It seems that our government has and is continuing to build up the Berlin Wall
here in the U.S. It is not a physical wall... ===========Umm, yes it is...The letter writer easily forgets (or is ignorant
of the fact), that "The Wall" was built, and the citizens were
told, that it was to protect them from illegal immigrants.Republicans and Tea-Partiers are doing the same thing to us.And yes, it
is a physical wall.BTW -- Before GW Bush, My family and I
would visit Canada regularly, Now, you must have your papers, please -
comrade.Same thing with Mexico.And the irony is you are
searched LEAVING the United States, not when you are re-entering.
It's absurd hyperbole to compare an oppressive regime like East Germany to
regulations of insurance, food content, and school lunches in this country.
Here if you don't like something you have the right to organize in
opposition to it, petition government leaders, and make your argument at the
ballot box (and accept the possibility that you'll lose, which is something
that certain folks are still working on). East Germans faced the possibility of
blacklisting, imprisonment, exile, or death for their opposition.To
compare the two demonstrates a lack of understanding of what true state tyranny
and repression look like and causes one to lose all credibility.
Ok, Mr. West, I choose to have NASCAR races in front of your kids' school,
open a battery recycling business upstream from your water supply, operate a
medical waste incinerator upwind of you, sell botulism-saturated vegetables to
your local grocery store and open an outdoor shooting range next door to you.Thank you for supporting all of my freedoms.
Picking an choosing Mr West?Isn't any law equal to some level
of government telling you what you can do?Don't speed limits make us
safer? Doesn't food labeling help you make smarter decisions?Govt forces you and your children to be vaccinated. Do you not see the social
benefit to that?We can all find laws and regulations that we
disagree with. Some are outright idiotic.But as a whole, they
David West, please enlighten us to what rules and regulations you are being
burdened by. Be specific and give us the origins to the said restrictions. I
dare say that if you had an ounce of objectivity you would discover your
perceptions have more to do with who is administrating our laws rather than what
the law is. Besides, since the current crop of Representatives (2011) received
their oath, they have not passed a single piece of legislation that has been
implemented into law. They have, mind you, cost us 24+ billion $ to shutdown the
I'm confused.The letter writer sounds like a Liberal wanting
freedom to choose and less Government control, but then whines and
complains about Obamacare as being the loss of freedom and more Government
control. Somehow (and I'm just guessing here) I'd
bet this letter writer does not support; Muslims building an Islamic
Cultural Center in New York, medical marijuana, a woman's right
to choose, or gay marriage.Thererfore, all this rhetoric
is more about his wallet, than it is about Freedom of Choice.
David, Prior to Obamacare, how "free" was a person with a
pre-existing condition to obtain health insurance?If you really are
concerned about government restrictions, you'd do well to follow Open
Minded Mormon's advice: Lend your support to women's right to choose
and the legalization of same-sex marriage and medical marijuana.
Res Novae,I could not agree more. I am not an Obama supporter, but
the incredible hyperbole surrounding any and every action by the current
administration is simply astounding.Some folks purport to believe
that they are living in a dictatorship. During my mission I lived in a
dictatorship (and by far not the worst example of one). They clearly have NO
idea what they are talking about.
"I would like to think that I can choose what is best for me and my family
and not be told by the government what is best for us."========
I'm sure LGBT families could not agree with you more!
Open Minded,The irony is... your post was based on a false assumption.I can assure you that people entering the United States ARE searched.Watch the program "Border Wars" on History Channel if you don't
think people ENTERING the United States are searched.When you leave
all they ask is... who you are, reason for your travel, when you plan to return,
are you carrying prohibited items, etc. But I can assure you that people
crossing the border INTO the United States are checked too. ----As for government restricting freedom... that's kinda what
government means, isn't it? The "Governor" on an engine prevents
it from operating outside prescribed limits. A "Governor" or
"Government" over the people... serves the same purpose. It restricts
the people's behavior to prescribed limits (most of the time for your own
good).But obviously the bigger government gets.. the more
restriction. The more restrictions... the less freedom. I have
no problem with most regulations, but there are others that I have serious
problems with. To resist these restrictions... We must keep the government to
a size the people can control.
Yes, allow stores to sell alcohol, legalize marijuana, get rid of speed limits
and all other similar restrictions on freedom.
Just for the record, it was citizens of East Germany, not the Soviet Union, who
were leaving the country in big enough numbers to justify the building of the
Let us not forget -- The North Koreans [like the East Berliners] are being told those Walls are there to protect them and to keep out
illegal immigrants, and drugs, and terrorists.Just like Republicans
wanting one here...But, it really shouldn't come as any sort of
surprise -- The rich always feel a need of fenced communities to feel safe
and secure.They don't like open societies.
"It is not a physical wall but a wall of rules and regulations that will
control how we act and think."Obviously, Mr. West, this
imaginary wall you mention is not very effective. It certainly does not control
how you think. Now, right-wing talk radio, that's another matter
altogether. It seems to be exerting great control over your thought processes.
Why are you not lashing out against it?
From my perspective, which includes four months of close encounters with the
Berlin Wall and a visit to East Berlin while the Wall of Shame was in place,
could I suggest that this letter is as full of asbestos as the Berlin Wall was?
What freedom have you lost... I missed it evidently.I think that
this is the most ironic and confusing part of the conservative movement. They
want to legislate how much you can drink, who you marry, ban you from buying
legal medication from far flung dangerous nations like Canada, forbid us from
travel to countries like Cuba.... all the while place China on a most favored
trading partner list, insist on "christian" values and prayer be taught
in schools, consider dollars supporting the poor as "stealing", while
funding foreign and distant wars as justifiable, and relieving business from
needs to control pollutants.The "platform" is all over the
place..... freedom of choice - but don't you dare think about buying a
beer in a restaurant.
Kent C. DeForrestRe: "Why are you not lashing out against
right-wing talk radio"...I assume he's not lashing out
against "right-wing talk radio" because it's not the same thing.
Nobody's REQUIRED to listen to "right-wing talk radio"... we are
REQUIRED to do what the Government says.IF he doesn't want his
brain to be controlled by the often vilified "right-wing talk radio"...
he can just turn it off and ignore it (like you probably do). We can't do
that with Government Regulations, can we?So WHY would he lash out?
Why would he act like you? He's complaining about government forced
beliefs, forced behavior, and regulation in our lives... So WHY would he
complain about something he is totally not even required to be involved in?
That makes no sense! Why lash out about something... when you can just not
listen?It's just an illogical juxtaposition.
Mr. West screams we need less regulations to enjoy more freedom. I'm
willing to bet he also supports more regulaitons to enforce his way of life and
morals. Mr. West probably has no qualms about abortion restrictions, gay
marriage restrictions, alcohol restrictions, etc. "Mr, West,
tear down this Zion Curtain!"
To "EDM"Prior to the ACA a person with pre-existing conditions was more
free to get insurance than they are now.Prior to the ACA an much of
the regulation that proceeded it a person with pre-existing conditions could get
insurance. The only catch was that the insurance company would not pay for the
pre-existing condition for 6 to 9 months, depending on the company's
policy.Now, a person with a pre-existing condition has less freedom.
They no longer can choose to buy insurance. They are required by law to have
insurance. So, they are less free now under the ACA than they were before.To those that don't think there is a problem along the borders, you
should read about the TERRORISTS that have been caputred trying to enter. If
you don't think there is a problem read the following:"Signs in Arizona warn of smuggler dangers" Washington Post"SWAT teams dispatched as gun battle unfolds near Escobares" The
Monitor"Controversial Muslim cleric caught being smuggled into
U.S. over Mexico border" in the Daily Mail
cavetroll,You're Zion Curtain thingy is a valiant effort to
deflect this topic and take the discussion down a tangent that is not really a
big issue to most people now days. That curtain is coming down gradually and
isn't really a big issue now days. So I don't know if you're
going to be able to bait many people into lashing out on that one.I
hope we can stay on topic...
Redshirt 1701,Reference pre-existing conditions. Not what I recall.
Yes, most larger employer-based insurance programs worked that way but not if
you were in the individual market and sometimes not even if you were with a
small company. You were just out of luck - period. This became more likely
with the severity of the issue.
The leadership of America is Authoritarian and wants to mold the culture into
something they like. Their biggest tool of doing that is through the mass media.
Here in Mexico they promote going to America not for opportunity, but for the
welfare. They advertise it on Television and Magazines.
Res Novae"Here if you don't like something you have the
right to organize in opposition to it, petition government leaders"Sure just get your permit(which is illegal for them to demand) and pray that
the police don't arrest you for excercising your 1st amendment rights when
they illegally tell you to leave after a few hours.
The ultimate plan is to turn America into one giant Indian reservation where
everybody is dependant on the government for everything and can't get a
loan to start a business. Also arrest anybody critical of Obama just like they
did to that rodeo clown who was excercising his first amendment and made no
threats. It doesn't matter if people agreed with it or not, but the first
amendment should always be protected. If someone says something negative about
gay marriage, they shouldn't lose their jobs over it. This has happened and
this demonstrates a failure to protect free speech and it should be protected
whether you agree with it or not. I don't want anybody who wants gun
control to be arrested or lose their jobs. This type of thing is how the Wall
that the writer refers to, is being built. More than anything else.
Anti.... I don't believe you for one minute. I am down there all the time
visiting one of my clients, PEMEX. The vast majority of people I meet, and have
gotten to know through work and church - plus their extended families are not
lusting to come to America just to get on welfare. No more so than white
Americans do so. There are always those in every crowd.... but to paint the
picture that the only reason hispanics come to America is to get on welfare....
good grief - put the propaganda down and go out and meet some real people.Your first statement.... well.... duh. People go into politics because
they think they have a vision of where they think the country could go.
Equally applies to progressives, as it does with the Tea Party. Why do you
think Mike Lee ran for office? The Tea Party exist because they want to
influence America's direction.... in an Authoritarian way.... meaning their
way.All you have discovered is the obvious.... to everyone. You
have discovered why people run for office.... they think they have a better
This letter draws a downright offensive comparison between the slavery of East
Germany behind the Wall and the representative democracy we live in. If he
doesn't like a law, the writer can write, publish, speak, petition his
representatives, and run for office if he wants to. He'sw free to try and
persuade the rest of us. That wasn't true behind the Berlin Wall. Those
things would get you killed. Just because many of his fellow Americans disagree
with this writer's agenda does not mean that he lives "behind the
Berlin Wall." Grow up, guy.
To "Semi-Strong" it all depends on how you define pre-existing
condition. For example, a pregnancy could be a pre-existing condition, but you
could get insurance on the open market because it is not considered a condition
that makes you uninsurable. If you call pre-existing conditions as those
conditions that make you uninsurable then we have had laws since the mid 1990s
that created high risk pools for each state to cover those people. Again, there
has been nothing preventing uninsurable people from getting insurance for about
20 or more.Even on the open market you could get insurance with a
waiting period. Washington State has an article titled "About pre-existing
conditions and waiting periods" that explains how insurance companies there
could require a 9 month waiting period for pre-existing conditions for
individual plans (plans not sponsored by an employer).
On this subject, as well as on most subjects, we have two choices. We can
either sustain the Constitution, which allows the Federal level of government to
tax us for and legislate for 17 duties and only seventeen duties, or we can let
anyone claim that THEY are the Supreme Law of the Land and that THEY can dictate
to all of us what we can allow government to do.The Revolutionary
War was fought to restrict those who thought themselves above the law, those who
thought that they somehow had the right to dictate to the rest of us how we
should act and what duties we should pay for.The outcome of that war
settled the question, once and for all. We, the People, told the government
that we, the People, were in charge and that they, the government, were
authorized to do only what we, the People, permitted.Read the
Constitution. Read Article 1, Section 8 until you understand those duties that
are authorized to the Federal level of government. All other duties are to be
left to the States or to the People. Either we uphold the Constitution or we do
For the record -- You are still as free as you want to be.You
don't have to pay taxes, buy insurance, or registrar your
weapons.Nothing is stopping you from living in your cabin and
pretend it’s 1776 -- Fell free to : grow your own food, barter and trade, dig your own well, have your guns, get
sick and die. You can do it...and nothing is stopping you!BUT,
If you want to live in 2013 and beyond, and enjoy modern
conveniences like -- Painkillers, Nuclear medicine, chemotherapy, heart
and brain surgeries, and AirAmbulances, Fire Departments, Police
Departments, water, power and sewer, Roads, Highways, Education, a Global Military, and next door neighbors -- because you are
going to be limited and what you can and can't do, and you WILL be
required to pay taxes for it.That's called living in a
Civilized Society.Go be as free as you want.Just don't
stay here and think you can do as you please with no restrictions, And not
pay any taxes for it.That's all.
RedShirt1701,Just to be clear your statement was "Prior to the
ACA a person with pre-existing conditions was more free to get insurance than
they are now. Prior to the ACA an (sic) much of the regulation that proceeded
(sic) it a person with pre-existing conditions could get insurance."Here you are arguing that "we have had laws since the mid 1990s that
created high risk pools for each state to cover those people".First, yes I was talking about pre-mid 1990s. The good old days when there
was less regulation (when I had my first experiences here).Second, I
have heard folks say that they could not get insurance via the exchanges. In
other cases they could but not at a price that a person with a normal income
could actually afford.Third, your answer essentially breaks down to
the fact that we had to make a law. So, even if I accept that the exchanges
were sufficient, the answer was still government regulation and intervention,
A "civilized society" follows rules set by the people, not rules set by
the government. The people arpay for all government services and programs. If
the people want protection from each other, they have the courts. The
Constitution protects us from the Government. Those who tell us that
the government has the right to dictate to us what to believe and how to live
want a King. They don't want the People of this nation to be in charge.
They long for the days of King George, who was crazy enough to think that he had
the right to tax us for services that we did not want and for programs that
restricted our liberties.Those who long for those days have betrayed
the principles that make America the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
They want to be coddled, like infants, and protected from their personal
responsibility to act as adults. If they get their wish, we will become another
society where the "elite" tell us how to think and how to act, even
while the "elite" ignore the those "rules".
To "Semi-Strong" my experience has been quite the opposite. I had a
brother that was covered by insurance during the 1980's on the individual
market after being diagnosed with a condition that now would make him
uninsurable. My parents experience with the high risk pool exchanges has been
that prior to the ACA their insurance was cheaper and covered more.Take a look at the ACA, and tell me what it has done to fix any of the
problems.Did it make insurance cheaper? Are your out of pocket
expenses more or less now?Tell us, what good has the ACA
accomplished? Estimates are out there that at best it would only cover 15
million people, but at the same time current estimates say that it will cause 15
million to lose their current policies that they liked.The ACA is
making medical care more expensive through taxes and Doctor shortages.What good has come from the ACA?
Mike Richards, the wonderful thing about this country is that we are free to
adopt differing political interpretations, including differing interpretations
of Constitutional powers and authorities, and are absolutely free to express
those views in open forums. The original letter is completely wrong
for failing to recognize that fundamental difference between our country and the
former Eastern Bloc.
"A "civilized society" follows rules set by the people, not rules
set by the government."And who do you think "the
RedShirt 1701,Glad to hear that it went well for you. Perhaps it
was a matter of different circumstances or states. Not sure. But suffice to
say that in those days not all was well for those who were unwell.My
out of pocket expenses have been growing for years - quite independent of the
ACA.As to the ACA, not really something I am trying to defend or
promote. I am simply arguing that there were significant problems prior and
that these needed to be addressed. Further, that the oft touted free market
solutions are simply untrue. As you noted, govt. intervention was required to
force insurers to take on folks with pre-existing conditions (and, as I noted,
even that was insufficient in some cases).As to a post mortem on the
ACA - far too early to tell.
Cavetroll,"Mr, West, tear down this Zion Curtain!" LOL!
"I would like to think that I can choose what is best for me and my family
and not be told by the government what is best for us." Amen, brother.
Another supporter of my Casino Utah idea. Seriously, though, be careful what you
wish for. The line has to be drawn somewhere before anarchy.
J Thompson - where you have it all wrong is "we" are the government. We
have a representative government authorized by us, as a society. Pretending
that there is this foreign entity called the "government" is a diversion
from responsibility. If we as a people don't like what the government
does, it is up to US to change it.Failures by government are
failures of the people of the people who elect the government. We may not
always agree with the direction of the majority, but it is the system we have.
If the "elite" are in charge, it is only because we voted
them there. They didn't just appear... they had to be voted into these
places by you, me, and everyone else. Freedom requires responsibility, and
that you don't always get what you want.... to protect others freedoms.
Freedom doesn't mean it is just about you and your needs.
To "Semi-Strong" what do you mean that it is too early to tell?Costs are up in 45 states.Coverage is down.Doctors are
not accepting insurance.Taxes are up on medical device companies.People are losing their insurance plans.The system is going
to add Trillions of dollars to the debt.Basically every single
promise made has been broken.Tell us, what actually worked?
Have some of the posters been living in a time warp? Are they not literate
enough to know that 59% of the people were against ObamaCare, yet the Democrats
forced that program on us. Was that "representative government"? Did
the "government" do the will of the people, or did it force on us
"its" will? Did those in government really think that they are royalty
or that they are superior or that they were divinely appointed to "help"
us understand the principles of liberty and freedom by forcing on us a program
that 59% of us rejected?The words from those who think that
"government" is doing the will of the people just because the
"government" was elected by the people are hollow. We have not elected
a "government" that has self-appointed "rights". All elected
officials take an oath to abide by the rules that we, the People, have set in
the Constitution. Many ignore the Constitution. They claim exemption from that
Supreme Law of the Land. They would have us live is a world where they can rule
using principles of situational ethics. There's is a world where might
makes right. I reject that "principle".
@Redshirt1701"Costs are up in 45 states."According to
a Heritage Foundation study that did not take into account the subsidies making
it an extremely misleading statement at best and a lie at worst."Coverage is down."False. Especially since the Medicaid
expansion and student staying on parents plan provisions have increased
coverage."The system is going to add Trillions of dollars to the
debt."False. The nonpartisan CBO estimates that repealing
Obamacare would add 100 billion to the deficit. Obamacare, in their view, is
more than fully paid for the next ten years (by the tax increases, no-insurance
fines, and Medicare cuts).
RedShirt 1701,Semi-Strong here.Again, I am not the
ACA's defender so you will have to find someone else to respond to your
points. However, Alt 134 seems to cogently answer some of your claims.My simple point is this is a big legislation that will be tweaked and tweaked
again. Judging it on the first year rollout is unlikely to be accurate.But you are silent on my other (real) points - that we had significant
problems that were only being addressed due to govt. intervention and even then
not fully. So, what is the right answer? If not the ACA/Romneycare/Heritage
Foundation/Originally a Republican program, what is the right solution?Please don't say the free market. As we have already noted, that was
failing those who were ill. The free market was pulling away not toward those
with preexisting conditions.
Mike:Where does the Constitution say we should be governed by polls,
rather than by the representatives who were elected by the people according to
the procedures established by the Constitution?
Hey Mikey: A majority of the people want an immigration bill...but the House
(and almost certainly you) says "no". How come no complaints about that.
The Democrats didn't give us Obamacare, the Constitution you lecture on
gave the majority the right to pass law that was signed by the President and
validated by the Supreme Court. So please explain why in the case of Obamacare
we need to forget about all of that and obey the majority sentiment?
Mr. West,What about MY choice about MY body? SERIOUSLY? Are you
going to tell me the right wing agenda about ME deciding for myself, about MY
health, is not a "WALL"? Get back to me when you can figure
The ACA was passed by two houses of Congress, signed by the president, and
adjudicated as constitutional by the court of last resort. That is the procedure
we follow in our constitutional system. So yes, Mike Richards, the ACA is the
result of our representative government at work.
Mr Richards, look into the numbers sir, you'll be enlightened to find out
that of the 59% most know Obamacare does not go far enough. It is a republican
idea adopted to appease the right for their support and since they adopted the
strategy to obstruct everything it is the right that ground our nation to a
To "atl134" lets look at the Society of Actuaries, and see what they
have to say. According to their study titled "Cost of the Future Newly
Insured under the Affordable Care Act" they find that the average cost of
insurance across all states has increased by 32% compared to pre-ACA figures.
Forbes has a nice interactive map that shows state by state the price change in
insurance due to the ACA. See "49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase
Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41%"As for people
losing their insurance plans, thus losing coverage, read "Obama Officials In
2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under
Obamacare" in Forbes. They find that the Government estimated that 15
million people would lose their insurance. Don't you think that is bad?As for adding to the Deficit, the CBO has revised their numbers since
then. They are going to add the $110 billion/yr to the deficit, but there is no
end. Think of it this way. When has the CBO ever estimated the cost of
Everyone needs to notice that arguments such as RedShirt's about
skyrocketing premiums are arguments that pertain to those who are buying
insurance in the individual market on their own and they fail to factor into
their argument the whole picture that includes subsidies and better coverage.
Yea a Buick costs more than a Hyundi. The latest census data said
that over 270 million people get their insurance through their employer and
almost none of those people will lose insurance coverage because of the ACA. So
somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of Americans with health insurance will not
be negatively effected at all. Thank goodness Doctors don't
practice medicine the way conservatives argue the ACA. If they did once one of
your organs went bad you'd have to be put down even though everything else
worked fine. As others have pointed out the
RedShirtCalTechPasedena, CATo "atl134" lets look at the
Society of Actuaries, and see what they have to say. According to their study
titled "Cost of the Future Newly Insured under the Affordable Care Act"
they find that the average cost of insurance across all states has increased by
32% compared to pre-ACA figures. Forbes has a nice interactive map that shows
state by state the price change in insurance due to the ACA. See "49-State
Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of
41%"========== That's called price gouging, and
it has nothing to do with the ACA other than for-profit companies making the
most of it.It's happening now because Government regulators
will be shutting them down after Jan.1st when it goes into effect.From that point on, they will then have to justify any further increases to
the Gv'mnent.Just like Rocky Mountain Power and Questar Gas have to
get justify and seek approval BEFORE they can increase their prices.
J Thompson,I think you're making a false assumption. You seem
to equate "civilized society" with some sort of perfect democracy where
the people en masse somehow (without government) set rules for themselves. I
can't imagine what that society would look like, since there has never been
one, but I do know this: there are quite a few societies that are civilized but
that do not enjoy a representative government, as we do. Civilization has no
necessary connection with the form of government.
To "LDS Liberal" it is not called price gouging. It is called
government regulations adding to the cost of insurance. If it was price
gouging, then the profits for the insurance companies would be jumping from 3%
to 35% on average. However, their margins are remaining the same. How can
their profit margins remain the same if they are gouging anybody?
Ya Mike: A majority of the people want a Universal BackGropund checks...but the
House (and almost certainly you) says "no". How come no complaints about
that.======== RedShirtCalTechPasedena, CABased on number 2 years ago - [BEFORE they doubled]The health-care
sector is absurdly profitable. According to this data at Yahoo Finance,
the sector-wide profit margin is 21.5 %.The major drug manufacturers
have a 23 % profit margin. The medical device makers are pulling in 12.6
%. Do you really believe costs have double in only 2 short years?or Will we see the Profits end up doubling in those same 2 years?= Price gouging.
To "LDS Liberal" the profit margins on health insurance companies has
not doubled. Over the past 10 years their profit margins have actually
decreased.During that time the drug manufacturers and medical device
companies have maintained their average profit margins too. According to CSI
market, the medical device industry has seen their profit margins drop since the
ACA was passed. In 2004 they averaged 20%, now they average 16%.Where is your proof that any of those industries are gouging? You are making
Can't you read:According to this data at Yahoo Finance
To "LDS Liberal" give me the name of the article that shows that their
profit margins are going up. Yes Yahoo Finance says that those are the industry
averages, but are those averages going up, or down. You have not answered that
question. You have not given anything verifiable. Is that intentional so that
it is more difficult to show you that you are wrong?Let me make this
clear. Where is the article stating that since the ACA was passed that the drug
companies and medical device companies have increased their profit margins?
2 bit *your*And the "zion curtain" comment was
entirely on topic. The letter writer was bemoaning all the rules and regulations
the government forces on us. The Zion curtain is a prime example of needless
regulations forced upon the people. That particulr issue may not be big now, but
it just one of many the government has forced that people find ridiculous. When
somebody compares the regulaitons we have here in America to the oppression of
the Berlin Wall, a comparable inane statement needs to be made.
Re: Mike richards"Read the Constitution. Read Article 1, Section
8 until you understand those duties that are authorized to the Federal level of
government. All other duties are to be left to the States or to the People.
Either we uphold the Constitution or we do not." I read Article
1, Section 8. I'm going out on a limb here, but do you believe the Air
Force is unconsitutional? Using your strict interpretation of the Consitution,
the Air Force is uncositutional because Atricle 1 Section 8 makes no mention of
it. It only mentions armies and the Navy. What about the Marines? The Coast
Guard? Also, in reading Article !, Section 8, it clearly states
"provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States." Wouldn't most regulations, even ones you disagree with fall
under those categories?
"The nonpartisan CBO estimates that repealing Obamacare would add 100
billion to the deficit. Obamacare, in their view, is more than fully paid for
the next ten years (by the tax increases, no-insurance fines, and Medicare
cuts)." You are more naive then I can imagine if you think
the cbo is non-partisan. I believe the mindless notion all you lefty's
throw around about repealing obamacare, and that action adding more to the
deficit, refers to the theory that repeal is more expensive then obamacare.
It's strictly a partisan notion that adds to the obamacare litany of
exucses, not that obamacare is paid for and offers debt reduction and rosy
financial scenarios. Pathetic to see your blind loyalty to the anointed one.
When you state obamacare is "more then fully paid for the next ten
years", thus no tax increases or medicare cuts...Would you care to put your
money where your mouth is? I'll take that bet!! ....didn't think so!
HaHaHaHa,Irrespective of what you believe about Obamacare and how it
will be paid for, the CBO is, in fact, non-partisan. The Congressional Budget
Office works for both parties. Currently, the Senate is controlled by Democrats
and the House by Republicans - so neither party would have control anyway.
HaHaHaHa - all that you have proven is that you have deep disrespect for those
who don't share your own opinion. What the CBO is counting on
in some of those cost is that before ObamaCare, there was a mandate that all who
show up at the emergency rooms door must receive care... and there is no funding
mechanism for this. Either the care giver eats this expense, passes it on to
others in higher fees, or the government is left to pick up the cost. ObamaCare
provides funding to alleviate this back door medical treatment. It isn't
that it is cheaper - it is that it has an actual dedicated funding model. You
yank ObamaCare - you yank the funding for this Reagan mandated care method.Is it the best solution possible? Perhaps not. But snide comments,
insults.... none of those will solve a single problem, nor will they influence
anyone to your opinion. But based on your screen name.... i am guessing that
actually influencing opinion isn't your goal.... mockery seems to be the
2bits: You are questioned and sometimes searched when ENTERING Canada, Mexico,
and every other country, not when LEAVING the US--it's the country
RECEIVING visitors whose employees do the same thing our CBP folks do.I
agree with the overall premise of the original writer: We are losing our
freedoms piecemeal, always under the guise of making someone else's life
better. Our government does not trust most of us with our freedoms, which is
completely backward from the way it was designed, but it's because many of
us are not trustworthy: we will make selfish decisions instead of moral
decisions. We are slowly trading places with the tyrannical Soviet Union,
China, and others, which are slowly becoming more free. With their bustling
economy, China is borderline capitalist with a communist government that is
trying to maintain a power that is not maintainable in the long run. Weird how
history evolves.Even though we have to keep an eye on our government
continuously, I'd still rather live in jail in the US than king of any
@ Blue Actually your right and I agree with you, I have deep
disrespect for those who cant think past the tip of their nose.
You can go on with your wordy excuse of what you think obamacare does, but
ultimately it is just a way for you big government types to impose yourselves in
everyones life. Something you claim to despise when the shoe is on the other
foot. In one breath you laid out a "funding mechanism" that we have had
for years, in the next breath you go on and rave about the new funding model, as
though it ultimately makes healthcare better. Round about way to do the same
thing. All because you have this giant crush on bho. Yeah you don't like
the old model, and will deny it is a real mechanism, but it is and it does work.
Yeah, we all know it could be better, didn't need 3000 pages of carved up,
legislation that excludes some and subsidizes others. Taxes some and gives
handouts to others. Expands government and IRS powers, while taking away choice
and liberty of others.
wait !!! The Democratic party is the party of choice....right?? I mean the dems
are all about NOT restricting people and letting people choose...right?? What
the rest of the country is now finding out with this ugly tidal wave of sludge
called Obamacare is that in reality choice is the LAST thing the dems want to
provide. Who would have figured that? Yes choice means freedom and freedom means
less power to the Federal government - every good Communist's nightmare.
The king indeed has no clothes for all to see and it ain't pretty...