states suing over a bill they get money for
-
Distind wrote:
How exactly?
Premiums will increase for many. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated premiums for the non-group market will be 10 to 13 pct higher in 2016 than with no bill and cost will fall higher on young and healthy families. Also, this is before the government dictates and locks into place new federal benefit mandates that will increase premiums for all Americans. There are little or no experience of government officials reversing these trends. Filling the Medicare “donut hole”, price fixing Medicare reimbursement to physicians, creating new long-term entitlement programs... pushing the price tag to over $2 trillion. Nearly every page of the bill specifies rations and the beuros responsible for regulating who can get what. With the deficit and national debt so high, do you really think we can expect the government to take care of us? :doh: You will get no healthcare.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
pushing the price tag to over $2 trillion.
Credit where credit is due: CSS got this one right. A lot of you really need to do the math on this thing. We can't afford it.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
pushing the price tag to over $2 trillion.
Credit where credit is due: CSS got this one right. A lot of you really need to do the math on this thing. We can't afford it.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Not only can we not afford it, it just plain sucks.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
as long as no dude in high heels asks me to dance.
If he ask you politely, you can politely say no. Get over it.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
Tim Craig wrote:
If he ask you politely, you can politely say no. Get over it.
I never said I wouldn't be polite. Where'd that come from? :confused:
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Oh trust me, I'm not lumping you in with the 'them' of that post. You actually give sources even if I don't entirely trust them(but I do intend to check over them). We're certainly a plenty nice place to live, I'm just saying we've never had a point in history where we have solidly grasped all of the professed principles of the nation. One of the things I'm fairly big on is living up to any professed principles, which is why I have fairly few myself, but I have an impeccable record of living up to them. Edit: Though none of that relates very solidly to why I pull out the kazoo, it's the matter of a complete lack of the professed values of those who claim to support causes based on them that breaks out the kazoo. Little more than annoying noise to me at that point.
modified on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:42 PM
Distind wrote:
but I have an impeccable record of living up to them.
That's what's important. Deal with others honestly and fairly and speak your mind. If we all do that, any problem can be solved. Helluva good argument here today, too. It's keeping my mind off the (*&!* bug in my current project that's driving me insane. :wtf:
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Because of the way life is lived today, why should the US Constitution not be changed to reflect those needs?
There is a process for getting that done. However, do you wish to see the fed further empowered over the states? The rights of the states is one of the founding principles of the nation and what made us (for a long time) the most prosperous nation on Earth. It is the fact that we have strayed away from those principles, not the principles themselves, that landed us in our current mess.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
It is the fact that we have strayed away from those principles, not the principles themselves, that landed us in our current mess.
Was prohibition or slavery a principle worth having? The Constitution is a legal document not a moral document or even a principled document. The law and morality have never been interchangeable. If that were the case slavery wouldn't have taken place. Economics trumped morality and the law supported it. The Constitution should be changed to reflect our new needs, but changing the law of our rights is almost impossible when bigotry of any kind is at a high, like now. I think FDR's 2nd bill of rights would be a good start.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
You like taking other peoples' arguments to extremes? Ok, so let's just eliminate all public services! House get robbed? Tough luck. House burning down? Grab a bucket. You're on your own. Got cancer? Nice knowing ya. Wait, let's just privatize them! Fire Department: "Sorry, your neighbor didn't pay their fire coverage bill, so we're not allowed to put it out... Yes, I know it's spreading to your house, but if we act before it crosses the property line, we could get sued." Police Department: "Sorry, we can't arrest the guy. The store he robbed you in is only on the 'Budget' plan, so only crimes against owners and employees are covered." This is fun! Anything else you'd like to exaggerate?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I like being an extremist when it comes to calling people on their hypocrisy. I'm sure I have my own, but at least I can humbly say foul on my own BS.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Because of the way life is lived today, why should the US Constitution not be changed to reflect those needs?
There is a process for getting that done. However, do you wish to see the fed further empowered over the states? The rights of the states is one of the founding principles of the nation and what made us (for a long time) the most prosperous nation on Earth. It is the fact that we have strayed away from those principles, not the principles themselves, that landed us in our current mess.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Being a Brit, it matters not to me what the United States does or does not do with its Constitution. However, I thought it a valid point of interest. The principles you speak of were no doubt relevant for the era within which they were wrote. But, time has marched forward, and if the US Constitution is not a dead document, then it perhaps should reflect the aspiration of the present rather than bury itself in the past.
-
Not only can we not afford it, it just plain sucks.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Not only can we not afford it, it just plain sucks.
Agreed. A former administration, Eisenhower if memory serves, had a good idea. Keep premiums low by subsidizing insurance payments on catastrophic illness and injury (cancer, etc). Everyday stuff like the flu, broken arms, etc would be covered by private sector insurance. The trade-off was that insurance companies would be subject to a few price controls, but nothing compared to the stuff being pushed now. Maybe someone older than me can remember the details. I'm drawing a blank on whose idea it was. It never got through Congress anyway.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Distind wrote:
but I have an impeccable record of living up to them.
That's what's important. Deal with others honestly and fairly and speak your mind. If we all do that, any problem can be solved. Helluva good argument here today, too. It's keeping my mind off the (*&!* bug in my current project that's driving me insane. :wtf:
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Helluva good argument here today, too. It's keeping my mind off the (*&!* bug in my current project that's driving me insane. WTF
Sometimes you have to get your mind completely off of a programming bug before you can fix it. Too much entrenched thinking. ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Being a Brit, it matters not to me what the United States does or does not do with its Constitution. However, I thought it a valid point of interest. The principles you speak of were no doubt relevant for the era within which they were wrote. But, time has marched forward, and if the US Constitution is not a dead document, then it perhaps should reflect the aspiration of the present rather than bury itself in the past.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
...then it perhaps should reflect the aspiration of the present rather than bury itself in the past.
As I said earlier, the principles of the Constitution aren't the problem. It's the fact that the American people - politicians especially - have drifted away from those principles. The Constitution is timeless and will never become outdated. It was written to be so.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
You were talking about changing the content, not just interpreting the words already used, unless I misread.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Not only can we not afford it, it just plain sucks.
Agreed. A former administration, Eisenhower if memory serves, had a good idea. Keep premiums low by subsidizing insurance payments on catastrophic illness and injury (cancer, etc). Everyday stuff like the flu, broken arms, etc would be covered by private sector insurance. The trade-off was that insurance companies would be subject to a few price controls, but nothing compared to the stuff being pushed now. Maybe someone older than me can remember the details. I'm drawing a blank on whose idea it was. It never got through Congress anyway.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
I'm not for any government regulations on insurance companies. The only place government has in this matter is enforcing the contract you signed with your insurance company. With all of the extra money that would be flowing through the economy if the government would just back off, people would be more charitable to private organizations which would take care of those in need. Instead the government forcibly confiscates our money, and creates political weaponry by buying votes and subsidizing degeneracy. They have nearly everything now, banking and financial industry, healthcare, education, transportation, and they are working hard on communications (ie internet). Everything down here turns to crap while the controllers fly high above in jets like this. This is a private jet of an african dictator.[^]
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Why not let the government do everything for us? We will be assigned work duties and it will be decided what we will do, where we will live, how many children (if any) we are permitted to have. You will be given a food card, medical card, housing cost allowance, energy allowance, clothing allowance, and all that shit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
For these comments I can see that you still live with your parents, you don't pay any bills, you are unemployed, have never taken care of yourself, don't have any children and never paid taxes; you need to go out a bit more and stop reading Infowars or at least ask your parents for the bills so you can see some stuff that will make you go :wtf: and also ask them about the tax credits they got when they bought the house or your medical card I'm sure they have it around....
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Helluva good argument here today, too. It's keeping my mind off the (*&!* bug in my current project that's driving me insane. WTF
Sometimes you have to get your mind completely off of a programming bug before you can fix it. Too much entrenched thinking. ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Sometimes you have to get your mind completely off of a programming bug before you can fix it.
Merde and horse feathers! I think I got it. I'm adding a spell checker to my text editor. Been tinkering with it off and on for a few months. If I started in the middle of a doc, it'd loop around to the start without asking me if I wanted it to. Now it's cooperating. Damn Do-Loops anyway. :laugh:
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
...then it perhaps should reflect the aspiration of the present rather than bury itself in the past.
As I said earlier, the principles of the Constitution aren't the problem. It's the fact that the American people - politicians especially - have drifted away from those principles. The Constitution is timeless and will never become outdated. It was written to be so.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
It could be argued that if the populous and your elected representatives have drifted away from those principles that you mentioned, then perhaps the US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles. OR, the US Constitution IS a living breathing statute that must adopt itself to its present environment. The US Constitution, as written a couple hundred years or so ago, by its authors, were reflecting on that epoch. However, I do note that no longer do you travel usually by horseback to and from work, thus a revolution has occurred, and why so not for such a document.
-
I'm not for any government regulations on insurance companies. The only place government has in this matter is enforcing the contract you signed with your insurance company. With all of the extra money that would be flowing through the economy if the government would just back off, people would be more charitable to private organizations which would take care of those in need. Instead the government forcibly confiscates our money, and creates political weaponry by buying votes and subsidizing degeneracy. They have nearly everything now, banking and financial industry, healthcare, education, transportation, and they are working hard on communications (ie internet). Everything down here turns to crap while the controllers fly high above in jets like this. This is a private jet of an african dictator.[^]
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They have nearly everything now, banking and financial industry, healthcare, education, transportation, and they are working hard on communications (ie internet).
Don't get me wrong, I'm a small-government kind of guy. But we do have a serious problem with our health care delivery. I'm a diabetic and a heart patient, so I know a little about that. But we won't have ideas without discussion. And stuff like this forum is a good place for a lot of us to get together and raise a little hell and toss ideas back and forth. I don't subscribe to your dark conspiracy stuff, but I do recognize that the country has drifted too far to the left. This nonsense of gov't health care in America is a symptom of that leftward drift. If the rest of the world wants it, that's their business. It has no place here.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
It could be argued that if the populous and your elected representatives have drifted away from those principles that you mentioned, then perhaps the US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles. OR, the US Constitution IS a living breathing statute that must adopt itself to its present environment. The US Constitution, as written a couple hundred years or so ago, by its authors, were reflecting on that epoch. However, I do note that no longer do you travel usually by horseback to and from work, thus a revolution has occurred, and why so not for such a document.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles
"New principles" aren't the problem. It's the general lack of principles in DC that's pushing us into the gutter. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the US Constitution. It does not provide a list of rights for the people. What is does is provide a list of limitations on government. Our government needs to be reigned back in so that it remains within those limits.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles
"New principles" aren't the problem. It's the general lack of principles in DC that's pushing us into the gutter. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the US Constitution. It does not provide a list of rights for the people. What is does is provide a list of limitations on government. Our government needs to be reigned back in so that it remains within those limits.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
More specifically, it provides a list of rights for the federal government... The basic premise is that the people hold all of the rights/power, and we grant certain rights/power to the states, and certain rights/power to the federal government. Not really disagreeing with you... Just a point of semantics. In effect, it is setting limits for the federal government, but it's stated to say that "By default, the federal government, would have no power at all, but we're letting you do X, Y, and Z." As opposed to "You can do anything as long as you don't do A, B, or C."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles
"New principles" aren't the problem. It's the general lack of principles in DC that's pushing us into the gutter. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the US Constitution. It does not provide a list of rights for the people. What is does is provide a list of limitations on government. Our government needs to be reigned back in so that it remains within those limits.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Fire Department: "Sorry, your neighbor didn't pay their fire coverage bill, so we're not allowed to put it out... Yes, I know it's spreading to your house, but if we act before it crosses the property line, we could get sued."
Most fire departments are volunteers supported primarily by donations and grants. And the gov't money they do receive is generally from either the county or the state. Once again, local issues, not federal. I'm not arguing with you, just thought I'd point that out for... the sake of argument? :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Not how it works in my neck of the woods (NYC), at least I don't think so... But yeah, I remember back when I lived in the suburbs, we had a volunteer fire department. Not sure how much of the money came from the government and how much from elsewhere. Still, I don't think a fire department would function, in most places, without some government funding. The hardware they use isn't cheap.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)