(07-07-2012 01:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Something that I find funny is that a lot of people don't really know why they are for or against it. Most people's explanations are so simple that you know they don't know sh*t besides talking points.

What I find funny is how some gripe, but offer no solution. Their sole purpose is to gripe, or find something to gripe about.

ive seen several times where solutions were offered by fiscal conservative/small government folks on this board.

(07-07-2012 02:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:18 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  I am not conservative, nor am I a liberal. But I have serious concerns about the nation's spending, and how we are digging ourselves deeper. But I also understand how healthcare is important, and if we don't do something to address it, we will head into a critical state with hospitals and their ERs being clogged.

As a healthcare administrator, I think that inexpensive preventative care (annual exams, immunizations, screenings, and labwork) should be free. and that folks should only have to purchase health insurance. It's kind of the middle ground, but it also would provide much more affordable health insurance premiums.

I'd also integrate the Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, and Worker's Comp systems. There is tremendous costs to administering and running multiple healthcare tracks, yet ALL are taxpayer funded. I would also standardize their reimbursement schemes so that physicians and providers are able to improve their administrative efficiencies in billing, collecting, coding, and managing their ARs (which is a large portion of a practice's costs).

Just a crazy idea, but a national CHIP product, in addition to what we already have, is not the answer IMHO.

Sorry. You are a libertarian. Just as nutty(if not moreso) than a conservative. Though that depends on what level of conservatism one is talking about.

Small "L" libertarians are considered nutty for no reason, especially in this case when it sounds like Brazil or France's system. Following the constitution, keeping the military's focus on home, not jumping into wars, etc all sound pretty moderate to me.

The reason both gangs don't like Libertarians is because they are threatened by their logical and iconoclastic stances on issues. God forbid anyone come in and suggest an alternative to their failed policies.

It always is the same old sh!t with the gang sycophants.."Well...We just didn't do it right this time...We need another law!!"

It never occurs to them that they have been doing wrong all along.

Well to be fair, that's because both gangs don't truly have an ideology besides 'stay in power'. Both truly conservative and truly liberal sides have valid points to them, it's just finding the middle ground that works best and the two parties in power have no desire to really do that.

(07-07-2012 03:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 02:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:18 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  I am not conservative, nor am I a liberal. But I have serious concerns about the nation's spending, and how we are digging ourselves deeper. But I also understand how healthcare is important, and if we don't do something to address it, we will head into a critical state with hospitals and their ERs being clogged.

As a healthcare administrator, I think that inexpensive preventative care (annual exams, immunizations, screenings, and labwork) should be free. and that folks should only have to purchase health insurance. It's kind of the middle ground, but it also would provide much more affordable health insurance premiums.

I'd also integrate the Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, and Worker's Comp systems. There is tremendous costs to administering and running multiple healthcare tracks, yet ALL are taxpayer funded. I would also standardize their reimbursement schemes so that physicians and providers are able to improve their administrative efficiencies in billing, collecting, coding, and managing their ARs (which is a large portion of a practice's costs).

Just a crazy idea, but a national CHIP product, in addition to what we already have, is not the answer IMHO.

Sorry. You are a libertarian. Just as nutty(if not moreso) than a conservative. Though that depends on what level of conservatism one is talking about.

Small "L" libertarians are considered nutty for no reason, especially in this case when it sounds like Brazil or France's system. Following the constitution, keeping the military's focus on home, not jumping into wars, etc all sound pretty moderate to me.

The reason both gangs don't like Libertarians is because they are threatened by their logical and iconoclastic stances on issues. God forbid anyone come in and suggest an alternative to their failed policies.

It always is the same old sh!t with the gang sycophants.."Well...We just didn't do it right this time...We need another law!!"

It never occurs to them that they have been doing wrong all along.

Well to be fair, that's because both gangs don't truly have an ideology besides 'stay in power'. Both truly conservative and truly liberal sides have valid points to them, it's just finding the middle ground that works best and the two parties in power have no desire to really do that.

So are political debates to be considered gang fights?

Nah, gangsters come in the colors of taupe and darker, anything lighter is part of a criminal enterprise.

(07-07-2012 03:25 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 03:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 02:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Sorry. You are a libertarian. Just as nutty(if not moreso) than a conservative. Though that depends on what level of conservatism one is talking about.

Small "L" libertarians are considered nutty for no reason, especially in this case when it sounds like Brazil or France's system. Following the constitution, keeping the military's focus on home, not jumping into wars, etc all sound pretty moderate to me.

The reason both gangs don't like Libertarians is because they are threatened by their logical and iconoclastic stances on issues. God forbid anyone come in and suggest an alternative to their failed policies.

It always is the same old sh!t with the gang sycophants.."Well...We just didn't do it right this time...We need another law!!"

It never occurs to them that they have been doing wrong all along.

Well to be fair, that's because both gangs don't truly have an ideology besides 'stay in power'. Both truly conservative and truly liberal sides have valid points to them, it's just finding the middle ground that works best and the two parties in power have no desire to really do that.

So are political debates to be considered gang fights?

Of course. You have the bloods on one side of the street and the crips on the other side. You and I are just trying to down the street without being robbed.

(07-07-2012 02:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:18 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  I am not conservative, nor am I a liberal. But I have serious concerns about the nation's spending, and how we are digging ourselves deeper. But I also understand how healthcare is important, and if we don't do something to address it, we will head into a critical state with hospitals and their ERs being clogged.

As a healthcare administrator, I think that inexpensive preventative care (annual exams, immunizations, screenings, and labwork) should be free. and that folks should only have to purchase health insurance. It's kind of the middle ground, but it also would provide much more affordable health insurance premiums.

I'd also integrate the Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, and Worker's Comp systems. There is tremendous costs to administering and running multiple healthcare tracks, yet ALL are taxpayer funded. I would also standardize their reimbursement schemes so that physicians and providers are able to improve their administrative efficiencies in billing, collecting, coding, and managing their ARs (which is a large portion of a practice's costs).

Just a crazy idea, but a national CHIP product, in addition to what we already have, is not the answer IMHO.

Sorry. You are a libertarian. Just as nutty(if not moreso) than a conservative. Though that depends on what level of conservatism one is talking about.

Small "L" libertarians are considered nutty for no reason, especially in this case when it sounds like Brazil or France's system. Following the constitution, keeping the military's focus on home, not jumping into wars, etc all sound pretty moderate to me.

The reason both gangs don't like Libertarians is because they are threatened by their logical and iconoclastic stances on issues. God forbid anyone come in and suggest an alternative to their failed policies.

It always is the same old sh!t with the gang sycophants.."Well...We just didn't do it right this time...We need another law!!"

It never occurs to them that they have been doing wrong all along.

Logical? Like that "voluntary"crap you keep talking about? THat is logical? I guess if you are on some hallucinagenic drug, possibly.

(07-07-2012 01:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:18 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  I am not conservative, nor am I a liberal. But I have serious concerns about the nation's spending, and how we are digging ourselves deeper. But I also understand how healthcare is important, and if we don't do something to address it, we will head into a critical state with hospitals and their ERs being clogged.

As a healthcare administrator, I think that inexpensive preventative care (annual exams, immunizations, screenings, and labwork) should be free. and that folks should only have to purchase health insurance. It's kind of the middle ground, but it also would provide much more affordable health insurance premiums.

I'd also integrate the Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, and Worker's Comp systems. There is tremendous costs to administering and running multiple healthcare tracks, yet ALL are taxpayer funded. I would also standardize their reimbursement schemes so that physicians and providers are able to improve their administrative efficiencies in billing, collecting, coding, and managing their ARs (which is a large portion of a practice's costs).

Just a crazy idea, but a national CHIP product, in addition to what we already have, is not the answer IMHO.

Sorry. You are a libertarian. Just as nutty(if not moreso) than a conservative. Though that depends on what level of conservatism one is talking about.

Small "L" libertarians are considered nutty for no reason, especially in this case when it sounds like Brazil or France's system. Following the constitution, keeping the military's focus on home, not jumping into wars, etc all sound pretty moderate to me.

Actually, I agree with or at least can go along with the foreign stuff that the Libertarians push(Republicans don't. They think this thinking is nutty). I think the domestic ideas are so outside of reality that I find them to be nutty while Republicans don't. So basically both sides find Libertarians nutty. Which is why they can't gain a whole lot of traction(though sadly, I think they converted my brother).

Yeah, I can honestly dig about 60% of Ron Pauls major platforms, but about 20% of them scare the everloving sh*t out of me and just scream of shortsightedness. I get that people want a smaller government, and I can respect that, but to straight up dissolve some of the governing bodies he wants to? Sorry, that's just absurdity to me.

And before anyone does this, this is not a statement on either organizations efficacy or stating that they haven't overstepped their bounds in some ways, it's just the hack-and-slash nature of the 'THIS DOES XXXXX WRONG, GET RID OF THE ENTIRE THING' isn't reasonable.

(07-07-2012 04:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 02:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:18 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  I am not conservative, nor am I a liberal. But I have serious concerns about the nation's spending, and how we are digging ourselves deeper. But I also understand how healthcare is important, and if we don't do something to address it, we will head into a critical state with hospitals and their ERs being clogged.

As a healthcare administrator, I think that inexpensive preventative care (annual exams, immunizations, screenings, and labwork) should be free. and that folks should only have to purchase health insurance. It's kind of the middle ground, but it also would provide much more affordable health insurance premiums.

I'd also integrate the Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, and Worker's Comp systems. There is tremendous costs to administering and running multiple healthcare tracks, yet ALL are taxpayer funded. I would also standardize their reimbursement schemes so that physicians and providers are able to improve their administrative efficiencies in billing, collecting, coding, and managing their ARs (which is a large portion of a practice's costs).

Just a crazy idea, but a national CHIP product, in addition to what we already have, is not the answer IMHO.

Sorry. You are a libertarian. Just as nutty(if not moreso) than a conservative. Though that depends on what level of conservatism one is talking about.

Small "L" libertarians are considered nutty for no reason, especially in this case when it sounds like Brazil or France's system. Following the constitution, keeping the military's focus on home, not jumping into wars, etc all sound pretty moderate to me.

The reason both gangs don't like Libertarians is because they are threatened by their logical and iconoclastic stances on issues. God forbid anyone come in and suggest an alternative to their failed policies.

It always is the same old sh!t with the gang sycophants.."Well...We just didn't do it right this time...We need another law!!"

It never occurs to them that they have been doing wrong all along.

Logical? Like that "voluntary"crap you keep talking about? THat is logical? I guess if you are on some hallucinagenic drug, possibly.

You call me greedy and yet I am willing to freely give my time, money and labor voluntarily for things I need and support. You evidently must need a gun pointed at you to contribute. I get it. You are not alone as a slave.

(07-07-2012 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, I can honestly dig about 60% of Ron Pauls major platforms, but about 20% of them scare the everloving sh*t out of me and just scream of shortsightedness. I get that people want a smaller government, and I can respect that, but to straight up dissolve some of the governing bodies he wants to? Sorry, that's just absurdity to me.

And before anyone does this, this is not a statement on either organizations efficacy or stating that they haven't overstepped their bounds in some ways, it's just the hack-and-slash nature of the 'THIS DOES XXXXX WRONG, GET RID OF THE ENTIRE THING' isn't reasonable.

You can't downsize government by reducing it. You have to work towards elimination of it and move gradually towards another paradigm. I want America to evolve towards a more voluntary paradigm...not revolve back to the same place after we downsize. Government by it's nature can not be restrained. Our system proves it. Just once I'd like to see us look to other options to solve problems instead of immediately looking for the government to solve them. Just once.

Dr. Paul has never been in favor of sudden elimination of any program. He has always been in favor of a gradual reduction and then elimination of Federal programs. Those programs would be turned over to the states to be handled as they see fit. Your view is understandable. It stems from the constant misrepresentation of his stances by a biased media and those in the gangs that are threatened by him.

I think we just disagree ideologically on this, I'm a firm believer that there are certain things that the federal government should control the governing body over. The safety of food, drugs, and our environment being those things that immediately come to mind. Those organizations could likely use a downsizing, I don't know the specifics enough to point specifically where, but I don't think that those should be left wholly to the states themselves. While special interests do run rampant in DC, they'd control even larger shares of the pie at the state level, and I don't want to see that happen.

(07-07-2012 05:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, I can honestly dig about 60% of Ron Pauls major platforms, but about 20% of them scare the everloving sh*t out of me and just scream of shortsightedness. I get that people want a smaller government, and I can respect that, but to straight up dissolve some of the governing bodies he wants to? Sorry, that's just absurdity to me.

And before anyone does this, this is not a statement on either organizations efficacy or stating that they haven't overstepped their bounds in some ways, it's just the hack-and-slash nature of the 'THIS DOES XXXXX WRONG, GET RID OF THE ENTIRE THING' isn't reasonable.

You can't downsize government by reducing it. You have to work towards elimination of it and move gradually towards another paradigm. I want America to evolve towards a more voluntary paradigm...not revolve back to the same place after we downsize. Government by it's nature can not be restrained. Our system proves it. Just once I'd like to see us look to other options to solve problems instead of immediately looking for the government to solve them. Just once.

Dr. Paul has never been in favor of sudden elimination of any program. He has always been in favor of a gradual reduction and then elimination of Federal programs. Those programs would be turned over to the states to be handled as they see fit. Your view is understandable. It stems from the constant misrepresentation of his stances by a biased media and those in the gangs that are threatened by him.

Your posts actually make me laugh. All this stuff about "gangs" and "theft" and all the other cute words you describe the government and what it does. As I said before, I love your "voluntary" approach. "Say big corporation, would you VOLUNTARILY hurt your bottom line to decrease the pollution you are giving off"? The CEO of the company would just laugh his ass of and go tell you to go screw yourself.Wonder why the EPA got started? I will give you a hint: it wasn't because corporations were voluntarily cutting their pollution. Whether you think they have overstepped their bounds or not, the fact that the environment in this country is cleaner today than in the past really should say something.

(07-07-2012 01:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 01:18 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  I am not conservative, nor am I a liberal. But I have serious concerns about the nation's spending, and how we are digging ourselves deeper. But I also understand how healthcare is important, and if we don't do something to address it, we will head into a critical state with hospitals and their ERs being clogged.

As a healthcare administrator, I think that inexpensive preventative care (annual exams, immunizations, screenings, and labwork) should be free. and that folks should only have to purchase health insurance. It's kind of the middle ground, but it also would provide much more affordable health insurance premiums.

I'd also integrate the Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, and Worker's Comp systems. There is tremendous costs to administering and running multiple healthcare tracks, yet ALL are taxpayer funded. I would also standardize their reimbursement schemes so that physicians and providers are able to improve their administrative efficiencies in billing, collecting, coding, and managing their ARs (which is a large portion of a practice's costs).

Just a crazy idea, but a national CHIP product, in addition to what we already have, is not the answer IMHO.

Sorry. You are a libertarian. Just as nutty(if not moreso) than a conservative. Though that depends on what level of conservatism one is talking about.

Small "L" libertarians are considered nutty for no reason, especially in this case when it sounds like Brazil or France's system. Following the constitution, keeping the military's focus on home, not jumping into wars, etc all sound pretty moderate to me.

You'll have to exucse Rob, the men with the butterfly nets have been looking for him for a long time now. They have a new jacket they want him to try on.

You have to be a fool to believe this bill addressed the fundamental problem of healthcare cost to our country. We will continue to spend over 15% of GDP of healthcare. THAT IS A PROBLEM. The % is not sustainable and with polies involved in won't be addressed. So in 10-15 yearrs when the economy isn't expanding , the fools will be wondering why cant President XXX turn this around? The % 's of GDP spent on healthcare,education and energy are ridiculous. Only on energy do we have a legitimate chance of reducing our costs.

(07-07-2012 07:29 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  You have to be a fool to believe this bill addressed the fundamental problem of healthcare cost to our country. We will continue to spend over 15% of GDP of healthcare. THAT IS A PROBLEM. The % is not sustainable and with polies involved in won't be addressed. So in 10-15 yearrs when the economy isn't expanding , the fools will be wondering why cant President XXX turn this around? The % 's of GDP spent on healthcare,education and energy are ridiculous. Only on energy do we have a legitimate chance of reducing our costs.

This law was started with one thing in mind: fuel for 4 more years. That goes for most of our big-time legislation.

(07-07-2012 06:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 05:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, I can honestly dig about 60% of Ron Pauls major platforms, but about 20% of them scare the everloving sh*t out of me and just scream of shortsightedness. I get that people want a smaller government, and I can respect that, but to straight up dissolve some of the governing bodies he wants to? Sorry, that's just absurdity to me.

And before anyone does this, this is not a statement on either organizations efficacy or stating that they haven't overstepped their bounds in some ways, it's just the hack-and-slash nature of the 'THIS DOES XXXXX WRONG, GET RID OF THE ENTIRE THING' isn't reasonable.

You can't downsize government by reducing it. You have to work towards elimination of it and move gradually towards another paradigm. I want America to evolve towards a more voluntary paradigm...not revolve back to the same place after we downsize. Government by it's nature can not be restrained. Our system proves it. Just once I'd like to see us look to other options to solve problems instead of immediately looking for the government to solve them. Just once.

Dr. Paul has never been in favor of sudden elimination of any program. He has always been in favor of a gradual reduction and then elimination of Federal programs. Those programs would be turned over to the states to be handled as they see fit. Your view is understandable. It stems from the constant misrepresentation of his stances by a biased media and those in the gangs that are threatened by him.

Your posts actually make me laugh. All this stuff about "gangs" and "theft" and all the other cute words you describe the government and what it does. As I said before, I love your "voluntary" approach. "Say big corporation, would you VOLUNTARILY hurt your bottom line to decrease the pollution you are giving off"? The CEO of the company would just laugh his ass of and go tell you to go screw yourself.Wonder why the EPA got started? I will give you a hint: it wasn't because corporations were voluntarily cutting their pollution. Whether you think they have overstepped their bounds or not, the fact that the environment in this country is cleaner today than in the past really should say something.

As I have explained before, (and you choose to ignore) if you have nation that respects "private property rights" and a legal system the enforces those rights...then when someone pollutes your property you take them to arbitration in order to be compensated and made whole. In addition, in more voluntary society...those that are bad actors..get punished further by the withdraw of patronage from the consumer and lose market share to those that respect others property rights.

I am talking about a system that is market signal driven...not governmental driven. We see this happening already in the marketplace when a product has been shown to be dangerous. Independent rating agencies such a UL could serve in the same capacity as the EPA in testing and setting standards. Competition between rating agencies would serve as the check and balances needed to assure quality of testing. This is just one example of a market driven paradigm to replace that of a "forced" governmental one. This can be applied to other current governmental functions as well.

I have never denied that we needed government to step in and stop pollution and other systemic problems of a growing nation. What I have talked about for hundreds of posts is "what we do in the future" now that we have progressed beyond the industrial revolution and are now entering a more technologically advanced age that is growing exponentially as I type.

I submit we need to begin to shed our old paradigms. If we don't evolve...we will suffer as others before us with a bloated and overbearing centralized governmental structure that implodes upon itself. We are not special. We have already survived beyond historical precedence for systems of government and we see evidence all around us that we are growing leaps and bounds in the same direction as those that have fallen before us.

Still waiting for someone to answer my one question.

If this new healthcare is so great, how come they guys that voted for it and the president who signed it into law are exempt from having to participate?

I just want someone to answer that one question!

(07-07-2012 11:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 06:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 05:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, I can honestly dig about 60% of Ron Pauls major platforms, but about 20% of them scare the everloving sh*t out of me and just scream of shortsightedness. I get that people want a smaller government, and I can respect that, but to straight up dissolve some of the governing bodies he wants to? Sorry, that's just absurdity to me.

And before anyone does this, this is not a statement on either organizations efficacy or stating that they haven't overstepped their bounds in some ways, it's just the hack-and-slash nature of the 'THIS DOES XXXXX WRONG, GET RID OF THE ENTIRE THING' isn't reasonable.

You can't downsize government by reducing it. You have to work towards elimination of it and move gradually towards another paradigm. I want America to evolve towards a more voluntary paradigm...not revolve back to the same place after we downsize. Government by it's nature can not be restrained. Our system proves it. Just once I'd like to see us look to other options to solve problems instead of immediately looking for the government to solve them. Just once.

Dr. Paul has never been in favor of sudden elimination of any program. He has always been in favor of a gradual reduction and then elimination of Federal programs. Those programs would be turned over to the states to be handled as they see fit. Your view is understandable. It stems from the constant misrepresentation of his stances by a biased media and those in the gangs that are threatened by him.

Your posts actually make me laugh. All this stuff about "gangs" and "theft" and all the other cute words you describe the government and what it does. As I said before, I love your "voluntary" approach. "Say big corporation, would you VOLUNTARILY hurt your bottom line to decrease the pollution you are giving off"? The CEO of the company would just laugh his ass of and go tell you to go screw yourself.Wonder why the EPA got started? I will give you a hint: it wasn't because corporations were voluntarily cutting their pollution. Whether you think they have overstepped their bounds or not, the fact that the environment in this country is cleaner today than in the past really should say something.

As I have explained before, (and you choose to ignore) if you have nation that respects "private property rights" and a legal system the enforces those rights...then when someone pollutes your property you take them to arbitration in order to be compensated and made whole. In addition, in more voluntary society...those that are bad actors..get punished further by the withdraw of patronage from the consumer and lose market share to those that respect others property rights.

I am talking about a system that is market signal driven...not governmental driven. We see this happening already in the marketplace when a product has been shown to be dangerous. Independent rating agencies such a UL could serve in the same capacity as the EPA in testing and setting standards. Competition between rating agencies would serve as the check and balances needed to assure quality of testing. This is just one example of a market driven paradigm to replace that of a "forced" governmental one. This can be applied to other current governmental functions as well.

I have never denied that we needed government to step in and stop pollution and other systemic problems of a growing nation. What I have talked about for hundreds of posts is "what we do in the future" now that we have progressed beyond the industrial revolution and are now entering a more technologically advanced age that is growing exponentially as I type.

I submit we need to begin to shed our old paradigms. If we don't evolve...we will suffer as others before us with a bloated and overbearing centralized governmental structure that implodes upon itself. We are not special. We have already survived beyond historical precedence for systems of government and we see evidence all around us that we are growing leaps and bounds in the same direction as those that have fallen before us.

We will just leave it at you are and not continue on with how stupid those ideas are. You won't change your opinion no matter how much I explain to you why those ideas won't work.

(07-08-2012 12:09 AM)DFWMINER Wrote:  Still waiting for someone to answer my one question.

If this new healthcare is so great, how come they guys that voted for it and the president who signed it into law are exempt from having to participate?

I just want someone to answer that one question!

They aren't, at least the version that was passed. That rumor was leaked from a prior version of the bill, and still circulated for some reason. At least, that's what the sources from after the passage of the bill claim, which of course are heavily liberal sources (Factcheck.org/mediamatters.org/politico.org) but every source I see that states that this is the case is from prior to the bill's passage so I see no reason to not believe them.

Anyone has another source that says otherwise, which is from after it's passage, feel free to post it.

The idea is to help those who need help.. last I checked millionaires don't need our help, as much as conservatives would like to give it to them. Obama already has a decent health care plan. It's not some crazy conspiracy you're making it out to be, you sound like tinfoil hat wearing Area 51 buffoons.

That being said, it's not perfect.. we still need to go further, but it's a step in the right direction at least. Babysteps when you're dealing with a country where the half people don't even believe in evolution and are terrified of gays getting married.