Cell Phones are Universal

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the AHA this week, and the liberal universe is all a flutter over the possibility of the bill being struck down, which it should be. In my opinion, the personal mandate is not even close to being constitutional, and considering the severalty nature of the bill, if the mandate is struck down, the entire bill is struck down, which would be a good thing and may allow us to have an adult conversation about health care without the input from people like Nancy Pelosi. This current bill was put together behind closed doors on a highly partisan basis, by narrow special interest groups, and is still not universal, nor efficient, and is proving to be a typical government bureaucratic over reach. For example, if this bill were to pass, I would be required to obtain insurance that covers substance abuse despite the fact that I don’t do drugs, don’t smoke, and rarely even have a drink. But according to the ruling elite, I need to have substance abuse coverage within my insurance policy. Brilliant, right? Well that’s a good example of how big government, know it all liberals like to govern. Find a minor problem, and design a solution that impacts everyone. In this case, approximately 13% of the population is without health care insurance, so liberals have designed a program that adversely impacts 87% of us to accommodate that minority. Again, brilliant right? The reality is is that this bill is so convoluted, so awash in bureaucratic red tape and such an over reach response to what that actual problem calls for, that striking it down and starting from scratch would be just common sense. So what to do?

First of all, let’s first admit that the vast majority of Americans do have insurance, and according to recent polls, most of them are quite pleased with their coverage. So the issue is finding a cost efficient way to bring health care insurance to the 13% that either can’t afford insurance, or simply choose to go without, which is a reality liberals do not want to admit. Currently, the largest health care insurance provider in the market place is the federal government, so liberals are simply trying to resolve this problem by expanding the already sizable reach of the government, and considering the current problems we are facing with the federal government in the lead already, giving them a bigger role, hardly makes sense right? Wouldn’t it make sense to go the other direction and allow the free market place to fill the void, and allow consumers to make their own decisions? The free market place is an amazing mechanism, and consumers are a lot smarter than government gives them credit for. Despite the fact that cell phones were very expensive when they first came out, today, you can buy one for $10, and I would guess that the vast majority of those 13% of people without health insurance, have a cell phone. Let’s look at another example of car insurance. I will wager to say that a majority of that 13% also drive, and have car insurance which can be purchased for as little as $20 a month according to the commercials in my area, so that’s two examples of the free market bringing products to consumers and providing them at a cost that is universally affordable. How about if we try that with health insurance? If health care insurance providers were allowed to compete in every state, for everyone’s business, and were allowed to design their policies to meet individual needs, I can guarantee you that costs would come down, substantially. Combine this effort with tort reform, and get the government and lawyers away from the doctor patient relationship, and you will achieve universal health care.


41 thoughts on “Cell Phones are Universal

  1. neocon1 June 24, 2012 / 11:28 am

    health care is something every one should have but by choice not through monetary theft by the govt at the point of a gun.

    I get into many peoples homes through my business and EVERY “poor” family has at least one television, computer, and cell phones.
    99% of the adults smoke and there is always beer and soda cans strewn around.
    The women always have expensive doo’s and nails and many have the obligatory gold teeth or grills and almost to the person pays in cash usually crumpled 10’s and 20’s Hmmmm

    my youngest two sons have no HI yet when I ask them about it they both say it is a waste of money for them….

    • neocon1 June 24, 2012 / 11:43 am

      Does America Have a ‘Dental Care Crisis’? Wait Until You See What Taxpayer-Funded, Soros-Linked PBS Documentary Has to Say

      “A peek into what America’s next ‘crisis’ could be,

      OPM and marxism what possibly could go wrong.?……

  2. doug June 24, 2012 / 12:25 pm

    It would make health insurance a little cheaper in the short run, but wouldn’t fix the uninsured issue or fix the underlying problem that healthcare itself is too expensive.

    Healthcare itself is too expensive, you have to start with that premise. Increase supply, reduce demand.

    We need a dual healthcare system, where people can choose to pay for their services or insurance and get the best quality care they can get for that method, and a mirror system where the government pays for the insurance and the users get government quality healthcare.

    Those teachers, federal employees, impoverished folks feeding off the teat of the taxpayer could use government healthcare system, or could choose to pay extra to use the private system on occasion.

    Supply could be increased in the govt. system at the expense of quality and thereby reducing the costs. Those folks can choose to leave the govt. network at a price like tripling the co-pay or deductible.

    • Amazona June 24, 2012 / 12:40 pm

      doug, who would buy something they could get for free? And who could in good conscience say that “government quality” is OK for the poor but not for the rest?

      No, the first thing we need to do is get the Federal government completely out of health care.

      Then we need to revamp the system. Increasing access to tailored insurance policies is a start. Getting employers out of providing health care is another good idea. Have individuals own their own policies. As for bringing down costs, the first step would be tort reform, so doctors are not ordering expensive tests just to head off potential lawsuits. This would also bring down the cost of medical malpractice insurance for doctors.

      I didn’t have health insurance for a while and I learned that I could get at least 40% taken off my bill if I paid in cash. 40% ! That is what dealing with insurance companies costs the health care provider.

      So: Solve the various issues that drive up the cost of insurance, such as rampant lawsuits and mandatory coverage for things like psych care, sexual orientation issues, etc., address issues that drive up the cost of actual care, and you have drastically slashed the cost of getting good care as well as encouraged people to become doctors and nurses.

      Have teachers and federal employees subject to the same laws and policies that other people are. They do not need or deserve special treatment.

      Halt the flood of illegals who get free health care, almost always the most expensive kind (ER rooms) and winnow out those already here who are not productive workers able to pay for their own insurance.

      Then and only then can the question of how to care for the truly indigent be addressed.

      What no one wants to talk about is that all of this would involve not just legislative action but an actual re-education of Americans and the reintroduction of lost values such as personal responsibility and prudent planning for our own needs.

      • dbschmidt June 24, 2012 / 1:26 pm

        The biggest factors (from my limited knowledge) is to decouple insurance from business, tort reform, and the ability to sell across state lines.

        One of the last companies I was going to do some work for offered $6K/yr if you had your own insurance, specialized insurance (pay for what you get) is what we had years ago where a physical and catastrophic was all that was covered (in my case) and we paid our doctors directly, and being in the IT field I can tell you inefficient it is to have 50 different “companies” like Blue Cross/Blue Shield does just to offer in every State.

        Since it is getting to the point that I may not be able to afford COBRA payments anymore without selling off a few things–I have already discussed the cost with my GP if I pay cash. It is quite reasonable to pay her directly and only for the tests that are required.

      • Cluster June 24, 2012 / 1:46 pm

        I now have a high deductible, 0 co pay insurance plan, but back in 2007, my wife needed gall bladder surgery. She was in the hospital for four days with what is a very routine operation. The hospital bill came to $31,0000. I offered them a one time payment of $10,000 for payment in full, and they took it.

        There is no reason why a routine operation and 4 days in the hospital should total $31,000. The reason is of course is that I was being asked to shore up for those who don’t pay; ie, illegals, indigents and the government.

      • doug June 25, 2012 / 2:38 pm

        Amazona, “doug, who would buy something they could get for free? And who could in good conscience say that “government quality” is OK for the poor but not for the rest?”

        We constantly choose to pay for things we could get for free or nearly free. We choose to drive to work rather than taking the bus. We choose to spend 3 or 4 times the money eating at a restaurant rather than staying home and cooking, nearly everything we do is a function of choosing to pay more for something that we desire more rather than taking the lower cost approach.

        You are correct on what needs to be done as it pertains to getting employers out of healthcare, opening up more options for insurance purchasing, etc. but as I pointed out, and as you have, that doesn’t address those who can’t afford insurance. Rather than do the other things first before we worry about that (as you have said) I suggest we get the darn thing done while the GOP can take the reins.

        That would mean doing those things that you and others suggest, but also providing a low cost/ lower quality option for those who wish to have the govt. pay for their insurance.

        Once again in nearly everything from education to food stamps to housing, the government recognizes that their quality is lower than what the private industry can offer – why can’t that work with government funded healthcare as well? You would have to be a liberal or socialist to believe that government quality should be the same for the poor as private quality is for the rich.

    • neocon1 June 24, 2012 / 12:47 pm

      Congress held no hearing on the plan’s constitutionality until nearly a year after it was signed into law. Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. “Are you serious?” she asked with disdain. “Are you serious?”



      Beginning in 2014, the “Employer Responsibility” provision would require employers with 50 or more workers to provide health coverage or pay a penalty. Not just any coverage, but a package of expensive benefits that the president deems “essential.”

      In most states, that requirement would add $1.79 per hour to the cost of a full-time employee. That would amount to the biggest hike in labor costs in American history. Employers in New York and New Jersey, where health plans are the most expensive, would be hit even harder.

      There, according to economist James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation, the employer requirement would add more than $2 an hour to the cost of employing someone.

      • Cluster June 24, 2012 / 1:01 pm

        I saw an interview last night with a small business owner who currently employs 44 people. He wants to expand, but is not, because of course that would put him over the 50 employee threshold, so he is sitting on the sidelines waiting to find out how Obamacare will be ruled on and if it passes, he says that he will simply not expand and do the best he can with his current operation.

      • Amazona June 24, 2012 / 5:53 pm

        neo, we have to remember that to the Left, even the squishy uncommitted Left who don’t want to come right out and admit they are Lefties, the Constitution is nothing more than a “guiding principle”.

        So it doesn’t say that slavery is illegal in this country, it really only hints that it sure would be nice if we were to disallow it. It doesn’t guarantee freedom of religion, it only suggests that it might be a good idea. And so on………

        To people of this mentality, the enumerated duties of the federal government and the additional restraints put upon it by the 10th Amendment are nothing more than general principles which we may, or may not, choose to be guided by.


      • Majordomo Pain June 26, 2012 / 9:41 am

        Participation by the Brimstone crew in using personal information about a poster to attack embarrass and try to intimidate has resulted in Brimstone posters being deleted, at least for some time. //Moderator

      • Amazona June 26, 2012 / 10:19 am

        Perhaps a few of you should break loose from the hive and get acquainted with rico, who stated on 2012/06/23 at 4:20 pm in the thread about Jeb Bush that, in reference to ideological differences between him and me (not that he is willing to actually commit to an actual ideology, being so praaaagmaaaaatic and all…) “I suspect where we differ the most is to what extent we think the Constitution should be a book of statutes as opposed to a guiding principle.”

        And then there is Princess Nan, who has stated her bewilderment that anyone could want to apply actual Constitutional law to the goals and agendas of the Obama administration.

        Your scouts would find many on the Left who do not agree that the Constitution of the United States of America is, or should be, distinct and governing law. Actually, merely BEING on the Left is a statement of belief that the Constitution should not be the defining and governing law of the land. No one who supports the Leftist agendas of big and powerful central government can also claim to believe it is and should be: A belief in large and powerful central government is the antithesis of Constitutional law and intent.

        Do the elements in your collective agree with the laws, requirements and restrictions set forth in our Constitution? Because this belief is the core and basic definition of 21st Century American Conservative.

  3. dennis June 28, 2012 / 2:43 am

    I’ve never had an at-fault accident in 45 years of legal driving. My sole accident was being rear-ended in a multi-car pile-up on a Boston freeway many years ago. But according to the ruling elite, I’m required to have automobile insurance that costs me hundreds of dollars a year. I’ve received no actual value from this expenditure. In fact I’ve paid thousands of dollars for nothing at all except pieces of paper in the mail and permission to drive my own car, which is more essential to live and function in America by far than owning a gun, which is a constitutional right. Sometime I wonder if the founding fathers could have foreseen the present day, with its priorities and problems, the second amendment wouldn’t have been something different than what it is. But I digress.

    Cluster grouses that he might have to buy insurance that covers substance abuse, despite the fact that he doesn’t do drugs, smoke or drink. I’m having a hard time understanding why conservatives aren’t howling about good drivers having to spend outrageous amounts of money – or any money at all – on car insurance. Is mandatory health insurance fundamentally any worse than mandatory car insurance? After all, living and breathing is even more unavoidable than driving a car, isn’t it?

    And if the argument is that you can cause a great deal of damage with an automobile, it begs the question of why gun insurance isn’t mandatory. One can do proportionally just as great if not greater damage to human life with a gun as an automobile, even more easily. Along with rights come responsibilities. Conservatism might be really fanatical about the letter of the law but sometimes it’s not very logical.

    • tiredoflibbs June 28, 2012 / 6:17 am

      No denny, what is illogical is that no matter how many times it has been explained to you, you keep regurgitating the same dumbed down talking points.

      Auto insurance is required by the STATE to drive on its roads and highways. If you had a car and it always stayed on your property (never entering a state road or highway), there is no requirement to have insurance on it. You pay for car insurance when you VOLUNTARILY drive on state roads and highways. If you don’t drive or own a car, you do not have to purchase insurance.

      You have to have automobile insurance to cover property damage you inflict on others with your car and again, it is a requirement if you drive on state roads and highways. You cannot compare this with health insurance – its apples to oranges – and again, it’s not authorized by the Constitution. We know that the Constitution is a hindrance to your proggy agenda.

      Health care law is a FEDERAL law requiring you to buy health insurance regardless of the state of your health. Cluster has a point – why should he pay for insurance which covers drug addiction treatment or (now) birth control pills??? THere is no authorization in the Constitution for the government to force you into any contract! Again, auto insurance is not a FEDERAL requirement. Health care insurance requirement is fine at the STATE level, as in Massachusetts. This requirement does not contradict the Constitution – you do know about the 10th amendment do you? From your posts, that is highly doubtful.

      Gun insurance? Your reasoning is so absurd that it is not worth comment. Can you show me where gun accidents outnumber automobile accidents??

      It is too simple no to understand the concept! Why do you have so much trouble with something so simple???

      Again, stick with photography and stained glass, anything else is above your intellectual capabilities.

      • dennis June 28, 2012 / 3:26 pm

        Tired, my bank account doesn’t distinguish whether it’s the state or the fed making me do it. I’m forced by law to purchase a product I’ve never used. I’ve heard your argument about roads many times and it’s bogus – they’re paid for by my taxes; they are public property, we all own them. Insurance is required to drive on the Interstate, a federally administered system, as well as state highways, “Let people who have accidents pay for their own damage; don’t make the rest of us pay for it” would be a logically consistent position for you to hold. But you’re not consistent, you just made excuses for the state forcing me to engage in commerce I don’t want or need.

        It looks like the Supreme Court didn’t buy your idea that the 10th amendment nullifies the Affordable Healthcare Act. For the record I don’t like the individual mandate any more than I like having to pay for other people’s car wrecks, but it’s been coming ever since the Heritage Foundation promulgated the primary argument for it (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1989/a-national-health-system-for-america). What we can hope is that Obama’s version will ultimately drive down the cost of insurance and open up affordable health care to many who don’t now have any safety net at all.

      • tiredoflibbs June 28, 2012 / 6:45 pm

        Denny, you have revealed again that you have piss poor reading comprehension. Your bank account has nothing to do with the argument. States can impose mandates that are legally passed by their legislatures as in auto insurance.

        How can you get so many things wrong is beyond me! Your taxes are irrelevant to the requirement to purchase auto insurance. You are ONLY required to purchase car insurance if you VOLUNTARILY drive. Big difference, a difference you cannot fathom.

        Study the Constitution and the limits it imposes on the federal government and the authorities granted to the states and get back to me. Then maybe you could understand. However, that will be a long time coming.

      • dennis June 28, 2012 / 8:41 pm

        Tired, I don’t for a moment buy your devotion to constitutional principes. Our former president and this blog’s fealty to him, especially in regard to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and many policies rising from the “war on terror” put the lie to you and your homies’ consitutional devotion a long time ago. That’s back when I and others were raising objections about blatant violations of the Constitution until we had our epiphany: neither Bush nor his supporters on the right gave a damn about the Constitution. You wear it now like a bloody hair shirt, mainly to disguise your hatred for the current president and everything about him. But it doesn’t fit you very well. It looks like something you picked up in a Halloween costume shop.

        Besides, I wasn’t addressing the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act – the Supreme Court just did that already. What I was addressing was Cluster’s whine that he doesn’t want to buy insurance that covers substance abuse, since he doesn’t do drugs himself. I’m saying in principle that horse was out of the barn long ago with car insurance. It’s mandated by law – even if it’s not a federal law, the effect on my bank account is the same. I’m forced to buy a product I neither want or need, which legal mandate you are now defending on the basis of saying my use of a car is “voluntary”.

        I’ll grant you I’m one hell of a better photographer than you are a comedian or a logician. And my use of a car is essential to my livelihood. I’ll go further and say auto use is more broadly essential for most Americans’ functioning and survival now than guns were 200 years ago. Nobody can demonstrate a similar practical necessity for broad gun ownership by private citizens today. The 2nd amendment is a relic of a time when guns actually were necessary for a lot of people; now the necessity is almost wholly symbolic. In the real world militias and posses have been superseded by the military and law enforcement agencies.

        Of course I understand the symbolism of the 2nd amendment and am not arguing for its elimination, but speaking literally, cars are broadly necessary for work, commerce and economic survival and guns simply aren’t. For anyone to oppose Obamacare from a practical standpoint, yet make the claim that Americans’ automobile use is “voluntary” and can be legally constrained on roads that their own taxes have paid for, contingent on paying exorbitant fees to insurance companies, is absurd. It’s hypocritical both outside the Constitutional aspect of it, and hypocritical inside it. But that’s nothing new here. This blog is Hypocrisy Central, your favorite Cognitive Dissonance Destination, it’s Mental Malfuntion Junction.

      • tiredoflibbs June 28, 2012 / 10:48 pm

        Awww, looks like I hit a sore spot with denny….

        Denny, once again, you are all over the place. You questioned: “I’m having a hard time understanding why conservatives aren’t howling about good drivers having to spend outrageous amounts of money – or any money at all – on car insurance. IS MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE ANY WORSE THAN MANDATORY CAR INSURANCE?”

        I explained it AGAIN as have others…. you asked the question and I showed you the difference between the two…. but your ignorance is predictable. Driving a car IS VOLUNTARY. You don’t have to, there is public transportation. So you are stating that you don’t need car insurance? What if you are in an incident in which you cause damage (personal and property) in excess of what you can pay for???? Hmmmm???? You are aware that if you cripple someone, you are responsible for their loss of income and recovery???? You’re telling me that “you don’t need insurace”??? You’re full of it, especially since you admit that it is necessary for your livelihood.

        Denny self righteous BS: “That’s back when I and others were raising objections about blatant violations of the Constitution until we had our epiphany:neither Bush nor his supporters on the right gave a damn about the Constitution.”

        Uh, denny, you can read the criticisms of Bush here in this blog.



        Then again, you show your ignorance about the CONSTITUTION:
        “I’ll grant you I’m one hell of a better photographer than you are a comedian or a logician. And my use of a car is essential to my livelihood. I’ll go further and say auto use is more broadly essential for most Americans’ functioning and survival now than guns were 200 years ago. Nobody can demonstrate a similar practical necessity for broad gun ownership by private citizens today. The 2nd amendment is a relic of a time when guns actually were necessary for a lot of people; now the necessity is almost wholly symbolic. In the real world militias and posses have been superseded by the military and law enforcement agencies.”

        Relic? It is a shame that you have this pathetic viewpoint since the SUPREME COURT has ruled that we do not have a right to police protection!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

        How else can an individual protect themselves from violent criminals?

        A relic? The right to bear arms for the necessity of a free state. A free state was important to the Founding Fathers. But from your drivel, not important to you. I guess you are willing to trade liberty and freedom for your twisted proggy drone view of “security”, where the government provides you for your every need; ie. health care and other proggy nonsense.

        It is plain, that your hatred of the Constitution is endless, as well as your inability to read the written word. You still post nonsense that shows the entire blog that you still don’t get it nor care remedy your complete ignorance. Photography puts food on your table. It’s a good thing that you do not rely on anything else to do so.

      • Amazona June 28, 2012 / 11:00 pm

        dennis, IN YOUR OPINION some of the things done in the Bush administration were not constitutional. Please do not try to get away with simply claiming that they were not, when in fact there was just opinion, and much of that highly biased.

        As for myself, when I saw Bush suggesting something that I thought was wrong, such as his amnesty proposal, I said so, and said so quite strongly. I know, I come across as rather timid, but in this case I did speak up, and as I remember my first and oft-repeated comment was that Bush had lost his mind.

        As for your silly claim that you do not “use” your auto insurance, well, just buy liability so you are only protecting the other parties in case of an accident. You do realize, don’t you, that the very definition of an “accident” is an unforeseen event? This is obviously something that sticks in your craw, and certainly nothing said here is going to dislodge it, but you need to realize that your argument is silly.

        Yes, driving a car makes your job easier. But you could hire a driver, or get another kind of job. You CHOOSE to drive yourself from one place to another, and driving a car entails following certain rules. You might feel quite competent to drive with a few drinks under your belt, but the rules say you can’t legally drive in that condition. You might feel that insurance is not necessary just because so far it never has been, but the rules say you can’t legally drive without it. But what it always comes down to is, you don’t HAVE to drive, you just want to drive, because it makes it easier for you to do other things you want to do.

        Basically you’re just a griper, with quite an extensive assortment of gripes, and you work at polishing up what you seem to think are witty names for things that gripe you. I don’t have children but I pay property taxes, really high property taxes, to support schools I will never use. I can’t just camp out in the local elementary school gym because my taxes have helped pay for it, and I can’t opt out of property taxes because I don’t have kids.

        I got over it. It sounds like you ought to work on that.

      • Amazona June 28, 2012 / 11:04 pm

        tired, I wonder if denny will squeal about Obama’s warrantless surveillance of American citizens, using drones to spy on us.

        Funny, isn’t it, how Rand Paul’s effort to legislate on this little matter got swept under the rug? The whole country knew about our plans to go into Iraq, the whole country knew about the Patriot Act, but when it comes to the Obamabots using technology to spy on American citizens just to see if they MIGHT be breaking some law, the whole Left is silent and the Complicit Agenda Media are buttoned up tight as can be.

      • tiredoflibbs June 28, 2012 / 11:13 pm

        Ama, denny did not squeal when obAMATEUR “invaded a sovereign nation without provocation”, “was not a threat to us” nor did he get “UN approval” as well as Congressional approval.

        Denny was silent when obAMATEUR outspent Bush in just under three years far exceeding any spending in Iraq. He and his fellow drones were so concerned about the debt Bush put “on our children and grand-children”.

        Denny dismisses everything this pResident does as well as any politician that has a “D” next to his name. All this does, is make him and people like him a cheap political hack, with their allegiance for sale.

      • dennis June 28, 2012 / 11:44 pm

        Tired, you have no idea what my grievances with Obama are, because I don’t air them in a venue where everyone is already all over him like feral dogs. I’ll reserve them for where they actually might make a difference in someone’s thinking. However I will tell you I’m on record from the very start for being emphatically against the drone program.

        And it’s terribly amusing to hear you and Ama make your cases for me being forced to engage in commerce against my will – especially in the face of your oh-so-principled opposition to Obamacare.

        Ama: “You do realize, don’t you, that the very definition of an “accident” is an unforeseen event?”

        Would that be sort of like having an unforeseen illness or medical emergency that might take me to the ER? Where I might rack up expensive bills I can’t pay if I’m not insured, that someone else will have to cover?

        No, no, no – that’s apples and oranges. Ha, people are so stupid, aren’t they?

      • dennis June 29, 2012 / 12:08 am

        Incidentally, Tired, I’ve never owned a firearm, but I have a bunch of friends who own them. Some of them have substantial arsenals, including machine guns. Oddly enough I feel just as free as they are, and also feel in less danger of doing lethal harm to someone else by accident.

        “I guess you are willing to trade liberty and freedom for your twisted proggy drone view of “security”, where the government provides you for your every need…”

        Actually I take very literally God’s promises to me. He says not to trust in the arm of flesh and I don’t. He says his angels surround those who fear Him, and deliver them from evil, and that’s good enough for me.

      • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 12:40 am

        No, dennis, no one gives a rat’s patootie whether or not you can afford health care or even if you get health care. That is your business.

        But the insurance is to cover OTHER PEOPLE for the harm you inflict upon them. I’ve seen this explained to you over and over again, and you just ignore it and rattle on about the injustice of having to follow rules you simply do not like.

        And,again, the answer is quite simple. Don’t drive and don’t buy insurance, or drive and follow the rules about having insurance TO PROTECT OTHER PEOPLE FROM YOU. It’s not about you being forced to engage in commerce against your will, it’s about you wanting to cherry-pick a situation so you get the benefits without the responsibility.

        Yes, you being The Only True Christian and all, I am sure God will pick you up by the scruff of the neck like a kitten and drop you into the lap of the nearest angel. If your incessant whining continues into the afterlife, this will probably happen quite quickly and with a divine sigh of relief at getting rid of you. But in the meantime if you are going to be voluntarily engaging in an activity which often results in harm to people, you will just have to put on your big boy pants and pay the toll, which in this case would be guaranteeing that anyone you injure can be compensated.

    • tiredoflibbs June 29, 2012 / 6:54 am

      denny: “Tired, you have no idea what my grievances with Obama are, because I don’t air them in a venue where everyone is already all over him like feral dogs.”

      No denny, you don’t air them here because doing so would reveal what a massive hypocrite and mindless drone you really are. You come here, like a feral dog, day in and day out to bash conservatives and their ideas, especially the actions of President Bush. When your pResident does the same as Bush, you are predictably silent and are not as outraged as you should be.

      That there denny is a hack a mindless drone. We criticize our own and Bush has had his share of criticisms here. But you are too cowardly to criticize the actions of obAMATEUR.

      “Oddly enough I feel just as free as they are, and also feel in less danger of doing lethal harm to someone else by accident.”

      Again, denny you don’t know what freedom is. You gladly exchange your freedom for some misguided “sense” of security that the pResident and his ilk give you (when they actually give you nothing). I can see you are just like the fools of 1930s Germany, where the people were blinded by eloquence and personality, all the while not questioning nor criticizing until it was too late.

      What is the obsession you have to keep reverting back to the gun argument??? That is irrelevant to the Constitutional authority for obAMACARE.

      And yes, my opposition is principled, since I am a Constitutionalist. To you, it is a piece of paper that is a hindrance to your ideology. You have posted here several times that it is a relic and needs to be a “living document” that automatically changes with the times. The Founding Fathers made allowances to change the document and put a process in place to do so.

      Oddly enough, you proggies don’t want to use that process. You rather use legal maneuverings in the courts, completely ignore it and use executive orders, etc. etc.

      You want health care, but do not care on how it gets implemented. You MAY be against the individual mandate. You won’t criticize the pResident for it, since you are to cowardly to face the music if you were to do that here. You want the end result and don’t care how it is achieved. You give no criticism as to the LIES the pResident told the American people during the debate. You don’t care of the rules change in the Senate to get it passed through reconciliation to avoid a filibuster. Not to mention all the political deals and arm twisting done to get this through the House.

      Denny, your posts have proved you to be one thing over all others – a coward. A mindless drone and a hack are close seconds.

      You can ramble on and on from now till hell freezes over and nothing will change about you and your twisted ideology. Again, you are perfectly suited to be a photographer – you won’t strain your mental capacity any further by pressing the button on your camera.


Comments are closed.