Obama Care summerised

[Cabin4]

Its crystal clear what Obama and the democrats want in the end. We know what the end game is for them. This bill or its final version will be a stepping stone to a fully government run health care system at all levels. On this premise alone, I'm totally opposed to it. The government should not have the right to take away my freedoms on health care, doctors,etc. On all the other aspects of this issue, it clearly 100% unconstitutional.

If the main issue was a plan to provide coverage for those who don't have a plan, then that should be what they debate in Washington. The fact that the debate is about Government takeover, must lead you to believe the real goal is one of the puzzle pieces to full Socialism.

[ironglow]

..And not just health care Cabin4; if they get their wishes they will control every facet of every citizen's life. Socialists are by nature,control freaks; they consider themselves so superior that it is their divine right to rule the "masses".
 
  Shootall..They haven't made themselves, they have long believed themselves to be the elite
        Notice my signature line below...

[scootrd]

they would probably vote Libertarian or Constitution parties.  Republicans have two camps, the old Rockafela Republicans and the new Right Wing Christians. 

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
Ronald Reagan

However there are many forms of Libritarianism,

conservative libertarian - interested mainly in economic freedoms following the conservative lifestyle of right-libertarians. libertarian conservatives (or "libertarian constitutionalists") believe that the way to limit government is to enforce the United States Constitution
libertarian Democrat - Libertarian Democrats support personal liberty, economic liberty, limited government and social responsibility
libertarian progressive - believe in the power of the free markets to most efficiently distribute in a resource-constrained world. The power of the individual choice in making the best decisions collectively for society. The need for government in insuring the success of the first two points.
right wing libertarian - "right" of mainstream libertarianism including "libertarian conservatism
Left wing libertarian -"left " of mainstream libertarianism including "libertarian socialism
green libertarian - Green libertarianism (also known as eco-libertarianism) adheres to libertarian political philosophy as well as to green ideology.
free market economics and environmentalism.

Well hey Scoot, Stallin is very popular on Russia still too. There are alot of socialists in America, I am not one and do not support socialism. Hey just admit what you are? Its not illegal to be a sociaist here.

Billy not sure what you mean by come clean, or admit what I am.
As most know I am a christian first , I also believe that the way to limit government is to enforce the United States Constitution (a conservative libertarian View) But as a christian I also believe in social responsibility (a democrat libritarian view). I am also fiscally a conservative. Yet when it come to social issues I also believe we have a responsibility to  our common man. Jefferson and Madison both believed in social duties as well and our individual rights do not usurp our responsibilities as a nation for our society and our fellow man as a whole. (the rights of one do  not outweigh the rights of many).  

For me, Not everything is black and white , so when it comes to HC yes I get torn between various points of view. As my posts regarding the strong belief in the constitution amendment 9 and 10 ,  Bill of rights,  posts of faith , and strong support of individual states rights fully depict. However I am about as far from a socialist libertarian as you can get.

Post #247 outlines specifically what I believe entitled "what I believe".

That is also why I believe HC Co-op's are the way to go. Join if you want , don't if you don't want to. Those that Join are memebers . Those that don't there is no impact on them. I believe this strikes a balance, and does not impact individuals and their rights that do not want to participate. (just like a credit union)

Maybe it's black and white for you and that's great. More power to you. But for me , I am still searching, reading, listening to others points of view and trying to find Balance when it comes to my Faith, constitution, and helping our fellow man with regards to  this HC challenge. That is also why I started posting here to listen to other Points of views , keep an open mind and share thoughts. Howvere it appears when you post something people immediately believe that's your personal philosophy (even when you are just asking what peoples opinions are on a given subject). One thing I'm not going to do is stop listening to others just cause their points of view may differ from mine. . It's called learning.  And when it comes to the future of HC it's far too important a subject not to take in all sides.

God Bless

[scootrd]

  Again; it depends upon who,what, when and how they ask. ..and who is doing the asking. Polls are only polls, a reflection of what the average person thinks. A few short months ago... by a substantial margin, people may have thought BHO would do a fabulous job as prez, they know better now..or should.
   If he gets his way though..he may not rank high as a president, but may start with a new ranking as our first dictator !

    ...'Nuff said.

I don't consider Historians as Average citizens

1982 Murray-Blessing survey of 846 historians  2nd

Heres another from US news and world report
Posted February 12, 2009

   1. Ronald Reagan
   2. John F. Kennedy
   3. Abraham Lincoln
   4. Franklin Roosevelt
   5. George Washington

Heres Rasmussen Poll

1George Washington.
2 Abraham Lincoln,
3 Thomas Jefferson
4 Teddy Roosevelt
5 Franklin D. Roosevelt

I dont care what poll you look at FDR was popular

For arguments sake though lets throw the polls away since you question them .

FDR's  popularity with the people of the United States was so great that he was elected to 4 terms of office, the only President in the history of the United States to have that honor. It was because of this that an amendment was made that no President could be elected to more than two terms of office.

'nuff said

[ironglow]

Scoot;
  Concerning popularity as the determinant of "better or worse"..

       You tell us that first off, you are a Christian..I also share that criteria as first determinant. Today, while perhaps you, I and some others on this forum are spending hours each week going to church, reading our Bible or doing charitable jobs for the needy..most in this 21st century world are enjoying sports, partying, and myriad of other things..rather than paying any attention to God (their free choice).
     Even among Christians, I see many more hours spent upon choirs, dinners etc. than they spend upon soul-winning, evangelization or performing the great comission.
   Does the fact that sports, partying and other pastime pursuits are more popular than  church attendance or Bible reading..or dinners and choirs are more popular than fulfilling the great comission, mean these other things are "better" than the serious Christian pursuits ?

  Remember; "popularity" does not equal "better".
          You witnessed that during the last presidential election...There were candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and others competeing for the job. Does the fact that Barack Hussein Obama proved more "popular"..also prove that he was the "better" choice ?

     I think not !

[billy_56081]

Scoot, like I said Stalin is still number one in Russia. Just because old FDR is popular doesn't meen is wasn't a socialist. There are alot of socialists in America, some are openly socialist, some are secretely socialists and the third and largest segment of socialists, are people who are socialists and do not know it. FDR started socialism in America, and was the beguinning of big government. When I was a child, I always wanted free things, and thought that these things were actually free, well I grew up and I understand there is nothing that is free. Hopefully you are learning from us here, I understand that you have been indoctrinated deeply.

[scootrd]

  Remember; "popularity" does not equal "better".
          You witnessed that during the last presidential election...There were candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and others competeing for the job. Does the fact that Barack Hussein Obama proved more "popular"..also prove that he was the "better" choice ?

     I think not !

FDR remains popular among Historians and the Populous because he was one of the most influential and effective presidents in what he was able to accomplish for the  people and the country during his presidency. Personally I don't care what side of the isle he sat on.  Vote the man not the party.

Some Republicans today are soo far right of what I grew up believing it's frighting. Some democrats are so far left from what I grew up believing it's frighting as well.

Billy I have been indoctrinated by nothing. You are really hung up on this indoctrinated thing. I am my own man, (Have been since my dad a single parent passed away when I was in my early teens. I was emancipated at 15.) I Have stated my values and core beliefs. Faith, constitution, states rights above Fed rights , an individuals rights do not superceed the duties we each have to helping our fellow man in society as a whole with regards to  this HC challenge.

Perhaps I'm a conservative Republican with Democrat views regarding social responsibility , Perhaps I'm a Democrat with Republican views regarding the constitution. Neither Part can lay claim to fiscal responsibility. The republicans blew it over the last 8 years. Bush's exit polls were 22% favorable across "Mainstream America"  Lower than I believe any other presidents , There may have been 1 or 2 lower put I have no time to research this point today. I'm not too hung up on what ever label you want to throw on me.  I am an avid reader, reading all sides of an issue and formulate my own opinions.

I stated my beliefs in post #247 and they are there for you to read. Regarding health care reform I believe co-op's are the way to go. Nothing I have read so far has changed my thinking thus far.

Peace

[ironglow]

Scoot;
   "FDR was popular because..." (your words) "Popularity does not translate to better"..(my words)

  I was asked by TM earlier, why I believe Socialism is antithetical to orthodox Christianity.... Christianity and Socialism are not conducive toward a good relationship, while Socialism demands that all participate, Christianity is based upon a purely voluntary basis.
  At their very roots, Socialism and Christianity are at odds.

  BTW: I think you are splitting basic philosophies a bit too fine.. How many brands of libertarian have you stated in just the above posts ?
    As I see it, your Libertarian Christian ..is simply a cultural Conservative,  a well recognized category, and there are "fiscal" Conservatives, who are not much motivated by Christian views. Libertarians are Constitutionally motivated but not so much moved by moral values.
   Where Democrats stand today, the term Libertarian/Democrat...would seem an oxymoron. 
 
   Liberals, I need not discuss, they are at this time, very adequately exposing/categorizing themselves quite well, thank you..

[ironglow]

  TM;
  Christianity vs Socialism;
        Orthodox Christianity forces nobody to be an evangelist or be involved in evangelical work. In genuine Christianity, such a pursuit is voluntary. When was the last time you heard a Christian being taxed because he/she did not evangelize ? When was the last time you saw one jailed or shot for not executing "the great comission" ?
  Today Christians do not have that kind of power..but Socialist governments do. This new HC bill apparently has all kinds of provisions for enforcement to coerse compliance from individuals and businesses. One cannot even suggest that Soviet Socialism and Germany's National Socialism did not have enforced cooperation !
  Show me something comparable within our memory, when genuine, Scriptural Christians had either the ability or inclination to persecute those who declined to participate.
  Yes, as late as a couple centuries ago some very misled people were doing some ugly things while claiming Christianity as their resource, but they were out of the will of God ..spiritual vigilantes, so to speak. Still, regardless of that, Socialism is likely the most egregious torturer and killer of more men, women and children than any other movement.
   
        ...Although radical Islam is making a run at the title !

[billy_56081]

TM we been asking where you are from for quite awhile, you seem to have something to hide I guess. but I am starting to think the reason you are for socialism medicine is that you are an illegal alien and this will give you free health care?

[Cabin4]

   
       As you know, I'm not too hung up on whether something is called liberal or conservative; socialism or capitalism. Such labeling is devisive by elites involved in the domination system.

fyi....TM7

More interferance and cover up gobbly goop by a Liberal elite.

[Cabin4]

More interferance and cover up gobbly goop by a Liberal elite.
[/quote]
.
These forums are discussion and debate centers....I gave a few links for IG to ponder relative to his position on Christianity in connection with 'socialism'. Since 'political socialism' as IG uses it is directly a Social Darwinian development according to Marx,,,he has a contradiction problem and so do you. Because Chirst existed long before Darwin' theories and the orthrodox Christians reject Darwin....he/you have a problem. 2ndly, there is heap plenty of Bible believers and detailed scripture tending to support 'humanitarian socialism', a Christian invention, over any political socialsim or domination system. I just found in 2 minutes a few links above FYI on this idea....doesn't mean I wrote or subscribe to these article's content...it just means there are many opinions for consideration in the debate; and some of these allow people to better their HC if possible in spite of all the dogma.

I know as a card carrying so-called conservative you're plain opposed to any views detrimental to your exalted positions; and that you love to project antipathy, rancor, and general venality in your accusative posts in an effort to shout down and negatively label any view differing from your Rx for all of us.  All I can say is too damn bad..!! I just chock it up to the way you were brought up and you unwillingness to truthfully look over a few issues.  Must be a heavy cross to bare carrying all that righteousness around.


..TM7
[/quote]

'humanitarian socialism': Code phrase for communisam and rule by the Liberal Elite.

We should not be debating the law of the land. The constitution is the basis of our culture and pricipals that are suppose to proivide legal guidance on how to proceed forward. The Liberal Elites, Socialists, Communists and a like, always have to find fault with our system and use twisting and contortion of the constitution as a sharade to gain control over people.

Government run Health Care is nothing more than another battle being waged by the Liberal Power Hogs in the war against freedom, our culture and our constituion.

[Cabin4]

Government, religion & our own private personal lives are all suppose to be distict and seperate entities in this country. What our government does may or maynot be in line with someones intrepretation of what Jesus would or would not do. Its not suppose to be in line, that is the point. The government is not in the business of making laws soley based on religious views. Thats what our constitution is for and I love it when the Liberlas invoke Jesus when he serves thier evil purpose to claim will over the people.

[jimster]

Ya, Cabin4...I think that's called seperation of church and state...except if I want some legislation passed, then it's called, "what would Jesus have done"...

How nice of them to bounce things in and out as it suits them.

Government needs to limit it's powers and perform only the ones outlined, and enforce the laws on the books. 
They can start by closing the borders and kicking out all illegal people here. That is within their powers.
They can stop being in the business of charity as well. That should not be in their power.  That alone would save billions, even trillions probably...so there is a solution for health care right there.  With the money from that alone, you could take care of the 15 percent with no health care.  Actually...once you kick out the illegals,  there is way less to help anyway.  I'm guessing if government only did what they were supposed to the last 30 years we would not have any problems at all right now.  Looking to them to fix things they already fouled up seems kind of dumb to me.  One thing for sure...there ia no reform in that 1000 plus page plus House bill then there was a stimulus in the last things they passed.  It's just spending us into debt and controlling us.   

[ironglow]

TM;
  Both you and the Tule River Times are either trying to promote Socialism or are unfamiliar with the real teachings of Jesus. Yes, Jesus did tell us to help the poor, aid those who are disabled and come to the aid of those caught in a disaster.
  All those are noble and Godly things to do and are taught by Jesus as the "Christian Way"..
      The Tule River Times goes to great length to point out the lesson of Lazarus and the rich man; which only proves the fact that the the Tule River Times doesn't know squat about Jesus !  Let's look at the case as Jesus explains it (Luke 16:20-25):
      The rich, selfish man dies and goes to hell... The righteous, suffering beggar Lazarus also dies and goes to a nearby neighborhood (Abraham's Bosom) where the rich man can see him. The (formerly) rich man begs for favors from Lazarus, but Abraham chastises him, reiterating the rich man's callousness toward Lazarus while in the world..so we are left with one question. What should the rich man have done ?
   Obviously, the rich man should have given Lazarus immediate relief and when he was better, a job or help in finding one. The difference between the Tule River Times and most Christian conservatives is that the Christians realize they should be ready with charity, but Jesus in no way indicated that charity should be a function of government.
   Socialism IS after all, a form of invasive, coersive government ! Check with   > www.thesaurus.com < ...they say this about Socialism;
       
   Definition; Socialist government

  Synonyms:
  Bolshevism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, collective ownership, collectivism, Communism, state-ownership.

     I believe most on this forum would not welcome any of those forms of coersive government and certainly Christians would prefer Jesus' methods. 
  If you need a dictionary definition and the one I have been using the term Socialism to indicate..here it is     http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

    Jesus in no way ever sponsored government control of morals or charity ! If he wanted such, being God..he could have instituted any kind of earthly government he likes. The fact is He made it very clear when He said; "My kingdom is not of this world".

[Dixie Dude]

In the book of Acts in Jerusalem after Jesus' resurection.  It says the Christians there shared their things.  However, when Aninias and Saphria sold their property, kept half, and gave the rest and said it was all they made from their property.  Peter given knowledge of the lie, told them that they could have done anything they wanted with their property, and didn't have to give it all.  But they were struck dead for lieing.  So obviously it was whatever you wanted to give to the sharing, but you did'nt have to give at all, you could have given a portion.  It was individual giving.  But because of their sharing like this they became in need.  Paul later had offerings taken in Greece and Asia Minor to be sent to help them in Jerusalem.  So, obviously sharing of wealth only goes downhill.  Some become lazy and unproductive.  Look at the Soviet Union.  It fell.  Also, Socialism was tried in Jamestown in America the first year, sharing of produce.  They almost starved.  They went back to private ownership of the farms and productivity increased and noone starved.  Capitalism works great when true Christians operate it.  They give to the poor, but expect the poor to pull themselves up if they are able bodied.  Also, most charities were started by rich Christians to help people in the 1800's.  There is a lot of scripture in proverbs talking about hard work and laziness.  The poor will be helped by good hearted rich and their familes like they have for centuries without government tax and wealth transfers which are very innefficient.  This is the way our country was founded and operated for 150 years until FDR started all the government programs. 

[Cabin4]

Don't fall into the Liberal communist trap of trying to explain what Jesus would or would not do relative to Government run health care. Its nothing more than a Liberal communist diversion tactic. The Liberal communists could care less about Jesus and his teachings. The only time they invoke Jesus is when they can manipulate his teachings to their desired evil outcome. Most Liberals hate Jesus and Christians so beware when they invoke His name.

In any case, it's really irrelevant. We have a constitution in this country which is suppose to be the foundation from which we determine the legality of our governments policy & laws. Government run health care is a complete and total violation of the constitution. So while I appreciate what Jesus would or would not do, it is not to have influence on the governments position when its comes to determing this law. We cannot violate the constitution in the name of anyone.

[jimster]

I can't find anywhere in the bible where it points to government being the third person in giving.  I think each person has to CHOOSE that for themselves.
Government doing it for you is not in there that I can find, it's about personal choice.  Not about you giving the government three coats and somehow they get a tee-shirt to the person that needs a shirt.  As far as government regulating health care, that's a joke...'money changers' that currently own HC.......the government is too corrupt to handle regulating anything at all, the most they could do is funnel more billions to Acorn, themselves, and a host of other things that we always see them do.  Government is not there to make sure that WE give to people and take care of our neighbors, especially this government, who steals us all blind and tries to hide where the money goes.  Right now the most important thing we can do is shut them down and give them as hard a time as we can till things change up there.  Staying the same is good for now, better than letting them spend anymore and funnel anymore of our money away. 

The people in this country have changed, less people helping their neighbors, less patriotism, less God....Government is a reflection of the people. 
The more corrupt people become, the more corrupt our government becomes.  Government however, should not be a third person in religion of any kind, nor should it be in the business of being charitable.  You won't find favor from God because the government cleans out your pockets and then funnles it to who knows where.  Makes no sense.  From the very start, man was given a choice to make, all by himself. 

And of course...there is nothing in this health care reform that really is reform at all...so why bother with any of it?  It's available to read...once you do there is nothing to argue about...it's a spend and control bill. The only regulation I can find is regulating our money and freedoms into government hands.

I could write a better bill that would save some money...and not spend and print moeny and control everyone.  Why won't they?  Because they are crooked to the bone, just like the people in the big cities that elected them.

[ironglow]

  Right on, Dixie Dude;
  Christians are expected to share and help the less able. The Christians in Jerusalem shared WILLINGLY..not because they were ordered to do. Christian charities such as the Salvation Army have a remarkable record of very low "administration costs" when compared to the government for instance, or the Red Cross.
   Christains could probably help even more if the government were not taking so much of their pay...right off the top. Socialist government isn't the ANSWER to the problem..it is the CAUSE of the problem.
   TM;
  You refer to the HC insurers as "money changers" and they may well be, in an obtuse way..but giving the job over to a Socialist government would be like jumping from the frying pan...into the fire..

[ironglow]

 We may as well face it gentlemen, our federal (and some states) government has been getting worse and worse since the 1960s..and under this Chicago mobster/Marxist regime it is finally totally corrupt. They cannot be trusted with anything..we should give them no more of our few remaining freedoms to toy with.

[mirage1988]

The people in this country have changed, less people helping their neighbors, less patriotism, less God....Government is a reflection of the people. 
 

You sure got that right Jimster! People don't even lift a hand to wave to their neighbor, much less help them in their need.

[Cabin4]

TM7,

While I agree many here quote Jesus and the 10 commandments, etc, I'm not sure many of them are saying that it should become the basis for public policy or law. How a person lives their life and how we formulate public policy may be-line but the constitution must take priority. The constitution is the law of this land, not the Bible. One Christians interpretation of the Bible may be different than another Christians interpretation. I thinks that’s why we have Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc……So why go down this known pot riddled path???

I absolutely will maintain that there is no legal foundation to support our government taking over health care. There is a significant difference between regulation and operating. Under government health care, the government will determine the cost of services offered, undercut private providers with purposeful intent to put them out of business over the next 10 to 20 years. That is in fact operating health care while destroying private industry.

I have said this 100 times in this thread, if the objective is to provide an opportunity for a health care option for uninsured, then that should be the focus of the legislation. The fact that this is NOT the focus, then we know what the motive is, Socialization.

Today I have the free will to determine if I want or do not want a health care insurance policy. Under the Liberals plan, I have no choice in the matter, I am forced to buy it. On this principal alone, this bill is unconstitutional. Health care insurance is a personal matter and not a matter for the government to shove it down my throat.

This country has moved so far away from our constitution we always use prior bad laws/policy to justify the next horrific law. And yes, I will say I told ya so later if this POS bill passes into law.  I will do that becasue I will be 100% correct.

[jimster]

if the objective is to provide an opportunity for a health care option for uninsured, then that should be the focus of the legislation. The fact that this is NOT the focus, then we know what the motive is, Socialization.

That about sums it up.  I also do not agree with forcing people into health care if they don't want it, that is way out of line as well.

They don't want real reform, they want more tax money to spend, and they want control of free people.  We got nailed on the last legislation they signed, none of that was a stimulus either, I think the American people have had about enough of their legislation.  First they break things, then they break them more trying to fix what they broke in the first place.  How could anyone want the same people who drove us off an economic cliff handle our health care too?
Same people are there handling this stuff....not good.  I say shut them down any way we can.  Socialism is bad taken very far, and they want to run with it big time, and everyone knows it.  Socialism on it's own always crashes. It needs other people's money to survive, and there is no more money.  When this happens, social programs die.  Michigan is cutting social programs now, people are screaming...let em scream.  That's what happenes when you beat up on capitialism, the hand that feeds you.  Now I watch them all cry and get mad...cause the money is gone.  Same kind of people who try to get millions in law suits from every little thing are now complaining because things are expensive...serves em right.  Socialsts are their own worst enemy and they don't even know it.  Ironic.

[Dixie Dude]

It seems like all they have to do is expand Medicare and Medicaid to include those uninsured out of work, or their employment doesn't offer medical insurance.  It should not conflict with what is offered by employers.  Make it so insurance is more competitive.  Young and healthy should have an option to only have major medical, not co-pays etc.  That should cut theirs costs.  Only 15% are uninsured right now.  Probably half of those choose not to, like some of my 20 something kids who work at places that offer insurance.  Maybe if they need it, they should be required to buy a minimum like car insurance, in case they have an accident.  Illegals who seek medical assistance should be deported as soon as they are able to leave.     

[SHOOTALL]

the object is to increse subjects that are indebted to the king and must vote so or loose all they have . This enomic decline be it engeerned or normal market movement is being used to bring the middle class into this condition also !

[Cabin4]

 Right on, Dixie Dude;
  Christians are expected to share and help the less able. The Christians in Jerusalem shared WILLINGLY..not because they were ordered to do. Christian charities such as the Salvation Army have a remarkable record of very low "administration costs" when compared to the government for instance, or the Red Cross.
   Christains could probably help even more if the government were not taking so much of their pay...right off the top. Socialist government isn't the ANSWER to the problem..it is the CAUSE of the problem.
   TM;
  You refer to the HC insurers as "money changers" and they may well be, in an obtuse way..but giving the job over to a Socialist government would be like jumping from the frying pan...into the fire..

.
I'm the guy that doesn't want to see any form of a Theocratic government anywhere. I don't want to see a merger of government with religion; or with religion of corporations as we have now, and a status quo which most apparently support. ...(which is the flip side of your by-line, IG).  I brought up this philosophical discussion for the reason that most of the western world's accomplishments have happened after Christ because of a co-operative spirit and cooperation of people often in a humanitarian mode served to solve their problems and to progress, even in a humanitarian capital mode.. Presently, I see time rolling back to before Christ...BC; and I see government's role primarily to provide for certain sectors and elites all at the expense citizens...in fact, that seems to be their only role these days.

In my area of the country 1 out of every 5 people do not have HC...most people and families are one job away from no health care, and virtually all bankruptcy can be traced to HC related causes (or lack thereof). Fraud and malfeseance is rampant in the industry. It has been often said you can gauge the calibre of a nation by how it treats its down trodden and underclass. If you like living one job away from no HC, closer to financial ruin than you should, in old age having your estate pilfered as you are considered a profit center , and if you like insurance company bureacrats deciding your fate....if you like that....than keep the HC system you have...in fact, let them mangle the reform bill beyond recognition and make things worse yet. This is a chance lost, and all for theoretical contrivances.


...TM7

TM7,

Your quotes and my response;

I don't want to see a merger of government with religion; or with religion of corporations as we have now,
C4: If religion and private business or corporations want to merge with religion, who cares? It’s there right to do so and NO place for the government to tell them what to do. If I want to open a business and run it based on the bible that’s my business and none of anyone’s or the government to tell me I can or cannot.

 
western world's accomplishments have happened after Christ because of a co-operative spirit and cooperation of people often in a humanitarian mode served to solve their problems and to progress,
C4: This seems to be at odds with your first comment above, don’t you think? In any case, why can’t this continue without government intervention? Just because the government takes a back seat does mean the people can’t drive issues on their own free will.

I see government's role primarily to provide for certain sectors and elites all at the expense citizens...in fact, that seems to be their only role these days.
C4: Yes your right in some respects. Our politicians don’t follow the constitution. If they did, we would not have the problems we do today. Don’t you get it?

In my area of the country 1 out of every 5 people do not have HC...
C4: Thanks to the Liberals and this horrific attempt at Socialization, they likely won’t. The fact that you just said, “1 out of every 5” means that 4 out of 5 do! Why should the 4 suffer so the 1 can get it?
 
Fraud and malfeasance is rampant in the industry. It has been often said you can gauge the caliber of a nation by how it treats its down trodden and underclass.
C4: Yes, just look at all the government run programs, Medicare, Medicare, etc. All fraught with fraud and your solution and the Liberals is to give the thief’s more spam of control over the system they abuse! This is crazy!

if you like insurance company bureaucrats deciding your fate....if you like that....than keep the HC system you have...
C4: Better a private insurance provider then a government run system run by politicians who can’t even hold a town hall meeting! Better then the bur crates in Washington who are stealing $$ from us blind, yes.

This is a chance lost, and all for theoretical contrivances.
C4: You can thank the “Over Reaching” Liberals for that. They went too far with their radical left wing control freak agenda and tried to institute a socialist system for everyone when only 23 million of the 300 million have a problem. If they would have focused on the problem and quite being so ideological hell-bent on letting George Sorus the far left wing communist run their health care agenda coupled with Obama running around the country lying through his teeth, it likely would have been a different story.

[teamnelson]

Been reading this thread from day one, and sincerely, all I hear is a desire for change grounded in dissatisfaction with the present. You can dress it up, make it sound spiritual, blame God, the Rockafellers, and global warming, but we get it - a lot of people aren't happy with HC.

I counsel young people all the time who allow their unhappiness in this moment to drive them to make really stupid decisions that multiply their unhappiness in the next. Why? Because "change" is the mystical ingredient. Grass is always greener ... if only, what if. In my mind, the current HC debate is a recently dumped teenager who after a string of bad relationships thinks a tattoo or a piercing will help them find "Mr or Mrs Right". Genuine need ... really bad solution matrix.

To say someone doesn't like your brand of change does not mean they do not understand the underlying issue driving you towards change. Red herring. That's the approach of the liberal press; that and that conservativism is dead because there are no more intellectual cons to keep it alive. Ad hominum writ large.

The reason why we're all going to be unhappy with the future of HC is simply because we're going to put a very expensive tattoo on it, probably something on the small of the back, fairly large, with a person's name in the middle, that a few years down the road from now we'll have to have lasered off. And in the end, HC hasn't changed, we have less money that when we started, and our butt hurts.

[Cabin4]

TM7,

I do like this quote:
"I get that you hate the present government, and think that government is only allowed to operate in Cabin mode."
 
Cabin Mode..... I'm all for that!

I did find this very funny.

[jimster]

"....if you like that....than keep the HC system you have..."

Well TM, for one thing, the way the legislation is written we probaly won't be able to keep what we have even if we like it...so that blows that statement out the window.  The government will "fine" my company for keeping us on private, and make it so expensive for our company to operate, the board will dump us all into gov. health care and there is not a thing we can do about it.  Extortion is kinda what this is called. 

Now if they were to actually reform something,  I'd listen, as that could bring the cost down some.  But they are not offering reform. 
Tm...have you read the legislation?  You told me a while back to print it up for you and we could go over it....I'm thinking your plenty smart enough to know what says already, you don't strike me as the type to not read it all.  You are starting to give me the idea you know full well what it says, but have to defend something....what I don't know...but it does not make sense you would want this passed at all, cause it is not reform. It is in fact spending and funneling money and control.  You are either for that, or against it.  If your against all that, help us stop it all in it's tracks.  It does not take money to reform things, it takes massive amounts of money to do the same old tax, spend, funnel money, and control things. 

Most people want true reform...nothing else, and if the legislation is anything else, kill it.  That's simple enough.

[Cabin4]

A Bill needs to be passed that would institute national "Cabin Mode" immediatly. All problems will then be solved.