Hand grenades and Horseshoes
My position is that it is not the business of government to provide health care or health insurance, which by the way, are two separate
things.However, once promised, there's no going back. As a result, the abomination which is laughingly called the "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare" was foisted upon the American citizenry. That resulted in seven years of Republicans promising to void the act and come out with something better if they ever can get into the seats of power.And so they have. But like a calcium constipated individual they came close, but were unable to succeed even though they own all three parts of the elected government. Coming close, as you know, only works with hand grenades and horseshoes.
So, what do we have now? Politicians that I formally called weasels, have lowered themselves to the status of worms, John McCain being the chief worm. It is a shame to witness a person losing his integrity over personal spite. It is a deterioration from American Hero to American Schmuck (or whatever body part you name.).
things.However, once promised, there's no going back. As a result, the abomination which is laughingly called the "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare" was foisted upon the American citizenry. That resulted in seven years of Republicans promising to void the act and come out with something better if they ever can get into the seats of power.And so they have. But like a calcium constipated individual they came close, but were unable to succeed even though they own all three parts of the elected government. Coming close, as you know, only works with hand grenades and horseshoes.
So, what do we have now? Politicians that I formally called weasels, have lowered themselves to the status of worms, John McCain being the chief worm. It is a shame to witness a person losing his integrity over personal spite. It is a deterioration from American Hero to American Schmuck (or whatever body part you name.).
Government should not be involved in providing healthcare nor insurance. They are simply too corruptible. I have seen things in this that would absolutely blow your mind...
His dishonest reversal of his Senatorial election campaign promise to repeal Obamacare is only the latest in his ultimately always going back to his basic principles of demanding sacrifice and expecting people to like it.
Government control of health care is much worse than the accompanying inevitable corruption. Altruistic egalitarian nihilism dragging us all down to a lowest common denominator and government control and restrictions on what we can do for our own health is wrong in principle.
The GOP has been consistently caving to the Dems since the Clinton administration.
"John! Oh, John! My son died from what's messing with your head, John! My son wouldn't want you to kill Obamacare, John! Aren't you a maverick, John? What do ya say, John? What do ya say? Oh, boo-hoo-hoo!"
Well, that's just my devilishly dino version of how that phone conversation may have went~
http://conservativetribune.com/mccain...
There was virtually no TV before that I'm told.
Some movie I can't recall revealed that Hitler had the first TV broadcast and only space aliens saw it since almost all Germans ha no TV sets.
Sheesh - I'm older than mold.
Just looked them up. I was two years old when the strip died with the cartoonist.
.
I have proposed for some time that swear words/dirty words/insults should use the nastiest, naughtiest words we know: Senator, Congress, Commissioner.......and the ever useful, "Oh, Fed You" or "Fed It". disclaimer: not directed at any particular individual, merely an example.
This word-usage can lead to wonderful conversations - and arguments.
Chuck you Farley.
You're not so muckin' futch.
Go back off in your own jack yard.
Pray for Triffds!!!!!! My wife just mentioned that Godzilla just meandered across the the yard. I will try to lasso him and ride him to DC to take care of business.
1...no subsidies for anyone...ins. co's, drug addict co's, hospitals or doctors...ya all gona compete.
(for the liberals in the audience; Competition is two or more individuals or entities dependent upon each other to be the best they can be)
2 ya gona compete across state lines.
3 one's chosen health care plan Will follow them from job to job.
4 all ins co's hospitals and doctors Will use the exact same paper work.
5 all ins co's Will NOT deny coverage to anyone that gets really sick, is out of work or suffers any other economic circumstance until the ins co's put that person into a private donated subsidized plan to get them over that hurdler.
6 An initial moratorium on pre existing conditions will be in effect for 1 year, after that time, if anyone does not have HC coverage and gets or has a PEC will be subject to a 1 year waiting period before coverage for that condition will take place...This is the consumers responsibility.
7 Tort reform will establish a limit on compensation but any person or heathcare org that screws up. The person or persons involved will be liable for what they have done, proven by a court of law.
I'm surprised too that they haven't come up with something.
It always struck me over-the-top their rhetoric was. They couldn't say there were problems that originated with gov't interference in the labor market int WWII, and the repressions of that are still affecting us. Instead they came up with bizarre conspiracy-minded criticisms like the "death panels" and that the healthcare law is back-door measure to allow warrantless searches. Now it's hard to admit that it solved some real problems and any efforts to reform it and reduce gov't involvement has to go through the insurance industry lobby. Starting with the lie that the law was pure evil prevents them from addressing it.
I'm not exactly sure how the politics works because Rand Paul was able to be straightforward in offering a clear alternative that gets the gov't less involved. President Trump campaigned on price openness. I'm not sure why they can't execute, if it's their past extreme rhetoric or what.
That's by itself is a good thing. The problem is there are no effective limits on what gov't power and spending can do, so to play at that level they have to promise to have the gov't do things to help them.
On one hand I think we need more Rand Paul, but I also think the gov't can't be dependent on electing a bunch of Rand Paul. It would be nice, but the system has to be robust against ordinary politicians.
The fact that it's not robust is a huge problem. We don't recognize it because it's not urgent. It's not something where we're at an immediate fork in the road and must take action during a narrow window of opportunity. It's a festering, looming problem that might be able to exist for a hundred years before coming to a head. And it might not happen in a spectacular way.
I don't fully understand the Convention of the States idea, but more and more I see the Constitution as something we kind of follow when it's popular to do so, and there needs too some vehicle to enforce it.
On the contrary, you can't force people to manage and run their own lives, which was and remains the crux of individual liberty and rights. People have to want to make choices for themselves and take responsibility for their decisions - positive or negative. That isn't something you can force on people. It has to be a responsibility willingly accepted.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
What he is getting at is that the Constitution only works with a people who seek self-determination. It breaks down as soon as people do not want to determine their own destinies.
What is the point of having a constitutional republic rather than a democracy if we're dependent on the morals of the citizens? We would put it up to a popular vote who should get to keep their money and under which circumstances the gov't should do warrantless searches, confiscate guns, and limit unpopular speech. The people would be so moral, in this scenario, that they would never use their power when absolutely necessary, never as a mob.
I don't see how this could work. We have the same foibles we've had since humans appeared on earth. There has to be some structure with teeth to keep a democratically run republic from turning into a mob.
The real question is better put thus: "What is the point of having a republic rather than a dictatorship?"
Pure democracies only work in small groups where the individuals are properly informed and use a logical/rational decision-making process. When any of those conditions is missing you get mob rule as a result of inflamed passions and/or incorrect information. But if one accepts the premise that coercion against another is immoral, one must also accept the premise that all cooperation in interactions between two or more people must be voluntary in nature, which includes one's capacity and use of intellect to learn and make decisions and to bridle one's passions/emotions. What is the difference between a republic and a dictatorship? The use of force - plain and simple.
"Structure" does not prevent people from making bad decisions. That is the key to understanding any attempt at government. People must choose to live according to moral precepts and accept that they can not force another person to follow. Our nation's Founders took the fundamental stand that individual rights and voluntary choice must be the paramount foundations for this nation, recognizing the foibles of man and their struggles with power. Thus they created a system which encouraged and supported individual rights and voluntary choice and took measures to protect from encroachment upon these principles, but because the entire system is built upon willing volition, one must also accept that there may be volition to rebel against such and seek for coercive power over others.
What you are looking for is the silver bullet that will force everyone to respect natural rights and live accordingly. It does not exist because force and volition are antithetical ideals.
As Ben Franklin said, it's a republic, if we can keep it.