It's a good thing the rest of us are more compassionate than you are, or we might be pushing for those with your mental disorder to be put out of their misery.
I'm not the one who has to worry about any mental disorder. I'm not a liberal.
Unfortunately,the country does and you are in a minority of a few.
Speaking of "not caring about others",I have heard there's no apathy like North Korean apathy.Have you considered moving there?
North Korea is a modern socialist utopia. Why would I want to move there? I suggest that all liberals pack their bags instead. It would suit them much better than me.
It's a good thing the rest of us are more compassionate than you are, or we might be pushing for those with your mental disorder to be put out of their misery.
Sorry, but "forced compassion" foisted on Americans by the Federal government isn't my idea of what is supposed to be constitutional government.
Considering how incoherent your whole rant is, I wouldn't
The problem with your thing is that even if people had "perfect lifestyle" (which people only agree on in the broad stroke), they'd still die, and some would die young anyway. A bad lifestyle increases your risk, doesn't eliminate it. No, the answer is not that because it is unknowable in reality. If I eat a McD every week and eat saturated food and keep a normal weight because I exercise, I'd still die from a heart attack or get colon cancer because they ate too much prepared meat. Are you going to put trackers on people and have them wear body cameras to verify what they eat?
Might as well ban all prepared food including all alcohols, only allow fresh produce, whole wheat products and lean meats shipped in the appropriate portions for your sex, activity and weight, daily from a well controlled central location...
No. It is about choice. No one is proposing to ban anything. Otherwise, smoking would have been banned many years ago. If you make poor lifestyle choices, you pay more. Your doctor visits and tests will clearly define the choices you made. We already do that with smoking. All health insurances charges more for smokers.
The fuzzy area is genetics. If you are predisposed to some illness due to genetic defect, how would that be handled? Right now, very few willingl choose genetic test Ong because there is no law to protect the results from being used against you.
What I do not understand is that no one complains about mandatory car insurance, yet, we make a raucous about mandatory health insurance.
Sorry, but "forced compassion" foisted on Americans by the Federal government isn't my idea of what is supposed to be constitutional government.
Guess you missed the Preamble, that part about the importance of "We the People," "insuring domestic Tranquility" and "promoting the general Welfare?" I have no doubt the Founding Fathers would have kicked you off their team.
Sorry, my phone didn't correct some of the words I thought it did.
Simply put - the stuff that people like about the ACA (no ban on pre-existing conditions for example) could have been achieved with a single piece of legislation that wouldn't have required the entire industry to be turned upside down (and, to boot, likely would have multi-party support.)
I completely agree with you. Unfrotunately, for the past 20 years no one has made a true effort to pass a law that removes pre-existing conditions. Many talked about it, but could not get enough votes. The main obstacle has been insurance companies. Insurance companies lobbied and complained that they could not make a profit while covering people with pre-existing conditions, unless the pool of insured was greatly increased. Hence you have the universal coverage mandate. Thank the insurance companies for that!
In the same token, other legislation could be passed to remove problematic portions of ACA or improve ACA. Yet all we get is a black and white reaction: it is all or nothing. We seemed to have lost the art of compromise and give and take.
This is definitely a thread I can chuckle over as the Americans argue over the merits or lack thereof of Obamacare. I shall just enjoy socialised health care that means my medical conditions are looked after without the worry of huge bill's or bankruptcy. I find it highly amusing that some people over the pond appear to want to "fight to the death" to defend the right of insurance companies and drug companies to over charge to the hilt and any efforts to reform the system are accused as being communist/socialist but hey that's your system.
Oh tallest skil, you could at least try to conceal your ignorance by staying quiet when you are out of your depth.
If I was wrong, you would have posted something to that effect. You didn’t. I’m not. Thanks for confirming.
Originally Posted by Durandal1707
Man, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but hey.
Says the troll.
You wouldn't.
Thanks for being unable to prove me wrong.
The Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Roberts, disagree with you.
And yet it remains illegal. Try educating yourself on what happened.
TS-speak for "I have no good reply to this"
Which explains why you can’t refute what I said.
I fall in one of those categories, and I'm saying it right now: The ACA is a very good thing for me. So there goes that.
Wow. One anecdote in the face of tens of millions. Guess I was “wrong”.
Originally Posted by singularity
I shall just enjoy socialised health care that means my medical conditions are looked after without the worry of huge bill's or bankruptcy.
You’re welcome for paying for your national defense such that you can “afford” such a system, by the way. Your tailors would be the richest men in your respective countries should we ever leave NATO. So many new pants would be needed.
You’re welcome for paying for your national defense such that you can “afford” such a system, by the way. Your tailors would be the richest men in your respective countries should we ever leave NATO. So many new pants would be needed.
I think we can afford our own defence, even more so if we don't buy the next generation of trident missile systems. If you want to believe otherwise then feel free. On Health care currently I enjoy the best of both worlds. Free at the point of contact socialised health care (paid through taxes and far more cost efficient than the US health care market) and private coverage from work which will pay me if I have a stay in hospital.
Back to nearer the original topic: better health care system >Applewatch, though smartwatches/wearables can compliment and enhance healthcare provision immensely.
Bush is an idiot. All of them. Comparing payments for health needs with a device that is basically a tool for measuring and recording a number of health metrics is as silly as saying a thermometer is better for you than health insurance, or that vegetables make better decisions than politicians. Well, I guess that last one is actually correct in his case...
All of them indeed. But it turns out, relatively speaking, George was the smart one. Sad considering he is clearly the stupidest person to have ever been an American president.
This is definitely a thread I can chuckle over as the Americans argue over the merits or lack thereof of Obamacare. I shall just enjoy socialised health care that means my medical conditions are looked after without the worry of huge bill's or bankruptcy. I find it highly amusing that some people over the pond appear to want to "fight to the death" to defend the right of insurance companies and drug companies to over charge to the hilt and any efforts to reform the system are accused as being communist/socialist but hey that's your system.
Was a great study a while back where they asked people about "obamacare" and the ACA and then described the plan but gave it no name. Something like 46% liked obamacare, 58% liked the ACA and 70 something liked the plan when told what it did. All for the same plan. Americans are amazingly tribal and easily blinded sometimes... All humans are, but living here I see it in Americans easiest.
Sorry, but "forced compassion" foisted on Americans by the Federal government isn't my idea of what is supposed to be constitutional government.
You might consider reading the constitution, the letters of the founders, or John Locke, from whom the founders stole liberally. What you are calling "forced compassion" is literally the definition of government under Locke.
Saying that isn't the American government is like reading Hamlet and wondering why everyone else is talking about royal families and revenge when it was clearly about you bookish prince...
A country without proper borders is not really a country, and a civilized modern nation can not just let all sorts of riff raff come across the borders.
Tens of millions of illegal anti-Americans should be disposed of immediately, and all border security should be tightened.
A great report on Vice recently covered the results of Alabama's 2011 HB-56 anti-immigration bill, three years after the law took effect.
It turns out that after the immigrants left the state, none of those wonderful, white, all-American Alabamans who remained proved willing or able to do the work the immigrants used to do for anywhere near the amount of money they were being paid. Farmers tried to lure all sorts of people to do the work, from the homeless, to the unemployed, to the underemployed seeking extra income, and finally even convicts from nearby prisons. The workers all complained the work was too hard, while the employers complained that the workers lacked the work ethic, strength, stamina, teamwork, and skills necessary get the job done. Local law enforcement also conceded that the illegal immigrants' departure had little to no effect on crime or illegal drug trafficking.
Quote:
"The law intended to make life so difficult for undocumented immigrants in Alabama that they would have to leave the state or the country... Three years after the law's passage, few officials, including the law's sponsors and those who voted for it, were willing to stand by the laws harsh provisions..."
"'Them Hispanics work hard as hell' Alabamian Jesse Durr tells [the reporter] during a segment of the episode."
"After speaking to several legislators, {the reporter} found that one of the main reasons the law had support was because the law polled well with Alabama voters."
From the reporter's interview of police chief Doug Pollard:
“From his perspective, the law was about stopping the terrorist and drug dealers from crossing the border, so he's still parroting that line,” Morton said. “It's a little sad that this didn't have the effect they wanted.”
In other words, Alabamans enacted this law as an expression of their racism and xenophobia, and ended up screwing themselves as a result. A lot of the folks who are most passionate about "protecting our borders" are the same type of folks who would've been wearing white sheets and hoods a generation ago.
News flash: Illegal immigrants aren't threatening your jobs. They're honest, hard-working people who came here to help lift their families out of poverty, by doing the hard and dirty work that Americans are unwilling and unable to do themselves.
This is definitely a thread I can chuckle over as the Americans argue over the merits or lack thereof of Obamacare. I shall just enjoy socialised health care that means my medical conditions are looked after without the worry of huge bill's or bankruptcy. I find it highly amusing that some people over the pond appear to want to "fight to the death" to defend the right of insurance companies and drug companies to over charge to the hilt and any efforts to reform the system are accused as being communist/socialist but hey that's your system.
Just remember there is no single group you can label "Americans." Quite a large portion of our country has a sensible view of universal health care and other topics of controversy. Some of the nutjobs you see here represent an extreme faction of the country's conservative base. Not coincidentally, these are primarily residents of states that tried to secede from the country in the 1800s in order to preserve slavery.
Guess you missed the Preamble, that part about the importance of "We the People," "insuring domestic Tranquility" and "promoting the general Welfare?" I have no doubt the Founding Fathers would have kicked you off their team.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that that part of the preamble is not something that translates into a legal requirement the Federal government must act on. I guess you missed that ruling.
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[2][3]
Just remember there is no single group you can label "Americans." Quite a large portion of our country has a sensible view of universal health care and other topics of controversy. Some of the nutjobs you see here represent an extreme faction of the country's conservative base. Not coincidentally, these are primarily residents of states that tried to secede from the country in the 1800s in order to preserve slavery.
That's an incorrect interpretation of the opposition to the ACA. There is no allowance for this at the Federal level and Congress didn't bother to make it so by amending the Constitution, which would've been the only correct way to do it. They knew that would never fly, so they rammed it through using every dirty trick in the book.
Also, slavery used to be common and women didn't have the ability to vote. Two things that were commonly accepted, yet clearly wrong based on the text of the Constitution that all "men" (in legalese, the "People") are created equal. The Constitution is purposefully vague because the power to decide is still largely left to the People and the States...NOT the Federal government.
A great report on Vice recently covered the results of Alabama's 2011 HB-56 anti-immigration bill, three years after the law took effect.
It turns out that after the immigrants left the state, none of those wonderful, white, all-American Alabamans who remained proved willing or able to do the work the immigrants used to do for anywhere near the amount of money they were being paid. Farmers tried to lure all sorts of people to do the work, from the homeless, to the unemployed, to the underemployed seeking extra income, and finally even convicts from nearby prisons. The workers all complained the work was too hard, while the employers complained that the workers lacked the work ethic, strength, stamina, teamwork, and skills necessary get the job done.<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> Local law enforcement also conceded that the illegal immigrants' departure had little to no effect on crime or illegal drug trafficking.</span>
In other words, Alabamans enacted this law as an expression of their racism and xenophobia, and ended up screwing themselves as a result. A lot of the folks who are most passionate about "protecting our borders" are the same type of folks who would've been wearing white sheets and hoods a generation ago.
News flash: Illegal immigrants aren't threatening your jobs. They're honest, hard-working people who came here to help lift their families out of poverty, by doing the hard and dirty work that Americans are unwilling and unable to do themselves.
A person who violates the laws of the country they are entering is already a lawbreaker, by definition. If "everyone" is breaking the law, then why is there a law to begin with? I'm not from Alabama, but immigration law is supposed to be enforced by the Feds. Are they currently doing that?
Comments
I support the full dismantling of Obamacare, immediately!
I do not care if people do not have health insurance! That's their problem!
And yes, an Apple Watch is better than Obamacare! Anything is better than Obamacare!
Unfortunately,the country does and you are in a minority of a few.
Speaking of "not caring about others",I have heard there's no apathy like North Korean apathy.Have you considered moving there?
It's a good thing the rest of us are more compassionate than you are, or we might be pushing for those with your mental disorder to be put out of their misery.
I'm not the one who has to worry about any mental disorder. I'm not a liberal.
Like the riff-raff who came aboard the Mayflower.
Oh wait !
I did write "modern civilized nation", therefore your point is entirely invalid.
Unfortunately,the country does and you are in a minority of a few.
Speaking of "not caring about others",I have heard there's no apathy like North Korean apathy.Have you considered moving there?
North Korea is a modern socialist utopia. Why would I want to move there? I suggest that all liberals pack their bags instead. It would suit them much better than me.
Sorry, but "forced compassion" foisted on Americans by the Federal government isn't my idea of what is supposed to be constitutional government.
No. It is about choice. No one is proposing to ban anything. Otherwise, smoking would have been banned many years ago. If you make poor lifestyle choices, you pay more. Your doctor visits and tests will clearly define the choices you made. We already do that with smoking. All health insurances charges more for smokers.
The fuzzy area is genetics. If you are predisposed to some illness due to genetic defect, how would that be handled? Right now, very few willingl choose genetic test Ong because there is no law to protect the results from being used against you.
What I do not understand is that no one complains about mandatory car insurance, yet, we make a raucous about mandatory health insurance.
Guess you missed the Preamble, that part about the importance of "We the People," "insuring domestic Tranquility" and "promoting the general Welfare?" I have no doubt the Founding Fathers would have kicked you off their team.
I completely agree with you. Unfrotunately, for the past 20 years no one has made a true effort to pass a law that removes pre-existing conditions. Many talked about it, but could not get enough votes. The main obstacle has been insurance companies. Insurance companies lobbied and complained that they could not make a profit while covering people with pre-existing conditions, unless the pool of insured was greatly increased. Hence you have the universal coverage mandate. Thank the insurance companies for that!
In the same token, other legislation could be passed to remove problematic portions of ACA or improve ACA. Yet all we get is a black and white reaction: it is all or nothing. We seemed to have lost the art of compromise and give and take.
Let me guess, no relevant comment?
If I was wrong, you would have posted something to that effect. You didn’t. I’m not. Thanks for confirming.
Says the troll.
Thanks for being unable to prove me wrong.
And yet it remains illegal. Try educating yourself on what happened.
Which explains why you can’t refute what I said.
Wow. One anecdote in the face of tens of millions. Guess I was “wrong”.
I shall just enjoy socialised health care that means my medical conditions are looked after without the worry of huge bill's or bankruptcy.
You’re welcome for paying for your national defense such that you can “afford” such a system, by the way. Your tailors would be the richest men in your respective countries should we ever leave NATO. So many new pants would be needed.
You’re welcome for paying for your national defense such that you can “afford” such a system, by the way. Your tailors would be the richest men in your respective countries should we ever leave NATO. So many new pants would be needed.
I think we can afford our own defence, even more so if we don't buy the next generation of trident missile systems. If you want to believe otherwise then feel free. On Health care currently I enjoy the best of both worlds. Free at the point of contact socialised health care (paid through taxes and far more cost efficient than the US health care market) and private coverage from work which will pay me if I have a stay in hospital.
Back to nearer the original topic: better health care system >Applewatch, though smartwatches/wearables can compliment and enhance healthcare provision immensely.
Wow. One anecdote in the face of tens of millions. Guess I was “wrong”.
Yep. When you say "literally no one", that actually means "literally no one". A single example proves you very much "wrong".
Try toning down the extreme absolutism and you might be right more often.
All of them indeed. But it turns out, relatively speaking, George was the smart one. Sad considering he is clearly the stupidest person to have ever been an American president.
Was a great study a while back where they asked people about "obamacare" and the ACA and then described the plan but gave it no name. Something like 46% liked obamacare, 58% liked the ACA and 70 something liked the plan when told what it did. All for the same plan. Americans are amazingly tribal and easily blinded sometimes... All humans are, but living here I see it in Americans easiest.
You might consider reading the constitution, the letters of the founders, or John Locke, from whom the founders stole liberally. What you are calling "forced compassion" is literally the definition of government under Locke.
Saying that isn't the American government is like reading Hamlet and wondering why everyone else is talking about royal families and revenge when it was clearly about you bookish prince...
A country without proper borders is not really a country, and a civilized modern nation can not just let all sorts of riff raff come across the borders.
Tens of millions of illegal anti-Americans should be disposed of immediately, and all border security should be tightened.
A great report on Vice recently covered the results of Alabama's 2011 HB-56 anti-immigration bill, three years after the law took effect.
It turns out that after the immigrants left the state, none of those wonderful, white, all-American Alabamans who remained proved willing or able to do the work the immigrants used to do for anywhere near the amount of money they were being paid. Farmers tried to lure all sorts of people to do the work, from the homeless, to the unemployed, to the underemployed seeking extra income, and finally even convicts from nearby prisons. The workers all complained the work was too hard, while the employers complained that the workers lacked the work ethic, strength, stamina, teamwork, and skills necessary get the job done. Local law enforcement also conceded that the illegal immigrants' departure had little to no effect on crime or illegal drug trafficking.
"The law intended to make life so difficult for undocumented immigrants in Alabama that they would have to leave the state or the country... Three years after the law's passage, few officials, including the law's sponsors and those who voted for it, were willing to stand by the laws harsh provisions..."
"'Them Hispanics work hard as hell' Alabamian Jesse Durr tells [the reporter] during a segment of the episode."
"After speaking to several legislators, {the reporter} found that one of the main reasons the law had support was because the law polled well with Alabama voters."
From the reporter's interview of police chief Doug Pollard:
“From his perspective, the law was about stopping the terrorist and drug dealers from crossing the border, so he's still parroting that line,” Morton said. “It's a little sad that this didn't have the effect they wanted.”
In other words, Alabamans enacted this law as an expression of their racism and xenophobia, and ended up screwing themselves as a result. A lot of the folks who are most passionate about "protecting our borders" are the same type of folks who would've been wearing white sheets and hoods a generation ago.
News flash: Illegal immigrants aren't threatening your jobs. They're honest, hard-working people who came here to help lift their families out of poverty, by doing the hard and dirty work that Americans are unwilling and unable to do themselves.
This is definitely a thread I can chuckle over as the Americans argue over the merits or lack thereof of Obamacare. I shall just enjoy socialised health care that means my medical conditions are looked after without the worry of huge bill's or bankruptcy. I find it highly amusing that some people over the pond appear to want to "fight to the death" to defend the right of insurance companies and drug companies to over charge to the hilt and any efforts to reform the system are accused as being communist/socialist but hey that's your system.
Just remember there is no single group you can label "Americans." Quite a large portion of our country has a sensible view of universal health care and other topics of controversy. Some of the nutjobs you see here represent an extreme faction of the country's conservative base. Not coincidentally, these are primarily residents of states that tried to secede from the country in the 1800s in order to preserve slavery.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that that part of the preamble is not something that translates into a legal requirement the Federal government must act on. I guess you missed that ruling.
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[2][3]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
That's an incorrect interpretation of the opposition to the ACA. There is no allowance for this at the Federal level and Congress didn't bother to make it so by amending the Constitution, which would've been the only correct way to do it. They knew that would never fly, so they rammed it through using every dirty trick in the book.
Also, slavery used to be common and women didn't have the ability to vote. Two things that were commonly accepted, yet clearly wrong based on the text of the Constitution that all "men" (in legalese, the "People") are created equal. The Constitution is purposefully vague because the power to decide is still largely left to the People and the States...NOT the Federal government.
A person who violates the laws of the country they are entering is already a lawbreaker, by definition. If "everyone" is breaking the law, then why is there a law to begin with? I'm not from Alabama, but immigration law is supposed to be enforced by the Feds. Are they currently doing that?