Obama breaks yet another promise, Obama is a liar.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
Ouroboros Rex
> Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
YAY!!!!
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>
>
So what happened to that 95% that would have their taxes lowered? Looks
like they are trimming that to 65%. Cigarette taxes make it 55%.
--
I M @ good guy
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
><Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>
>>Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>
>But only on those he already said he would.
Those earning $150,000 a year?
That leaves out every single person I know,
but it includes congress.
Beam Me Up Scotty
care will tax those buying any medical device
I M @ good guy wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:15:46 -0600, smo...@board.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>> Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>> But only on those he already said he would.
Obama/Pelosi care will tax those buying any medical device... Don't eye
glasses and hearing aids get prescribed as a medical device just like
wheel chairs and oxygen?
> Those earning $150,000 a year?
>
> That leaves out every single person I know,
> but it includes congress.
Good for congress.... but they probably have an out if you dig deep.
I know people that it will hit, and it will cause them to spend less
elsewhere.
I hope your Job isn't in a restaurant/store near them. You may get
laid-off when they stay home or skip buying any new items.
--
erschro...@gmail.com
Not for the middle class, which WAS his promise.
erschro...@gmail.com
dog.com> wrote:
Never said that. Said middle income would not have their taxes raised.
Beam Me Up Scotty
On all medical devices.... 100% of people
That's on you and me and the poor.
Cigarette taxes are on maybe 10% and on the poor.
new taxes on over 150K that's another 40% being taxed
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
"I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year
will see any type of tax increase," he said. "Not income tax, not
capital gains taxes, not ANY kind of tax."
- Obama -
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
This Economic bubble was the Government Bubble that burst. Government
has taxed and spent us into poverty.
Jeff Strickland
<smo...@board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>
>
That's untrue.
He's taxing EVERYBODY for health care. If your employer pays all or part of
your health care, Obama is gonna tax it as income. If you have no health
care now, he's gonna provide it through an entirely new tax that you're not
paying now.
Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill. He's raising them 13%.
mrbawana2u
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
> >Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>
Just tattoo MORON on your forehead, fucktard.
Catfish Hunter
"To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to
break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html
Catfish Hunter
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:18:01 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> >> Not for the middle class, which WAS his promise.
>
> >On all medical devices.... 100% of people
>
Pay a tax or Obama will not let you have your life saving bottle of
oxygen.
Jeff Strickland
<smo...@board.com> wrote in message
news:cmgne59cm9n988aer...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>He's taxing EVERYBODY for health care. If your employer pays all or part
>>of
>>your health care, Obama is gonna tax it as income
>
>
Sounds like it until you read the bill.
There's no way in Hell that Obama can provide health care without raising
taxes. No f---ing way.
And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
> participation in health care. None. Not any.
Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis for
the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate
commerce) would be undercut.
Josh Rosenbluth
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>>> Not for the middle class, which WAS his promise.
>>
>> On all medical devices.... 100% of people
>
So you want the manufacturer and retail suppliers to go out of business,
that means you support Obama and you're both anti capitalists.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
I am NOT commerce commerce is not a person, and I have no insurance so
the commerce clause does not apply to my insurance.
what's more the 9th amendment says:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Combine that with the 4th amendment that we the people have:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*and it looks like you've got nothing*
> Josh Rosenbluth
I will NOT be forced to buy insurance, I will refuse to tell or deal
with the government on any health care items.
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>>And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
>>>participation in health care. None. Not any.
>>
>>Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis for
>>the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
>>regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate
>>commerce) would be undercut.
>>
>
>
> I am NOT commerce commerce is not a person, and I have no insurance so
> the commerce clause does not apply to my insurance.
Apparently, you missed the argument that the Commerce Clause permits the
regulation of non-commerce (having no insurance, being a person) when it
is rational that the regulation is needed for an overall regulatory
scheme (in this case, requiring insurance companies to drop pre-existing
condition prohibitions) that is commerce.
> what's more the 9th amendment says:
> Amendment IX
>
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>
> Combine that with the 4th amendment that we the people have:
> Amendment IV
>
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>
> *and it looks like you've got nothing*
Most every type of existing requirement from the states, from insurance
to safety to wage/hours (you name it) does not violate the 9th/4th.
Yet, in your broad interpretation of these amendments, all these
requirements are unconstitutional. That undermines your argument.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jeff Strickland
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hchof4$ig3$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.
There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
Josh Rosenbluth
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hchof4$ig3$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>>And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
>>>participation in health care. None. Not any.
>>
>>Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis for
>>the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall regulatory
>>scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate commerce) would
>>be undercut.
>>
>
>
> Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.
60 some years of what?
>
> There is no justification for the government to become a health care
> provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted justification.
And, no one is proposing that the government be a health care provider.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jeff Strickland
???
That's precisely what the government itself is proposing. Pelosi, et al,
will tell you one thing, and do another. The fact is, if they put in the
Public Option (with any f---ing name she pulls out of her fat ass), it will
signal the end of private care. Period.
The government will operate health the way it operates the mail. It has no
competitors, and does not have to make money to survive. Private health care
for the masses will go away. The rich will afford private care, but the rich
can afford a tandem-axle diesel pusher to take them to the marina where they
park the yacht.
I'm not dissing the rich for having stuff. Please don't construe my comments
like that.
I'm dissiing you for buying the bullshit story that Pelesoi is pedalling.
You can be sure that if everybody is forced to buy health care, your costs
will be high to cover the overhead. Public health care is not free, or even
cheap. And in many instances it's not even effective.
Josh Rosenbluth
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hchrqu$h0m$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:hchof4$ig3$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
>>>>>participation in health care. None. Not any.
>>>>
>>>>Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis for
>>>>the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall regulatory
>>>>scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate commerce)
>>>>would be undercut.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.
>>
>>60 some years of what?
>>
>>>There is no justification for the government to become a health care
>>>provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
>>
>>As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted justification.
>>And, no one is proposing that the government be a health care provider.
>>
>
>
> ???
>
> That's precisely what the government itself is proposing. Pelosi, et al,
> will tell you one thing, and do another. The fact is, if they put in the
> Public Option (with any f---ing name she pulls out of her fat ass), it will
> signal the end of private care. Period.
The public option is government-provided health insurance, not
government-provided health care.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jeff Strickland
Same thing.
Josh Rosenbluth
> Same thing.
No. With the public option, health care providers remain in the private
sector. In contrast in Britain, health care providers are government
employees.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jeff Strickland
The government is forcing you to participate, that's government health care.
Period.
You voted for a guy that promised no new taxes, but all you get is new
taxes. Maybe YOU won't get them, but your kids and grand kids will get them.
There is no funding mechanism for the health care scheme that Pelosi and
Obama and Reid are foisting upon us, and the cost has risen more than 25%
and it hasn't even been put in place yet. We have to hurry up and get it
passed tomorrow, but it won't even go into effect until 2013 -- the benefits
won't go into effect, the taxes start immediately.
You can claim that the health care workers will remain private, but simple
economics say that this is simply not true.
The government will be forced to cut costs. It has to. It can cut costs by
trimming service or cutting payments. Or a combination of both. If it cuts
payments, private providers will opt to stop taking government patients,
which will cause a cut in services. The government will hire providers, and
these providers won't be private. When government pays for the care, the
providers will be government employees. Maybe not today, but eventually.
The Left likes to point to the wonderful health care system in Germany. I've
researched the German system, and it's crumbling under its own weight.
Germany is undertaking massive changes to the system they have because they
can't afford to continue paying for the system they have now. They say it
will take decades to fix the problems.
Josh Rosenbluth
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hci437$qbr$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no justification for the government to become a health care
>>>>>>>provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted
>>>>>>justification. And, no one is proposing that the government be a health
>>>>>>care provider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>???
>>>>>
>>>>>That's precisely what the government itself is proposing. Pelosi, et al,
>>>>>will tell you one thing, and do another. The fact is, if they put in the
>>>>>Public Option (with any f---ing name she pulls out of her fat ass), it
>>>>>will signal the end of private care. Period.
>>>>
>>>>The public option is government-provided health insurance, not
>>>>government-provided health care.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Same thing.
>>
>>No. With the public option, health care providers remain in the private
>>sector. In contrast in Britain, health care providers are government
>>employees.
>>
>
> The government is forcing you to participate, that's government health care.
> Period.
No, you can do that without even a public option.
Josh Rosenbluth
{rest of tangential screed snipped because it has nothing to do with
your claim that I responded to}
Jeff Strickland
So what. That assertion does not make the Public Option any worse than it
already is.
The fact is, there is no requirement to participate now, and with the
proposed plan for health care, there will be. That makes it public health
care for no other reason than it's compulsory. There is no Constitutioinal
authority for compulsory health care.
Josh Rosenbluth
So, you can now stop making false claims about government provided
health care. Please be accurate and say it is government provided
health insurance with an individual mandate.
> That assertion does not make the Public Option any worse than it
> already is.
>
> The fact is, there is no requirement to participate now, and with the
> proposed plan for health care, there will be. That makes it public health
> care for no other reason than it's compulsory. There is no Constitutioinal
> authority for compulsory health care.
As I already explained, because it is rational for Congress to believe
the mandate is necessary to support the requirement on private insurance
companies not to reject people because of pre-existing conditions (*),
it is permitted under the Commerce Clause.
Josh Rosenbluth
(*) Even Republicans believe this requirement is a constitutional
regulation of commerce and a good idea
Jeff Strickland
So, you can call the fire department before calling the insurtance company
for fire insurance? That's absurd.
You're gonna wait to have coronary herart disease, then set about to buy
health insurance, and expect the insurance company to cover the coronary
heart disease? That's absurd.
Now, if you HAVE coverage, discover you have coronary heart disease and then
get fired, it's reasonable that the next insurance company give you the
coverage you had under the prior job. If THAT'S the pre-existing coverage
you think should be covered, then I agree.
But you have no underlying RIGHT to be healthy, and that means the
government has no underlying right to IMPOSE health insurance upon you.
Josh Rosenbluth
I take it back. Not all Republicans think it is a good idea. Just the
majority of them in Congress.
> Now, if you HAVE coverage, discover you have coronary heart disease and then
> get fired, it's reasonable that the next insurance company give you the
> coverage you had under the prior job. If THAT'S the pre-existing coverage
> you think should be covered, then I agree.
>
> But you have no underlying RIGHT to be healthy, and that means the
> government has no underlying right to IMPOSE health insurance upon you.
Convince a majority of your elected officials, and you get your way
(which you have up to now).
Josh Rosenbluth
Jeff Strickland
It turns out the legislators that are voting for this crap is a bare
majority, and it might collapse.
I M @ good guy
It is mandatory, but the fine seems excessive. :-)
mrbawana2u
wrote:
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:hchsod$p9p$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
> >>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> >>>news:hchrqu$h0m$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
> >>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
Fascism or communism/left-turd-retards will take either.
Bill Bowden
wrote:
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:hcica9$3i9$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
> >>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> >>>news:hci437$qbr$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
> >>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
>
> >>>>>>>>As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted
> >>>>>>>>justification. And, no one is proposing that the government be a
> >>>>>>>>health careprovider.
>
> >>>>>>>???
>
> >>>>>>>That's precisely what the government itself is proposing. Pelosi, et
> >>>>>>>al, will tell you one thing, and do another. The fact is, if they put
> >>>>>>>in the Public Option (with any f---ing name she pulls out of her fat
> >>>>>>>ass), it will signal the end of private care. Period.
>
> >>>>>>The public option is government-provided health insurance, not
>
> >>>>>Same thing.
>
> >>>>No. With the public option,health careproviders remain in the private
> >>>>sector. In contrast in Britain,health careproviders are government
> >>>>employees.
>
> >>>The government is forcing you to participate, that's governmenthealth>>>care. Period.
>
> >>No, you can do that without even a public option.
>
> > So what.
>
> health insurance with an individual mandate.
>
> > That assertion does not make the Public Option any worse than it
> > already is.
>
> > The fact is, there is no requirement to participate now, and with the
> > authority for compulsoryhealth care.
>
> As I already explained, because it is rational for Congress to believe
> the mandate is necessary to support the requirement on private insurance
> companies not to reject people because of pre-existing conditions (*),
> it is permitted under the Commerce Clause.
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
>
> (*) Even Republicans believe this requirement is a constitutional
> regulation of commerce and a good idea
So, how does that work out amongst the various insurance companies as
to who will accept the high risk cases, and who will insure the low
risk cases? Will the risk be divided equally amongst the many
insurance companies, or will some do better than others? How do they
equalize the risks involved?
Just wondering.
-Bill
Josh Rosenbluth
That's where the mandatory insurance comes in - the healthy pay into the
system.
Josh Rosenbluth
Strabo
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:03:35 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> smo...@board.com wrote:
>>> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>>> But only on those he already said he would.
>>>
>> So what happened to that 95% that would have their taxes lowered?
>
> Tax year coming up
>
> Looks
>> like they are trimming that to 65%. Cigarette taxes make it 55%.
>
> Cigaratte taxes aren't income taxes
>
> Don't wanna pay a tax---don't buy any.
>
No, they'll just buy outside of federal markets.
Dumb Communists never learn.
Strabo
In part this is the fault of manufacturers and retailers for having
obeyed the unconstitutional federal laws.
Americans will create alternative sources and markets.
Strabo
It's the difference between Communism and Fascism.
It's a difference without distinction.
Government controls insurance. Government controls hospitals, medical
supply, medical schools, doctors, nurses, pharmaceuticals, all
of it. Government is the reason costs are high.
We're going to have fun with this one. We should be able to arouse
enough anger to remove every federal and state politician from office
Strabo
In other words, socialized medicine/universal health care.
What the stupid have not figured out yet is that this will give
the feds absolute power over every aspect of their lives.
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
Beam Me Up Scotty
Government is always the winner.
Strabo wrote:
>
> It's the difference between Communism and Fascism.
>
> It's a difference without distinction.
>
> Government controls insurance. Government controls hospitals, medical
> supply, medical schools, doctors, nurses, pharmaceuticals, all
> of it. Government is the reason costs are high.
>
> We're going to have fun with this one. We should be able to arouse
> enough anger to remove every federal and state politician from office
>
Liberals were all so upset about Bush having Patriot act because it
would give Government too mush power to invade their privacy and run
their lives.
Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy with
Socialized Government health Care.
Typical, they were all playing a part in this play.... The whole thing
is a charade. Now we will stand by while The Socialists take more of
our rights and next it will be Republicans taking more of your rights.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
In a higher phase of communist society... only then can the narrow
horizon of Bourgeoisie right, be fully left behind and society inscribe
on its banners: *from each according to his ability* , *to each*
*according to his needs* .
Strabo
> On Oct 30, 4:00 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 3:03 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>>
>> dog.com> wrote:
>>> smor...@board.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>>>> Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>>>> But only on those he already said he would.
>>> like they are trimming that to 65%. Cigarette taxes make it 55%.
>> Never said that. Said middle income would not have their taxes raised.
>
> "To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to
> break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans."
>
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html
>
The first mistake was assuming that Obama-Soetoro wanted "the economy
back on track." I think not. A crashed economy is the only way to
destroy the middle class.
The second mistake was in accepting the "pledge" not to raise taxes
on the middle class. Since the middles class will disappear with their
jobs, taxes will be directed to corporations and public/private
partnerships.
Poetic Justice
--
Demon Buddha
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:03:35 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> smo...@board.com wrote:
>>> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>>> But only on those he already said he would.
>>>
>> So what happened to that 95% that would have their taxes lowered?
>
>
> Looks
>> like they are trimming that to 65%. Cigarette taxes make it 55%.
>
>
> Don't wanna pay a tax---don't buy any.
>
Cute.
However, in exchange for elimination of all other forms of taxation,
including hidden ones, a 1/2% sales tax would be acceptable to me. It
would be applied on a rounding-down basis. No sales tax on anything
less than $2.00 and a penny of tax added to each full $2 increment in
price. It would seem a reasonable rate for basic government operations
and that government would indeed have to operate within the confines of
that tax. If they want "more" of whatever, it will then be very much in
their interest to see to it that our economy remains strapping strong.
Jerry Okamura
<smo...@board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>
> But only on those he already said he would.
>
It is a broken promise. Besides, even your statement if a lie, because the
healthcare reform proposals in Congress, DOES raise taxes on those he said
he would not raise taxes on.
Jerry Okamura
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31539e8c-e60e-45ce...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 11:47 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
Not for the middle class, which WAS his promise.
He also said we needed this reform to save money? How can you save money,
if you have to raise taxes?
Bill Bowden
Yes, I understand. But I wasn't referring to the healthy. Suppose a
person has heart disease and cancer and requires a CAT scan and other
major expenses every 6 months and has no insurance. Which insurance
company will take on the expenses knowing in advance it will cost many
times more than the premiums collected?
Since health insurance will be mandated, it appears any high risk
individual can apply for cheap insurance with Blue Cross / Blue
Shield and simply demand full cheap coverage under the law.
The question was, how will the risks be divided so that all the
insurance companies carry equal obligations?
-Bill
Josh Rosenbluth
Whichever one the person chooses.
> Since health insurance will be mandated, it appears any high risk
> individual can apply for cheap insurance with Blue Cross / Blue
> Shield and simply demand full cheap coverage under the law.
Why is Blue Cross the cheapest? Does it provide less coverage? The
requirement isn't that a person gets the best available coverage. It's
that they can't be turned down from whatever company they choose because
of a pre-existing condition. They end up with whatever coverage they
bought.
> The question was, how will the risks be divided so that all the
> insurance companies carry equal obligations?
Unless there is some anomaly out there where everybody who is ill
without insurance buys into the same plan, the market divides the risk.
Josh Rosenbluth
Strabo
> Government is always the winner.
>
> Strabo wrote:
>
>> It's the difference between Communism and Fascism.
>>
>> It's a difference without distinction.
>>
>> Government controls insurance. Government controls hospitals, medical
>> supply, medical schools, doctors, nurses, pharmaceuticals, all
>> of it. Government is the reason costs are high.
>>
>> We're going to have fun with this one. We should be able to arouse
>> enough anger to remove every federal and state politician from office
>>
> Liberals were all so upset about Bush having Patriot act because it
> would give Government too mush power to invade their privacy and run
> their lives.
>
> Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy with
> Socialized Government health Care.
>
The more knowledgable are very upset. They're beginning to realize
the ramifications of an all-powerful medical authority.
Many liberals and conservatives are asking questions and wondering what
they can to do to save themselves.
>
> Typical, they were all playing a part in this play.... The whole thing
> is a charade. Now we will stand by while The Socialists take more of
> our rights and next it will be Republicans taking more of your rights.
>
Yes, but the end is in sight.
Strabo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:05:45 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> Liberals were all so upset about Bush having Patriot act because it
>> would give Government too mush power to invade their privacy and run
>> their lives.
>
> basis for any of it---spying on American citizens in
> direct contravention of the constittution and
> established law.
>
Here is one section from the infamous Patriot Act as passed
into law by the US Congress in 2001 and expanded since.
Ask the Patriot Act, "who is a terrorist?" "Who is a criminal?"
Section 802 reads that YOU are a terrorist if the president
or his designee so declares.
Now ask the Patriot Act, "who is a criminal?"
Section 802 reads that YOU are a criminal if the president
or his designee so declares you a terrorist.
Note that this document specifies that a terrorist may be
*any* person so designated by the Secretary of State or the
Attorney General OR, *any* person suspected of violating any
federal or state criminal law OR *any* person suspected of
actually or intending to, intimidate or coerce any person.
In others words, any person suspected of a crime can be
designated a terrorist.
Here's the law...
++++++++++++++
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination
or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or
international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.
++++++++++++++
Comments:
Terrorism then is any activity that may:
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
...or an act that may:
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States.'.
Which could apply to any criticism of government or politicians
or half of the material on the NGs.
Note the wording for amending Section 3077(1) of title 18,
United States Code, it is is amended to read:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or
international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.
Which effectively means that "domestic" terrorism is the same as
"international" terrorism.
Further as we see in Sec.411 below, that a terrorist is ...
`(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the
Secretary of State under section 219, or
`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public
endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of
State has determined undermines United States efforts to
reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,';
Summary of this portion of Section 802 - A terrorist is any
person suspected of violating any federal or state criminal
law OR any person suspected of actually or intending to,
intimidate or coerce any person.
continuing...
+++++++++++++
SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
(a) GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY- Section 212(a)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by amending subclause (IV) to read as follows:
`(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v))
of--
`(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the
Secretary of State under section 219, or
`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public
endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary
of State has determined undermines United States
efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,';
(ii) in subclause (V), by inserting `or' after `section 219,';
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:
`(VI) has used the alien's position of prominence
within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist
activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist
activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that
the Secretary of State has determined undermines
United States efforts to reduce or eliminate
terrorist activities, or
`(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is
inadmissible under this section, if the activity
causing the alien to be found inadmissible
occurred within the last 5 years,';
(B) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses
(iii), (iv), and (v), respectively;
(C) in clause (i)(II), by striking `clause (iii)' and
inserting `clause (iv)';
(D) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
`(ii) EXCEPTION- Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not
apply to a spouse or child--
`(I) who did not know or should not reasonably
have known of the activity causing the alien to be
found inadmissible under this section; or
`(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney
General has reasonable grounds to believe has
renounced the activity causing the alien to be
found inadmissible under this section.';
(E) in clause (iii) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B))--
(i) by inserting `it had been' before `committed in the
United States'; and
(ii) in subclause (V)(b), by striking `or firearm' and
inserting `, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous
device';
(F) by amending clause (iv) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (B)) to read as follows:
`(iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As
used in this chapter, the term `engage in terrorist
activity' means, in an individual capacity or as a member
of an organization--
`(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under
circumstances indicating an intention to cause
death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
`(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
`(III) to gather information on potential targets for
terrorist activity;
`(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--
`(aa) a terrorist activity;
`(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or
(vi)(II); or
`(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III),
unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not
know, and should not reasonably have known, that the
solicitation would further the organization's terrorist
activity;
`(V) to solicit any individual--
`(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this clause;
`(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in
clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
`(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in
clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate
that he did not know, and should not reasonably have
known, that the solicitation would further the
organization's terrorist activity; or
`(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or
reasonably should know, affords material support,
including a safe house, transportation,
communications, funds, transfer of funds or other
material financial benefit, false documentation or
identification, weapons (including chemical,
biological, or radiological weapons), explosives,
or training--
`(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
`(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably
should know, has committed or plans to commit a
terrorist activity;
`(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I)
or (vi)(II); or
`(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did
not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the
act would further the organization's terrorist activity.
This clause shall not apply to any material support
the alien afforded to an organization or individual
that has committed terrorist activity, if the
Secretary of State, after consultation with the
Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after
consultation with the Secretary of State,
concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that
this clause should not apply.'; and
(G) by adding at the end the following new clause:
`(vi) TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DEFINED- As used in clause (i)(VI)
and clause (iv), the term `terrorist organization'
means an organization--
`(I) designated under section 219;
`(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the
Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in
consultation with or upon the request of the
Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after
finding that the organization engages in the
activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III)
of clause (iv), or that the organization provides
material support to further terrorist activity; or
`(III) that is a group of two or more individuals,
whether organized or not, which engages in the
activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III)
of clause (iv).'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(F) ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Any alien who the
Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney
General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with
the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with
a terrorist organization and intends while in the United
States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally
in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or
security of the United States is inadmissible.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(1) Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended by striking `section
212(a)(3)(B)(iii)' and inserting `section
212(a) (3)(B)(iv)'.
(2) Section 208(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(v)) is amended by striking `or
(IV)' and inserting `(IV), or (VI)'.
(c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall
apply to--
(A) actions taken by an alien before, on, or after such date;
and
(B) all aliens, without regard to the date of entry or
attempted entry into the United States--
(i) in removal proceedings on or after such date (except for
proceedings in which there has been a final administrative
decision before such date); or
(ii) seeking admission to the United States on or after such
date.
(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR ALIENS IN EXCLUSION OR DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
sections 212(a)(3)(B) and 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply
to all aliens in exclusion or deportation proceedings on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act (except for
proceedings in which there has been a final administrative
decision before such date) as if such proceedings were
removal proceedings.
(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR SECTION 219 ORGANIZATIONS AND
ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED UNDER SECTION 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II)-
(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), no alien
shall be considered inadmissible under section 212(a)(3) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)),
or deportable under section 237(a)(4)(B) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)), by reason of the amendments made by
subsection (a), on the ground that the alien engaged in
a terrorist activity described in subclause (IV)(bb),
(V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act
(as so amended) with respect to a group at any time when the
group was not a terrorist organization designated by the
Secretary of State under section 219 of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1189) or otherwise designated under section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of such Act (as so amended).
(B) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed to prevent an alien from being considered
inadmissible or deportable for having engaged in a terrorist
activity--
(i) described in subclause (IV)(bb), (V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of
section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with
respect to a terrorist organization at any time when such
organization was designated by the Secretary of State under
section 219 of such Act or otherwise designated under
section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of such Act (as so amended);
or
(ii) described in subclause (IV)(cc), (V)(cc), or (VI)(dd) of
section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with
respect to a terrorist organization described in section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of such Act (as so amended).
(4) EXCEPTION- The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Attorney General, may determine that the amendments made by
this section shall not apply with respect to actions
by an alien taken outside the United States before the date
of the enactment of this Act upon the recommendation of a
consular officer who has concluded that there is not
reasonable ground to believe that the alien knew or
reasonably should have known that the actions would further a
terrorist activity.
(c) DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Section
219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1189(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting `or terrorism (as defined
in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C.
2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage
in terrorist activity or terrorism' after `212(a)(3)(B)';
(2) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting `or terrorism' after
`terrorist activity';
(3) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read as follows:
`(A) NOTICE-
`(i) TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS- Seven days before
making a designation under this subsection, the Secretary
shall, by classified communication, notify the Speaker and
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the
President pro tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader
of the Senate, and the members of the relevant committees
of the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing,
of the intent to designate an organization under this
subsection, together with the findings made under paragraph
(1) with respect to that organization, and the factual basis
therefor.
`(ii) PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER- The Secretary shall
publish the designation in the Federal Register
seven days after providing the notification under clause
(i).';
(4) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by striking `subparagraph (A)' and
inserting `subparagraph
(A)(ii)';
(5) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking `paragraph (2)' and
inserting `paragraph (2)(A)(i)';
(6) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking `subsection (c)' and
inserting `subsection (b)';
(7) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting after the first sentence
the following: `The Secretary also may redesignate such
organization at the end of any 2-year redesignation period
(but not sooner than 60 days prior to the termination of
such period) for an additional 2-year period upon a finding
that the relevant circumstances described in paragraph (1)
still exist. Any redesignation shall be effective
immediately following the end of the prior 2-year
designation or redesignation period unless a different
effective date is provided in such redesignation.';
(8) in paragraph (6)(A)--
(A) by inserting `or a redesignation made under paragraph
(4)(B)' after `paragraph (1)';
(B) in clause (i)--
(i) by inserting `or redesignation' after `designation' the
first place it appears; and
(ii) by striking `of the designation'; and
(C) in clause (ii), by striking `of the designation';
(9) in paragraph (6)(B)--
(A) by striking `through (4)' and inserting `and (3)'; and
(B) by inserting at the end the following new sentence: `Any
revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the
revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no
effective date is specified.';
(10) in paragraph (7), by inserting `, or the revocation of a
redesignation under paragraph(6),' after `paragraph (5) or
(6)'; and
(11) in paragraph (8)--
(A) by striking `paragraph (1)(B)' and inserting `paragraph
(2)(B), or if a redesignation under this subsection has become
effective under paragraph (4)(B)';
(B) by inserting `or an alien in a removal proceeding' after
`criminal action'; and
(C) by inserting `or redesignation' before `as a defense'
(END SECTION)
Poetic Justice
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:12:56 -0500, Strabo
> <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
>>> Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy with
>>> Socialized Government health Care.
>>>
>> The more knowledgable are very upset.
>
> lightening rods on metal hats?
>
Good one.... They sure were noisy when Bush was in, and Suddenly they
see no problem with Obama the Socialist playing in our privacy.
--
Poetic Justice
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:18:34 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> smo...@board.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:12:56 -0500, Strabo
>>> <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy with
>>>>> Socialized Government health Care.
>>>>>
>>>> The more knowledgable are very upset.
>>> By "more knowledgable"----do you mean a few who wear
>>> lightening rods on metal hats?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Good one.... They sure were noisy when Bush was in,
>
>
>> and Suddenly they
>> see no problem with Obama the Socialist playing in our privacy.
>
> .....
>
> It's the static from your tin hat you keep hearing.
>
How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door? I won't be
opening the doe are volunteering my papers.
Which ever Agency comes to force the question will be sued.
--
Poetic Justice
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:18:34 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:12:56 -0500, Strabo
>>> <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy with
>>>>> Socialized Government health Care.
>>>>>
>>>> The more knowledgable are very upset.
>>> By "more knowledgable"----do you mean a few who wear
>>> lightening rods on metal hats?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Good one.... They sure were noisy when Bush was in,
>
>
>> and Suddenly they
>> see no problem with Obama the Socialist playing in our privacy.
>
> .....
>
> It's the static from your tin hat you keep hearing.
>
How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door? I won't be
Ouroboros Rex
Are you suggesting that in the insurance business model each policy is a
breakeven-or-better investment? lol
That would certainly revamp current estimates of insuance company
profitability. =)
>
> Since health insurance will be mandated, it appears any high risk
> individual can apply for cheap insurance with Blue Cross / Blue
> Shield and simply demand full cheap coverage under the law.
Except for the cheap part, yep.
>
> The question was, how will the risks be divided so that all the
> insurance companies carry equal obligations?
Why should they? Insurance companies price by what the market will bear.
John Galt
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
>> company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?
>
>
> b) law enforcement
>
> c) the law.
>
> And you can't stop 'em
If it comes to that, no.
But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in the
Middle East.
If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used to
invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
believes it proper to use violence to defend against it. Historically,
this is the beginning of the end of nations. The Framers granted us the
2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to defend against the tyranny of
the majority.
JG
Poetic Justice
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:19:23 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>>> It's the static from your tin hat you keep hearing.
>>>
>> How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
>> company, will you get a warrant and break down my door? I won't be
>> opening the doe are volunteering my papers.
>
> years
>
> Here's what I told him:
>
> I help elect politicians who make the laws who then
> send the proper authorities to your door, break it
> down, and haul you into the legal system
>
> "Billy", I said...."Please tell them you're armed and
> you ain't gonna do it"
>
> Billy Beck ain't been around here in a few years.
>
I look forward to the Government violating my rights. You commies won't
care but freedom loving Americans will pay attention.
I'll die for my freedom.... will you die for your communism?
>>> =======================================================================
>
>> *Try* it, you crappy little faggot bitch. Don't just sit there:
>> come try it.
>
>
>> I'll take your fuckin' life, instantly, and sleep like a baby.
>
>
>> Billy
>
>
>> VRWC Fronteer
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
>
>
>> ==============================================================================
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:31:15 GMT,
>> w...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
>>> Bec...@BurgerNarc.com wrote:
>
>
>>> You get one warning, keep my name out of your rubbish,
>>> or you know what's going to happen. I will burn this place down with
>>> your name, address, and phone number all day long, no matter what. If
>>> I end up bouncing posts off Mars to get 'em here, I will.
>
>
>> Stick it up your ass, Beck you chickenshit little nazi.
>
>> =================================================================
>
>
>
>> Billy Beck <w...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>> *You* are in line for the smokey end of a 7.62.
>
>> Keep pushing it, pal. You have no idea what you're fooling
>> around with, and I'm not talking about *me*.
>
>
>> Billy
>
>
>
>
--
Poetic Justice
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
>> company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?
>
>
> b) law enforcement
>
> c) the law.
>
> And you can't stop 'em
>
I don't want to stop them. I invite them to bust the door down and
arrest me for exercising my right. I can not be forced to sign up for
insurance.
--
Josh Rosenbluth
I suspect enforcement will something akin to tax enforcement. Of
course, we all hate the IRS because the power of authority has gotten
to their heads, but you aren't suggesting it's OK to violently revolt
against a legitimate IRS "invasion of privacy" enforcement of a tax
cheat.
Josh Rosenbluth
erschro...@gmail.com
Under the plan, that's impossible. Everyone will have to have
John Galt
> On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> smor...@board.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
>>> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>>>> How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
>>>> company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?
>>> a) anyway we can
>>> b) law enforcement
>>> c) the law.
>>> And you can't stop 'em
>> If it comes to that, no.
>>
>> But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in the
>> Middle East.
>>
>> If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used to
>> invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
>> believes it proper to use violence to defend against it. Historically,
>> this is the beginning of the end of nations. The Framers granted us the
>> 2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to defend against the tyranny of
>> the majority.
>
> I suspect enforcement will something akin to tax enforcement.
I would expect that's correct. It's the least intrusive method.
Of
> course, we all hate the IRS because the power of authority has gotten
> to their heads, but you aren't suggesting it's OK to violently revolt
> against a legitimate IRS "invasion of privacy" enforcement of a tax
> cheat.
This level of enforcement belongs in the courts, IMO. The original
scenario at the least implied a forcible entry of law enforcement into a
home without any evidence of wrongdoing; so a different matter, and not
one that could be engaged without an expectation of violence.
JG
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
There's your answer Poetic Justice. See you in court.
Josh Rosenbluth
Poetic Justice
Kool I'll be there if/when the Subpoena or warrant arrive.
till then I will Not turn over any information papers or person to the
government.
I'll cost you millions in courts to force me to pay $3,000, and then
I'll refuse and take the jail time and cost you 30,000 to 50,000 a
year... That socialism should go broke fast if a few more people will
follow me. And I'll have all day in prison to spend suing your favorite
socialist government and supporters.
Lets dance...
--
Bill Bowden
Yes, I understand, but I have both cancer and heart disease and no
insurance. Currently, I get health care at the Veterans Hospital with
small co-payments. So, when it comes time to buy insurance, WHICH
insurance company should I sign up with to force them to take big time
losses? The last insurance company I had lost about 6 figures on my
case, and they don't want me back.
-Bill
Michael Coburn
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> Obama breaks yet another promise >>OR<< Republican or Democrat, the
>> Government is always the winner.
>>
>> Strabo wrote:
>>
>>> It's the difference between Communism and Fascism.
>>>
>>> It's a difference without distinction.
>>>
>>> Government controls insurance. Government controls hospitals, medical
>>> supply, medical schools, doctors, nurses, pharmaceuticals, all of it.
>>> Government is the reason costs are high.
>>>
>>> We're going to have fun with this one. We should be able to arouse
>>> enough anger to remove every federal and state politician from office
>>>
>> Liberals were all so upset about Bush having Patriot act because it
>> would give Government too mush power to invade their privacy and run
>> their lives.
>>
>> Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy with
>> Socialized Government health Care.
>>
>>
> The more knowledgable are very upset. They're beginning to realize the
> ramifications of an all-powerful medical authority.
If you don't like it then you should look at how to control this "all
powerful" authority instead of whining about it. You might actually
consider the possibility of a proper representative government. As
oppose to the Republican lock step fascist party.
> Many liberals and conservatives are asking questions and wondering what
> they can to do to save themselves.
Not a problem. It would be called a "republican form of government".
The first order of business would be to get rid of the cloture crap in
the Senate and the second order of business would be to repeal the 17th
amendment. The third order of business would be a dramatic expansion of
the House of Representatives. If the "town hall" meetings were actually
indicative of public sentiment and you believe that Americans are by and
large conservative, then why would you have any disagreement with these
propositions?
>> Typical, they were all playing a part in this play.... The whole thing
>> is a charade. Now we will stand by while The Socialists take more of
>> our rights and next it will be Republicans taking more of your rights.
>>
>>
> Yes, but the end is in sight.
The "progressives" of the 191x's made a very big error in passing the
17th amendment. The Republicans then refused to enlarge the House in
1921 and passed the Reapportionment act of 1929 as the last nail in the
coffin of representative government in the United States. The people
have little representation in their government and the Republican party
likes it that way much more than do the Democrats. If you fear
government it is because you hate democracy and proper representation of
the common people.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
Stop whining and lets get it repealed or declared unconstitutional. It
may well be that with a Democrat at the helm the rightarded will actually
challenge this crap in the courts. Those are YOUR Supremes (Roberts and
Alito) placed there by YOUR President George Bush. So why are you
hesitating to take to the courts?
Michael Coburn
> major expenses every 6 months and has no insurance. Which insurance
> company will take on the expenses knowing in advance it will cost many
> times more than the premiums collected?
>
> Since health insurance will be mandated, it appears any high risk
> individual can apply for cheap insurance with Blue Cross / Blue Shield
> and simply demand full cheap coverage under the law.
>
> The question was, how will the risks be divided so that all the
> insurance companies carry equal obligations?
>
> -Bill
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-
DETAILEDSUMMARY-102909.pdf --------------------
Insurance reforms.
Prohibits insurance rating based on health status or pre-existing
conditions, and limits
age rating to 2:1. Prohibits annual or lifetime limits on medical
spending. Grandfathers current individual
policies. Applies these reforms to the entire market (inside and outside
the Exchange), although employers
have a five-year grace period to come into compliance. Establishes
important consumer protections,
including internal and external appeal requirements, provider network
adequacy requirements, and
greater transparency by insurance companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The phrase "insurance rating" implies to me that the premiums can't be
adjusted based on your particular conditions. That means that the
healthy people will be paying a share of the cost of health care for the
people who are not healthy. But each insurance company MUST accept all
applicants. The result should be that the most efficient insurance
companies will prevail. What could any particular company do to limit
its exposure to costly health care consumers?????
Michael Coburn
> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:31539e8c-e60e-45ce-9afa-
b66f53...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 11:47 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>
> Not for the middle class, which WAS his promise.
Jerry gets one right!!!! WOW!!!
> He also said we needed this reform to save money? How can you save
> money, if you have to raise taxes?
That question puts Jerry back in the same dumbass box he has always
inhabited. The assumption that tax proceeds are (logically) burned in a
furnace as opposed to being fruitfully redistributed is a Republican
Religious tenet. If government can improve the net income of the vast
majority by taxing the wealthy in order to subsidize health care for the
poor, then the middle class _saves_ money even though the rich do not. It
may well be that such a scheme is inefficient and the rich may lose more
than the common people gain. Yet the net social welfare may be quite
positive.
In addition: If the reform results in more monopsony power for the payers
(all insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid), then the
aggregate cost of care will be reduced.
Michael Coburn
> <smo...@board.com> wrote in message
> news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>>
>> But only on those he already said he would.
>>
>>
> It is a broken promise.
Obama said he would raise taxes on people with incomes over a quarter of
a million bucks and that is what is going to happen.
> Besides, even your statement if a lie, because
> the healthcare reform proposals in Congress, DOES raise taxes on those
> he said he would not raise taxes on.
LIE!
Michael Coburn
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>><smo...@board.com> wrote in message
>>news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.
>>>
>>> But only on those he already said he would.
>>>
>>>
>>It is a broken promise.
>
> How can it be "broken" if nothing has passed yet, you dingbat
The promise remains unbroken when the House bill passes.
John Galt
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:12:50 +0100, John Galt
> <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
>>>> company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?
>>> a) anyway we can
>>>
>>> b) law enforcement
>>>
>>> c) the law.
>>>
>>> And you can't stop 'em
>> If it comes to that, no.
>
Isn't.
JG
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:14:56 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> I look forward to the Government violating my rights. You commies won't
>> care but freedom loving Americans will pay attention.
>>
>> I'll die for my freedom.... will you die for your communism?
>
>
> Where in hell do you get this tin-hat sayings........
>
> Oh sorry---"tin-hat"
I think I made it up?
But then, everything has been said before hasn't it.
--
Michael Coburn
You will continue to get health care at the VA, or you can buy
insurance. Your option. VA health care suffices for the required
insurance. But perhaps you believe you will get better care from the
private system. Is this the problem you are attempting to expose? You
want to now drag out this boogerman? This Oh My God all the vets with
cancer will now seek care in the private sector because VA health care is
so poor? That is rubbish.
>> > Which insurance
>> > company will take on the expenses knowing in advance it will cost
>> > many times more than the premiums collected?
>>
>> > Since health insurance will be mandated, it appears any high risk
>> > individual can apply for cheap insurance with Blue Cross / Blue
>> > Shield and simply demand full cheap coverage under the law.
>>
>> > The question was, how will the risks be divided so that all the
>> > insurance companies carry equal obligations?
>>
>> > -Bill
--
Michael Coburn
Smorgas is a LIEberman.
Michael Coburn
The problem for you is that most people are intelligent enough to
understand that they will not be FORCED to turn over any personally
revealing papers at all but that they can save some bucks on taxes by
complying with the law. The _VAST_ majority of the people in this
country are obligated to file an income tax return each year and the
penalties for not doing so are not going to be changed in any way. Nor
will the penalties for lying on the return be altered in the least. You
can pay the tax or prove that you had an insurance policy (and all the
insurers will be compelled to file the fact of your insurance with the
IRS just like a 1099 or W2). You will receive a copy of the form for
filling with your return just like a 1099 or W-2. That is the only paper
you will need to avoid the tax.
You may choose to conduct yourself like a rightarded moron if you want
and throw money in the trash. To that extent it is a free country.
Lie big, Lie early, Lie often. The Republican war cry!
Bill Bowden
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:14:02 -0800, Bill Bowden wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2:37 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Nov 1, 7:47 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 31, 7:31 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > Bill Bowden wrote:
> >> > > > On Oct 31, 2:47 pm, Josh Rosenbluth
> >> > > > <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > >>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> >> > > >>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
>
> >> > > >>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> >> > > >>>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
Actually, the VA system is very good except for isolated cases. But I
doubt I will be able to buy insurance at the same rate as a healthy 25
year old.
How do you figure the rates will be structured? Will a healthy 25 year
old pay the same rate as a 60 year old cancer patient for the same 80%
coverage?
That would raise the tax on the younger people quite a bit wouldn't
you say?
Strabo
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:14:56 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> I look forward to the Government violating my rights. You commies won't
>> care but freedom loving Americans will pay attention.
>>
>> I'll die for my freedom.... will you die for your communism?
>
>
I guess your answer is "No."
Strabo
>
>>>> How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
>>>> company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?
>>> a) anyway we can
>>>
>>> b) law enforcement
>>>
>>> c) the law.
>>>
>>> And you can't stop 'em
>> If it comes to that, no.
>
>
What has been settled is that you and Josh Rosenbluth are
definitely Communists.