A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Handout!

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by Phenom

Next, Jersey will probably start ranting that auto insurance is some sort of a racist plot...

as opposed to you claiming its some sort of Socialist plot?.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

"The health care "problem" is that for too long the American people were forced to rely on private, for profit business to provide a safeguard against illnes"

For several decades now, over 60 percent of the insurance industry has been controlled by the government. The private for profit business that has been causing problems IS the government.


"NO!!! It is their job to use their judgement and provide the means for governement to step in when priovate sector fails. If it was their job to do what the people wished then the founders wouldn't have set up either house. They'd have just called for the peoiple to vote on"

You have said some stupid things in our debates here on the mofo, but this might be the dumbest.

Good point jers, this is not a representative government. This nation was set up by people who really enjoyed having government think for them.

"you've said many really dumb things on the MOFO during our debates here but that one is your all time display of ignorance and stupidity"


Read new deal or raw deal, then come back. The only one who is ignoranant on this subject is you because you choose not to read anything that doesn't stroke him off as anything but a government and tax increasing hack with ZERO knowledge of economics (He actually adjusted interest rates and practiced price fixing by picking lucky numbers that he liked). It isn't your fault that for several decades text books taught what a great thing the new deal was, despite all economic indicators showing that his policies made things worse each time they were enacted.

But don't ask me, ask FDR's best friend and secretary of the treasury. He was the first one to point this out nationally in 1939. But what would he know?

GJ, don't assume that you have comprehended more, or seem "the true light" of FDR and the New Deal simply because you may have read a book or two......your mis-understanding of the role of governemnt, the intent of the founders and FDR and the New Deal is astounding......up until this point I honestly thought you were an intelligent guy...Dear God, I was wrong about that.

[Phenom]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shore

as opposed to you claiming its some sort of Socialist plot?.

This healthcare bill is, in its intent, socialist.

You calling auto insurance racist would be nonsensical, but right up your alley.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by Phenom

This healthcare bill is, in its intent, socialist.

And if you think the healthcare bill is "Socialist" you're dumber than I thought (lemme give you a clue...no "socialist" would have left the payment of health insurance premiums in the hands of private, for profit companies)

Originally Posted by Phenom

You calling auto insurance racist would be nonsensical, but right up your alley.

True, but I NEVER did, haven't once even played the race card......you're the on who attributed that notion to me.......so now I have to defendor deny what you said I would have said?

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shore

except for the "fact" that Obama care passed

The Brown conversation started with Phenom correctly saying the Massachusetts election was a referendum on Obamacare. You claimed it had more to do with Coakley or whatever the hell her name is being a bad candidate. Except, as I pointed out, Brown's entire campaign was based on being Republican #41, which would enable him to stop Obamacare. And he won on that platform. The fact that Obamacare passed anyway, as you've for some reason pointed out here, proves only that the Democrat majority rammed it through, not that the election in Massachusetts didn't speak volumes about how many people oppose this disaster. It's not like the people in Massachusetts voted in Brown and then voted Obamacare into law themselves.

am I to assume form that that you would be okay with the State governemt requiring Health Insurance, just not the Federal?

I'm not okay with any government telling me I MUST buy a particular good or service if I want to remain free. I don't HAVE to purchase auto insurance, regardless of the state in which I live. If I choose to walk or take the bus or the train or ride a bicycle or chain myself to the toilet the IRS doesn't hunt me down and initiate punitive action against me. And as others have mentioned, if I do choose to operate a car I can tailor an auto policy that suits my needs. Obamacare is nothing like auto insurance.

I have a lot of issues with it, but when the private sector fails govenrmet has to step in. As I said early on in this thread, its not a good bill, but its a start.

A start to what? Becoming Europe and Canada? For Christ's sake, name ONE non-military government program that hasn't broken nearly every promise it made when it was created and isn't awash in red ink. Social Security is broke. The USPS is broke. We spend more money per student than any nation on the planet and we've still got thousands of kids who can't add three and four. Medicare and Medicaid are broke for God's sake, and for all intents and purposes those were the dry runs leading up to Obamacare. This is going to cost much more than advertised and deliver far less than promised, which would put it in line with everything else the government touches.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by lgm6986

The Brown conversation started with Phenom correctly saying the Massachusetts election was a referendum on Obamacare. You claimed it had more to do with Coakley or whatever the hell her name is being a bad candidate. Except, as I pointed out, Brown's entire campaign was based on being Republican #41, which would enable him to stop Obamacare. And he won on that platform. The fact that Obamacare passed anyway, as you've for some reason pointed out here, proves only that the Democrat majority rammed it through, not that the election in Massachusetts didn't speak volumes about how many people oppose this disaster. It's not like the people in Massachusetts voted in Brown and then voted Obamacare into law themselves.

was it Brown's message was so effective or that Coakley's message was ineffective......its more of a chicken or the egg theory. But the election in Massachusettes is maore an isolated incident that the begininng of the end of Obama.

Originally Posted by lgm6986

I'm not okay with any government telling me I MUST buy a particular good or service if I want to remain free. I don't HAVE to purchase auto insurance, regardless of the state in which I live. If I choose to walk or take the bus or the train or ride a bicycle or chain myself to the toilet the IRS doesn't hunt me down and initiate punitive action against me. And as others have mentioned, if I do choose to operate a car I can tailor an auto policy that suits my needs. Obamacare is nothing like auto insurance.

I was not the first to mention the auto insurance comaprrison. so your explanation of why the two are different is wasted, nor is it new information.. You have a choice to drive or not drive, but you don't have a choice to get sick or not.

Originally Posted by lgm6986

A start to what? Becoming Europe and Canada? For Christ's sake, name ONE non-military government program that hasn't broken nearly every promise it made when it was created and isn't awash in red ink. Social Security is broke. The USPS is broke. We spend more money per student than any nation on the planet and we've still got thousands of kids who can't add three and four. Medicare and Medicaid are broke for God's sake, and for all intents and purposes those were the dry runs leading up to Obamacare. This is going to cost much more than advertised and deliver far less than promised, which would put it in line with everything else the government touches.

The sytem of private for profit business determing the cost and effectiveness of of my health care is the real recipe for disaster. Would there be a bunch I'd do differentl;y than the bill, sure. But in a choice between what is (a broken for profit system) or putting a stake in the ground and beginning the road to rela health care reform, I'll take the latter.

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shore

was it Brown's message was so effective or that Coakley's message was ineffective......its more of a chicken or the egg theory. But the election in Massachusettes is maore an isolated incident that the begininng of the end of Obama.

Massachusetts hadn't elected a Republican senator in nearly four decades, and has had only two Republican presidential candidates carry it since The Depression. Yet a relative unknown like Brown comes along and bases his entire campaign on stopping Obamacare, and wins, and that's as attributable to Coakley as anything else?

I was not the first to mention the auto insurance comaprrison. so your explanation of why the two are different is wasted, nor is it new information.. You have a choice to drive or not drive, but you don't have a choice to get sick or not.

Who said you were the first to mention it? You mentioned it to me, which is why I responded to it. Sometimes talking to is like eating soup with a fork.

Yeah, yeah, you don't have a choice as to when you get sick. But thanks to Obamacare, now you have a choice to buy health insurance after you get sick, so tell me how that helps contain costs and ensures coverage for everyone again? And again, all that is beside the main point, which is the fact that I don't want the government telling me I HAVE to buy a specific good or service as a condition of free citizenship, regardless of what that good or service is.

The sytem of private for profit business determing the cost and effectiveness of of my health care is the real recipe for disaster. Would there be a bunch I'd do differentl;y than the bill, sure. But in a choice between what is (a broken for profit system) or putting a stake in the ground and beginning the road to rela health care reform, I'll take the latter

Except there are a half dozen things that could have been implemented that would have counted as real reform, and they wouldn't have cost taxpayers a cent. But the Democrats aren't interested in real reform. They're interested in making the government as huge as they possibly can while turning us into Europe.

[FrankStylV7]

Coakley lost 6 points to Curt Schilling....

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by lgm6986

Who said you were the first to mention it? You mentioned it to me, which is why I responded to it. Sometimes talking to is like eating soup with a fork.

Its actually better that way, more meat, carrots and potatos in every bite.....

Originally Posted by lgm6986

Yeah, yeah, you don't have a choice as to when you get sick. But thanks to Obamacare, now you have a choice to buy health insurance after you get sick, so tell me how that helps contain costs and ensures coverage for everyone again?

It DOESN'T conatin costs and that was one of my many OBJECTIONs to the bill. Everyone is covered cuz they have to be.

Originally Posted by lgm6986

And again, all that is beside the main point, which is the fact that I don't want the government telling me I HAVE to buy a specific good or service as a condition of free citizenship, regardless of what that good or service is.

I'm not all that comfortable either, but, as I've said ad nauseum, when the private sector fails we have to look for the governemnt to step in.

Originally Posted by lgm6986

Except there are a half dozen things that could have been implemented that would have counted as real reform, and they wouldn't have cost taxpayers a cent.

allowing Insurance comapnies across ste lines isn't reform. In order to reform the corrupt system, the profit motive has to be removed, or at least controlled to a level where the average person is not getting screwed

Originally Posted by lgm6986

But the Democrats aren't interested in real reform. They're interested in making the government as huge as they possibly can while turning us into Europe.

and tune in to tomorrow's Glenn Beck show, where we blow the lid off Chuck Schumer's paln to move the nation's capital to cuba..

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shore

allowing Insurance comapnies across ste lines isn't reform. In order to reform the corrupt system, the profit motive has to be removed, or at least controlled to a level where the average person is not getting screwed

It absolutely is reform, or at least a part of it. But there are other options that weren't even considered. You mean to tell me there's no middle ground between some of the steps DeMint mentioned and the federal government wresting control of 1/6 of the nation's economy?

and tune in to tomorrow's Glenn Beck show, where we blow the lid off Chuck Schumer's paln to move the nation's capital to cuba..

You can laugh it off if you want, dismiss it, whatever. But if you look real close, you'll see I'm no hyper partisan broken record or a crazed conspiracy theorist. I've not mentioned The S Word once. We're an awfully long way from socialism in its truest form. But we're speeding towards a Canadian/European style nanny state government where a group of allegedly intellectual elite believe they know what's best for the unwashed masses and are willing to rule by fiat when the need arises. For what it's worth I've never really seen Glenn Beck's show. I'm either at work or commuting. But if what I said earlier in this post is what he espouses then he's 100% right, and you can call us both nuts at your own peril.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by lgm6986

It absolutely is reform, or at least a part of it. But there are other options that weren't even considered. You mean to tell me there's no middle ground between some of the steps DeMint mentioned and the federal government wresting control of 1/6 of the nation's economy?

I disagree, completely on the acrsoss ste lines. Its not reform, its just giving the fox keys to a larger hen house. In an environment where the public is required to buy health insurance from PRIVATE FOR PROFIT COMPANIES, how does that qualify as "governemt wresting control of 1/6 of the nations economy?"

Originally Posted by lgm6986

You can laugh it off if you want, dismiss it, whatever. But if you look real close, you'll see I'm no hyper partisan broken record or a crazed conspiracy theorist. I've not mentioned The S Word once. We're an awfully long way from socialism in its truest form. But we're speeding towards a Canadian/European style nanny state government where a group of allegedly intellectual elite believe they know what's best for the unwashed masses and are willing to rule by fiat when the need arises. For what it's worth I've never really seen Glenn Beck's show. I'm either at work or commuting. But if what I said earlier in this post is what he espouses then he's 100% right, and you can call us both nuts at your own peril.

look back to the contract for america and you have the same scenario.It is just how our system works. I do see expansion of goverenment, but thats, IMO, the role of governemnt. To help solve problems that the private sewctor, free markets could not.I'll be the first to admit they probably went to far in some things and not far enough in others They were elceted to try to solve the health care problem and they did what they thought was best. Should it be, will it be, tinkered with?....sure it will and it should. But there had/has to be a starting point.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shore

GJ, don't assume that you have comprehended more, or seem "the true light" of FDR and the New Deal simply because you may have read a book or two......your mis-understanding of the role of governemnt, the intent of the founders and FDR and the New Deal is astounding......up until this point I honestly thought you were an intelligent guy...Dear God, I was wrong about that.

Actually, that would be your manipulating of the role of government, the intent of the founders, and lack of knowledge of anything other than urban legends about the impact of FDR's failed policies (proven with statistics and economic indicators, not folklore and rhetoric) is what is astounding. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to read anything that you fear might change your view, that would be unjersey-like. It's too bad, you might learn something from the book or the several hundred sources it got it's information from.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”

The architect of FDR's programs and his best friend, Henry Morganthau Jr.

‘We’re Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn’t Work’ | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

WWII saved FDR's ass. He would have lost the election in '36 if he hadn't used BILLIONS of tax payer dollars left over from the NRA that was declared Unconstitutional to create the illusion of prosperity in specific areas that were needed to win re-election. He was trailing in the polls a mere 5 months prior to the election, and then dumped Billions of tax payer and printed dollars to create temporary jobs in the areas of the country that would be most beneficial to him. He won ZERO percent of the counties that he didn't buy off just before the election. Unfortunately for the citizens, the inflationary and temporary tax payer funded jobs negative affects weren't felt until 6 months after the election, when the US fell into the worst times of the depression, well into his second term.

Anyway, suggesting that the government is supposed to step in and "save us" from the "failure of the private sector" is laughable in all cases, especially this one. The government already ran over 60 percent of the nations insurance through the massively broke program known as medicaid which is riddled with government created fraud. They saddled the private sector from getting lower rates by making it illegal to go across state lines for insurance, thus creating oligopolies and raising prices. How convenient that they want to fix the problems they created by giving us more of what they created.

It would be like the government telling each town they only had three choices for getting food. They cant grow their own, and if the stores they want are in another county, too bad. So the towns with only an Aldi's, McDonalds, and one high end grocery store with higher prices as they are the only supplier of fresh goods and are in high demand start to suffer from insane amounts of obesity.

The government then reprimands the stores for causing an obesity problem. They then vow to "save us", by forcing everybody to buy fresh goods, and if they can't afford the good stores prices, they have to buy from the government store or face penalties and jail time.

It is absolute bullshit, and there is a reason the large majority of the nation disagrees with you on this one jers. It is nothing but a power grab in the name of "Helping" people, many of which don't want the "Help".

[Phenom]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shore

And if you think the healthcare bill is "Socialist" you're dumber than I thought (lemme give you a clue...no "socialist" would have left the payment of health insurance premiums in the hands of private, for profit companies)

Anything that creates so much red-tape, regulation, and interference with the free-market is that it will eventually bankrupt both the insurance companies and the US government is socialist. There's nothing dumb about me or my position, Jersey.

True, but I NEVER did, haven't once even played the race card......you're the on who attributed that notion to me.......so now I have to defendor deny what you said I would have said?

It was originally said in jest, and it might even be unfair, but you must admit that the left regularly makes it the centerpiece of their arguments. The Tea Party movement is continually called "racist" for no real good reason, for instance...

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by Phenom

It was originally said in jest, and it might even be unfair, but you must admit that the left regularly makes it the centerpiece of their arguments. The Tea Party movement is continually called "racist" for no real good reason, for instance...

FOXNews.com - Black Tea Party Activists Called 'Traitors'


Who are the real racists here?

[metman]

Well a black blogger is the one who created the black face 'sambo' photo of Michael Steele in 2005. Nobody cared. Here is what liberal media and constituents care about:

A.) When U.S bombs Iraqis (not when Saddam tortures them or terrorists bomb them for 1365 straight days)

B.) When a white man attacks a black man (or gay man) but not when black people kill each other, more than the KKK could manage, for 3 decades in multiple inner cities

C.) When evil whitey says something racist but not when liberal black people insult, degrade and sell out black people.

Anybody care to ARGUE those THREE main points? I'm waiting...