. That, along with your reading
comprehension problems, and your propensity to prevaricate, your
bull-headed inability to rationally discuss issues, your dogma, your
inflated sense of self, and your delusions of adequacy, and your
pomposity, generally ensure you'll reach the wrog conclusion the vast
majority of the time.
>List the names of all the military retirees who have lost their Tri-
>Care. Take all the white space necessary.
List the names of all the folks that thought they'd have a pension,
but got cheated out of it. Explain why it won't happen with your
gov't medical care.
Curly Surmudgeon
> If this health care plan is so good for the American people. Why is
> Congress exempt from said health care plan?
That's a distraction.
Congress is already gets special treatment. Rulers invariably receive
special treatment and perks. That has absolutely no bearing to the
improvement over private monopolies taking over U.S. health care nor does
it speak to which is superior for the majority.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dudley Hanks
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:tq1sf51utghm05ucf...@4ax.com...snipped...
Great debate, Winston, but it's getting a bit lengthy...
I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to save this thread, break it up into
more manageable chunks, and repost in separate messages...
Take Care,
Dudley
HH&C
Your reading comprehension sucks. The question was about Tri-Care.
Now list the names of all of the military retirees who have lost their
Tri-Care insurance.
Best of Luck.
Dudley Hanks
>> individual municipality in most cases. They are not a mandate from
>> the federal government. A mandate that half the people oppose.
>
>But, they are services which make life better for all...
I'm not debating what should or should not be done, or what the good
and bad of each is.
But, I am...
I'm pointing out what you should have learned in
9th grade civics class (if you were an American) - the federal, state,
county, and local governments all have their powers and
responsibilities. To say the feds should get mixed up in the width of
sidewalks is to make all levels of government useless except for the
beloved folks in Washington.
I have not said that all levels of government should provide all services...
I definitely did not say that the feds should put in sidewalks... I just
want to point out that important services are BEST provided by government,
whereas private enterprise is most suited for less important, profit
oriented businesses...
If you want to debate which level of government should be providing health
care services, that's a separate issue. But, I think the issue of whether
or not any type of government at all should become involved in American
health care is what needs a decision.
You as an American, a right wing American, say it should not. I, being
Canadian (not European), say it should...
Of course, Americans get the final say in their own political affairs, but,
before they write off the other point of view, a point of view shared by the
majority of the Western, democratic, world, they might want to understand
why it's so popular everywhere else.
I think the most prevalent argument for why health care should be provided
by a government, regardless of what level of government is selected to
administer the system, is that something as vital to the health and
happiness of the people should be delivered by an organization / agency /
institution which does not mark the cost of the service up as far as
alternative delivery mechanisms...
Certainly, there is a certain amount of profit in the delivery of health
care where people receive monetary compensation for the work they provide.
There are wages, maintenance of equipment, research and development, etc,
but private enterprise often includes dividends paid to shareholders in the
company who expect as much money as they can as a return on their investment
in the system.
Tax payers don't expect a cash return, they only expect a certain level of
the given service to be available to them whenever a situation arises in
which they need to avail themselves of that service.
Just switching to a public service has been proven to slash administration
costs. For instance, administration costs account for about 30% of your
system, about 16% of ours. On a per capita basis, that represents about a
23% savings per American just for making the switch...
And, Canadians enjoy a longer life than Americans as well....
Take Care,
Dudley
hal
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>Just switching to a public service has been proven to slash administration
>costs. For instance, administration costs account for about 30% of your
>system, about 16% of ours. On a per capita basis, that represents about a
>23% savings per American just for making the switch...
>
>And, Canadians enjoy a longer life than Americans as well....
Conservative Americans almost fanatical opposition to government run
health care is most certainly almost entirely racial. The vast
majority of conservatives in America are white, Christian, and poorly
educated. The vast majority of beneficiaries of government run health
care will be poor black and hispanic. White conservatives do not
think they should have to pay for health care for blacks and
hispanics. Sad but true. That pretty much is the bottom line. They
will deny it, of course, but they have proven repeatedly that they
have no problem at all with lying.
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>
>
>
ne...@millions.com
Conservatives are opposed to the creeping federalism's one size
destroy too much.
DCI
hal
That makes absolutely no sense. But, of course, that doesn't surprise
me.
>
>DCI
Observer
Your reasoning sucks. What makes you think your bennies will be
around when it's time to collect? What makes you think FRNs will
always be worth something? Why are you even on a survival group if
you're so sure the gov't will always have your back?
Look at the private sector and the loss of perks. That is YOUR
future, too.
Observer
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>Just switching to a public service has been proven to slash administration
>costs. For instance, administration costs account for about 30% of your
>system, about 16% of ours. On a per capita basis, that represents about a
>23% savings per American just for making the switch...
If it is purporting to cut admin fees roughly in half, why is the
savings only 23% ?