It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House passes health care reform bill; Vote garners only one Republican

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
So I wonder under this new plan, if sombody like the Ft. Hood shooter decides to open fire on unsuspecting people, will be able to get medical attention after police attempt to kill and subdue them? Will they be spending taxpayer money in the same practical manner ?




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Mailman
 


Well let's see, accused versus convicted. Accused means that while the guy may still be guilty as hell, he is innocent until proven guilty. So I would imagine that yes he as an accused and not yet convicted suspect he would still receive treatment.

Course I guess they could throw in an accused criminal denial clause in there so that your immediately dropped if you are accused of breaking the law. Hope to god you don't get a speeding ticket.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Bored To Tears
 


I'm happy that the government DID something.

I'm also not buying into the scare tactics by the right.


That may be, but you sure bought the left's load of BS, lock stock and barrel.

I'm happier the days congress does nothing.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Originally posted by admriker444

Except that people NOT paying for health insurance, and then using the emergency room doctors as their private physicians, and then not being able to pay, raises my taxes. So NOT having health insurance does infringe on me.


I'm just curious. How are the people who were not paying for health insurance going to pay for it now?

Are you sure that you still won't be paying their share, plus?



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
This bill is neither the single-payer "socialist" plan I would like to see nor is it the end of freedom and democracy as we know it.

It's a start. It's not perfect by a long shot but it's a step in the right direction. A lot of fine-tuning will have to be done before it's passed by Senate, that is if Republicans don't succeed in neutering it before then and if the Democrats grow a pair and don't just allow them to do it. And it will have to be further kept from becoming a giant trough at which the corporate piggies feed.

My Congressman voted against the bill. He's a Democrat, or so he says. A blue dog. I'm sorry to say I voted for him twice. Next election, I'm going to vote for the Republican if I have no other alternative. A candidate who is honestly a Republican is preferable to a pretend-Democrat who stabs his party and his constituents in the back. He probably thinks most of us won't do the research on the vote and won't know. The information is available on the C-span website.

I recommend everyone keep tabs on what their representatives are doing.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
This bill is neither the single-payer "socialist" plan I would like to see nor is it the end of freedom and democracy as we know it.



I strongly disagree here, yes it is the end of freedom and democracy as we know it, the bill is the biggest take over of voters and tax payer rights that this nation have ever seen.

Where in our constitution say that we are to become servants and slaves to a private entity like the big insurance business by mandate, actually the democrat from your state is a hero.

This bill if passed, will have the mandate challenged by the citizens in the supreme court.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
This bill is neither the single-payer "socialist" plan I would like to see nor is it the end of freedom and democracy as we know it.

It's a start. It's not perfect by a long shot but it's a step in the right direction. A lot of fine-tuning will have to be done before it's passed by Senate, that is if Republicans don't succeed in neutering it before then and if the Democrats grow a pair and don't just allow them to do it. And it will have to be further kept from becoming a giant trough at which the corporate piggies feed.

My Congressman voted against the bill. He's a Democrat, or so he says. A blue dog. I'm sorry to say I voted for him twice. Next election, I'm going to vote for the Republican if I have no other alternative. A candidate who is honestly a Republican is preferable to a pretend-Democrat who stabs his party and his constituents in the back. He probably thinks most of us won't do the research on the vote and won't know. The information is available on the C-span website.

I recommend everyone keep tabs on what their representatives are doing.


Here here Sestias!




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Originally posted by Bored To Tears

I have government ran health care, be careful of what you ask for.

Bored.... Where do you have it? And What's it like? Be as objective as you can. Give me the pros and give me the cons. I think everyone would benefit from hearing this from someone other than Sean Hannity and Michael Moore.


I have health care ran through the military. Which will be the type of health care you will be recieving.

Pros-

Its free

Serious injuries are well treated with the best equipment

If a certain hospital cannot treat you then you are quickly bussed (ambulance) or flown to a facility that can accomadate you.

Cons-

Extremely long lines for perscriptions to be filled (1 hour is the least amount of time I have spent in line, 3 hours is the longest)

Extremely long waits for a medical appointment, which sometimes forces you to spend all day in the emergency room waiting to be seen (I got the flu a few years ago and was told that the next available appointment was in 2 weeks and that I should go to the emergency room, I spent 9 hours waiting, recieved an IV drip and a perscription, see the above 3 hour wait)

Even longer waits for a dental appointment( I scheduled a cleaning yesterday, my appointment is the 27th of December)

Doctors spend on average 5 minutes with you before you are rushed out (I have never spent more then 10 minutes with a doctor in 10+ years)

It is very difficult to get medication that isn't over the counter (I severly sprained my ankle that put me on crutches for 3 weeks and despite my extreme pain all I was offered was motrin. That might sound petty, but there is a reason why it is referred to as ranger candy.)



People focus on the affordable part and jump on the bandwagon. They don't think about why it is affordable or what kind of treatment they will recieve. For the everyday sickness my care is a joke. Its only worth it if I get seriously ill or injured, which in 10+ years hasn't happened to me.

Of course in the less populated areas it won't be that bad, but in the heavily populated areas it will be a nightmare.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Bored To Tears
 





Of course in the less populated areas it won't be that bad, but in the heavily populated areas it will be a nightmare.


Yes and if you have allergies you might as well not bother to go. I have the highest IgE factor my Allergy doc has ever seen and should be asthmatic. I was warned never to give blood since my blood could be lethal to others (Really gives you the warm fussies to learn THAT) In some allergy attacks I have actually had my eye swell and almost lost my sight.

Guess what??? The army doc refused to treat me! At that time there was no over the counter allergy medicines so I had to have a perscription otherwise I was pretty much confined to the house and I lost my job because of an allergy reaction with no medication at work. It took a year of persistance to FINALLY get tested for allergies. My reaction to the scratch test was so severe they packed me in ice and had to use an epinephrine injection as if I had had a fatal bee sting.

Please note I HAD a medical history of allergies BEFORE I went to see that Army Doc but it did not matter. Allergies and female problems are sissy complaints they are just not interested in treating. I would not be surprised if a non-medical professional is assigned to talk to and turn away non-critical patients sometime in the future in response to voter complaints about the incredibly long waiting times.




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Loss of freedom? Yes.
Under the new health care reform bill, if you do not have all your vaccinations up to date, you will not be able to receive any health care, whatsoever. For example, that means "mandatory vaccinations" if you want to be treated by a doctor for a broken ankle.

www.youronlineinsurance.com...

"The Federal Government’s proposed mandatory health insurance will mean mandatory vaccinations/immunizations. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) says that for anyone who refuses to keep up-to-date vaccinations, under the new health reform, you will not be able to obtain any health care you may need until immunizations are current."

"It was also reported that the new health care reform bill was submitted with a provision that those doctors and hospitals who are not “meaningful users” of the new reform system will also be faced with fines and penalties. As well as the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be “permitted to impose more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.”

So those of you who are so happy the health care reform bill passed, should start rolling up your sleeves....the needle is coming for you, whether you want it or not.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I love how the OP specifically points out only one Repub voted for it (and he is in a heavily Democratic area) but neglects to mention anything about the 39 Dems who didn't vote for it.

Well played


It is my hope that next elections will see the incumbents getting sent home in droves. I don't care what the party affiliation is, if they voted yes and are in my district I will vote for anyone but them.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by semperfortis
 


You know what Semp, your absolutely right. These social programs just need to end. How dare they waste our money on this bs!

We need to get rid of all these socialist programs. Like Public Schools, Libraries, Police, Firefighters, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, The US Armed Forces etc. Why should our tax dollars go to fund these perils of the capitalist system. I mean if you don't have the means to hire your own security, why should I pay for it? Why should I pay to send kids to school? And those libraries? GIVE ME A BREAK! Why should my hard earned tax money go to fund such a wastefull public place? If you can't afford books you aren't working hard enough to read anyway.

You know, while we are at it, why are we giving our roads away? I mean any Tom Dick or Harry can just drive or walk down any street they like? Why are we spending money on such waste as Departments of Transportation? Why does our tax money go to such "entitlement" programs like Water and Sewer?

Just because our constitution tells our government to promote the general Welfare of the nation doesn't mean they should.

Of course it's likely that the taxes that are taken out of my weekly paycheck will fund parts of these horrid socialist programs, and even though I will bring home roughly 7000.00 this year from a 40 hour a week job, Ill pay income tax. (I do every year, sure I get a refund, but it's less than I put in. So I do pay tax.)

But your right Semper, we must simply end these horrid socialist programs. Dang you Washington! We want to live free and have absolutely nothing done for us whatsoever no matter what income bracket we are in!

[edit on 11/8/2009 by whatukno]


Are you an American? Do you understand the Constitution of The United States? Apparently not, based on the above rant!


Let me break a few things down for you. Public schools, librabries, police and fire are COMMUNITY-level institutions. They are funded mostly at the community level and are controlled by the peple that live in that community. At no time do I recall ever voting on a tax levy for school districts other than my own. In fact, under the 10th Ammendment of the Constitution, that is a right reserved for the individual states to govern on their own.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc... all part of the :New Deal" that turned out not to be quite a deal after all - with all 3 programs almost completely bankrupt and grossly underfunded for future liabilities. Another perfect example of why the Federal government is not permitted under the Constitution to hold powers specifically allocated the the states. What is most shameful is that no one bothered to challenge the birth of the programs to begin with.

As far as what the Federal government is responsible for... The 10th Ammendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Did you happen to notice the part that specifies that the Federal Government is ONLY permitted power over that which is stated in the Constitution?

Let's look at what powers the Constitution grants the Federal Government... This is enumerated under Article 1, Section8 whcih states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Hmmmm, no where in there do I see that Congress is permitted to legislate my healthcare!? What I do see is that is Congress' responsibility to provide for the MEANS of interstate commerce and to provide for national security, hence the Interstate freeway system and the military. The other systems that you describe, sewage, water and local thoroughfares are the responsibility of the MUNICIPALITY, county or state. As are ALL utilities within each given states excpet for those that may have certain mandates plavced upon them via the interstate commerce clause!

You see, my problem with you and your post is that it is an uninformed rant that holds absolutely no water. In your zeal to defend your ideology you reveal your complete lack of understanding of the principles upon which this Republic is founded. Simply stated, you're dangerous! Your lack of knowledge, ignorance actually, on the matter is what has emboldened our federal government to overstep its authority time and again. This is a road to tyranny. Had you any knowledge on the separation of powers and our founding documents, you would oppose this simply out of principle.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by xstealth
 


You speak for everyone now?

Well that's a load off my mind, now that I don't have to do that pesky thinking for myself.

Up till now I was of the opinion that Health Care reform was a good thing. But seeing as how your doing the thinking for everyone I guess that opinion of mine was wrong.


Unfortunately, you have it backwards.

It is the dems (and people like you that support them) that after ignoring the majority opinions of their constituents, decided that THEY could think for everyone else and vote for this monstrosity. Something elitist liberals do all the time - hence the "elitist" description.




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
This bill is neither the single-payer "socialist" plan I would like to see nor is it the end of freedom and democracy as we know it.



Let's cut right to the chase.

Who has told you that?

And what on earth made you believe them without bothering to check the facts for yourself?

Seriously, I'd like to find out the answers.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 




Unfortunately, you have it backwards.

It is the dems (and people like you that support them) that after ignoring the majority opinions of their constituents, decided that THEY could think for everyone else and vote for this monstrosity. Something elitist liberals do all the time - hence the "elitist" description.



It's kinda hard to back up that claim, because the dems are in control which means the majority voted for them. Which mean the majority support them. If the majority did not support the democrats, they would not be in total control like they are now.

Whether or not they screw that majority public opinion up with bull dunk legislation is up to them. But as far as getting elected, the majority spoke and did not want what the Republicans had to offer. This is why the Democrats have a super majority, this is why there is a Democrat as president. Because the majority of people spoke and said so.

I don't have it backwards, this is reality. Don't trust polls, cause polls lie. Trust elections, cause elections are what count.

Also it's almost impossible to call Democrats Elitists

e⋅lit⋅ism

–noun
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

Democrats want to give the store away to everyone, kinda nullifies the elitist argument.

dictionary.reference.com...

[edit on 11/9/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

I was abandoned as a child, raised in an orphanage and then by my Grandmother on 123.00 a month Social Security

I'm not complaining, I have worked hard and "made it", why can't others?

Maybe a little less complaining, a little less hating people that do make it, and a little more hard work? I bet that will work wonders on anyone's success.



So let me get this straight.

You are saying we should remove all Government safety nets like Social security, medicaid etc. when you yourself benefited from one of those very social safety nets. A safety net that allowed your Grandmother to scrape by and raise you. A social framework that undoubtedly helped the orphanage you grew up in and a school system that provided you your education. A system that allowed you to live and be the person you are today.

Yet now you want to remove that chance from others, claiming that you pulled yourself up from "your own boot straps"?


This health care reform bill (which could have been much better if Republicans actually helped instead of lying about pulling the plug on Grand Ma) does many great things for all Americans.

For one Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage for a pre-exisiting condition and they also cannot use that and an excuse to drop you when you get sick. You have any idea how many kids have diabetes in this country that now will be able to get insurance.

Secondly, I am not a big fan of mandates but everyone needs health insurance. Why? because everyone eventually gets sick. If you have no health insurance and get really sick or in an accident, the rest of us have to pay for it in rising costs.

The huge rise in health care costs are attributed to inefficiency (which this bill regrettably does nothing for) and the costs associated with people who have no insurance going to the emergency room when they could have been treated for much less when they had the sniffles.

If everyone has to get insurance than over all costs will come down because there will be fewer sick people and many less emergency room visits.

Since everyone has to buy insurance the costs for the premiums have to come down. So this bill creates an Exchange like they have for Federal employees which includes Congressmen and Senators.

8 Million Federal employees have an exchange where insurance companies can hope to get into this action. If they want to be a part of it they have to compete for the customers by offering better plans with lower prices. Think of it like Lending Tree does for loans on the internet. You put in a request for insurance into the exchange and the insurance companies have to fight to win your business.

If you still cannot afford these lower priced premiums than there is the public option. The public option is a citizen run health insurance company that is supported by their premiums. It is run like any other private insurance company but there is no profit motive. No bonuses to hand out and no wasteful spending on commercials, ads and paying off politicians. So most of the money paid into it, go's toward health care.

If you still cannot afford the public option premiums than the government will subsidize the difference so you can have insurance.

This bill is not perfect but it is a damn good start and will bring DOWN the deficit by 140 billion without adding one cent to it.





[edit on 9-11-2009 by AllexxisF1]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by semperfortis
 


You know what Semp, your absolutely right. These social programs just need to end. How dare they waste our money on this bs!

We need to get rid of all these socialist programs. Like Public Schools, Libraries, Police, Firefighters, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, The US Armed Forces etc. Why should our tax dollars go to fund these perils of the capitalist system. I mean if you don't have the means to hire your own security, why should I pay for it? Why should I pay to send kids to school? And those libraries? GIVE ME A BREAK! Why should my hard earned tax money go to fund such a wastefull public place? If you can't afford books you aren't working hard enough to read anyway.

You know, while we are at it, why are we giving our roads away? I mean any Tom Dick or Harry can just drive or walk down any street they like? Why are we spending money on such waste as Departments of Transportation? Why does our tax money go to such "entitlement" programs like Water and Sewer?

Just because our constitution tells our government to promote the general Welfare of the nation doesn't mean they should.

Of course it's likely that the taxes that are taken out of my weekly paycheck will fund parts of these horrid socialist programs, and even though I will bring home roughly 7000.00 this year from a 40 hour a week job, Ill pay income tax. (I do every year, sure I get a refund, but it's less than I put in. So I do pay tax.)

But your right Semper, we must simply end these horrid socialist programs. Dang you Washington! We want to live free and have absolutely nothing done for us whatsoever no matter what income bracket we are in!

[edit on 11/8/2009 by whatukno]


Are you an American? Do you understand the Constitution of The United States? Apparently not, based on the above rant!


Let me break a few things down for you. Public schools, librabries, police and fire are COMMUNITY-level institutions. They are funded mostly at the community level and are controlled by the peple that live in that community. At no time do I recall ever voting on a tax levy for school districts other than my own. In fact, under the 10th Ammendment of the Constitution, that is a right reserved for the individual states to govern on their own.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc... all part of the :New Deal" that turned out not to be quite a deal after all - with all 3 programs almost completely bankrupt and grossly underfunded for future liabilities. Another perfect example of why the Federal government is not permitted under the Constitution to hold powers specifically allocated the the states. What is most shameful is that no one bothered to challenge the birth of the programs to begin with.

As far as what the Federal government is responsible for... The 10th Ammendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Did you happen to notice the part that specifies that the Federal Government is ONLY permitted power over that which is stated in the Constitution?

Let's look at what powers the Constitution grants the Federal Government... This is enumerated under Article 1, Section8 whcih states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Hmmmm, no where in there do I see that Congress is permitted to legislate my healthcare!? What I do see is that is Congress' responsibility to provide for the MEANS of interstate commerce and to provide for national security, hence the Interstate freeway system and the military. The other systems that you describe, sewage, water and local thoroughfares are the responsibility of the MUNICIPALITY, county or state. As are ALL utilities within each given states excpet for those that may have certain mandates plavced upon them via the interstate commerce clause!

You see, my problem with you and your post is that it is an uninformed rant that holds absolutely no water. In your zeal to defend your ideology you reveal your complete lack of understanding of the principles upon which this Republic is founded. Simply stated, you're dangerous! Your lack of knowledge, ignorance actually, on the matter is what has emboldened our federal government to overstep its authority time and again. This is a road to tyranny. Had you any knowledge on the separation of powers and our founding documents, you would oppose this simply out of principle.






i couldnt have said it better. well done my friend.

it does NOT matter if you agree with this healthcare bill. the details being debated are pointless. the constitution does not grant the federal govt the authority to regulate healthcare period end of story.

"When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare--, he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you ha...ve it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes."



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


They don't want to give the store away.

They want to give away the illusion that they are giving the store away. In reality they are very much in control of.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by admriker444
 


Try looking at the top of the constitution the first paragraph. What the government is to be about.

The rest of my RANT as you call it, is facetious. It's to show that there are a lot of Social programs out there that are quite beneficial to the Welfare of the republic.

We accept these costs cause we know that these socialist programs are in fact for the good of the nation. I hope that when you read the constitution you notice that the word Welfare is capitalized which means it's a noun. It also means that the framers of the Constitution put emphasis on this word. The citizens well being is a part of the Constitution. It was so important that the founding fathers decided to put it amongst the first paragraph of the Constitution.

Kinda makes it important.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by admriker444
 


Try looking at the top of the constitution the first paragraph. What the government is to be about.

The rest of my RANT as you call it, is facetious. It's to show that there are a lot of Social programs out there that are quite beneficial to the Welfare of the republic.

We accept these costs cause we know that these socialist programs are in fact for the good of the nation. I hope that when you read the constitution you notice that the word Welfare is capitalized which means it's a noun. It also means that the framers of the Constitution put emphasis on this word. The citizens well being is a part of the Constitution. It was so important that the founding fathers decided to put it amongst the first paragraph of the Constitution.

Kinda makes it important.


This x 1 million. Brilliant.

Moreover I find it hilarious that those who hold up the Constitution at every chance know little to nothing about it.

The Constitution always has been and always will be a work in progress. That is the whole point of legislating for the welfare of this nation as long as it does not infringe on the basic rights of citizens.

Citizens starting their own not for profit health insurance company is in no way by any stretch of the imagination unconstitutional.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by AllexxisF1]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join