The facts: Socialism and U.S. healthcare

As a physician practicing in the area for over a decade, I had to respond in conscience to the recent editorial referring to healthcare for the poor. In order to make any decision as a populace, we must first have the facts. There were many misleading statements and few facts in Mr. Timothy Parker’s recent essay.

I can start with just the title at first, “Poorest Entitled to Healthcare in U.S.”

First and foremost, no one is “entitled” to any benefits not listed in the Constitution. We may vote democratically to add benefits (Medicare, Social Security, housing) but no one is entitled.

Secondly, and more pertinently, we HAVE health insurance for the poorest. It is called Medicaid.

Many do not understand the difference between Medicare (elderly and disabled) and Medicaid (poorest). There are strict low-income caps on any who apply for Medicaid. It is exclusively designed for the poor.

As far as the rest of us,there is no doubt that there is a problem with healthcare in the U.S. However, to say that there are 50 million people without “healthcare” is misleading. There are 50 million without “health insurance.”

Anyone who is ill can go to an emergency room and receive care; and of those 50 million, how many are between the ages of 20-35 who would choose not to buy insurance even if they had the financial means?

A healthy 26-year-old can get insurance for about $150 per month. Would that person choose to pay for insurance, or put part of that toward his iPhone bill?

Looking at the numbers, there are about 25 million people who need health insurance who can’t afford it. That is about 7 percent of the U.S. population.

What the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did was revamp the entire system for only 7 percent of the population.

It put control of our personal health decisions in the hands of the federal government. Regardless of whether it is the government directly or the insurance exchange, the ultimate power of what health services are covered, how much is paid, and what services can be offered comes from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The U.S. Preventative Task Force is the federal government’s public health screening arm. Under President Obama this task force has recommended that NO man of ANY age should ever be screened for prostate cancer. They also recommend that no woman under 40 without risks should get a mammogram and after age 50 every OTHER year.

To most doctors this is unconscionable. What about those who agree with Obamacare? Do you follow those guidelines? Does Mr. Parker? The real question is what will happen in 2014 when the federal government takes control of those decisions for you and your doctor?

The ACA/Obamacare was not passed “with great compromise” as inferred. Not a single Republican in the House voted for it. It is modeled after “Romneycare” in Massachusetts, however, and this year the governor of Massachusetts is attempting to pass a $20 billion cut to their program because of the losses.

Last year Massachusetts tried to pull legal immigrants from the insurance pool, but they were denied by their own state supreme court.

Looking at socialized medicine worldwide, we see a similar picture. Most socialized nations have the same rate of increase in health expenditures as the U.S., they just have a lower starting point.

These starting points are falsely low as a result of their health insurance and retirement systems not being included in expenses because the governments are responsible for retirement.

It would be similar to United Healthcare or Blue Cross Blue Shield not having to pay for a human resource department and 401k plans.

Most importantly, we have to look at quality of care for those who are sick. In Canada, the death rate from breast cancer is about 10 percent higher than in the U.S. For colon cancer it is about 7 percent higher.

I have had Canadian patients inform me wait times for elective hip replacement is 13 months. Right now I have a patient whose sister has a herniated back disc and is on chronic medication whose wait time for surgery is 15 months. She is attempting to get a surgery here in the U.S.

Canada is worse than most of Europe, but not by much. In Britain they deny certain seniors dialysis, which leads to certain death. Longer wait times, less care — and this is before austerity measures.

What we all must understand is that there is no magic bullet. If we choose socialized medicine, it is not only the doctors and hospitals that suffer, but also the patients. Some bureaucracy that “knows best” will decide what is right for us.

On the other hand, if we choose a market-driven system, there will be those who fall between the cracks of care. For those there is charity care — free medication and free services with a little investigative work.

All major pharmaceutical companies will give free medications to those with low incomes, including the working poor.

Right here in Fayette there is the Fayette Care Clinic and the Take Care Clinic for low- or no-income persons. There are often delays and changes in charity care but those are not much worse than we see in socialized care elsewhere.

Medicare is available for those who become disabled at younger ages.

If we say we are following Judeo-Christian beliefs, will we be able to live up to our responsibilities with donations of time and money? If not, will we choose “forced conversion” where the taxes of ACA/Obamacare are used against our will to fund second-tier healthcare for all? This is what this next election will decide.

I have presented hard facts and personal experiences. Mr. Parker has provided vague facts and innuendos. Whom should you believe?

This is the information age. I challenge everyone to research these facts using reputable sources. Please educate yourselves — your life depends on it.

Anthony F. Lawson, M.D.

Fayetteville, Ga.

[Dr. Lawson is associated with Starr’s Mill Internal Medicine located on Ga. Highway 74 just south of Peachtree City.]

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
The shape of things to come....

Last year Massachusetts tried to pull legal immigrants from the insurance pool, but they were denied by their own state supreme court.

While Obama-care currently denies coverage to illegals, what are the odds that this will change either through federal court decree or political arm twisting.

So all illegals under the wage threshold of the act could get healthcare from the "Guv" thus competing with citizens.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - You

can count on it, a fish rots from the head.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
PTC Observer

If we give free healthcare to illegals how high do you suspect we should build those fences?

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
the real black hole is HUD

I've been helping someone with their real estate. I came face to face with the HUD and it isn't a pretty sight. That is the real money pit neither side wants to talk about because they don't want to loose their votes. Medicare, you are talking about people who have a limited number of years to live. HUD, you are talking about young able bodied people with at least 40 years in front of them with HUD benifits. These people spend their lives with the taxpayers paying their rent. Not only that, the government pays their utilities, and they get food stamps.
If I hadn't seen this first hand, I wouldn't have believed it. I have looked into the faces of perfectly able bodied woman who look at you as if you are insane if you mention a job. They keep having kids and you house them, and house them well. The abuse I've seen is disgusting. I've talked to some at the agency and told that by law, they can't ask them any 'real' questions like..are all these 12 kids really yours..or are some of them your friends? I've yet to go into one of these houses that I haven't seen an able bodied man living there that is not on the rental agreement. What they do to the owners property is a crime. Thiis program is a much larger abuse of the taxpayer than medicare could ever be. After all the ones on medicare paid into the system all their lives. With HUD you are talking free public housing from the womb to the tomb for some VERY undeserving people.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Someone in government is likely planning to make it worse

Someone at HUD or maybe someone at FannieMae making $100k a year is noticing all those foreclosed houses Fannie and Freddie are taking back and it is only a matter of time before that government worker figures out a way to fill those houses up with warm bodies and pay their rent from taxpayer money. They are capable of creating something far worse that the Jeremiah Program - and I agree that was pretty bad and the results were indeed predictable.. That might be the October surprise - more free housing - nicer houses as well, although I for one, would not be a bit surprised.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Suggarfoot tip of the proverbial Iceberg...

...One of the reasons the Housing Bubble burst was the "Jeremiah" project.

This "program" brought young urban dwellers from big cities and deposited them into the "burbs". To accomplish this HUD bought houses and "gave" them to the Urbanites. HUD then paid the Mortgage for the first three years then gradually reduced the rate of pay to these new suburbanites.

The all to predictable results where that as soon as HUD reduced the payments the Homes where abandoned or foreclosed on most destroyed and had to be gutted. The cost was great.

Psychologist tell us that if there is no ownership involved no buy in then generally those being given things simply don't place any value on the thing.

Entitlements work the same way, every hand out not earned simply re-enforces the belief that the person receiving the hand outs is not worthy of anything else in their mind.

Entitlements i.e. Welfare, Food Stamps and other such give away programs enslaves the individual and makes them dependent on the Politicians that gave it to them.... But then again that is it's purpose.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day... Teach a man to fish and he can eat for a lifetime is not just a pithy saying it actually applies here.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
has anyone ever thought...

some are in the gutter because that is where they belong? How bout ...water seeks its own level?

It is just like the test scores. Some are not smart. That is what a test is about, to see who is and who isn't. And in this country...we stack the deck to make some look not quite so stupid. How fair is that to our children who try?

This country is like a bad apple, it is rotting from the inside out.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
this is really a nasty and very unfair deal

People who have worked all their lives, are supporting them. To hear of it is one thing, to see it is another. It is a travestiy. And yes, I so agree it breeds an air of 'you owe me'. What I saw, I would let the majority of them starve and I'm not kidding. They are not starving...they are breeding. And breeding on your tax dollar.

I may sound cruel, but that is the way nature does it. Who invented nature...God. That is how some become extinct. HUD was SUPPOSE to be something to offer a leg up, it is a dismal faliure and an albatrose on the neck of the taxpayers. One group can't keep draging the other around it's neck. There is no logical reason for this except the politicians. It is the most disgusting thing I've ever witnessed and personaly, I wish I had never seen it, never been exposed to it.

It totally needs to be cleaned up. (not that it ever will)

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
rates paid by HUD

in Fayette county to house the free loaders each month are something like..

4 bdroom $1118.00

3 bdroom 1025.00

2 bdroom 842.00

a 3 bedroom house for rent for one of your 'lifer' HUDDERS, would cost the taxpayers $492000.00 over 40 years. That is not taking into account the amount spent on food and utitlies. And in that 40 years, may I ask...what have they contributed to society?

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Health Care & Health Insurance

People need to understand the Afforable Health Care Act instead of only listening to fear mongering.

First, there is more than 7% of the population involved and not all are poor. What about individual professionals who do not have group plans or small businesses with less than the required for a group or who have a small group and see rates skyrocket or are completely dropped when one person gets sick.

Then you have those with pre-existing conditions who can't get coverage or those with individual plans who see their plans go up each year with reduced services.

Let's not forget those who have been denied life saving treatments by health insurance companies too.

Second, this is not socialism by any means. The Affordable Health Care Act is an attempt to work through the private health insurance industry but make it affordable and available to all Americans. By making everyone carry insurance, insurance companies get 35+ million new subscribers and in return they agree to work on less profit by capping their loss ratios to 80% and cover everyone including those who have gotten sick and dropped or those with pre-existing conditions whom they have denied and dropped.

Those who can get insurance will be able to find government support. That might actually be good business since everyone is covered and hospital costs may drop since they are operating as free health clinics for the current uninsured. That pushes costs down for everyone.

As for the exchanges, each state must create the website exchange so people can shop intelligently for the right coverage they need and/or can afford. You select what you want. You want premium coverage, fine you can get it and hopefully cheaper now. Can't afford a premium plan, you get the basic but atleast you are covered reducing costs to the health care system.

Read the program and learn the benefits. It's not socialized medicine. Remember there are 2 different industries, health care and health insurance. The problem is health insurance. It needs regulation. Remember you pay for insurance, and insurance is betting against you with the goal in mind of paying out as little as possible on you.
Doctors and hospitals are getting squeezed by the health insurance companies and they are also squeezing us with higher premiums and reduced services.

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
In response to “The facts: Socialism and U.S. healthcare”

American citizens are indeed “entitled” to a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights and legislation. In the preamble to the Constitution our Founders thought it appropriate to include the phrase “promote the general Welfare”.

Recognizing that the Preamble serves as an introduction, and doesn’t assign powers or provide specific limitations to the federal government, it does outline the fundamental purpose and guiding principles of the document.

One of the principles was tested in Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell blighted property in the city to owners that would develop it in beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. In deciding whether the project constituted a "public use", the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "the health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers".

The argument was made that “renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals”, was in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: “promote the general Welfare.”

And there you have it: Constitutional intent, correctly interpreted, within the legal system. I’m sure legal scholars could make counter arguments. That’s what scholars do after all.

Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs that we are entitled to, because we pay for them. Our "right" to healthcare IS an entitlement based on moral and social principles, within the framework of our society. These are "rights" based in the concept of social equality. Again we can lean on the intent of the Founders. Having established some foundation let’s get into the nitty-gritty.

Medicaid serves 43 million children, 11 million non-elderly, low-income adults and another 8.8 million with disabilities. Some of those who don’t qualify for Medicaid, and can’t afford private insurance, will walk into emergency rooms and urgent care clinics when their disease, injury or illness becomes unbearable. In those cases, we the insured and the non-poor have historically paid for their care through increased premiums and through our taxes. Either way we foot the bill.

Poor people often have to decide between food and medicine. These are choices that should not be contemplated in civilized society, yet the good doctor seems to argue that the poor are taken care of adequately enough. And hey, some of those poor people are “choosing” to not buy insurance, so it’s the poor who are to blame for insufficiencies in the quality and affordability of their health care.

The Affordable Care Act provides Americans with improved health security by putting in place comprehensive health insurance reforms that expand coverage, hold insurance companies accountable, lower health care costs, guarantee more choice, and enhance the quality of care. Whether these improvements benefit 30 million or 7 million, they’re still worth pursuing.

Fear-mongering notwithstanding, government control is not a realistic effect of the Affordable Care Act. Forcing tens of millions of citizens into the arms of the for-profit health insurance industry is a bigger, and more real concern. Insurance company underwriters and panels have always sought to deny coverage, in the interests of greater profit. Their incentives are perverse. Single-payer, universal healthcare (Medicare for all) would be more in the spirit of “the general Welfare”.

Clearing up some disinformation:

The prostate screening recommendations of the U.S Preventive Services Task Force found that the treatment of cancers detected by the PSA test may result in lasting harms including impotence from surgery, radiation or hormone therapy, incontinence from radiation therapy or surgery, problems with bowel control from radiation therapy and even death from surgery. The risks outweigh the benefits. It’s a recommendation, not a law, and it’s based on years of accumulated scientific data. Digital exams may still be performed routinely, so it’s not like men won’t be “screened” in some fashion. The same goes for breast exams.

Republican opposition to the ACA was a clear demonstration of the craven, intransigence of a Republican party that has veered dangerously off course. The chief tenets of the ACA were Republican ideas not so long ago. Now that President Obama has succeeded in advancing the legislation, that had failed to be enacted for decades, it’s suddenly socialism. Any reasoned review of the path from the principles to the enactment would result in a different conclusion. It is progress and it’s long overdue.

Socialized medicine is NOT socialism. Actual statistics show that socialized medicine is cheaper, saves lives, and helps alleviate class and racial inequalities in healthcare.

Demonizing socialized medicine conveniently ignores the VA and the medical departments of the US Army, Navy, and Air Force which can be considered socialized medicine systems. Medicare, Medicaid, and the US military's TRICARE also fall under this definition.

On Canada:

Health Canada publishes a series of surveys of the health care system in Canada based on Canadians first-hand experience of the health care system. Although life threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some specialist services are non-urgent and patients are seen at the next available appointment in their local chosen facility.

• The median wait time in Canada to see a specialist physician is a little over a month with over 89% waiting less than 3 months.
• The median wait time for non-urgent diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is about two weeks.
• The median wait time for elective surgery is a month with over 82% waiting less than 3 months.

Although Canadians get the services of their physicians and hospitals included, they have to pay the cost of prescription drugs themselves. Many take out insurance for this but it’s not compulsory. Some people pay out of pocket.

• 34.3% of adults reported having no out of pocket costs for prescription drug costs.
• 96.2% of adults pay less than 5% of their disposable income on prescription drugs.

85% of Canadians reported that they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the way health care services are provided in their country and nearly 90% rated their physician in the same way. Hospitals received an 80% rating for patients being "satisfied" or "very satisfied". That does not read like a system rife with suffering.

The next election won’t change anything. In the increasingly remote possibility of a Romney presidency, he will not “repeal Obamacare”, as he says, because it is essentially “Romneycare” after all. The provisions will continue to roll out over the next several years and people will continue to appreciate the reality versus the manufactured fear and outrage.

I have accepted Dr. Lawson’s fact challenge, using reputable sources including, but not limited to:
• The U.S. Constitution
• The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
• Medicaid.gov
• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Health Canada

SJF
Peachtree City, GA

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Albion, good job draining the hot air

out of Dr. Lawson’s argument. You whipped ‘em across the knuckles with his own Colonoscope!

Dr. Lawson, provides a service that is so expensive most people can’t afford most procedures without insurance. If you don’t buy insurance you risk going into debt you can’t always recover from and ultimately go bankrupt. Insurance is a must.

IMHO, we are at a point in time when the medical services industry needs a Henry Ford. The country can’t afford to pay the current percentage of GDP for health care.

jackyldo
jackyldo's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2007
The biggest whiners

You think someone is getting something for free and your NOT.

If you collecting Social Security YOU CONTRIBUTED TO IT ALL DURING YOUR WORKING LIFE AND IT IS NOT an entitlement.

If your drawing Medicare, YOU CONTRIBUTED TO IT ALL DURING YOUR WORKING LIFE AND IT IS NOT an entitlement.

Medicare a failure, tell your parents and grandparents that. You want to FIX it, have everyone contribute on their total income a flat figure 3 or 4 % instead of present cap at $108,000. AROD pays his Medicare deduction by the 7th inning of the opening day of the baseball season.

Recently cell phones were distributed to homeless in 1 or 2 cities.... OUTRAGEOUS scream the HAVES .. you know what kind of phones they got year old Nokia and Sanyo phones lucky guys and gals,,, the ones you tossed out when you got your I Phone...1,2,3,4 or 5.

ou scream they should get a job, maybe now if an employer has work for them?? they can leave a phone number..

As an Agnostic I say to you when in your church tomorrow to contemplate the following ''"Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
jackyldo: Not true

When SS was passed, everyone became entitled to benefits immediately, regardless of the fact that no one had contributed anything. That is the primary reason SS is referred to as a ponzi scheme. The workers from 1935 onward were/are paying for everyone else that never contributed and that has never changed. New workers are paying for the benefits of past workers.....NOT for themselves.

Also, plenty of people have received SS benefits regardless of the fact they never contributed to SS or contributed far less than the benefits received. That contributes even more to the deficit that SS started with from Day 1.

SS is in fact an "entitlement program" as everyone is eligible for benefits regardless of whether they personally contributed or not.

Medicare is a defined benefit program that does not pay benefits according to individual's contributions. Contributions are part of the funding for Medicare, but it's not remotely close to being based on what has been contributed. It's even less self-funding than SS.

Call these programs what they are: entitlement programs. They have never been, and never will be self-sustaining. Anyone who says otherwise needs a refresher course in basic math.

I'm not saying SS and Medicare have to be eliminated, but trying to frame the discussion as a "people already paid for their own benefits they are receiving" is completely untrue. They may have contributed SOME, but in most cases will receive way more than ever contributed.

Chesley Hanshew
Chesley Hanshew's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
A claim on another's life?

Not. One's rights end where they infringe upon those of another. Otherwise, the good doctor here will ultimately be forced, at the point of a gun, to care for others.

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"

The Grand Inquisitor
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Chesley Hanshew
Chesley Hanshew's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
A claim on another's life?

Not. One's rights end where they infringe upon those of another. Otherwise, the good doctor here will ultimately be forced, at the point of a gun, to care for others.

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"

The Grand Inquisitor
Fyodor Dostoevsky

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
what's really going to happen

Ideologically I totally agree with the constitution being chiseled in stone. Now let's get on with what's really going to happen. The nanny state genie is out of the bottle. Good luck getting him back in. The government in one way or another will control(not just regulate) health care.(along with just about everything else).

Example of nanny genie at work:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/doctors-claim-pharmacy-chain-refusi...

This is coercion by the DEA. Walgreen's left to their own devices would not be doing this.

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
Spurious

There is nothing in that story, or your baseless assertions, to suggest this is anything other than a Walgreen's policy decision. Probably best to get some facts before going off half-cocked.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
General Welfare clause...aka..Good and Plenty clause

Albion has showed us yet again that the Constitution is a living and breathing thing that can be adjusted at the whims of Men in power.

Constitution 101 albion...listen up.. The General Welfare clause in the Preamble and Article 1 Section 8 are CLEARLY defined in the 18 Enumerated Powers of Congress. Additionally the Bill of Rights spells out what "Rights" we are "entitled" to. Healthcare, College Education and Housing is NOT one of them.

Government cannot give us "Rights" and we should not allow them to because what Government gives it can also take away. There is a big difference between "Welfare" as defined by the Federal Government and as defined what the Founders meant as "Welfare" by the States. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

The Preamble has no powers it is simply an INTRODUCTION to the Constitution. But Liberalist like albion will use the Preamble to promote their agenda. If we view the Constitution as an "Incorporated" document that promotes free Healthcare then I will take my Government issued Colt Model 1911 today please...Thank you so much.

You see if the Constitution is incorporated then therefore there can be no laws regulating the 2nd Amendment and in fact Government should provide for the arming of it's Citizens, but if you agree Government has the right of Government to regulate guns then you lose the argument for incorporation and just like that Healthcare has no argument as well.

You see albion that's Constitution 101 and you even got it for free.

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
zzzzzzzzzzz

2nd amendment, guns, blah blah blah.

Off point

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well I suppose if you can't argue your point...

.... we have to make our points anyway we can.

You're still wrong.

Tell me do you believe in the Incorporation doctrine? The point is valid. If you do then the Federal Government HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE GUNS. I can show you in the Constitution where I have the RIGHT to possess them can you show me where in the Constitution where I can find Healthcare?

Now if you don't believe in an Incorporated Constitution then there can be no Obamacare. That's a fact and it is unassailable.

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
I believe in facts

American courts, including tests given to the Supreme Court, have held that the Bill of Rights applies to the states and is enforceable. That's a fact, therefore the incorporation doctrine is real and exists in this world.

I don't believe in unicorns, but this isn't really be about "beliefs". You have an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that you believe. Terrific! Spurious, but really great!

There's plenty that not embodied in the Constitution. Car insurance, the electoral college, executive orders and privelege, marriage, paper money, political parties, the right to vote and immigration to name a few.

That said, these things have been codified or regulated in one way or another. The same is true of the ACA and will be true of other social and political changes, unforseen 200 years ago.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with yourself on this. You seem to be advocating for believing AND not believing in the same arguement. I'm confused

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I KNOW you're confused

but the FACT is Government run and Government mandated Healthcare is not in the purview of the Government's function.

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
Not confused by the facts

but greatly confused by your flip-floppery.

Fact: The ACA is now the prevailing law of the land. It has held up to judicial challenge in the conservative-majority Supreme Court.

You may now continue to become blue in the face for the forseeable future, decline healthcare coverage and pay the fine.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Won't stand on it's Merits albion

Most Americans KNOW that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Just because ONE Justice went Rogue doesn't change that basic fact.

Once the 51% see the massive taxes coming down on them and 20% of the 49% getting the benefits we will we see how long this holds up.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Actually SL

Actually SL when the Supreme Court rules, that does in fact make it Constitutional. Check out Article III, Section 2.

That you don't accept it in LindseyWorld doesn't change that basic fact.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff see wedge's reply

He is correct.. The Justice's ruling does not make it Constitutional it means they have interpreted it to be so.

There are many instances where the Courts have ruled in direct conflict with the Constitution.

Wickard v Filburn is one such instance

Plessy v Ferguson is another..

District of Columbia v. Heller another such example.

What about the Dred Scott case or the Lone Wolf v Hitchcock? The worst of all in my opinion was United States v Callender?

You see History is full of mistakes by the Courts

There have been many such instances where later Courts overturned previous rulings Jeff. Recently the Antoine Jones case reexamined 40 years of jurisprudence Jeff so one ruling does not make it Constitutional. I suppose you said Bush v Gore was Constitutional right?

Just because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a particular law Jeff does not in fact make it Constitutional.

That's a basic fact Jeff.. much like the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
S. Lindsey wrote: Just
S. Lindsey wrote:

Just because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a particular law does not in fact make it Constitutional. That's a basic fact..

I don't doubt for a second that that is one of your facts but I am wondering what it would take for a law to be Constitutional in LindseyWorld.

Maybe if the Supreme Court decided a law was okay, the country could then turn to you to see if you will give it a nod too, and if so, then it could be implemented as Constitutional law.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff I gave you no less then 5 cases

all unconstitutional but was ruled Constitutional by the courts. Mistakes, misjudgments and just downright stupidity happens Jeff.

Let me ask you Jeff.. If the Court rules on a Law passed by Congress as Constitutional are you saying it can NEVER be overturned? If you say yes it can be overturned then was it therefore Constitutional in the first place?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - Yes

you are correct, the AHA was found constitutional as a tax. A fact that will become widely known and felt following the election. I suppose the gutless politicians that passed this, knew that they would be thrown out if was felt before the election.

We will find out in November, if it matters or not.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Actually Jeff C

Constitutionality is in the eye of the beholder as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. You are technically correct, but it can change in the eyes of a one justice swing. Are you going to beat your chest and declare the consitutionality of Plessy v Ferguson? Once consitutional, always so, right Jeff? Hmmmm

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
socialist albion,

If you're going to cite the constitution at least try reading the whole thing, and put a little effort into understanding it. As you point out, the preamble is not law, and providing for the general welfare has nothing to do with providing welfare for millions of mooches.

Nobody is "entitled" to anything that someone else has to be forced to provide.

YourGoodPalMike
YourGoodPalMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/08/2009
Constitution
maximus wrote:

If you're going to cite the constitution at least try reading the whole thing, and put a little effort into understanding it. As you point out, the preamble is not law, and providing for the general welfare has nothing to do with providing welfare for millions of mooches.

Nobody is "entitled" to anything that someone else has to be forced to provide.

Yes, we actually are entitled to what others are forced to provide.

If Aliens land in Montana, the good people of said state will not be on their own in defending themselves. The rest of the nation will be force to provide military support to help the people of Montana. The people of Montana are entitled to this protection because the constitution unites them with the other 49 states, and they pay taxes for it.

How about a more realistic example: Why do they have post offices in the middle of nowhere po-dunk towns in hicksville? Other Americans are paying for it.

What other people are NOT entitled to (think of Israel here) is my tax dollars given to them (three billion a year) for nothing in return.

We are also entitled to military protection, but I supposed Iraqis and half the rest of the world get that same U.S. military protection, paid for by my tax dollars.

Conservatives are such anarchists when their guys aren't in office.

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Try getting past the word "welfare", GoodPal and albion

At least read the rest of Article I, section 8, and the 9th and 10th amendments. As S. Lindsey pointed out your lame examples are addressed.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Your analogy is aliens?

Really?

First National Defense is actually IN the Constitution. By the way so are Post Offices.

But where is Healthcare?

What do we get for the money given to the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt, Pakistan etc...?

Liberals are such Central Planners when their guys are in office.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, from the point of view of national defense

I could answer: Sickness and disease attacks the bodies and often kills US citizens. It threatens all our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Why shouldn’t the government help protect us from that kind of enemy attack?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Nice words but....

... where in the Constitution does it say Governments job is to fight sickness and make sure I am "happy"?

Tell you what Gort it would make me "Happy" to have an indoor gun range in my backyard.. How about telling Obama to get right on that.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, in the

SLindsey, in the Constitution, who decides who or what our enemies are?

I know I’m going to be sorry I asked but I must, I must. Why the heck would Obama care if you had an indoor gun range in your back yard?

Where in the Constitution does it say the Executive branch does zoning?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well gort an indoor range in my backyard would make me...

...happy. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee my happiness? You seem to think it guarantee's my health so..... I can actually find the WORD Happiness in the Constitution still looking for the Health word though care to help?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, In the

SLindsey, In the Constitution, who decides who or what our enemies are?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
National Interest gort...

...decides. The Constitution defines National defense. If we are attacked by a foreign power or our National Interest or security is at stake.

Article 1 Section 8 specifically gives Congress the Power to declare War.

Now I know where you are going with this.. I saw the Media Matters talking point on this.. Healthcare is in the National Interest and sickness is the enemy...thus Government can "declare" war on that "enemy".

That argument is spurious and specious at best... idiotic at worst.

Using that argument Government can declare war on bad TV shows if "they" decide it is in the National Interest and it makes just as much sense.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Nixon declared war on Cancer.

Nixon declared war on Cancer.

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
I've read it

I've read the Constitution numerous times. Of late I find myself quoting it to conservatives who seem to think God wrote it on tablets and handed it to Saint Ronnie.

If elected officials, particularly those with R after name, would quit pandering, demonstrate some integrity and dispense with the selective use of the Bible and the Constitution, we might be able to have a meaningful discussion about (insert topic here).

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Reading Comprehension

takes practice. Keep reading it, you may someday understand the intent.

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
dupe

dupe

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Albion - "reputable sources"

You have misread the Constitution, but you are not alone.

As to your other "reputable sources", they are all government sources, or didn't you notice this small fact?

This is the bottom line pal, Americans don't like to be told what to do with their own bodies, their money or their freedom. Especially by a government that was instituted explicitly not to do these things. You can sing all the old socialist songs you want, the fact remains that we are all free individuals, no matter what kind of gun you and your ilk hold to our heads. There is no common good, except that common good that we as individuals want to freely give to our fellow man. We certainly don't need a government to force us to do it, and we don't need people like you deciding for us what we should give up to do that.

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
My weapon of choice...

...is reason and logic. YMMV

You can harp on about socialism and freedom and big scary government, but none of those things have any real bearing on the facts surrounding the reforms of health care. No freedoms have been usurped, the government has not "taken over" anything and you know sometimes some of us disagree with some decisions made by judges and politicians. The sky is not falling!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
...but yet

you have still failed to show us where we can find Healthcare specifically Government MANDATED Healthcare in the Constitution.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer - Good stuff.
Quote:

Americans don't like to be told what to do with their own bodies, their money or their freedom. Especially by a government that was instituted explicitly not to do these things

Those that advocate for Pro-Choice and Gay Rights would definitely agree with that statement.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
You Rolling,

may be surprised that I agree with you.

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
Predictable

The socialist meme is typical ad homonym attack BS.

fwiw I consider myself to be a moderate, left leaning American. In a rational assessment of my views and opinions, that's true. You however have moved so far to the right that you have no concept of "moderate". Instead you assert that you know better than I what Americans believe and want.

I am free and appreciate that I can excerise my freedoms. I also believe that government can do good, because the government is us.

You speak of government as an oppressive and alien thing. I am sad for you. It seems that any good works done on your behalf will be the subject of your derision and resentment.

No one has forced you to do anything. This abrogation of freedom nonsense is just echo chamber reverberation. Name a single way in which we are less free as the result of the ACA. Oh wait, I just thought of one for you: we are less free to become bankrupt due to medical costs.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Albion - News flash

we are all bankrupt because of socialist ideals....or haven't you noticed?

You are not a moderate, left leaning American, you are in fact a socialist.

Our government as conceived, was not evil. It was the the culmination of the greatest thinkers in human history. Our government, your government and mine was instituted on the idea that every individual is born with rights, natural rights that precede government, they exist in the absence of government. It is the role of government to protect these rights and to do nothing more. To the extent that government involves itself in our lives it denies and limits these rights.

Government today is force, force against its own people, force against the individual, it is no longer a protector of individual rights, it seizes rights and limits them on the mistaken idea that it is best for the "general welfare". This socialist idea is not new, it is reminiscent of France following the 1st Revolution. You and people like you are the problem with the whole idea of freedom Albion, you simply are in denial, or dishonest.

I don't need for you to worry about my bankruptcy due to medical costs, I like millions more like me can take care of myself. You simply have to mind your own business. If you want to help people do so as an individual, don't use the force of government to command others to do it.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
No albion not an ad hominem attack....

...just an observable fact. The system that you advocate for can be found in most Socialist Countries so it is not much of a stretch of the imagination to see why you agree with the sentiment.

btw-Freedom of Choice lost. Do you have the choice to not have healthcare or are you "mandated" to have it?

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
PTCO & SL

You kids are hilarious!

Yes, those evil socialist countries - Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception. "Long live the for-profit health care industry."

There are currently four socialist countries on the planet: China, Cuba, Laos & Vietnam. Are we like them?

Other with constitutional references to socialism are Guyana, India, North Korea, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Syria and Tanzania - or are we more like them?

So is it those countries you refer to, or is it the federal, constitutional democracies and monarchies of Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, The UAE, Finland, Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland or Israel who all have either a mandate, single-payer or some other form of socialized healthcare.

Your fears are baseless and your "facts" are not facts at all but complete bs. Come back to the discussion when you can operate in the real world. Your parallel universe is imploding.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kids
Quote:

You kids are hilarious!

The operative word here!!! I wonder who was/is their social studies teacher? Probably one of those 'private' schools or home schooling. Ideology vs. fact.

My impression after WWII (I admittedly was very young) was Americans working together and sacrificing in order to recover from the WAR. There was gas rationing, victory gardens, etc., etc., etc. After the devastation of 9/11 - there was a moment of togetherness - and then all I heard was spend, spend; spend in order to help the economy. Where did that money go? We had Enron, etc. and many persons losing their savings, etc. Now the talk is rebuilding our country, but it seems as if some want to do it on the backs of the middle class and the poor. There are small business contractors that need jobs; there are small businesses that need loans - but the banks are holding back. What are the Republicans offering in order for our country to continue moving forward after the Bush Administration? If there is a plan, now is the time to get the message out. The cliches and the gaffs are not encouraging.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
That's right

DM, change the subject. We were talking about you and how you are part of the problem.

Just ignore it as you always do, the problem will not go away, it's all in the numbers DM. In the numbers.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
You missed one...

Venezuela you know that great revolutionary example of Socialism that has that President that Obama just loves?

Mind disputing just one fact albion or are you just full of....talking points from Media Matters?

I ask you again where in the Constitution do you find Government Mandated Healthcare?

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
The truth matters SL

So are we to accept that all of your opinions and positions are completely your own intellectual distilations and those that differ from you are mere hacks? Like a certain half-term governor, I read all the papers.

The constitutionality of a law is not based on its explicit inclusion in the document itself. Legislative powers are given to Congress, as described in Article I. Congress, operating within those powers, passed the ACA. The Supreme Court acting within its powers, under Article III, ruled to uphold the law. Nuff said.

You don't like said law and you seek to delegitimize the President, the Court, Congress, me and anyone who disagrees with your divination of the Constitution. How very un-American!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Albion - Reality

no sense in arguing about it with the likes of you.

I think Alexis de Tocqueville said it best more than 170 years ago, about his observations on early American society in Democracy in America.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Why don’t you pick up a copy and educate yourself on the reality of the world as it really is, or are you like most leftist and refuse to because it is in your best interest not to.

You have noticed I hope that we are 17 trillion dollars in debt? That Europe is bankrupt? How in the world do you think we got here? Talk about parallel universe, well it's your universe you have to worry about pal.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
TOCQUEVILLE
Quote:

I think Alexis de Tocqueville said it best more than 170 years ago, about his observations on early American society in Democracy in America.

We've gone beyond EARLY AMERICA SOCIETY STATUS. Please join us in the 21st Century. It is wise to apply wisdom to the CURRENT SITUATION. 236 years - there has been a change.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
We be way beyond de Tocqueville, Davids Mom, way beyond

We are now at 47% a mere 4 points away from losing the country and our form of government to exactly the cancer he was predicting. How can you see it any other way? And what do you think happens to your precious entitlement system after that? When it all ends not with a whimper, but a bang. Tell me what happens when the checks stop completely for both the "unfortunate" and the seniors, Medicare implodes (forget Medicade) and the EBT cards don't work. Tell me.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Entitlement?

Medicare/Social Security. - those receiving it today PAID for it!. Reasonable men and women can correct the fraud and corruption and correct the misuse of safety net programs. We don't need the soup lines and suicides in 2013. . . . We need honesty and integrity instead of 'smart talk'. This country, the American people, can survive this. We'll demand it from whoever is in the White House or Congress.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
You're right, DM...

...REASONABLE men & women can; didn't work so well in the USSR & the Eastern bloc - probably ain't gonna work here, either. Even the Chinese are starting to get a clue. Let's leave our country to the people, not the government.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
KC

According to the Constitution - WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! We've given our power over to our representatives who are controlled by the corporations/individuals who give them the money to be reelected by ADS! Sad.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
The End of the Republic is Near!

Our great Founders knew this day may come, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/poor_richard.html

Pray for our Country. -GP

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Well Mom, some of us paid for some of it, to be accurate

It varies, but if you paid in the max for 40 years and start taking SS and Meidcare at 65, you will get back what you paid in when you turn 75 - or at least that is how it calculates on mine. After age 75 your SS payments are coming from 2 or 3 current workers. And that's just SS. Medicare is a crapshoot - a serious illness, an operation and two weeks in the hospital pretty much uses up what you paid into Medicare. Most everybody that lives past 75 will take a lot more out of Medicare than they put in. And you have to figure it on dollars in and dollars out with no interest or earnings calculation because the government took that money and spent it on something the day after you paid it in. No way it earned interest - as a private retirement account would.

Remember how Bush wanted to privatize 3% of social security and everybody got so worked up about HOW RISKY that was? Well, what about the risk of the current system which is an exposed Ponzi scheme that is running out of suckers to contribute. Remember, only employed people pay into this stuff. And our real unemployment rate to include everybody not working for whatever reason is about 20%. With fewer employed contributors, the faster we hit the wall at the end.

Medicaid, of course is a handout, renamed entitlement by those who want to pretend that it will never end, along with the rest of the entitlements. 6 or 7 years and it will all come to a screeching halt, Sooner if you reelect Obama.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
RWM

That's your view of the situation - and those who refuse to sit down with experts to work out a solution unless the president is their choice. Fortunately, older citizens are living past 75 (do you consider that a bad thing?) Changes in 'safety nets' must be made. Do you kick and scream and refuse to fix it because you see it is broken - or do you put on your big boy pants and work with others to look at the changing reality - and see how this can be fixed. Medicaid? Let them die? Interesting.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Medicaid, let them die. Did I say that, Moms? Nope.

No I did not say that - ever. Don't make things up, it discredits you I said the entire system is coming to an end. People living past 75 is neither good or bad - simply a fact when combined with the other fact that others are paying their bills.

Changes must indeed be made - Bush the younger proposed privitizing 3% of SS and he was dissed - big time. If I were fixing it as a dictator, retirement age would be 70, my SS taxes would be 15%, Medicare 20% and those taxes would be collected on earnings up to and beyond $250,000 (the rich people - after all, these millionaires have to pay their fair share and at a certain point you have made enough money). Why not do that? Make it clear no existing SS receipients will get any changes, nor would anyone over age 50. That way people could plan ahead and the system would be solvent for about 30 years - then, fix it again. I do think I would allow self-employed people the option of directing 50% of their SS contributions into a 401k with more serious penalties for early withdrawal than we have now. Of course their SS payments at age 70 would be severely reduced, but they could probably earn more from the 401k and start taking that at age 59.5. What's not to like about that?

OR, just leave things as they are and lose every single entitelement in 6 or 7 years. None at all. The predators would have to hunt for food and money on the street. At least they have guns already. I hear venison can be tasty when marinated properly. And under this scenario, many seniors would indeed die early without any medical treatment. Obamacare won't be saving the people suddenly without Medicare or Medicaid.

Or, another alternative - get rid of all the government anti-business, anti-domestic oil exploration and drilling and all the uncertainty about new taxes and maybe that 20% unemployment will drop. This is called the Romney solution.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Romney Solution?
Quote:

Or, another alternative - get rid of all the government anti-business, anti-domestic oil exploration and drilling and all the uncertainty about new taxes and maybe that 20% unemployment will drop. This is called the Romney solution.

Really? Hmmmm. We'll see if he owns that solution in the debate.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Truth

Does not change with time.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Declaration of Independence

Read it. Not one president has instituted all of the abuses that are stated in this document - and that's the truth. As a people, we are continuing to strive for the 'truth' necessary for a peaceful existence within our shores and globally. Until this Congress, our representatives have done well with the responsibility given to them under the Constitution. We will vote on November 6. . . and we expect to continue to move forward....as Americans. Not just 53% of us.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
We are the 53%

The next time I go to the grocery store, I'm going to wear a shirt that states "If you are using food stamps or an EBT to pay for groceries, THANK THE 53% THAT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES."

I am tired of standing in line at the grocery store behind a baby-momma with 3-4 little chillens and no baby daddy in sight, watching her use food stamps or an EBT card to buy a bunch of un-healthy crap that is paid for with the money that I earn.

These people should at least have the decency to thank every taxpayer that they see for providing for her 'family'. These people have grown to think that they are entitled to money that they did not earn, whilst spitting out a bunch of kids they can't afford.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Grizz

These people are:
Seniors, students, persons who have lost their jobs in this economy, people earning below the poverty level(if you're talking about those who don't pay income tax). If you're talking about 'baby mommas' - well the 'other' candidate seemed to be saying that and turned a few people against his candidacy - so keep it up Grizz!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
You miss the basic point of the 49%

The point EVERYONE is trying to make to you people is that we CANNOT CONTINUE TO SPEND A TRILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS A YEAR when only 51% of Americans pay taxes.

It does not matter who makes up the 49% DM.. you guys get all hung up in the class warfare of it but the point all of us is trying to get across to you and the rest of the spend, spend and spend some more crowd is it is UNSUSTAINABLE.

Even President Obama knows this... "President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries." but then again that was in 2009.

Then the National debt was $10,300,793,000,000 now it is $16,001,750,000.

6 TRILLION dollars more since Obama took office and it cannot go on forever. Just look at Greece, Spain and others DM. They thought they could just keep spending, taxing and boroowing and look where they are today..

"Starving Greeks queue for food in their thousands as debt-wracked country finally forms a coalition government... but how long will it last?"

"The people of Greece are starving, their children are dying before their eyes and they are powerless to do anything to stop it."

"According to figures published today by Cadena Ser from the Spanish National Institute for Statistics (INE) the number of individuals that declared themselves insolvent went up by 289.56% to 374 and the number of companies and self employed who went into administration went up by 187.3% to 2,528 last year. "

That's our future Dm is this what you want to leave David or his children?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Dmom, maybe Grizz can take

Dmom, maybe Grizz can take his wife with him to the grocery store. She can wear her “I’m With Stupid” tee shirt, eh? Ha!

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Gort

My wife passed away 3 years ago so that probably ain't gonna happen, you buttwipe.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Grizz, sorry for your loss

Grizz, sorry for your loss but we all have dead relatives and family members to morn now don’t we?

Is this the reason you're so bitter about,… well everything actually?

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Gort

No you're not. You're just a miserable little buttwipe.
Go eff yourself.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Grizz, suit yourself. Have

Grizz, suit yourself. Have fun at the market and be sure and tell us how many times you get told ‘thank you’, okay?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Umm, DM...not sure if 'instituted' is the word, but....

...that was a document to justify separation from the British Empire, not the foundation for a new, independent government. After the success of the revolution, THEN we got down to business of running this new nation. Remember the Articles of Confederation? THAT was our 1st shot at government. Did you want to 'alter or to abolish it', that being our current form of government? You might meet some opposition there...

And, WOW! Are you so arrogant that you think those thoughts from 170 years ago cannot, do not, apply to today?? You must not be Christian, because those ideas are over 2000 years old - who'd believe in that old crapola?!??!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Implementing wisdom

I don't think I missed the application of wisdom from the past .

Quote:

It is wise to apply wisdom to the CURRENT SITUATION. 236 years - there has been a change.

Hey guys, it has been entertaining. There are different points of view. Looking forward to Oct. 3rd!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Forward

Is what I am worried about, forward off a cliff

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Thank God, DM!

We're sure lucky that "Not one president has instituted all of the abuses that are stated in this document". But Obamarx is trying hard.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
According to Romney

47% don't agree with you - so he's just going to ignore them!!

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Huh?

I can't even understand what you're trying to say, Dimwit Mom.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Maximus...

...she's saying 47% still want their check coming after Oct. 4...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

How in the world do you think we got here?

Especially since we had a surplus before a certain party won the White House!!!!!

opusman
opusman's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/08/2008
DM that dog won't hunt

Yes, but who controlled congress ( and the purse strings) to get that " surplus" and who controlled congress when that " surplus" was turned into a deficit.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
opusman
Quote:

and who controlled congress when that " surplus" was turned into a deficit.

Bush! He was the 'leader'. Look it up. The deficit didn't start with Obama. It grew as steps were taken to stop the downward trend. You've got to look at more than Fox - or you're not going to be prepared to hear what should not be news to you during the debate. That dog is right on the scent!

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
HANDED TO THEM...

...by a previous party! Hmmm, how'd that happen? Read your history, DM; your male whore was living off other peoples work! Wow, how well does THAT fit his party?!?! Clinton's welfare reform was a positive step, though, btw; too bad Obama the Socialist went off the deep end...