GOP candidate: Don't ask for our help, if you get cancer that's your problem

Pejeu

NavyDoc
Except that is not what he said. not even close. What he said is that one person does not have the right to forcibly take from another to solve his problems.

I don't have a car, is it okay that I steal yours?

No but the government does. That's why we have it.

Some has to coerce the right wing Neanderthals into a functioning society that vaguely resembles civilisation.

The government is supposed to have a monopoly on force and coercion.

That's why we invented it.

No the government does not have that right. Apparently you have not read the Constitution. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the citizens and to provide for a free an open society, not to force your will upon those you disdainfully and prejudicially call "Neanderthals." I think that you have a lot of bigotry and hostility that you project upon others. The meanness and prejudice is not in the right, but in you and you project your own hostility upon others.

The government was not intended to have a monopoly on anything. Ever read the Bill of Rights?

I hate the term "fascist" but you seem to embrace it in spades.

NavyDoc
What he said is that one person does not have the right to forcibly take from another to solve his problems.

I don't have a car, is it okay that I steal yours?

A car is not healthcare. The differences are staggeringly fundamental when you cease thinking in ideologically committed terms.

Do you steal from your neighbor when you drive on taxpayer funded streets? Or do you steal from your neighbor when the police or fire department respond to crisis at your home?

A car is an optional, individual purchase. An earned, privileged, choice. Cancer is not.

In the most primitive tribes in the most remote jungles, where everyone contributes to the tribes survival and defense, healthcare remains socialized because of the simple fact that caring for everyone in their time of need, benefits everyone as a whole, and even the greatest hunter/contributor can be injured or sick.

Honestly, this is a simple and obvious reality that most democracies see as simple reality...Canada, England, Ireland, Sweden etc. Have Universal Healthcare for a good reason and they are not tyrannical bastions of communism.

We take a small step toward joining the rest of the civilized world and everybody freaks out.

If only the lazy got Cancer you could argue it's role in free-market capitalism. But unfortunately anyone, including innocent children, rich and poor can get Cancer and even the moderately rich cannot pay for the expense of treating cancer.

And unregulated healthcare is without debate the largest driver of economic crisis both for the Gov. and individual citizens.

For the past several years Medical Bills has been the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA...even during the financial crisis.

NavyDoc
No the government does not have that right. Apparently you have not read the Constitution. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the citizens and to provide for a free an open society, not to force your will upon those you disdainfully and prejudicially call "Neanderthals." I think that you have a lot of bigotry and hostility that you project upon others. The meanness and prejudice is not in the right, but in you and you project your own hostility upon others.

The government was not intended to have a monopoly on anything. Ever read the Bill of Rights?

I hate the term "fascist" but you seem to embrace it in spades.

I think you should be more mindful of how you label leftists such as myself.

And I think you ought to read your own Constitution at least once before you presume to lecture others on it.
________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

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;

Furthermore, your own Constitution CLEARLY STATES:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

Indigo5
For the past several years Medical Bills has been the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA...even during the financial crisis.

That's only because of the unemployment rate in this country.

I'm sorry but I don't need or want the government to take care of me.
Look at what they did to our country and you want them to take care of us?

reply to post by Pejeu


Are you that ignorant that you like many others here misinterpret these words to suit your own gibberish?

Did the founding fathers have welfare checks going out to the needy?

Pejeu

NavyDoc
No the government does not have that right. Apparently you have not read the Constitution. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the citizens and to provide for a free an open society, not to force your will upon those you disdainfully and prejudicially call "Neanderthals." I think that you have a lot of bigotry and hostility that you project upon others. The meanness and prejudice is not in the right, but in you and you project your own hostility upon others.

The government was not intended to have a monopoly on anything. Ever read the Bill of Rights?

I hate the term "fascist" but you seem to embrace it in spades.

I think you should be more mindful of how you label leftists such as myself.

And I think you ought to read your own Constitution at least once before you presume to lecture others on it.
________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

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;

Furthermore, your own constitutionally CLEARLY STATES:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

edit on 2013/10/15 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Perhaps an English class would be in order. Look up "provide for" and "promote" and notice the difference.

Secondly, look up the body of the Constitution where exactly how the ideals in the preamble are codified into law and responsibilities.

Then look into the 10th Amendment that 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

Now point to me anywhere in the Constitution where, including those excerpts that I notice do not support your premise one bit, we can see the intent that the Federal Government have a monopoly on power and is tasked with forcing your moral beliefs on your fellow man and to force those, as you put it "Neanderthals" to comply with your selfish belief system.

As for your crap about "being careful with labels," look at the thread--you were the one who started out calling people "selfish" and "Neanderthals". I simply responded to your nonsense.

Who is the true selfish Neanderthal? I suggest look in the mirror.

This describes leftists like yourself to a T :

Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.[1] For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.

Although rooted in early developmental stages,[2] and classed by Vaillant as an immature defence,[3] the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.[4]

I had to go to a hospital in Paris a few years ago. They did some blood work and gave me a cat scan. I also rode an ambulance to the hospital, and despite it being Paris -- the EMTs were remarkable.

I had just as good of care as if I went to my own local hospital on my own private insurance. The medical equipment was just as new, and there were hardly any wait times. In fact, I didn't see many people in the waiting rooms at all.

I tried to show them my insurance card when I was discharged, but they waved me away with some x-rays and a prescription. That prescription cost about as much as I would pay in the USA with private insurance.

I don't know why people freak out about universal health care. I found it to be nothing like the fear mongering GOP/Republicans have made it sound. I understand that it's not a perfect system either -- I do live in reality. Having that said, I think we'd all float a little higher if we weren't worried about going to the doctor because of the cost.

thesaneone

I'm sorry but I don't need or want the government to take care of me.

Then may I suggest you move to a failed state like Somalia where you will no suffer such nuisances as police or fire protection, public roads etc.?

Indigo5

NavyDoc
What he said is that one person does not have the right to forcibly take from another to solve his problems.

I don't have a car, is it okay that I steal yours?

A car is not healthcare. The differences are staggeringly fundamental when you cease thinking in ideologically committed terms.

Do you steal from your neighbor when you drive on taxpayer funded streets? Or do you steal from your neighbor when the police or fire department respond to crisis at your home?

A car is an optional, individual purchase. An earned, privileged, choice. Cancer is not.

In the most primitive tribes in the most remote jungles, where everyone contributes to the tribes survival and defense, healthcare remains socialized because of the simple fact that caring for everyone in their time of need, benefits everyone as a whole, and even the greatest hunter/contributor can be injured or sick.

Honestly, this is a simple and obvious reality that most democracies see as simple reality...Canada, England, Ireland, Sweden etc. Have Universal Healthcare for a good reason and they are not tyrannical bastions of communism.

We take a small step toward joining the rest of the civilized world and everybody freaks out.

If only the lazy got Cancer you could argue it's role in free-market capitalism. But unfortunately anyone, including innocent children, rich and poor can get Cancer and even the moderately rich cannot pay for the expense of treating cancer.

And unregulated healthcare is without debate the largest driver of economic crisis both for the Gov. and individual citizens.

For the past several years Medical Bills has been the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA...even during the financial crisis.

A good or service is the same in principle as any other good or service. It has a cost and an honest person does not want to force another to pay for their own costs whether that good or service is essential or not.

You cannot see the logic of this because you are clouded with an ideology that something must be publicly funded if you think it important.

We all pay the same gas taxes to use the roads. If I use the roads more, I pay more because I use more gas and thus pay more tax to support those roads. Nobody else pays for me that I might drive. I pay for the roads I use myself. Your comparison is flawed in that regard. Show me where someone drives on a public road and someone else is forced to pay for their gas and car by the government and you might have a point.

Healthcare cost has gone up because of governmental interference in the market and it is foolish to bring in the very entity that caused the problem to "fix" the problem.

reply to post by Indigo5


I don't need or want a new tax.
Let the people decide on how to spend their own money on what they want not what your beloved leader say's.

NavyDoc, I was gonna write a comprehensive and elaborate reply to your post but it's really not worth the trouble.

You're the sort of person who would call a square a circle just to not admit you're wrong.

You're denying the Constitution says what I clearly quoted it saying.

Enjoy your lunch cause you're out to it.

I'll go take some English classes, as per your instructions.

Comforted by the thought people like you will eventually die off to old age and make room for a better, kinder, gentler, more decent and just world.

thesaneone
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I don't need or want a new tax.
Let the people decide on how to spend their own money on what they want not what your beloved leader say's.

The only difference between what you currently have and the system in France, for example, is that the insurance is not for profit over there.

That's all.

You're basically all up in arms over the right of a private corporation to make a profit out of money that ought to be relegated to the care of the people.

Either by overcharging you for insurance or refusing to pay when they ought to.

That is all you are defending.

Not to say the drug companies and hospitals aren't overcharging as well.

But it's what you people seem to want, the way you clamor for preserving it.

Have at it.

There is no value to be gained out of competition between insurers. There is only value to be lost by refusing to pay legitimate claims in order to leave room for profits and outbid the other insurers.

Remain a warning to the rest of the world, an example of how and what not to do.

Pejeu
NavyDoc, I was gonna write a comprehensive and elaborate reply to your post but it's really not worth the trouble.

You're the sort of person who would call a square a circle just to not admit you're wrong.

You're denying the Constitution says what I clearly quoted it saying.

Enjoy your lunch cause you're out to it.

I'll go take some English classes, as per your instructions.

Comforted by the thought people like you will eventually die off to old age and make room for a better, kinder, gentler, more decent and just world.

thesaneone
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I don't need or want a new tax.
Let the people decide on how to spend their own money on what they want not what your beloved leader say's.

The only difference between what you currently have and the system in France, for example, is that the insurance is not for profit over there.

That's all.

You're basically all up in arms over the right of a private corporation to make a profit out of money that ought to be relegated to the care of the people.

Either by overcharging you for insurance or refusing to pay when they ought to.

That is all you are defending.

Not to say the drug companies and hospitals aren't overcharging as well.

But it's what you people seem to want, the way you clamor for preserving it.

Have at it.

There is no value to be gained out of competition between insurers. There is only value to be lost by refusing to pay legitimate claims in order to leave room for profits and outbid the other insurers.

Remain a warning to the rest of the world, an example of how and what not to do.

edit on 2013/10/15 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

So you cannot find in the Constitution the support for your claims...got it.

Yeah, when individualists like me die off, drones like you will wonder when society evolved into an Orwellian nightmare without freedom but you still won't blame yourself because your kind never takes individual responsibility.

thesaneone
reply to post by Pejeu

 

Are you that ignorant that you like many others here misinterpret these words to suit your own gibberish?

Did the founding fathers have welfare checks going out to the needy?

There is nothing to misinterpret.

You're calling an orange an apple to suit your wretched, warped, inhuman world-view.

You bunch are always the ones to bring up the Constitution.

Then when you're served excerpts from it you claim they don't say what they CLEARLY say. Because you actually hate what the Constitution says.

That congress may tax you for the general welfare.

General welfare includes feeding, clothing, housing, sheltering and treating the poor, the needy, the sick, the elderly, the young, the frail, those who can not afford to do it themselves.

NavyDoc
So you cannot find in the Constitution the support for your claims...got it.

You're out to lunch.

Any normal, decent person can clearly see and admit what it says right there, in your Constitution.

It says in plain English that the Congress may tax you to provide for the General Welfare.

It's your problem you can't stand that it says that.

Not mine.

And just cause you can't stand what it says there don't mean it don't say it or don't mean what it does.

Next you'll be telling me the second amendment is about the right of the people to keeps (inns, board and lodging) and Grizzly paws.

Yeah, when individualists like me die off, drones like you will wonder when society evolved into an Orwellian nightmare without freedom but you still won't blame yourself because your kind never takes individual responsibility.

There is no 'I' in team.

You are completely dependent on the rest of society for both your standard of living as well as your wealth, the value of your money.

Without the rest of the people in society your money would be worth #.

You'd have to build and make everything you currently buy with your money yourself.

When all else fails: resort to ad hominem.

Brilliant.

Just goes to show the lack of any merit to your argument.

Basically an admission of defeat.

Pejeu
When all else fails: resort to ad hominem.

Brilliant.

Just goes to show the lack of any merit to your argument.

Basically an admission of defeat.

edit on 2013/10/15 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Sorry, you started out with ad hominums..."Neanderthal" and "selfish" and so forth. Thus you admitted to defeat from the very beginning?

LOL.


Hypocrite much?

reply to post by NavyDoc


Precisely.

-Amitaba-

reply to post by NavyDoc


Wow...So you pay a tax to partially fund the construction and upkeep of roads that you communally share in expense and use with everyone else? thus it is different???

And you see that different than socialized healthcare how?

And what you propose is in this analogy is since you do not want to use the road, ever...that the roads be torn up?

Or is the demand that none of your personal local or federal tax dollars go to fund any transportation projects that you do not personally utilize? Will that include mail, fire or police that might use that road to reach your home? Public utility companies that need that road to service your home? Or at some point do you acknowledge it is better for everyone that there be a damn road nearby?

Honestly...the mental contortions required in the upkeep of these kinds of arguments is amazing.