[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” I doubt anything was in the Constitution
[/quote]
if you don’t think the constitution spoke on slavery then you haven’t read the document. please refer to my previous post quoting two sections of the first article. it was not a perfect document and required amendment in myriad ways.
[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” I doubt anything was in the Constitution
if you don’t think the constitution spoke on slavery then you haven’t read the document. please refer to my previous post quoting two sections of the first article. it was not a perfect document and required amendment in myriad ways.
[/quote]
With out further investigation, could that mean Indentured Servitude?
no, pitbulll. just…no. “importation of persons” does not mean indentured servitude. if you’re asking about article 1 section 2, three fifths of all OTHER PERSONS. other persons being, according to the wording of the sentence, non-free, non-native american, persons.
[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
[/quote]
I didn’t realize it was voluntary participation. If I’m forced to pay for it, even if I’d rather not, then heck yeah I’ll use it. And at this point, the faster this country can no longer meet it’s entitlement obligations, the better. So pile on folks.
[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
no, pitbulll. just…no. “importation of persons” does not mean indentured servitude. if you’re asking about article 1 section 2, three fifths of all OTHER PERSONS. other persons being, according to the wording of the sentence, non-free, non-native american, persons. [/quote]
I stand corrected, somewhat.
If we accept that slavery was an accepted practice, practiced by most of the founders and most of the colonists, then it was simply a business venture, and therefore needed to be protected.
Incredibly racist and wrong? Yeah.
Libertarian? Yeah, still is. Protecting peoples right to do as they please with what they own.
Slavery and paying taxes are one in the same. Go ahead see if the IRS doesn’t whip that ass for not paying taxes.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
elano wrote:
Also the constitution doesn’t say anything about health care.
Where in the Constitution does it talk about bringing Democracy to Iraq?
[/quote]
It doesn’t something that fascist Republicans thought was best. And congress thought it would be okay to tell the President to do what’s best without declaring war, which is fucking wrong as well.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
how is it with any honest recollection of our recent history that patriot Americans can say with any happiness that Republicans will get both houses back in 2010? have you forgotten that both the 108th and 109th congress (2003-2007) were composed of a republican majority and a republican tiebreaker, Dick Cheney? It was their borderline criminal deregulation of wall street and their insistence on pursuing two dead-end wars costing us 1 million dollars PER SOLDIER PER YEAR that has gotten us to the point where we have to question whether or not we can afford to implement something as beneficial as universal healthcare. Eisenhower was right: republicans’ commitment to the military-industrial complex will spell the end for america, not universal healthcare.
p.s. on a different but related note, is it just me or do republicans truly not understand that if money for programs doesn’t come from taxes then it must be borrowed from other nations i.e. what bush did for 8 years? in other words, how do you think bush was cutting taxes and spending exorbitant amounts of money?
Beneficial Universal Healthcare, to who? It is not beneficial to me at all. So stop saying it is jackass.
How would you know Bro?[/quote]
How would I know? Because instead of just paying for the damn medical bills, I have to pay for the medical bills, plus a four sided tax. Pay taxes from income for the U.H.C., pay taxes when I pay for the insurance, pay taxes when I pay for the bill, and possibly pay taxes when I pay the insurance bill.
Even if they just taxed me one time, it would be too much. I do not like taxes, fucks up business. I’m in business, and when you fuck with my business I get pissed.
Plus, I much rather pick the doctor who I see, when I see him, and what procedures are done.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Slavery and paying taxes are one in the same. Go ahead see if the IRS doesn’t whip that ass for not paying taxes.[/quote]
This is retoric plain and simple
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Slavery and paying taxes are one in the same. Go ahead see if the IRS doesn’t whip that ass for not paying taxes.
This is rhetoric plain and simple[/quote]
There is three, which one?
There are actually quite a few things you could talk about here.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Oh is it now? The original constitution seems to me to place most power in the hands of the States while providing basic unity for the country. It placed checks and balances on the three branches, protected the freedoms of the people, and in every way sought to prevent tyranny.
Do explain your position. How would you define the original constitution.
I don’t even know what you mean by original constituion. Are you talking about the Articles Of Confederation?
The Constitution with the original Bill of Rights.
In EVERY way, dixie? really? stop eating up what you hear at the tea parties, dude. the constitution with the original 8 (or 10 depending on how original you mean) amendments provided for and protected the practice of slavery, and denied women (and obviously blacks) the right to vote. in short, tyranny was abound.
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
No we did not enjoy it.
We just had to live with the fact that government coercion crowded out private alternatives-
I “enjoyed” that as much as any other parasite I ever had, unfortunately antibiotics do not take care of socialism.
Once again, a libertarian gets history backwards. There would be no need for government intervention if private industry did the job in the first place. It didn’t, it still doesn’t.
Interesting, you postulate some random “need” and then claim that the market has failed?
I think the free market opened up the Ins. Market from Freddie and Fannie and too it to a disastrous conclusion with free competition.
Well if you want to call the financial community in the US a free market…
Why it happened is because of the lack of Laws pertaining to that particular situation
[/quote]
That is interesting isnt it, how one of the most heavily regulated industries fails in the aread the government meddled with the most and yet again the market has failed and we need yet more laws…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
I didn’t realize it was voluntary participation. If I’m forced to pay for it, even if I’d rather not, then heck yeah I’ll use it. And at this point, the faster this country can no longer meet it’s entitlement obligations, the better. So pile on folks.[/quote]
Yup, get while the getting is good
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Interesting, you postulate some random “need” and then claim that the market has failed?
There are actually quite a few things you could talk about here.
[/quote]
Yes, like ponies!
I hereby declare that socialism has failed everwhere because not every child had a pony even though they are entitled to one.
What about straight teeth, loving parents and a happy childhood?
No really, every system that does not provide for every need I can possibly think of has obviously failed.
I think the only real fault capitalism is that gives its critics way to much free time to dream up utopias and the means to voice their complaints because the real world fails to live up to them.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Vires Eternus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Vires Eternus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Vires Eternus wrote:
But what about the person who loses a job. Had health insurance through their employer, and cannot afford to ‘buy’ their policy and take the insurance with them therefore losing insurance.
The solution is right in front of you. Just think a bit about what you just wrote and how to fix it.
Don’t expect an answer, he probably won’t get it.
Thanks for the vote of confidense. I apologize for not responding till now.
I as well as many others have had drastically vile experiences with Insurance companies as well as fairly good experiences. Insurance companies aren’t evil or good per se but the industry could stand better regulation.
Claiming you do or even can pay everything out of pocket is rediculous. You might be able to cover a few very basic things, but unless you are exceptionally financially successful you will not be able to pay for a long term dibilitating condition. Insurance is VERY necessary and VERY expensive. There has needed to be reform of the entire system for decades.
This current health care bill is I believe far too ambitious and expensive, but 180 degrees from wrong is not necessarily right.
Like I said, I wouldn’t expect everyone to be able to pay out of pocket. I am not sure which long term debilitating condition you are talking about, but I am pretty sure I can cover it. Few basic things? When did knee surgery become basic? How about back surgery or heart valve replacement become basic?
If you can actually pay those things out of pocket, you are probably in a FAR better financial position than most. Certainly better than the tens of millions without health insurance. Good for you. I would like to see the numbers on the knee surgery (total cost) that you paid out of pocket… I’m curious how much money someone would have to have in savings to buffer an expense like that.
These are rough and rounded numbers. The first knee surgery my father had was to clean out the cartilage that was making a mess of his knee. It cost total (insurance and him) $10-12,000 and who knows how much was actually paid by the insurance (these first numbers are his as I did not look at the bills when I was 14 years old). His second surgery to clean it out was paid out of pocket and cost 5,000+ prescriptions for some pain killers. Looking at his knee replacement, there is three numbers billed with insurance, actually paid, and out of pocket. Billed $50,000, actually paid the doctor said between none (he stopped accepting that insurance company) and $30,000. From what the nurses told me there was about $5,000 difference in different insurance companies. Out of pocket was $20,000. He told my father he charges 5000 an hour for a surgery (takes him less than that but bills by the hour), and the rest goes to the hospital and his aides.
Yes, there is things wrong with insurance and hospitals. We just need to deregulate. Hospitals cannot collect, insurance companies can subjectively pay the bills they said they would, insurance companies are stuck with community ratings, etc. This causes all kinds of linking problems.
Hospitals not being able to collect payments means they have to spread the cost when people do not pay, and fair prices mean they have to charge to the least common denominator (high), which makes it difficult for insurance companies to operate in the green, plus community ratings which make it hard for people to get insurance, which goes back to people going to the ER and not paying. Plus other things like not being able to operate in the green, which made it so that they subjectively pay bills/deny claims, which creates people fixing the symptoms or after the problem arises, which costs more, and around and around it goes. Regulating an industry is the equivalent of throwing a wrench into the gears, it may not shut it down, but it sure as hell doesn’t run smoothly.
We can agree, I am lucky to be able to do the stuff I do. I just wish (as someone who deals with underwriting) that the market would be deregulated because there is just some people who I would not hold a policy for because 1) they are too risky and I cannot charge them a big enough premium, etc. or 2)they do not have enough money, but are not much of a risk, but still cannot offer them a lower premium because of community ratings.
Underwriting has a triangle of business just like any other one. You have risk, cost, quality, you can have two, but you cannot have all three. You can be high risk and low cost, but you’ll get a shitty policy (won’t cover shit), or you can be a high risk, and high quality, but you will be charged more. And you can have a high quality and a low cost policy, but you cannot be much of a risk.
However the third one is the down fall, because with insurance comes moral hazard, and when people feel they have a golden net to catch them, they actually become more of a risk than before. So the third one is moderated to either be less than high quality, more expensive then bottom price, adjusting for the level of risk that person raised to because of actually having the insurance policy. [/quote]
Thanks for your reply I think I got most of the points you made. I appreciate these kinds of lengthy but detailed arguments as they clarify rather than frustrate. Thanks for taking the time.
[quote]orion wrote:Yes, like ponies!
I hereby declare that socialism has failed everwhere because not every child had a pony even though they are entitled to one.
What about straight teeth, loving parents and a happy childhood?
No really, every system that does not provide for every need I can possibly think of has obviously failed.
I think the only real fault capitalism is that gives its critics way to much free time to dream up utopias and the means to voice their complaints because the real world fails to live up to them.[/quote]
At least you finally admit you’re dreaming of a utopia. Have a nice day, silly man.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Yes, like ponies!
I hereby declare that socialism has failed everwhere because not every child had a pony even though they are entitled to one.
What about straight teeth, loving parents and a happy childhood?
No really, every system that does not provide for every need I can possibly think of has obviously failed.
I think the only real fault capitalism is that gives its critics way to much free time to dream up utopias and the means to voice their complaints because the real world fails to live up to them.
At least you finally admit you’re dreaming of a utopia. Have a nice day, silly man.
[/quote]
Except America really isn’t a capitalist country anymore, it has pushed it’s way over to socialism. You know what he is talking about, except he did not state it clearly, anyone who thinks that American is a capitalist country is brain washed or doesn’t understand the free market.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Yes, like ponies!
I hereby declare that socialism has failed everwhere because not every child had a pony even though they are entitled to one.
What about straight teeth, loving parents and a happy childhood?
No really, every system that does not provide for every need I can possibly think of has obviously failed.
I think the only real fault capitalism is that gives its critics way to much free time to dream up utopias and the means to voice their complaints because the real world fails to live up to them.
At least you finally admit you’re dreaming of a utopia. Have a nice day, silly man.
[/quote]
Ah, so I guess you have run out of arguments then?
Funny how fast you resort to methods you accuse others of using…
Funny also that you do not dream of making money to help the poor, oh no, society, i.e other people, has to take care of that.
You know what, you save the world and I help people one person at a time.
Let us see who gets more done at the end of the day, silly boy.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Yes, like ponies!
I hereby declare that socialism has failed everwhere because not every child had a pony even though they are entitled to one.
What about straight teeth, loving parents and a happy childhood?
No really, every system that does not provide for every need I can possibly think of has obviously failed.
I think the only real fault capitalism is that gives its critics way to much free time to dream up utopias and the means to voice their complaints because the real world fails to live up to them.
At least you finally admit you’re dreaming of a utopia. Have a nice day, silly man.
Except America really isn’t a capitalist country anymore, it has pushed it’s way over to socialism. You know what he is talking about, except he did not state it clearly, anyone who thinks that American is a capitalist country is brain washed or doesn’t understand the free market. [/quote]
True but the point of this exact post was the Nirvana fallacy, i.e. comparing what is to a perfect imagined universe.
Of course capitalism fails when you compare it to what woild be your perfect fantasy od what society should be.
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Oh is it now? The original constitution seems to me to place most power in the hands of the States while providing basic unity for the country. It placed checks and balances on the three branches, protected the freedoms of the people, and in every way sought to prevent tyranny.
Do explain your position. How would you define the original constitution.
I don’t even know what you mean by original constituion. Are you talking about the Articles Of Confederation?
The Constitution with the original Bill of Rights.
In EVERY way, dixie? really? stop eating up what you hear at the tea parties, dude. the constitution with the original 8 (or 10 depending on how original you mean) amendments provided for and protected the practice of slavery, and denied women (and obviously blacks) the right to vote. in short, tyranny was abound.
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
No we did not enjoy it.
We just had to live with the fact that government coercion crowded out private alternatives-
I “enjoyed” that as much as any other parasite I ever had, unfortunately antibiotics do not take care of socialism.
Once again, a libertarian gets history backwards. There would be no need for government intervention if private industry did the job in the first place. It didn’t, it still doesn’t.
Interesting, you postulate some random “need” and then claim that the market has failed?
I think the free market opened up the Ins. Market from Freddie and Fannie and too it to a disastrous conclusion with free competition.
Well if you want to call the financial community in the US a free market…
Why it happened is because of the lack of Laws pertaining to that particular situation
That is interesting isnt it, how one of the most heavily regulated industries fails in the aread the government meddled with the most and yet again the market has failed and we need yet more laws…[/quote]
I disagree that banking is heavily regulated; also I think you think regulations are bad. Regulations are laws that Corporations have to follow. When a Corporation steels money, you can not put that Corporation in jail, so you need a different set of laws to make sure Corporations are fair with people, Especially Banking. Banks control every tiny aspect of your credit rating; they have ruined people just by mistake.