Wonderfully written and speaks what a lot of us are thinking.

The following is the personal opinion of the author, who reserves the
right to republish this piece for profit, which you may read at your
own risk, without any legal liabilities to the author or anyone who
may publish or share this article (which must include this disclaimer)
for which you here by waive the ability to sue for any reason in whole
or in part in or outside of a court of law, if you do not agree, the
entire article is to be considered a work of fiction, since you
apparently want to live in an imaginary world.

In my view, health care is not a right and never will be, it is only a
luxury afforded by a prosperous economy that is willing to provide
charity for the indigent, if not out of guilt of conscience for its
lack of decent paying minimum wages, then out of the principals of
helping the poor and the old by the younger and the stronger as
required by a higher power who delegates such responsibilities to
ourselves. Insurance is not the problem when the prevailing wage does
not make such coverage as easy to obtain as food, and when such
coverage is more expensive than food, I question its usefulness,
validity, and demand that the best economists in the land redefine our
goals and articulate them to prevent such nonsense.

Otherwise we find that given power and strength, we should not be
hurting the weak, but protecting them, and the natural human condition
is one of strength, not of weakness, when we consider the design of
such matters. For I say health care is not a right, but perhaps the
consequences of your choices in life, for which the public may or may
not have control over, and not left up to the political hacks of the
day that foment and garner the votes of throngs of high school drop
outs as standard campaign strategies, and yet if we remove the
personal responsibility from the equation, we also remove personal
responsibility from government? Hence the following partial argument
that mandatory "health care credit" program is far superior to any
"health care insurance" program, since credit is based on
responsibility and participation, and the other is based on the luck
of the draw? Which is more civilized pray tell, would you treat an
angel with a credit program or a lottery program (since the public
adores stories of alien worlds)?

For the crux of the legal and Constitutional argument is this, by
making health care a "right", then who is to stop the community from
calling you in the middle of the night to provide free taxi service to
a hooker or a pimp down the street as a "right"? Does health care
involve paying a doctor or the use of private medical equipment and
facilities? Is that not covered under the 5th amendment, the
government shall not seize private property without compensation? If
your personal car is your property, who are you to demand that a
syringe, a bed, or the time of a doctor is yours upon demand?

The 5th Amendment prohibits the Government from providing free taxi
service to hookers or pimps, or from buying health care insurance,
light bulbs, or white paint, or any other edict by any "title of
nobility", or public official, at your individual expense, that is
what has made America the greatest country on Earth. Frankly I see
the problem as this, local and state taxes already provide enormous
funds to provide for expensive health care as a matter of charity, and
it is not a free ride. If they do discover that you can pay for the
services rendered, they will place liens on your property to get the
funds, so the media creating the illusion that there is some sort of
crisis is disingenuous and down right deceptive in my opinion.

And the "problems" should be solved by those who administer solutions,
not political activists in power who cater to the whims of high school
drop outs who are paying scant attention not because they are too busy
administrating public opinion, but recreational drugs without abandon,
each according to his ability, and to each his need. CPA's, and
medical professionals the private market should be providing
solutions, and without a blank check mentality, the costs should be
well articulated, including the expected inflationary costs and
reviewed on a quarterly basis in light of all the unemployed people
with accounting and other clerical experience in our country.

Instead of using a health "lottery" insurance financial model, by
going to a health "credit" model where you are guaranteed credit to
pay for your treatment and recovery (healing) process, there is much
more incentive for industry to price services so that you can pay them
back without seizing your assets, because you will have an active
interest, and the incentive to not only prevent injury through poor
personal decisions or negligence, but provide real care that keeps you
alive long enough to pay them back is also part of the process,
instead of treating you like a number, or a sausage in a food factory
where no one will miss you being tossed in the garbage if a careless
employee drops you on the floor.

Providing unlimited tax deductions to the wealthy is another avenue
that seems to be refused to be considered or allowed by the power
hungry political machine and gullible public community, for which we
only have ourselves to blame. This is not a comprehensive
identification of all problems, but a highlight of those that come to
the writers mind, for which I have articulated weeks ago, and yet the
media continues to ignore, for which I say "no" means "yes" when I
only have to write this another way, like a fisherman casting his line
in a different spot in the pond?

Would Senator Baucus even understand this article, and if not, should
he be re-elected?

End of article and comment, which includes an introductory legal
disclaimer,
written by talent, on loan, from God, with thanks giving, with a
special thank you to the Rush Limbaugh Advanced Institute for
Conservative Studies for helping to articulate this message.

On Dec 16, 3:22*am, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
Wonderfully written and speaks what a lot of us are thinking.

The following is the personal opinion of the author, who reserves the
right to republish this piece for profit, which you may read at your
own risk, without any legal liabilities to the author or anyone who
may publish or share this article (which must include this disclaimer)
for which you here by waive the ability to sue for any reason in whole
or in part in or outside of a court of law, if you do not agree, the
entire article is to be considered a work of fiction, since you
apparently want to live in an imaginary world.

In my view, health care is not a right and never will be, it is only a
luxury afforded by a prosperous economy that is willing to provide
charity for the indigent, if not out of guilt of conscience for its
lack of decent paying minimum wages, then out of the principals of
helping the poor and the old by the younger and the stronger as
required by a higher power who delegates such responsibilities to
ourselves. *

If health care is not a right, then neither is life. Without health,
there is no life. And if everyone had health care as a right, then no
one would need to feel to act out of a guilt of conscience in or out
of any principles of helping the poor. It's not the economy that
feels guilt or has principles, it's people, and this idiot writer is
trying to make it sound like the economy is some kind of thinking,
breathing, living person that generously bestows health care on those
who can't afford it. The economy does what it does, it doesn't care
about coming to anyone's rescue; in fact, it just doesn't care about
anything, it only does what it does.

And then this idiot writer goes on to talk about a higher power
delegating such caring responsibilities to ourselves to do the right
thing for the poor. Well, which is it? The economy being responsible
in doing the right thing out guilt or principles or "ourselves"? And
who is this higher power and has this higher power ever been seen by
anyone and when did he do this delegating?

It's funny how some people hate the idea of people in general
acquiring a new right. What's the big deal? It's just a right. Like
a right to a lawyer, a right to vote, a right to practice your faith.
If any right should be stripped away, it's the one to practice your
faith. Which is more important, praying to your own version of an
invisible entity that in all likelihood doesn't even exist in any
realm, and which quite frankly would have you declared legally insane
in a saner world than this one is, or getting a cure for some cancer
resulting in continuing to enjoy the right to life without ending up
broke and homeless in the process?

The rest that was written by this idiot writer is pure idiocy and has
been snipped to prevent irreversible brain damage to unsuspecting
people.

On Dec 16, 2:22*am, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
Wonderfully written and speaks what a lot of us are thinking.

The following is the personal opinion of the author, who reserves the
right to republish this piece for profit, which you may read at your
own risk, without any legal liabilities to the author or anyone who
may publish or share this article (which must include this disclaimer)
for which you here by waive the ability to sue for any reason in whole
or in part in or outside of a court of law, if you do not agree, the
entire article is to be considered a work of fiction, since you
apparently want to live in an imaginary world.

In my view, health care is not a right and never will be, it is only a
luxury afforded by a prosperous economy that is willing to provide
charity for the indigent, if not out of guilt of conscience for its
lack of decent paying minimum wages, then out of the principals of
helping the poor and the old by the younger and the stronger as
required by a higher power who delegates such responsibilities to
ourselves. *Insurance is not the problem when the prevailing wage does
not make such coverage as easy to obtain as food, and when such
coverage is more expensive than food, I question its usefulness,
validity, and demand that the best economists in the land redefine our
goals and articulate them to prevent such nonsense.

Otherwise we find that given power and strength, we should not be
hurting the weak, but protecting them, and the natural human condition
is one of strength, not of weakness, when we consider the design of
such matters. *For I say health care is not a right, but perhaps the
consequences of your choices in life, for which the public may or may
not have control over, and not left up to the political hacks of the
day that foment and garner the votes of throngs of high school drop
outs as standard campaign strategies, and yet if we remove the
personal responsibility from the equation, we also remove personal
responsibility from government? *Hence the following partial argument
that mandatory "health care credit" program is far superior to any
"health care insurance" program, since credit is based on
responsibility and participation, and the other is based on the luck
of the draw? *Which is more civilized pray tell, would you treat an
angel with a credit program or a lottery program (since the public
adores stories of alien worlds)?

For the crux of the legal and Constitutional argument is this, by
making health care a "right", then who is to stop the community from
calling you in the middle of the night to provide free taxi service to
a hooker or a pimp down the street as a "right"? *Does health care
involve paying a doctor or the use of private medical equipment and
facilities? *Is that not covered under the 5th amendment, the
government shall not seize private property without compensation? *If
your personal car is your property, who are you to demand that a
syringe, a bed, or the time of a doctor is yours upon demand?

The 5th Amendment prohibits the Government from providing free taxi
service to hookers or pimps, or from buying health care insurance,
light bulbs, or white paint, or any other edict by any "title of
nobility", or public official, at your individual expense, *that is
what has made America the greatest country on Earth. * Frankly I see
the problem as this, local and state taxes already provide enormous
funds to provide for expensive health care as a matter of charity, and
it is not a free ride. *If they do discover that you can pay for the
services rendered, they will place liens on your property to get the
funds, so the media creating the illusion that there is some sort of
crisis is disingenuous and down right deceptive in my opinion.

And the "problems" should be solved by those who administer solutions,
not political activists in power who cater to the whims of high school
drop outs who are paying scant attention not because they are too busy
administrating public opinion, but recreational drugs without abandon,
each according to his ability, and to each his need. * CPA's, and
medical professionals the private market should be providing
solutions, and without a blank check mentality, the costs should be
well articulated, including the expected inflationary costs and
reviewed on a quarterly basis in light of all the unemployed people
with accounting and other clerical experience in our country.

Instead of using a health "lottery" insurance financial model, by
going to a health "credit" model where you are guaranteed credit to
pay for your treatment and recovery (healing) process, *there is much
more incentive for industry to price services so that you can pay them
back without seizing your assets, because you will have an active
interest, and the incentive to not only prevent injury through poor
personal decisions or negligence, but provide real care that keeps you
alive long enough to pay them back is also part of the process,
instead of treating you like a number, or a sausage in a food factory
where no one will miss you being tossed in the garbage if a careless
employee drops you on the floor.

Providing unlimited tax deductions to the wealthy is another avenue
that seems to be refused to be considered or allowed by the power
hungry political machine and gullible public community, for which we
only have ourselves to blame. *This is not a comprehensive
identification of all problems, but a highlight of those that come to
the writers mind, for which I have articulated weeks ago, and yet the
media continues to ignore, for which I say "no" means "yes" when I
only have to write this another way, like a fisherman casting his line
in a different spot in the pond?

Would Senator Baucus even understand this article, and if not, should
he be re-elected?

End of article and comment, which includes an introductory legal
disclaimer,
written by talent, on loan, from God, with thanks giving, with a
special thank you to the Rush Limbaugh Advanced Institute for
Conservative Studies for helping to articulate this message.


What is lurking about a centimeter under all this "free market" crap
is the usual conservative message, the same message they have been
peddling since the days of the Robber Barons: **** The Poor. To say
that people who don't have enough money for even basic medical care
essentially deserve to die or suffer crosses a moral line that I'm not
comfortable seeing crossed. The right and its callous indifference to
human suffering has already been well established, from its support of
child labor to its love of war and its belief that God somehow chose
rich people to be rich and poor people to be screwed, they sit in
their gated communities and think tanks and preach the glory of a
system that thrives on crushing human beings who don't have enough
money in their bank accounts to keep the teeth of the machine at a
distance. They can do this because since they *do* have enough money
in their bank accounts it's really easy to talk about an imaginary
"free market" that supports insurance industry monopolies, the gouging
of sick people and the denial of coverage to people who have (or had)
enough to pay the premiums but not enough to hire lawyers when the
insurance company abruptly decided not to pay their claim. It's all an
abstraction to them, a sort of parlor game because none of it can
actually touch them. It's easy for them to talk about the insurance
industry and its alleged First Amendment right to buy off Republicans
and Blue Dogs until Charles Grassley and Virginia Fox publicly make
statements so wrong, asinine and juvenile that they sound like
something from a 19th century big city political machine instead of
statements from 20th century, elected, presumably sane human beings.
What has happened with this entire debate is conservatives have turned
a genuinely well intentioned bill to help sick people get care into a
national embarrassment. Millions of people who can't afford coverage,
who have been denied coverage and who can't afford medical care have
been told to go **** themselves by the healthcare industry, using
"conservatives" to sell the message for them. The one lesson I've
learned from watching this is that if you jam enough quarters into the
jukebox, you can get conservatives to play literally any old tune you
want them to play and never mind the facts, never mind the public
good, never mind human decency, intellectual consistency or anything
else. Conservatives are human icebergs. You have to have icewater
running though your heart to tell your constituents to literally drop
dead because a check cleared. From now on every time some right winger
makes a public statement, I will ask myself, "Okay, who is paying for
this?" Whenever a conservative takes the floor on C-Span, there should
be a disclaimer that "The following is a paid commercial announcement
for a private interest. Neither C-Span or the American government are
responsible for any statements or claims made therein."

The sad part of all this is that there really are 47 million americans
without health insurance, millions of people really will die or go
bankrupt because of illness and conservatives are laughing and
slapping each other on the ass because they sided with the insurance
industry to make damn sure that nobody will ever do anything about it.
These people are not much different than OJ's lawyers. They know
exactly what they are doing, they aren't even slightly bothered by it
and if there is a hell, here is a special place waiting for them
there.

Editor RadioTalkingPoints wrote:


In my view, health care is not a right and never will be, it is only a
luxury afforded by a prosperous economy that is willing to provide
charity for the indigent, if not out of guilt of conscience for its
lack of decent paying minimum wages, then out of the principals of
helping the poor and the old by the younger and the stronger as
required by a higher power who delegates such responsibilities to
ourselves.

In my view, police patrols are not a right and never will be either.
But society has agreed to assume that responsibility, and now we take it
for granted.

Health Care costs way too much money in the USA, and returns far too
little. If we did it differently we'd all save money in the long run.
View it as a totally pragmatic exercise.

On Dec 16, 7:36*am, dave wrote:
Editor RadioTalkingPoints wrote:

In my view, health care is not a right and never will be, it is only a
luxury afforded by a prosperous economy that is willing to provide
charity for the indigent, if not out of guilt of conscience for its
lack of decent paying minimum wages, then out of the principals of
helping the poor and the old by the younger and the stronger as
required by a higher power who delegates such responsibilities to
ourselves. *

In my view, police patrols are not a right and never will be either.
But society has agreed to assume that responsibility, and now we take it
for granted.

Health Care costs way too much money in the USA, and returns far too
little. *If we did it differently we'd all save money in the long run.
View it as a totally pragmatic exercise.

If ObamaLosi was really about improving healthcare in the U.S there
wouldn't be a problem. Nobody trusts the raving progressive/marxists
lunatics trying to shove OboLosi down our throats. As usual it's all
about power and control over the lives of the American
people,PERIOD !! Btw,why does Obama go behind closed doors to try and
strongarm the demorat issentors? No cameras allowed. No (R)s allowed.
What happened to "bi-partisanship" and "The most transparent
Administration in human history" ????

On Dec 16, 9:22*am, Sueki Tartridge wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:36*am, dave wrote:





Editor RadioTalkingPoints wrote:

In my view, health care is not a right and never will be, it is only a
luxury afforded by a prosperous economy that is willing to provide
charity for the indigent, if not out of guilt of conscience for its
lack of decent paying minimum wages, then out of the principals of
helping the poor and the old by the younger and the stronger as
required by a higher power who delegates such responsibilities to
ourselves. *

In my view, police patrols are not a right and never will be either.
But society has agreed to assume that responsibility, and now we take it
for granted.

Health Care costs way too much money in the USA, and returns far too
little. *If we did it differently we'd all save money in the long run..
View it as a totally pragmatic exercise.

If ObamaLosi was really about improving healthcare in the U.S there
wouldn't be a problem. Nobody trusts the raving progressive/marxists
lunatics trying to shove OboLosi down our throats. As usual it's all
about power and control over the lives of the American
people,PERIOD !! Btw,why does Obama go behind closed doors to try and
strongarm the demorat issentors? No cameras allowed. No (R)s allowed.
What happened to "bi-partisanship" and "The most transparent
Administration in human history" ????

Another racist heard from....

You scum lost the last election. Get used to it. Obama is the
president. Get used to it. You filth made up about 18% if the
population. Get used to it. And with any luck you will drag the
repug party down to defeat and irrelevance.

The repugs, with your kind assistance, have backed themselves into an
interesting problem. They have been the party of No, they have done a
great job of doing that. Now, after health care passes and America
accepts it the repugs will have nothing to say. So when they are
attacked for not supporting the plan that will already be functional,
that will already be helping people what can they say?

How about the cost? Well what can they say, they were the party of
Iraq and that sure went well.....

The following is the personal opinion of the author, who reserves the
right to republish this piece for profit, which you may read at your
own risk, without any legal liabilities to the author or anyone who
may publish or share this article (which must include this disclaimer)
for which you here by waive the ability to sue for any reason in whole
or in part in or outside of a court of law, if you do not agree, the
entire article is to be considered a work of fiction, since you
apparently want to live in an imaginary world.

What was the first response, but from an angry queer (the first sign
of a queer is the f-bomb, in order to counter the demons in their head
demanding they chop off their egg rolls, like the queer that committed
suicide after helping defeat the Nazis, and they are already angry at
everyone?) who has no interest in explaining that the proposed health
care legislation destroys the insurance industry, and will force
everyone to share the costs of medical care and eliminate the concept
of personal responsibility, which will destroy the ability to provide
medical care (which is based on capacity, not imagination) to all but
the young who are not sick?

If you mandate coverage, you do not have any risk, you have only
costs, at which they are GUESSING since they can not explain how to
pay for it? Who cares if you have have health care coverage that is
rationed if you don't have a job and must live in a mud hut, ride a
bike, and put up with drug addicts who still buy narcotics even though
it has blood money all over it?

Don't take my word for it, ask why they can't wait two days to read
the bill, that should explain everything?

Resistance is futile, the biological and technical uniqueness of the
Democrats will be assimilated by the truth....

On Dec 16, 2:37*pm, Kevin Cunningham wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:22*am, Sueki Tartridge wrote:



On Dec 16, 7:36*am, dave wrote:

Editor RadioTalkingPoints wrote:

In my view, health care is not a right and never will be, it is only a
luxury afforded by a prosperous economy that is willing to provide
charity for the indigent, if not out of guilt of conscience for its
lack of decent paying minimum wages, then out of the principals of
helping the poor and the old by the younger and the stronger as
required by a higher power who delegates such responsibilities to
ourselves. *

In my view, police patrols are not a right and never will be either.
But society has agreed to assume that responsibility, and now we take it
for granted.

Health Care costs way too much money in the USA, and returns far too
little. *If we did it differently we'd all save money in the long run.
View it as a totally pragmatic exercise.

If ObamaLosi was really about improving healthcare in the U.S there
wouldn't be a problem. Nobody trusts the raving progressive/marxists
lunatics trying to shove OboLosi down our throats. As usual it's all
about power and control over the lives of the American
people,PERIOD !! Btw,why does Obama go behind closed doors to try and
strongarm the demorat issentors? No cameras allowed. No (R)s allowed.
What happened to "bi-partisanship" and "The most transparent
Administration in human history" ????

Another racist heard from....

You scum lost the last election. *Get used to it. *Obama is the
president. *Get used to it. *You filth made up about 18% if the
population. *Get used to it. *And with any luck you will drag the
repug party down to defeat and irrelevance.

The repugs, with your kind assistance, have backed themselves into an
interesting problem. *They have been the party of No, they have done a
great job of doing that. *Now, after health care passes and America
accepts it the repugs will have nothing to say. *So when they are
attacked for not supporting the plan that will already be functional,
that will already be helping people what can they say?

How about the cost? *Well what can they say, they were the party of
Iraq and that sure went well.....

They want to keep young Negros in poverty, they don't want them to
have a future, and they have been the victim of the longest running
pyschological warfare by a willing and compliant press (who only
throws the bone of Opera) to the Negros? Abortion keeping you from
"spreading the wealth around"? Collapse of the currency by looting
the treasury will make sure that young Negros no longer make a dollar
in ten minutes, but a yen that is worth 5 times less, in one hour?

What is the spending rate of the Democrat Party, what portion of the
GDP growth rate are they consuming? How many schools are trying to
turn young black men into suicidal queers that will only create
frustrated single mothers who will keep turning to the government for
solutions, are are too busy to figure out what their own government is
doing TO THEM, instead of for them?

Capitalism is about raising money for young negros to have jobs, and
old Negros to invest and retire, and your President is giving empty
shout outs?

Freedom isn't free?

www.devilfinder.com
John McTernan's Insights: EMERGENCY: US Army View of PreMillennialism

Pentagon has Gone to HELL!
I Sure am GLAD I am NOT in the Army anymore!

Doggy says,,, Yawnnnn,,,, dig out those Walmart vanilla creme cookies
and lets hit the sack, you done watched enough of Cool Tools on tv.
cuhulin

Editor RadioTalkingPoints wrote:


If you mandate coverage, you do not have any risk, you have only
costs, at which they are GUESSING since they can not explain how to
pay for it? Who cares if you have have health care coverage that is
rationed if you don't have a job and must live in a mud hut, ride a
bike, and put up with drug addicts who still buy narcotics even though
it has blood money all over it?


Young people should be required to buy insurance in case they have
accidents. Otherwise, let 'em die on the ski slopes.