Jim in Anchorage Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 I have not Read anything yet along these lines, but I am sure it will be coming. I remember when the super secret Hillery plan was a current issue,There was was quite a bit of politician talk about the theme of since WE are paying for your HC, it gives us the right to more deeply regulate your lifestyle. No more smoking, drinking, hang gliding, eating food not on the approved list, etc etc. After all WE are paying for your health care and have the right to look after our interests. Oh well, maybe when it Hits's BO's desk he will revert to old habit's and write "present" instead of signing it.
John Adams Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Well duh. How else will people take care of themselves?
PearlHowardman Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election for the seat previously held by Democrat Ted Kennedy. Brown won by saying he would be the 41st vote against health care. He actually wrote "41" when people asked for his autograph. The voters of Massachusetts, the ONLY people who have actually experienced health care similar to Obama's, elected Brown knowing that the health care plan there SUCKED! A Republican in Democrat Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat! Hello?!? Like Obama's plan, the Massachusetts plan FORCED residents to buy health care. What more to people need to know that Obama's health care plan won't work? Look at what actually happened in Massachusetts!
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 22, 2010 Author Posted March 22, 2010 Well duh. How else will people take care of themselves? I look at it as a seat belt law taken to the 10th power. We know what is best for you, obey or pay the fine.
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Well duh. How else will people take care of themselves? To quote Ronald Reagan: "This is what this election is about: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." An amazing speech from 1964. He could easily deliver it today.
Alaska Darin Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 To quote Ronald Reagan: "This is what this election is about: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." An amazing speech from 1964. He could easily deliver it today. And the Republicans and Democrats and the assclowns who blindly follow them still wouldn't get it.
1billsfan Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 To quote Ronald Reagan: "This is what this election is about: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." An amazing speech from 1964. He could easily deliver it today. I'm sensing a ton of anger towards the tyrannous actions of King Obama and the traitorous actions of the democrats in general. It's what naturally happens when Americans are told to "go to hell" by their president and his scheming little minions. That they have the "audacity" to tell you that they know better than you and will make the ultimate power grab by now giving themselves the ability of controlling your very life. They've declared war on the free and hard working citizens of America who don't want to live in a communist country. I said this in another thread and I'll say it again, this move will make Sarah Palin a VERY attractive candidate for an extremely angry electorate looking to inflict maximum megaton damage to the liberals and elitists. She is the polar opposite of Obama, she's frothing-at-the-mouth hated by the elites, she's as outside of Washington as you can get. I think these events move Palin to the top of the preliminary list of challengers. This is a prediction, not an endorsement of Palin but after reading what Reagan I was thinking who could deliver that speech today? Romney, Huckabee? I don't think they couldn't deliver it the same way she could and they just don't carry that big "THWACK!" upside the head of the communist loving "we know better than you" elitists that Americans will surely want to deliver.
BillsFanNC Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 To quote Ronald Reagan: "This is what this election is about: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." An amazing speech from 1964. He could easily deliver it today. Awesome. Thanks for posting that.
Adam Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I'm sensing a ton of anger towards the tyrannous actions of King Obama and the traitorous actions of the democrats in general. It's what naturally happens when Americans are told to "go to hell" by their president and his scheming little minions. That they have the "audacity" to tell you that they know better than you and will make the ultimate power grab by now giving themselves the ability of controlling your very life. They've declared war on the free and hard working citizens of America who don't want to live in a communist country. This sounds like the stuff I have head on CSPAN from both sides. I am tired of being told by both sides what I should think. We should tell them how to vote and they should stop telling us what we think. Ahh, I will just keep telling myself thatthis is the best place in the world....that will make all of this go away I said this in another thread and I'll say it again, this move will make Sarah Palin a VERY attractive candidate for an extremely angry electorate looking to inflict maximum megaton damage to the liberals and elitists. She is the polar opposite of Obama, she's frothing-at-the-mouth hated by the elites, she's as outside of Washington as you can get. I think these events move Palin to the top of the preliminary list of challengers. This is a prediction, not an endorsement of Palin but after reading what Reagan I was thinking who could deliver that speech today? Romney, Huckabee? I don't think they couldn't deliver it the same way she could and they just don't carry that big "THWACK!" upside the head of the communist loving "we know better than you" elitists that Americans will surely want to deliver. When the objective is to damage the other party, you damage the whole country. This is what its come to.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Frankly? I am FOR the government regulating the lives of every single person that CHOOSES to be on subsidized health care. Why? Because choices need to have consequences. We can't give something away for nearly free, and get nothing back on our investment. Per Ben Franklin: We need to motivate people to get off subsidized health care, not create a situation where they are comfortable in it. And, by regulating their behavior(food, exericse, no smoking, etc.), we are ensuring that the cost of the health care we are providing them is contained. The vehicle is simple: an RN committee is assigned to each person. The RN group creates a care plan on one side, to take care of whatever is wrong with them, and, on the other side, creates a "patient plan". If the patient isn't accountable to their plan, then they are taxed, and will continue to be, until the committee sees improvement. Piss testing, body fat measuring, VO2 max are all simply tests that cost little to measure how we are doing on the plan. Fundamentally, everyone, heavy drinking, fat-ass corporate people, as well as, pot smoking, lame-ass slackers, needs to realize that consuming health care services costs $$$. You can't expect to be able to live poorly, and not have to pay for it. So, this is merely an extension of that, and is the contrapositive: If you expect to not have to pay the full price for your health care, then you must also accept regulation of your life choices. Anybody who chooses to receive the benefits of their government daddy, must also agree to live by his rules. Freedom from slavery also means freedom from dependency. Those that support this idiotic health care plan have no problem with the government intruding into the lives of the people who have to pay for this, they should expect the same treatment regarding what they do with what is being given to them.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 If they use it to make birth control mandatory, and make people have to apply for a license to have kids, I could be swayed to government regulating our lives.
CosmicBills Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I said this in another thread and I'll say it again, this move will make Sarah Palin a VERY attractive candidate for an extremely angry electorate looking to inflict maximum megaton damage to the liberals and elitists. This would make every democrat extremely happy. Palin has ZERO shot of winning any election, which is why she will never run for office again. She's a bad reality show on wheels with absolutely no ability to inspire or lead let alone govern.
1billsfan Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 This would make every democrat extremely happy. Palin has ZERO shot of winning any election, which is why she will never run for office again. She's a bad reality show on wheels with absolutely no ability to inspire or lead let alone govern. They used to say that about communists, and just look at who made it into the White House. As for what makes democrats extremely happy, the answer is free stuff. Given the freedom destroying events of the last few days, Sarah Palin's shot just got a whole lot better than you could ever imagine.
DrFishfinder Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Frankly? I am FOR the government regulating the lives of every single person that CHOOSES to be on subsidized health care. Why? Because choices need to have consequences. We can't give something away for nearly free, and get nothing back on our investment. Per Ben Franklin: We need to motivate people to get off subsidized health care, not create a situation where they are comfortable in it. And, by regulating their behavior(food, exericse, no smoking, etc.), we are ensuring that the cost of the health care we are providing them is contained. The vehicle is simple: an RN committee is assigned to each person. The RN group creates a care plan on one side, to take care of whatever is wrong with them, and, on the other side, creates a "patient plan". If the patient isn't accountable to their plan, then they are taxed, and will continue to be, until the committee sees improvement. Piss testing, body fat measuring, VO2 max are all simply tests that cost little to measure how we are doing on the plan. Fundamentally, everyone, heavy drinking, fat-ass corporate people, as well as, pot smoking, lame-ass slackers, needs to realize that consuming health care services costs $$$. You can't expect to be able to live poorly, and not have to pay for it. So, this is merely an extension of that, and is the contrapositive: If you expect to not have to pay the full price for your health care, then you must also accept regulation of your life choices. Anybody who chooses to receive the benefits of their government daddy, must also agree to live by his rules. Freedom from slavery also means freedom from dependency. Those that support this idiotic health care plan have no problem with the government intruding into the lives of the people who have to pay for this, they should expect the same treatment regarding what they do with what is being given to them. You are being sarcastic here, right? Nearly for free? The healthcare and insurance companies have the upper hand and we will ultimately get sub standard health care, or significantly higher rates, or higher taxes or some combination thereof. It all comes down to money. Specifically, the profits that the healthcare and insurance companies and their majority stockholders demand.
Fan in San Diego Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I havn't seen anything where the government pays for your healthcare fully. Some poor people will get subsidies but that is a smaller fraction of the people.
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 This would make every democrat extremely happy. Palin has ZERO shot of winning any election, which is why she will never run for office again. She's a bad reality show on wheels with absolutely no ability to inspire or lead let alone govern. I'd still hit it. They used to say that about communists, and just look at who made it into the White House. As for what makes democrats extremely happy, the answer is free stuff. This just became the stupidest thread I've ever seen.
Magox Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I havn't seen anything where the government pays for your healthcare fully. Some poor people will get subsidies but that is a smaller fraction of the people. If you make below $12,000 a year your health insurance is more than 95% payed for, the average subsidies for families making $80,000 or under is at 59%.
Fan in San Diego Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 If you make below $12,000 a year your health insurance is more than 95% payed for, the average subsidies for families making $80,000 or under is at 59%. And you have a problem with that? Poor people are still people and not expendable trash. They deserve decent healthcare as well. Or they just show up at emergency rooms and our insurance company pays for it. Emergency is more expensive that preventative care by seeing a doctor regularly.
Magox Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 And you have a problem with that? Poor people are still people and not expendable trash. They deserve decent healthcare as well. Or they just show up at emergency rooms and our insurance company pays for it. Emergency is more expensive that preventative care by seeing a doctor regularly. Ya I have a problem with that.
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 And you have a problem with that? Poor people are still people and not expendable trash. They deserve decent healthcare as well. Or they just show up at emergency rooms and our insurance company pays for it. Emergency is more expensive that preventative care by seeing a doctor regularly. Nobody "deserves" health care. It's an exclusive-use resource, not an entitlement. And again, that's completely beside the fact. This law doesn't provide health care to anyone.
Recommended Posts