While the nation was watching football.........

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3177718
The ideology behind requiring every person to have health insurance is simply because taxpayers will pay either way. You don't want to be forced to purchase healthcare you claim you don't need. So you refuse. However, when you have a situation where you do require medical attention because it will threaten your life, you end up going to a county health facility where the taxpayers have to pay for your care. So as that taxpayer, why should I have to pay for your healthcare if you in fact need it? Pay for it yourself.
Let's say you can. You make $50.000/year. I haven't seen any tangible numbers yet as far as cost, but let's say it'll cost you $3,000/year for this Obamacized Health Plan. You don't want this Socilaist Pig forcing you to buy that insurance, so again you refuse. Oh wait. You need a apendectomy that will cost $30,000 minimum to perform. Better yet, you've learned you have thyroid cancer, and you'll need at least 10 chemo treatments at $80,000/pop. That's more than you make in 16 years. What to do? Deny the surgery or chemo and die, or file for bankruptcy and get your home foreclosed on? Either way, again, my taxes will have to bail you out (welfare, food stamps, pay for your treatment, etc.). So unless you want to go with the mantra of "the survival of the fittest", I'd prefer everyone having to get insurance so I don't have to pay for their catastrophic healthcare.
If a frog had longer legs he wouldnt bump his ass on the ground either.
We as One Nation are going to have to find alternative ways to solve this problem without having the federal government interfering.Americans are resourceful and can do anything we puts our minds to.
BTW nothing the US Government touches ever...ever....ever runs efficiently or cost effectively.If you know of something ide like to hear of it.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177721
If a frog had longer legs he wouldnt bump his ass on the ground either.
We as One Nation are going to have to find alternative ways to solve this problem without having the federal government interfering.Americans are resourceful and can do anything we puts our minds to.
BTW nothing the US Government touches ever...ever....ever runs efficiently or cost effectively.If you know of something ide like to hear of it.
I'll paraphrase stdreb27 (with a little editing):
"Is that the best argument conservative academia can come up with?

"

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3177757
I'll paraphrase stdreb27 (with a little editing):
"Is that the best argument conservative academia can come up with?

"
Nope ive already put a end to the argument"Amendment X"
Now if you believe that the Constitution is flawed then this wouldnt make sense to you, however if you believe in life,liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness as it has been given to America then you will just shove some more cheese doodles in you pie hole and be thankful that you live in the greatest nation in the history of the world and hope that we make it through this assault on our liberty.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3177481
But surely you're smart enough to understand that today's usage (and might I add twisted by democrats) definition of the word Welfare, is entirely different (and basically opposite) of what the usage of the word was during that continental congress, and you'd have to be intellectually dishonest to even consider using that as a point to stand on for a liberalist agenda.
When they used the "to promote general welfare" You could have said to promote the enjoyment of life, peace and prosperity.
If anything the ideology of liberalism runs completely counter to that idea. Liberalism is a ideology using fear to control everything down to minuscule aspects of your life.
I don't disagree. One of the reasons I used the Federal Reserve audit as an example is because it's another way our Gov't is being run amok at the hands of a Private Corporation. It is largely the R's who oppose said audit.
Part of being a true liberal to me includes aspects of Libertarianism. I also prefer adherence to the Constitution over interpretation, wherever possible.
I consider myself a liberal, not a Liberal, the distinction to me being one of ideology as opposed to dogmatism. I'm non-partisan, and while I generally lean left, sometimes far-left, I'm also anti-gun control.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177425
First ill direct you to Amendment X, and now ill ask how do liberals fool themselves into thinking that "promote the general Welfare"translates into mandating or if you will, forcing an American citizen into purchasing health insurance by law?
This is not only unconstitutional is down right un-american.
SCOTUS
United States v. Butler
Again, a selective argument, but, in general, I agree. Health care need not be mandated. I have provided numerous examples on other threads of how it could be publicly funded and privately administrated at far less cost than the status quo.
If we take the other half of the equation, defense is a purely socialist enterprise. Where does that line get drawn where one form of Socialism is ok, and another is not?
What I'm saying is you don't get to choose between the two, unless the Constitution gets so ammended. As it stands, it requires both.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177646
choosing not to have health insurance is liberty and fundamental right.
No it's not.
You're demanding the right to potentially infect me because you're unwilling to pay to prevent a contagion outbreak on your end.
Not only do you have no right to put me at risk, but I do have a right to demand that you don't.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177795
No it's not.
You're demanding the right to potentially infect me because you're unwilling to pay to prevent a contagion outbreak on your end.
You have no right to put me at risk.
Are you suggesting that people that have contagious diseases are purposely running around infecting people?
Wouldnt it be more realistic to assume most Americans will do the right thing like stay at home voluntarily quarantined until healthy?
And if this is the case then shouldnt you be fined if i catch a cold from you for loss of wages?
I think you are really over reaching for something thats not there uneverno.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177814
Are you suggesting that people that have contagious diseases are purposely running around infecting people?
Nope. I'm suggesting that returning to the good ole days of Typhoid Mary is a bad idea.
Wouldnt it be more realistic to assume most Americans will do the right thing like stay at home voluntarily quarantined until healthy?
No, that wouldn't be realistic. That would be naiive. First off, you're assuming that Americans are generally altruistic. Secondly, most of the companies I've worked for have a "Taking more than three days off requires a doctor's note" policy. There are all kinds of complications with regard to medical leave policies, etc. W/o insurance, which would you choose - a fourth day off w/o pay, or go back to work?
And if this is the case then shouldnt you be fined if i catch a cold from you for loss of wages?
I think you are really over reaching for something thats not there uneverno.
Ok, let's institute fines. What if you catch Hepatitis or Typhus from me?
Oh - but wait - isn't fining someone for not doing something, in effect, the same thing as mandating they do it?

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177823
Nope. I'm suggesting that returning to the good ole days of Typhoid Mary is a bad idea.
No, that wouldn't be realistic. That would be naiive. First off, you're assuming that Americans are generally altruistic. Secondly, with now virtually instant global travel, you're assuming that it's only Americans that are here and coming in contact with each other.
Ok, let's institute fines. What if you catch Hepatitis or Typhus from me?
Oh - but wait - isn't fining someone for infecting someone else, in effect, the same thing as mandating?
Im not suggesting anything i was just playing along with your train of thought. Your venturing off into the land of assumption.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177823
Nope. I'm suggesting that returning to the good ole days of Typhoid Mary is a bad idea.
If there is a nation wide infectious disease emergency,i have confidence that the American people will do what is asked of them.Thats what we do in cases of distress and hardship.I have yet to see or read about Americans failing in that area.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177833
If there is a nation wide infectious disease emergency,i have confidence that the American people will do what is asked of them.Thats what we do in cases of distress and hardship.I have yet to see or read about Americans failing in that area.
You're missing my point. You've argued that mandating people do something is Un-American. How do you propose we ask people to give up their incomes and expect them to comply?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177833
If there is a nation wide infectious disease emergency,i have confidence that the American people will do what is asked of them.Thats what we do in cases of distress and hardship.I have yet to see or read about Americans failing in that area.
We're getting a little far off track here, but I fail to understand how that's a uniquely American trait, as opposed to a generally human trait.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177828
Your venturing off into the land of assumption.
How so?
Your argument is getting more and more absurd. First you claim that mandating health care is un-American, but then you say that fining people to force them into getting it isn't. Circular argument at best.
If you're setting me up for a logic trap, then lay it already. So far, you've got nothing but disconnected rhetoric.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177921
We're getting a little far off track here, but I fail to understand how that's a uniquely American trait, as opposed to a generally human trait.
Americans dont hold the patent on humanities best traits,Americans just do them better and more often on larger scales than any other nation on earth.
"The Americans"
Gordon Sinclair
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Our_Culture/americans.htm

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177924
How so?
Your argument is getting more and more absurd. First you claim that mandating health care is un-American, but then you say that fining people to force them into getting it isn't. Circular argument at best.
If you're setting me up for a logic trap, then lay it already. So far, you've got nothing but disconnected rhetoric.
Its not my argument, its yours. I have stated i dont agree fining Americans for not having health insurance is constitutional .My comment about fining you for giving me a cold was me basically making fun of your scenario.
Mandating health insurance is un-american and un -constitutional.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177833
If there is a nation wide infectious disease emergency,i have confidence that the American people will do what is asked of them.Thats what we do in cases of distress and hardship.I have yet to see or read about Americans failing in that area.
Really? Look at the H1N1 outbreak. People who had it obviously were still going to work or school. There's been entire school districts shut down because of that virus. If the "American people will do what is asked of them", then why didn't they stay home as suggested when the outbreak first appeared? No most Americans are selfish a$$es that just look out for themselves. "So I have a cough, fever, and running nose that are the symptoms of the swine flu. I can't afford to miss a day of work, or I can afford to miss that test today." There were even people having "Swine Flu Party's" so they could catch the stupid virus so they'd be immune from it in future outbreaks.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177778
Nope ive already put a end to the argument"Amendment X"
Now if you believe that the Constitution is flawed then this wouldnt make sense to you, however if you believe in life,liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness as it has been given to America then you will just shove some more cheese doodles in you pie hole and be thankful that you live in the greatest nation in the history of the world and hope that we make it through this assault on our liberty.
How does the 10th Amendment or "pursuing my happiness" have anything to do with the scenario I provided? Actually, it may even work with my scenario. Americans want to "pursue the happiness" of knowing that they have some for of healthcare coverage so when they do get sick, they can get proper medical attention without having to take out a second

[hr]
on their home or go into debt they can never get out of.
That's your answer for everything. Don't have a logical retort, you spout some Constitutional Amendment or wave your patriotic flag and sing "God Bless America". Sorry, but that's not the real world. You can't hide behind the Constitution everytime you disagree with something.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3178002
Really? Look at the H1N1 outbreak. People who had it obviously were still going to work or school. There's been entire school districts shut down because of that virus. If the "American people will do what is asked of them", then why didn't they stay home as suggested when the outbreak first appeared? No most Americans are selfish a$$es that just look out for themselves. "So I have a cough, fever, and running nose that are the symptoms of the swine flu. I can't afford to miss a day of work, or I can afford to miss that test today." There were even people having "Swine Flu Party's" so they could catch the stupid virus so they'd be immune from it in future outbreaks.
I see that you are of the view as is Obama and the political elitist that Americans are bad ,incompetent and need government to watch over them. BTW Swine Flu isnt a big deal ,the government would have you believe it is the bubonic plague though.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3178007
How does the 10th Amendment or "pursuing my happiness" have anything to do with the scenario I provided? Actually, it may even work with my scenario. Americans want to "pursue the happiness" of knowing that they have some for of healthcare coverage so when they do get sick, they can get proper medical attention without having to take out a second

[hr]
on their home or go into debt they can never get out of.
That's your answer for everything. Don't have a logical retort, you spout some Constitutional Amendment or wave your patriotic flag and sing "God Bless America". Sorry, but that's not the real world. You can't hide behind the Constitution everytime you disagree with something.
I dont hide behind the US Constitution,i embrace it totally.
Just how did we survive all these years without gigantic government?Maybe its because the American people know what to do and how to do it without government telling/mandating them.
We dont need towering stacks of legislation and layers of bureaucracy to help those without health insurance and if you think we do and it will run efficently and effectively then you are a bigger imbecile than i thought.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3177586
Is that the best argument liberal academia can come up with?

Actually, a basic principle of "liberal academia" (as opposed to ignorant academia?) is that a good argument doesn't have to be a long argument! Q.E.D. works.
I have no problem with those of you who see requiring insurance as governmental interference in your lives or a violation of the constitution, but generally you won't take the responsibility that comes with not being insured. Sure, if you drive without a license and you happen to get caught you will pay a fine: after all, the fine will be less than paying for a license and insurance. But what happens if you are seriously ill and require expensive medical care and are uninsured. A few of you might be able to pay, but the majority of you would just throw yourselves on the mercy of the hospital/government, so the rest of us end up paying anyway. How about this: no fines for not being insured, but no access to any medical care without paying cash at the door. That's the alternative. While oscardeuce and I disagree on many things, we both agree that he should be paid when he renders medical care, and all of the discussions on this thread are really about how to accomplish that simple idea.