AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Thanks, Bill, for the polls. I've gone on news stories and personal conversations.

May you experience the logical outcome of your own beliefs.

I hate to burst your balloon, but the poll you posted does not support single payer health care. It seems to show instead that a government plan be available to compete with private plans. A big difference there, Bill. Did you not read your own link?

That is okay, okie will just ignore it and repost the same ol' bs rubish tomorrow with the same retorts..... <sigh>

He continues to prove he can not comprehend what he reads......

I'm even more surprised at yours.

Napoleon, Bismark, and most kings were authoritarian capitalists. They protected property rights - except when it didn't suit them. Similarly to varying degrees they protected individual rights - except when it was inconvenient. They acknowledged no political authority other than their own and did not consider themselves accountable to the people they ruled. The French Revolution and the USSR behaved in the same way except that their rhetoric about capitalism was very different. I won't attempt to categorize Hitler, because you have made such a muddle about it already.

None of the concepts I have indicated here are either difficult or unique - indeed they are fairly commonly understood. You simply refuse to consider any alternative to your own fixed preconceptions. As long as you do that you will be unable to learn or expand your understanding.

I see no point in the endless repetition of these points. Either think about it and deal with the questions I have posed, or keep it to yourself. I have no further interest in the game.

okie quote:


Wikipedia quote:


Direct quote from that source da!

okie quote:


The included poll from Wikipedia is for a system like MediCare. Medicare is a Single Payer System da!

Reading comphrension totally escapes you - why? No one is really that stupid!

The poll question as given in your link was "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?

If anything, this illustrates how pollsters can obtain the results they desire. Granted, the question says "a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare" but it also includes the phrase that says "that would compete with private health insurance plans.", so it obviously could not be exactly like Medicare. The pollster conveniently ignores the fact that Medicare does not compete with private plans, so I would say the poll is fraudulant anyway, Bill, it is based upon a fictitious or falsely phrased question that misrepresented reality. That is not surprising, given the New York Times and CBS, by the way. It is obvious that the results of the poll are not credible, since it is based upon a very flawed question that is not accurate.

Whether you da Conservatives realize it or not - a Democracy exists within the confines of all, it would be unConstitutional if you cut out all other Health Insurances in a competitive nature. To do otherwise would be Socialist. That is one of the reasons it isn't Socialist. God you are so stupid dude - you can't have your cake and eat it too. You are so dumb! But, thanks anyways for helping to make my points!

Obamacare is structured in such a way that it cuts out all other non-government health Insurance companies and policies.

You do realize I hope that Obama has said he prefers single payer government health care across the board for everyone? That is his end game, da! Are you now agreeing with conservatives that such a plan would be unconstitutional? Good for you, I'm glad you have seen the light, da!

No it does not, that is a total lie - it makes it competitive in a way the Insurance companies are now making costs a monopoly. That is where the cost reductions come in. But, if you want to pay 230 million dollars more over the next 10 years and cut out 10's of thousands of jobs - get rid of a damn good plan!

Your meaning here isn't very clear, but a single payer system that provided care for everyone and unilaterally established the payment rates for care the government requires the industry to provide, also would be socialistic. I suppose you could argue that no doctor or hospital would be required to provide service - they could always shut down and leave the practice. However, I doubt that a court would buy that notion - it would amount to a unilateral taking of property.

You stupid asshole - I did no such and you know it - may you rot in hell you ignore son of a bitch mf!

That was neither grammatical nor very nice.

Ever company competes - all tax payers are considered in the same pool - there is one payer for many receivers. If you want to compete, the price is pretty much fixed or you don't play. The government actually does not want to be in the business, but it will get all the low end, ie, the poor. If it does happen, insurance companies will make scads of money - there will be far more people insured.

I know - but, sadly true!

Illustration for liberal posters. Here is an example of one of your fellow liberals. Isn't he a wonderful and astute guy!!! I hope you are all proud of him.Apparently at least one is, as he has a plus 2 thumbs up now. Pathetic to say the least. Have a good evening, Bill. By the way, you have never answered my question about your superior education and what your career is or was. It must have been stellar, considering your writing ability!

How hypocritical is the right? The following is from the ACLU:

Unconstitutional Bill Aims to Subvert 14th Amendment


Ask your representative to reject attacks on the 14th Amendment.

On Wednesday, a day before members of Congress recited the Constitution on the House floor and affirmed their commitment to defend and uphold it, an unconstitutional bill designed to subvert the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was introduced.

The bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Steve King (R-IA), attempts to subvert the 14th Amendment by rewriting the citizenship clause to restrict citizenship to only three categories of people: children of U.S. citizens or nationals, children of permanent residents and children of non-citizens in active-duty military service. The proposed legislation violates the constitutional guarantee that all people born in the U.S. and under its jurisdiction are U.S. citizens entitled to equal protection under the law. Further, it would violate long-established Supreme Court precedent. In addition, this radical proposal would deny citizenship to large segments of U.S. society including U.S.-born children to parents with lawful status such as refugees, foreign investors, scientists, engineers, artists, athletes, scholars and graduate students.

Also on Wednesday, a group of state legislators announced that they will introduce bills intended to deny Americans the fundamental protections of the 14th Amendment by requiring their states to deny standard birth certificates to many U.S. citizen babies born in the U.S. to immigrant parents.

"Citizenship for all born on U.S. soil has been one of the Constitution's most essential engines of equality and fairness under the law," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "It is too important to be defined by the political whims of any era."

Since its creation, the Constitution has guaranteed U.S. citizenship to every child born in the U.S., with very limited exceptions. Constitutional citizenship represents America's commitment to equality, fairness and justice under the law. Adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment negated one of the Supreme Court's most infamous rulings, the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which held that neither freed slaves nor their descendants could ever become citizens. The Amendment, which guaranteed the constitutional rights of citizenship for all who were born in this country was enacted in response to laws passed by the former Confederate States that prevented African Americans from entering professions, owning or leasing land, accessing public accommodations, serving on juries and voting.

In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the guarantee of the 14th Amendment and affirmed the fundamental principle that children born on American soil are U.S. citizens without regard to their parents' status. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that a baby born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were subjects of China and were prohibited by law from becoming U.S. citizens was a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment.

This principle has been the settled law of the land for more than a century.

All arguably true, however beside the point. It is socialistic.

I will also add that the notion that the government that has seen the cost of all its entitlements exceed its original estimates by factors of three or more, cannot have its promises that the result will be a "savings" in cost taken at face value.

Moreover the history of innovation, quality customer focused service in similar government programs isn't very encouraging. I'll agree there are a few pretty successful examples out there, however, they are proving to be impossible to sustain from a financial perspective.