Rant.

[Lanie]

Yeah, that's working out for them well, isn't it?? Taxes for them are through the roof. Homes are hyper-inflated. Health care is poor, at best. Crime is at all time highs, even though they have a gun ban over there. Fuel is over $7/ gallon.  Need I go on??

We have a much higher crime rate than all of those countries, probably more than all those countries put together. I don't blame that on guns. I blame it on a culture which always says that violence and punishment is always the answer. Obama said he wanted to focus on rehabilitation. Japan does that, and their repeat crime rate is really low.

And not that it's the President's fault, but didn't gas skyrocket under Bush? I don't think there's much we can do about fuel outside of look for alternative forms of energy. We can't live on the remains of dinosaurs but for so long. I don't know much about the home situation. I do remember speaking to a German who said that she came here for opportunity and realized her thinking was flawed. She said if she had stayed in Germany, that she would have her house by now. I don't know if that's true or not, but she seems to have thought so.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

...

People voted for Obama and Clinton because they really don't want this hands off, companies can do what they want to, crappy healthcare system. Instead of labeling them all as Socialists, why not try to address the problems? Healthcare is a joke in this country. You have to pay money to get a donor's list. Did you know that? That's Capitalism at it's most disgusting part. For those of us who do have private insurance, all of us don't have insurance that will cover pre-conditions. If you're mostly going to the doctor for pre-conditions, then what the hell good is health insurance? Plus, if one comes down with Cancer or another fatal disase, a lot of insurance companies try not to cover it. This all might be fine if going to the doctor wasn't over a hundred dollars and prescription medications were not out the roof. I don't mean to sound harsh, but this is one shitty, ****ed up system you're supporting.

...

If it is so crappy why are Canadians still coming to the US for healthcare? Why are private clinics in Canada booming?

Hell, Canada barely foots a bill for national defense (they get to take our blood and money for granted) and their system sucks. Ditto the EU, Russia, China and EVERYWHERE ELSE socialist medicine exists.

You can blame capitalism but the fact remains the doctors, hospitals and researchers don't/won't/can't work for free. It takes 10+ years and over $300 million to bring the average drug to market bt all we here about is how unfair it is that pharmaceutical companies want to make a profit.

[Thor]

For the record, I haven't really LIKED our Presidents since 1976.  Reagan did a lot of good, but he also allowed some damage, especially to civil liberties. It's been downhill ever since. Perhaps you're not old enough to know what Reagan and Bush 41 did.

As far as health care, I can't complain about mine. Many companies provide health care  and pre-existing conditions are waived when one signs up for many of the programs. Are there health care programs that are less than optimal?? Certainly. The #1 thing the government should do for health care is limit medical malpractice lawsuits in MOST cases. There are some cases that the Doctor needs to lose their license to practice and pay some hefty restitution. (Like removing the wrong organ, operating on the wrong body part, etc) I don't know about WalMart medications. I DO know that we pay far too much for most prescription medicine.

The FDA is ridiculous. Too many people rely on the Government to run their lives and that is where the problem lies. I don't WANT the government to run my life. Hell, they can't even run themselves properly. If I want to smoke, and drink, so be it. The Government is taxing those "luxuries" out of our reach. It won't be long before the Government will control most every facet of our lives and that is where I have the problem.

As far as fuel, we have PLENTY available to us. The eco-nazis refuse to let us get at  it.

[Lanie]

If it is so crappy why are Canadians still coming to the US for healthcare? Why are private clinics in Canada booming?

Hell, Canada barely foots a bill for national defense (they get to take our blood and money for granted) and their system sucks. Ditto the EU, Russia, China and EVERYWHERE ELSE socialist medicine exists.

You can blame capitalism but the fact remains the doctors, hospitals and researchers don't/won't/can't work for free. It takes 10+ years and over $300 million to bring the average drug to market bt all we here about is how unfair it is that pharmaceutical companies want to make a profit.

I've spoken to people who live in Canada who think their healthcare system is wonderful. They have family members getting serious treatment there.

Actually, I would favor private clinics staying open. If one has the money to go private, then they should be allowed to.

I'm not saying it *should* be universal healthcare, but we do need a reform IMO.

[TheSarge]

For a person who professes to want to teach you are certainly ignorant of history..........

doc

Again...proof positive she's so far out on the left she doesn't ealize what "normal" is.

[Rebel]

I've spoken to people who live in Canada who think their healthcare system is wonderful. They have family members getting serious treatment there.

The best man at my wedding, a teacher here in the Augusta area who is from Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, says that for anything other than the sniffles, it sucks ass. Here in the states, we treat that shit at home.

[TheSarge]

The best man at my wedding, a teacher here in the Augusta area who is from Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, says that for anything other than the sniffles, it sucks ass. Here in the states, we treat that shit at home.

There used to be a member at TOS that is/was Canadian that moved to the U.S. that used to tell us horror stories about socialized medicine.

How the Canucks were always coming across the border to get treatment in days that would take MONTHS at best to get up north.

There's a reason that people from other countries take "medical holidays" to the states.

Don't see too many of those kind of trips heading outbound.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I've spoken to people who live in Canada who think their healthcare system is wonderful. They have family members getting serious treatment there.

Actually, I would favor private clinics staying open. If one has the money to go private, then they should be allowed to.

I'm not saying it *should* be universal healthcare, but we do need a reform IMO.

And I have friends from Canada who despise it.

The best reform would be to allow market forces to resume control; a thing that has not happened since HMOs were fabricated by the gov't.

If you set $1 million dollars on a desk and tell people to only take what they need you be pretty certain they will suddenly need a million dollars and those who say they don't need it will be driven out of business by those who do take the money. All health insurance does is create a non-market driven pool of money.

Healthcare, like every other commodity--i.e. food, clothing, housing etc--should be market driven. The fact that suppliers would be trying to reach as broad a market as possible would keep prices down. But insurance comes in and displaces the poor by creating more money than the market could actually generate. Why seek to make healthcare accessible to the poor when the middle and upper classes can displace those dollars with insurance funds?

Instead you seek a system that by its very nature no longer sees consumers as potential customers (read: people giving money) but instead sees them as a virtually unlimited number of consumers of very limited resources. Worse, the system will be governed by a group that has already shown through TARP, the auto bailout, the stimulus package and now Cap-n-Trade that they bankroll cronyism to get their political will.

We scream tyranny and socialism because there is no other definition for the things we describe. Stop giving the self-serving crooks power over your life--and by default our's too. Demand they stick only those things mandated in the Constitution...it's there for a reason.

[Lanie]

For the record, I haven't really LIKED our Presidents since 1976.  Reagan did a lot of good, but he also allowed some damage, especially to civil liberties. It's been downhill ever since. Perhaps you're not old enough to know what Reagan and Bush 41 did.

As far as health care, I can't complain about mine. Many companies provide health care  and pre-existing conditions are waived when one signs up for many of the programs. Are there health care programs that are less than optimal?? Certainly. The #1 thing the government should do for health care is limit medical malpractice lawsuits in MOST cases. There are some cases that the Doctor needs to lose their license to practice and pay some hefty restitution. (Like removing the wrong organ, operating on the wrong body part, etc) I don't know about WalMart medications. I DO know that we pay far too much for most prescription medicine.

The FDA is ridiculous. Too many people rely on the Government to run their lives and that is where the problem lies. I don't WANT the government to run my life. Hell, they can't even run themselves properly. If I want to smoke, and drink, so be it. The Government is taxing those "luxuries" out of our reach. It won't be long before the Government will control most every facet of our lives and that is where I have the problem.

As far as fuel, we have PLENTY available to us. The eco-nazis refuse to let us get at  it.

I'm old enough to remember seeing Reagan on TV and that's it. I don't remember him as an actual President for what he did. I have had time to read up on the good and bad points about him. I know people think his supply side economics got us out of the recession that Carter was in office for the beginning of. That might be true, but I remember hearing the argument that it hurt the poor. It was supposedly during his administration that buildings in bad shape got destroyed and people were left without a place for a while. In theory, the government is supposed to help them find a new place, but what if they can't get one with the same affordable rates and so forth? I also have issues with his involvement in the Iran/Iraq war. Which side were we supposed to be on? Why did we get involved? I do think we were wrong to push the Shah because the people really didn't want it. I believe in sovereignty.

I do know that Reagan wasn't guilty of starting the help in Afghanistan against the Communists like he was accused of. Carter (a Democrat) started that. I tend to think if the cure is worse than the illness, then stay out of it. Some have argued that Mousavi won't be any better than the current President, but he actually did want to do some reforms. It also appears that people want him there. It also appears that we're being accused of interference regardless, so we might as well do what we want. I think what bothers me the most about Reagan is that he pretty much sealed the Republican Party into the Religious Right. Now, all those activist groups expect Republican candidates to cater to them. Conservative is now associated with a bunch of socially conservative ideas, even though those socially conservative ideas are all about government interference (meaning it's not conservative at all).

I remember the first Bush. I remember him for the month long Persian Gulf War and the recession. Late on, I read a document from the DIA on the Kuwait subject that really bothered me. It pretty much said we needed to do anything, including war to protect our oil interests. From where going to war for oil is NOW wrong, I remember people constantly arguing that it would be justified to go to war for economical reasons. Those ideas lasted until at least the late 1990s.

I remember Clinton. It does look like he got us out of the recession in the mid 1990s, but then he signed away the factory jobs. These ideas would be better enforced by Bush later. I remember him trying to get us into wars that I thought we really shouldn't be getting into (so I was complaining even then). I remember saying that he kept out of Vietnam, but that he would drag us into a war himself. Meanwhile, I heard all the horrible things about him being a "baby killer," a "war dodger," and a man who favored gay marriage. Nevermind that Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage Act."

George H.W. Bush. Cowboy that freaking scared the hell out of a lot of us. He wouldn't let us know he wasn't as bad as we thought at times.

I think my thing is that I want the government to regulate as much as necessary, but I don't want a big brother. I don't want a completely universal system that takes away my choice, but I don't want to always be at the mercy of big companies. I don't want work places to be able to exploit their workers. With the exception of the factories, sexual haressment cases, and the butcher shops, I don't think we need a lot of government regulation between employers and employees. I can handle my asshole of a boss on my own. Thank you. I don't want Obama regulating the banks and acting like the companies are our enemies. I don't want government telling us what we can do in our private lives with a few exceptions. The Religious Right wants way too much. I don't want to be spied on by my government unless a real reason has been given. I don't want the right to own property to be taken away.

In short, I want a government that doesn't interfere a lot. I'm sorry, but neither party is it. Democrats interfere a lot economically. Republicans interfere a lot socially. You can justify that all you want to, but it's still government interference, and there's nothing conservative about it.

[Lanie]

And I have friends from Canada who despise it.

The best reform would be to allow market forces to resume control; a thing that has not happened since HMOs were fabricated by the gov't.

If you set $1 million dollars on a desk and tell people to only take what they need you be pretty certain they will suddenly need a million dollars and those who say they don't need it will be driven out of business by those who do take the money. All health insurance does is create a non-market driven pool of money.

Healthcare, like every other commodity--i.e. food, clothing, housing etc--should be market driven. The fact that suppliers would be trying to reach as broad a market as possible would keep prices down. But insurance comes in and displaces the poor by creating more money than the market could actually generate. Why seek to make healthcare accessible to the poor when the middle and upper classes can displace those dollars with insurance funds?

Instead you seek a system that by its very nature no longer sees consumers as potential customers (read: people giving money) but instead sees them as a virtually unlimited number of consumers of very limited resources. Worse, the system will be governed by a group that has already shown through TARP, the auto bailout, the stimulus package and now Cap-n-Trade that they bankroll cronyism to get their political will.

We scream tyranny and socialism because there is no other definition for the things we describe. Stop giving the self-serving crooks power over your life--and by default our's too. Demand they stick only those things mandated in the Constitution...it's there for a reason.

Outside of the right to own guns and property, I don't see where the Constitution supports Capitalism.

How would you propose that we get rid of the system that sells insurance? I have to say that if the prices of healthcare would go down, I wouldn't need it outside of potential surgery.

[Chris_]

I agree with the concept that I made my bed, and now I can lie in it. I've often said that about voters no matter which way they voted. I'm still hoping it's not as bad as some conservatives thought.

I do notice the history of places like the USSR and so forth. I've also noticed the countries in the present that have been a Social Democracy. For the most part, they're working out (although Britain needs serious healthcare reform).

Have you also noticed that a significant number of European countries are beginning to figure it out and move AWAY from socialism.......France and Germany are privatizing their health care system, changing labor laws to become more competitive, slamming the door on immigration, and their individual governments are becoming more and more conservative.........the only reason that ANY of the EU contries have been able to sustain a "socialist" democracy is that we.....the US taxpayers.......have been footing the bill for their defense since 1945........hell, they couldn't even handle the problems in Serbia, Bosnia, and Kosovo......their own back yard.......we, the decadent capitalists, that they love to look down their respective noses at, spent our blood and treasure, yet again for Europe.  Don't cite the EU to me as an example of a functional "social democracy", because if it weren't for us, they either would be speaking German or Russian (or both),

If you want to look at a "real life" example of how well socialism works, take a look at Venezuela......it is happening right now in real time.........check out the economic facts about that country, and the general welfare of its citizens........food shortages, medical care shortages, no jobs.........runaway inflation, when Chavez nationalized oil production, the companies with the talent and knowledge bailed (or were thrown out), and now his oil production is sagging, and there is nobody left in the country that knows how to run it...........that's socialism at work.   Eventually, the people will get fed up, and another revolution will take place..........more lives lost in the usless persuit of a leftist "Utopia" that will never exist.  And frankly that is what I fear will happen here, if no one reigns the messiah in, and does it quickly......

Our founders are spinning in their graves........

doc

[Lanie]

Have you also noticed that a significant number of European countries are beginning to figure it out and move AWAY from socialism.......France and Germany are privatizing their health care system, changing labor laws to become more competitive, slamming the door on immigration, and their individual governments are becoming more and more conservative.........the only reason that ANY of the EU contries have been able to sustain a "socialist" democracy is that we.....the US taxpayers.......have been footing the bill for their defense since 1945........hell, they couldn't even handle the problems in Serbia, Bosnia, and Kosovo......their own back yard.......we, the decadent capitalists, that they love to look down their respective noses at, spent our blood and treasure, yet again for Europe.  Don't cite the EU to me as an example of a functional "social democracy", because if it weren't for us, they either would be speaking German or Russian (or both),

If you want to look at a "real life" example of how well socialism works, take a look at Venezuela......it is happening right now in real time.........check out the economic facts about that country, and the general welfare of its citizens........food shortages, medical care shortages, no jobs.........runaway inflation, when Chavez nationalized oil production, the companies with the talent and knowledge bailed (or were thrown out), and now his oil production is sagging, and there is nobody left in the country that knows how to run it...........that's socialism at work.   Eventually, the people will get fed up, and another revolution will take place..........more lives lost in the usless persuit of a leftist "Utopia" that will never exist.  And frankly that is what I fear will happen here, if no one reigns the messiah in, and does it quickly......

Our founders are spinning in their graves........

doc

A revolution in Venezuela might happen because Chavez has quite a grip on them.

I didn't realize that France and Germany were moving away from the Social system in healthcare. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It's also a good point about the US aid to those countries. I'll give that some thought.

[Eupher]

Lanie:

Outside of the right to own guns and property, I don't see where the Constitution supports Capitalism.

This is where your naivete really shows itself.

The operative word here isn't "capitalism" or "communism" or any other type of ECONOMIC system that is represented and extolled within the Constitution.

The operative word is FREEDOM.

Personal freedom and personal power (capitalism) versus state power and lessening of personal freedoms all in the guise of "we're from the government and we're here to help you."

Along the way, I freely admit, the original intent of the Constitution has become clouded, mostly due to well-meaning but incredibly misguided bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers who somehow found a problem that is best solved by mandating the federal government to fix it. Ergo, we've got untold thousands of laws, regulations, standards, and "suggestions" that fill entire libraries.

All of this was done because somebody thought the power should go to the federal government. And too many people rolled over and yawned, then went back to sleep.

You libs still haven't woken up to realize the the government is an entity that does NOT serve you and me. It serves ITSELF.

Don't believe me? Look at Congress and what it's done for itself, all on our nickel. Look at the U.N. and what it does with the millions of dollars that the US taxpayer wastes on that POS body. Look at Lord Zero and what he's doing for his socialist agenda.

[Lanie]

Lanie:
This is where your naivete really shows itself.

The operative word here isn't "capitalism" or "communism" or any other type of ECONOMIC system that is represented and extolled within the Constitution.

The operative word is FREEDOM.

Personal freedom and personal power (capitalism) versus state power and lessening of personal freedoms all in the guise of "we're from the government and we're here to help you."

Along the way, I freely admit, the original intent of the Constitution has become clouded, mostly due to well-meaning but incredibly misguided bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers who somehow found a problem that is best solved by mandating the federal government to fix it. Ergo, we've got untold thousands of laws, regulations, standards, and "suggestions" that fill entire libraries.

All of this was done because somebody thought the power should go to the federal government. And too many people rolled over and yawned, then went back to sleep.

You libs still haven't woken up to realize the the government is an entity that does NOT serve you and me. It serves ITSELF.

Don't believe me? Look at Congress and what it's done for itself, all on our nickel. Look at the U.N. and what it does with the millions of dollars that the US taxpayer wastes on that POS body. Look at Lord Zero and what he's doing for his socialist agenda.

The problem is everybody does not agree with your definition of freedom. If you're a single mom who can't get a job because nobody can look after your kid, then that's not freedom. If you can't work because you can't get medical help for a condition, then that's not freedom either.

And yes, I know. Nobody should be given help if they are human and make a mistake in life. Nobody should be given a second chance. I've been told all about that.

[Chris_]

I can understand not wanting Universal Healthcare because of waiting lists, but do you really want to keep the same piece of crap of a system that we have now? It's garbage. Something needs to be done.


Why did I as a voter have to choose between the Republicans (who make it clear that the economy should be allowed to crash and burn for its own good at times) and Obama (who wants to be everybody's big ass brother)? What the hell type of choice is that?

Maybe you all don't think there's a middle ground, but I say there is one.

Claptrap.......the US has the finest healthcare in the world.  90% of the technology and research leading to treatments/cures comes from the US........if anything, we have progressed so far that lives of people are being preserved that a decade ago would have been removed from the gene pool.......and I'm not certain that that is a good thing........the only catch is that if you want the best care, you actually have to get a job, become productive, and PAY FOR YOUR CARE.  Unique concept isn't it, you can go nearly anywhere in this country and get basic care for free, but if you want the best, it is going to cost you for the talent and resources that you use........what a country!!

The foolishness of the liberal mantra of "universal health care" is just as stupid as saying that everyone has a right to a Rolls Royce.........if you want a Rolls, you are free to work your ass off and buy one in this country......but don't ask ME to pay for yours.........if you can't afford the Rolls, I guess that you are stuck with the used Yugo.

In a free economy, companies come and go......the market rises and falls.......only when government meddles in free trade do we see crashes and mass failures, inflation and runaway unemployment.  There are cycles to free and competitive economies, however when government steps in to buy failing companies just to shore up their union campaign contributors all that happens is a delay in the inevitable.........the jobs and the unions with them will eventually vanish, and someone else will fill the void in a more competitive manner.......

doc

[Eupher]

The problem is everybody does not agree with your definition of freedom. If you're a single mom who can't get a job because nobody can look after your kid, then that's not freedom. If you can't work because you can't get medical help for a condition, then that's not freedom either.

And yes, I know. Nobody should be given help if they are human and make a mistake in life. Nobody should be given a second chance. I've been told all about that.

It's not MY definition of freedom, Lanie. It what the founders envisioned. Personal freedom vice state power. John Adams leaned in your direction in that he advocated a strong central government, but there is no way in hell you can tell me that he thought that the federal ****ing government was going to get into the health care business.

Our very system demands spirited debate, on the issue of personal freedom vice state power. The founders certainly got into those debates and most of them were quite heated.

On your "single mom" argument, are you one? Do you know what the **** you're talking about? I happen to have a daughter older than you by a half decade who is a single mother times FOUR. Why? Because she, like you, thinks that the more kids she begets, the more money she gets from the ****ing government.

Don't sit there on your liberal ass and preach to me about single mothers. I live with that ridiculous bullshit.

Ever heard of charities? Of churches? Of NON-GOVERNMENT organizations whose FUNCTION it is to provide for those who "need a second chance"? Ever hear of those things, Lanie?

How much do YOU contribute to your church? How much do YOU contribute to charity?

You, in your ignorant, blissful little liberal utopia world, still manage to think that it's the ****ing GOVERNMENT's job to bail people out of trouble.

That shit doesn't work in my world, Lanie.

Get a ****ing clue.

I've read every word you've written on this thread and all I can do is shake my head with the realization that until you get your head squarely out of your ASS, you are doomed to repeat the mistakes that the idiot you voted for makes as we speak.

Surely, there can't be that much idiocy in this world.

[Lanie]

Claptrap.......the US has the finest healthcare in the world.  90% of the technology and research leading to treatments/cures comes from the US........if anything, we have progressed so far that lives of people are being preserved that a decade ago would have been removed from the gene pool.......and I'm not certain that that is a good thing........the only catch is that if you want the best care, you actually have to get a job, become productive, and PAY FOR YOUR CARE.  Unique concept isn't it, you can go nearly anywhere in this country and get basic care for free, but if you want the best, it is going to cost you for the talent and resources that you use........what a country!!

The foolishness of the liberal mantra of "universal health care" is just as stupid as saying that everyone has a right to a Rolls Royce.........if you want a Rolls, you are free to work your ass off and buy one in this country......but don't ask ME to pay for yours.........if you can't afford the Rolls, I guess that you are stuck with the used Yugo.

In a free economy, companies come and go......the market rises and falls.......only when government meddles in free trade do we see crashes and mass failures, inflation and runaway unemployment.  There are cycles to free and competitive economies, however when government steps in to buy failing companies just to shore up their union campaign contributors all that happens is a delay in the inevitable.........the jobs and the unions with them will eventually vanish, and someone else will fill the void in a more competitive manner.......

doc

We don't really need more than the basic healthcare unless of course one wants surgery or their pre-conditions to be paid for. The idea that these people are just lazy people who should be allowed to suffer is extremely cold. Attitudes like that is EXACTLY why people are pushing so hard for universal healthcare. Seriously.

And nobody even dared answered my concern that you actually have to pay money to get put on a donor's list. This means anybody who doesn't have the money can just die.

That's a really cold system.

I don't mind working for a living, but I do mind a judgmental disgusting system that looks down on the poor and says "let them eat cake."

And now, I'm gonna get it. Oh well, at least I earned my beating this time.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Outside of the right to own guns and property, I don't see where the Constitution supports Capitalism.

How would you propose that we get rid of the system that sells insurance? I have to say that if the prices of healthcare would go down, I wouldn't need it outside of potential surgery.

It supports capitalism by securing property rights and limiting the economic purview of the federal government to weights and measure and interstate commerce. Unless something is speccifically delegated to congress via the constitution the 10th amendment forbids congress from writing laws.

Please tell us where in the constitution congress can write healthcare law, establish public schools, regulate energy, provide other people's money to people who have done nothing to earn it, etc etc etc

[Rebel]

The problem is everybody does not agree with your definition of freedom. If you're a single mom who can't get a job because nobody can look after your kid, then that's not freedom. If you can't work because you can't get medical help for a condition, then that's not freedom either.

WTF? So freedom is someone stealing me to pay for this dumbass and her kids? Your definition of freedom is ****ing warped. She is free. Free to get a job closer, buy a bike, or bum a ride to work. Her freedom ends where mine begins.

And yes, I know. Nobody should be given help if they are human and make a mistake in life. Nobody should be given a second chance. I've been told all about that.

Sure they should. Just don't act like people are FORCED to give her a second chance.

[Eupher]

And nobody even dared answered my concern that you actually have to pay money to get put on a donor's list. This means anybody who doesn't have the money can just die.

That's a really cold system.

What's your problem, Lanie?

Why is it a problem for somebody to pay money for a service? For a product that's one-of-a-kind?

Why are you insisting that life is a ****ing bowl of cherries? Who said life is fair and that if you need a liver transplant through no fault of your own that you've got to pony up money to get put on a list that that's a travesty?

Are you advocating that the TAXPAYER should pony up that money? Or that the entire organ harvesting and donor program should be run by the government? Is that what you're pushing?

Life's a bitch. And then you die.

Get used to it, Lanie.

[Lanie]

It's not MY definition of freedom, Lanie. It what the founders envisioned. Personal freedom vice state power. John Adams leaned in your direction in that he advocated a strong central government, but there is no way in hell you can tell me that he thought that the federal ****ing government was going to get into the health care business.

Our very system demands spirited debate, on the issue of personal freedom vice state power. The founders certainly got into those debates and most of them were quite heated.

On your "single mom" argument, are you one? Do you know what the **** you're talking about? I happen to have a daughter older than you by a half decade who is a single mother times FOUR. Why? Because she, like you, thinks that the more kids she begets, the more money she gets from the ****ing government.

Don't sit there on your liberal ass and preach to me about single mothers. I live with that ridiculous bullshit.

Ever heard of charities? Of churches? Of NON-GOVERNMENT organizations whose FUNCTION it is to provide for those who "need a second chance"? Ever hear of those things, Lanie?

How much do YOU contribute to your church? How much do YOU contribute to charity?

You, in your ignorant, blissful little liberal utopia world, still manage to think that it's the ****ing GOVERNMENT's job to bail people out of trouble.

That shit doesn't work in my world, Lanie.

Get a ****ing clue.

I've read every word you've written on this thread and all I can do is shake my head with the realization that until you get your head squarely out of your ASS, you are doomed to repeat the mistakes that the idiot you voted for makes as we speak.

Surely, there can't be that much idiocy in this world.

My sister is a single mother, and she isn't using the system to get ahead. Thanks to the idea that government shouldn't be too involved, her deadbeat ex-husband is two thousand dollars behind on child support. So much for conservativism equaling personal responsibility. I'm sorry about your daughter, but that doesn't give you the right to judge all single mothers.

Hell, I know a married mother that's attempting to shit the system.

I've known other single mothers. One of them wanted to get a job, but couldn't afford the child care. Actually, she wasn't a single mother. Her boyfriend/father of her baby just wasn't worth much at times.

Welfare is designed so one will lose their medical benefits as soon as they get a job. That's fine unless you have a child. Getting one's own insurance might be fine if the woman probably wasn't settling for minimum wage like jobs. She needs all that money for supporting her kid.

We need more job training programs, not just condemning those who aren't on their feet right away or who make a mistake. That's what I view Republican ideas as being thanks to people like you.

Oh, onto private charities. The church was able to help my sister out years ago. There's also a Medical Ministries which helps people out who need prescriptions. But honestly, even my sister's preacher admitted the charities are not efficient enough. She was trying to get help for a woman whose husband was needing a heart and was out of work. My preacher admitted straight out there wasn't enough resources to help out everybody who needed help in the area. Now who's ignorant?

But then again, you have a daughter who has had four children. You know everything I don't know.

[Lanie]

What's your problem, Lanie?

Why is it a problem for somebody to pay money for a service? For a product that's one-of-a-kind?

Why are you insisting that life is a ****ing bowl of cherries? Who said life is fair and that if you need a liver transplant through no fault of your own that you've got to pony up money to get put on a list that that's a travesty?

Are you advocating that the TAXPAYER should pony up that money? Or that the entire organ harvesting and donor program should be run by the government? Is that what you're pushing?

Life's a bitch. And then you die.

Get used to it, Lanie.

Oh my gosh, you really are nothing but a judgmental ****. You actually justify this shit? That makes you a really cold, heartless mother ****er. And ASSuming that a person who needs a transplant could have done something to prevent it? In some cases, yes. Not always. You are un****ingbelieveable. You are a heartless mother****er that represents everything people see wrong with the Republican Party. People like you are why people like McCain lose.

on edit: These ideas violate the right to life. One doesn't even have the right to stay alive under a system this Capitalist, and you support that?

[Lanie]

It supports capitalism by securing property rights and limiting the economic purview of the federal government to weights and measure and interstate commerce. Unless something is speccifically delegated to congress via the constitution the 10th amendment forbids congress from writing laws.

Please tell us where in the constitution congress can write healthcare law, establish public schools, regulate energy, provide other people's money to people who have done nothing to earn it, etc etc etc

I agree that specific things are not in the Constitution, but the Constitution does not forbid Congress from making laws. It's only about limiting federal government so states can have some rights.

[Chris_]

The problem is everybody does not agree with your definition of freedom. If you're a single mom who can't get a job because nobody can look after your kid, then that's not freedom. If you can't work because you can't get medical help for a condition, then that's not freedom either.

And yes, I know. Nobody should be given help if they are human and make a mistake in life. Nobody should be given a second chance. I've been told all about that.

There is no argument about the definition of freedom.........it is immortalized in our Constitution......in great detail.....

As a woman you are "free" to keep your knees together, therefore eliminating the "single mother" syndrome........and since we are on the topic, I worked and raised my children, why the hell should I have to pay for yours!  

You are entitled to as many "chances" as you are capable of going out and creating for yourself.......it is not my job to create "chances" for people, or financially underwrite their mistakes in judgement.......unless I choose to do so voluntarily.

doc

[Eupher]

You've answered my question:

You're not a single mother, therefore do not have direct experience with the issue. I seriously doubt you are involved financially with your sister, as I have been with my daughter (to the extent I am willing to go).

On that subject, please STFU.

Welfare is designed to keep those on the public dole on the public dole. Remove it, and we'll see who has the gumption to get off his/her ass and put food on the table. Again, you're whining about people who make choices in life, then get hit with the consequences of making those choices.

On the subject of charities, once again, you have no personal experience. You speak of your sister again. Uh huh.

Did you ever stop to think that the REASON churches and charities aren't as "efficient" (wow, now THAT's a word ) is because people like you think that Big Brotha Government is supposed to dole out money for those who stand there with their hands out?

You know somebody with a bad heart? Or is it you know somebody who knows somebody with a bad heart?

You got to be the most indirectly connected person I've ever seen.

You know everything about everything, but your personal experience is limited to third parties.

Got it.