communist care...not for me
8 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
just throwing out blah blah like willgarr is...
9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
What i hope the ACA or affordable care act is the end of insurance companies cherry picking and playing games with the most important aspect of an Americans life...their health....if we all don't have some skin in game(pun intended)...it ain't gonna work and the status quo will prevail,this is why the T-baggers want to stall and discredit the law.
7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The federal gov is shut down. Americans can breathe a sigh relief. We are free at last. We can thank God for such a kind act.
9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
hard to believe this is turning into a train wreck when the smartest man ever, assisted by the great minds of libs like pelosi and reid, crammed this down the throats of the peasants.
9 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The government has been subsidizing healthcare for years thru employers,medicaid etc...whats the big stink all of a sudden?
6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Do you drink a lot of beer?
2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Not at all.
4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
All the Dem. controlled senate had to do to avoid this was to agree to live with the same health care plan as they want to force on us! If its so great WHY did they not agree? Answer that Willgarr You spew this lib. garbage that is put out by the lib media, try thinking for your self just once!
7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Not nearly enough and this is why lies can run rampant and take down governments.
6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
You won't find "communistCare" at Healthcare.gov. You'll find private insurance policies.
5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Interesting how the combined vote total for "not enough" and "a little" is some 72% right now. Yet everyone seems to have something to say about it.
Meanwhile, I would bet that even more people don't know how the health insurance/healthcare situation got to this point and that the story begins in 1942...we've been taking steps down the same road ever since. What Obama sold us as "reform" wasn't actually reform; it was just further entrenching the established system and ways of doing things.
Let me see if I've got this right: T-party loves the constitution, but hates the government. But doesn't the constitution set the template for government?
T-party loves democracy but hates the government. But didn't our current government get elected through the democratic process?
T-Party loves personal responsibility and hates socialism, but doesn't Obamacare mandate that individuals take responsibility for themselves and obtain insurance so they don't, for example, use the ER as free medical care?
T-party believes in constitutional democracy, but isn't the GOP controlled house, which is only 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government, using its power of the purse to change legislation that was democratically signed into law?
If I told you that I'd burn your house down unless you killed your dog, would you think that was a fair way to keep your house from being burnt down? Wouldn't you ask: why is this person so desperate to violence towards me?
3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
polidork, satire or ignorance? The 'Constitution set the template'. Yes, and it is that template that we love, respect, and honor. I suggest you slowly read it to learn all the limits on the federal government that were set forth in that template. Those limits have been all but shredded the last 50 years. Socialism is the very opposite of personal responsibility. Mandates remove freedoms. But, one step further. The Government is looking to the young population, 20 to 30 years, to now get insurance to help 'pay' for health care for the elderly. The is what you are against. But what is ridiculous is that Obamacare NOW puts people on their mommy's and daddy's insurance till they are 26. How the h@!! can thy pay for insurance when they are on another policy.
8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
A few observations:
"Let me see if I've got this right: T-party loves the constitution, but hates the government. But doesn't the constitution set the template for government?"
It does. It also lays out specific powers for the federal government and later denies it all other powers. Your point is meaningless.
"T-party loves democracy but hates the government. But didn't our current government get elected through the democratic process?"
Yeah, well, democracy isn't necessarily something to be loved in the first place. Horrific things have happened because 50%+1 decided it was cool to take away the rights of 50%-1.
8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"T-Party loves personal responsibility and hates socialism, but doesn't Obamacare mandate that individuals take responsibility for themselves and obtain insurance so they don't, for example, use the ER as free medical care?"
Is it truly self responsibility when you are being forced by the government to do it? I know some on these boards would scream bloody murder if, under some guise of "personal responsibility", some body of government mandated firearm ownership.
"T-party believes in constitutional democracy, but isn't the GOP controlled house, which is only 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government, using its power of the purse to change legislation that was democratically signed into law?"
Checks and Balances. Learn about them. Also, see my earlier point about democracy.
8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
MR, thanks for the banal counter, but let me correct your generic talking points. My 1st question highlights the meaningless 'anti-government' attitude. If there is something wrong with a particular, it's not going to be solved by universalizing.
2nd, we might be in agreement here. I didn't say that I loved democracy, the T-party did. Plato was right on that one.
3rd, I'm not defending the ACA; what I'm demonstrating is that the fundamental mechanism behind the ACA is the republican idea of individual responsibility. Perhaps you're more of a Randian libertarian and believe in denying the unfortunate health care. Fine with me; just reconcile that with Christianity if you would.
Finally, as for Checks and Balances: maybe you should spend a little more time reading the constitution, since you obviously don't understand how the federal government is supposed to operate. Where does it say that a law can be dismantled by 1/2 of 1/3 of the government?
disgusted: The SCOTUS doesn't seem to think that those limits have been shredded. Moreover, your selective interpretation of the constitution doesn't make you a scholar, so don't lecture others when your comprehension is so clearly faulty. You re-read it, slowly if that's your thing, and try to do so without your ideological blinders.
Further, would you and others of your ilk please do yourselves a favor and learn what theories of socialism actually entail? It's sad to watch you all throw that word around when you clearly don't understand what it means. I'll tell you what it's not though: encouraging people to buy a product off the free market.
1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Agreed. I'd edit that to 1/2 of 1/3 of the [elected] government. Still, it's not a power given to congress.
I'll tell you what it's not though: encouraging people to buy a product off the free market. Encouraging is NOT mandating. funny how you slip and slide trying to maintain your definition of freedom and personal responsibility. The Supreme Court should not be creating the law, only following it. Something they are not known to do of late.
7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Disgusted: you can also choose to remain uninsured and pay the tax. Regardless, call it mandating; I don't care.
bill...: I'm using universal and particular in the philosophical/Aristotelian sense. And I was directing the comment to MattR, who, despite our disagreements, appears to have attained a higher level of education than most of the conservative posting on this site. Either way, your claim is still wrong insofar as the health exchanges provide a menu of options. If healthcare had been universalized (by your meaning), we'd have a public option and nothing else.
It was the federal government that forced hospitals to treat everyone who entered ER in the first place. It was 'for the people'. That policy was wrong and two wrongs never make a right. And those 'options' of which you speak, can you please detail each for us? Those options are restricted, not open. funny how the libs were so against across the state line insurance options purchased individually, yet tout 'options' set up by the government for individuals to purchase. and success of Obamacare is said to be if 16.9% of the uninsured have coverage by March----those are the words of Sebelius.
what is your definition of socialism?
Hey you! You eating the triple cheeseburger and supersized fries . . .
Do you understand that taxpayers will no longer cover your bills when you run into the emergency room?
Do you get that?
You! You with the beer in one hand and an assault rifle in the other -- do you understand?
The emergency loophole has just closed.
3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
So, Boehnor is not allowing the Senate bill to even come before the House for discussion or a vote. why is that? Oh, that is right, the whacky right wing doesn't want him to. So, why not a vote on a clean CR? Well, it would pass and the knuckleheads would not have the government shut down. The end of the Republican party is coming faster and faster.
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
301 4th St SE , Minot, ND 58703 | 701-857-1900