Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Hey cool! So you're ready to return to what brought up the Brer patch thing: I was asking for *actual* numbers and facts behind your talking point.

---

Talking point? Fuck you.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Hey cool! So you're ready to return to what brought up the Brer patch thing: I was asking for *actual* numbers and facts behind your talking point.

---

Talking point? Fuck you.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

---

OK, remember what I said about conservatives getting all pissy when they aren't able to produce actual information?

Now, you're welcome to discuss the issues. You said you were ready to, right? So - are you?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Feed the bird, Mal; feed the bird.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
You're claiming that the Federal govt can't force people to buy insurance

---

I believe that was Kaneman's position. And coming from a strict constitutionalist, I see the point.

---

What do you define as a "strict constitutionalist"? HOW strict? In WHAT areas?

Are you bringing back slavery? Will one literally have to possess an actual printing press in order to obtain "freedom of the press"? Will you actually have to be employed by "the press" to gain those rights?

Deny women the vote? Make sure that negroes only count as 3/5ths of a regular person?

Do away with standing armies altogether? Do away with the Air Force?

Shall we all shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater with no fear of being jailed by our government?

Shall we do away with all forms of searches and questioning without warrants issued for probable cause?

Can we do away with ALL "cruel and unusual" punishments, including the death penalty, waterboarding, and other forms of torture?

How "strict" do you want to get, exactly. Please be specific. I'm waiting, patiently.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
- um OK. So what's been happening with autos and homes for decades?

---

That's the point. Do you think your ancestors ever thought they would need to tow the government line in order to provide a roof over their families head? You can start to see how pervasive it can become. What your ancestors railed against you take as status quo now.
What if the government starts limiting what you can eat or drink in the name of public good?

---

You mean like drinking and driving, or using methamphetamine at work, or heroin in public schools?





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Riverlove - welcome back! Did you sort out what "mandate" means? And did you find those cites as to how "Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn"?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:


Must be emotionally and mentally tough for you when you don't have an easy available target around to satisfy your unquenchable thirst for bloodsport against Cons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Speaking of wankers, I note for the record that BDN vamoosed pretty quick once I started asking him for specifics on his "strict constitutionalist" line of reasoning. I'm still here, BDN, waiting patiently.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
- um OK. So what's been happening with autos and homes for decades?

---

That's the point. Do you think your ancestors ever thought they would need to tow the government line in order to provide a roof over their families head? You can start to see how pervasive it can become. What your ancestors railed against you take as status quo now.
What if the government starts limiting what you can eat or drink in the name of public good?

You mean like drinking and driving, or using methamphetamine at work, or heroin in public schools?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
It is amazing how they disappear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Kaneman, the point you make is EXACTLY why we should have universal healthcare, and the exact reason why I don't like THIS bill.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
...and generally wanking each other off...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Riverlove - welcome back! Did you sort out what "mandate" means? And did you find those cites as to how "Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn"?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Without a doubt the state taking on pre-existing conditions at the regular premium rate is killing Mass(i live on ct mass border and read this for two years), but i think more relavent to this thread is this little snip from the nation(down below). It seems like the biggest trouble is people are paying the fine and staying uninsured.The hospitals still have to give the freecare. That's what i'll do, i'll pay the fine and my 2 yearly dr visits and still come out ahead. multiply that by millions...this is going to break this nation further.......Read this I see this happening in the near future nation wide....

The nation,
"I wouldn't characterize the situation as dire," says Jon Kingsdale, chief executive of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, which administers the program. "The affordability issue has always been there." Just last Thursday Leslie Kirwan, state budget director and chair of the authority, said the program next year will cost "significantly" more than $869 million. Money counted on by the law's architects has not materialized. Lawmakers had counted on getting about $500 million to $600 million from the state's free-care pool, which paid hospitals to treat the poor. The theory was that more insured residents would mean less need for free care. But apparently people are still uninsured and need care, so that money is not available. And assessments from employers are not adequate either. Instead of requiring them to cover their workers, the law allows employers to pay $295 per employee per year to help cover the uninsured. The sum was a compromise to keep employers from fighting a mandate that would have required them to spend upwards of $9,000 a year on real insurance for each employee. The state has collected only $6 million so far. One reason: before he left office, Romney changed the rules so fewer employers would be subject


It is an older article from 2009.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
I'd just like to point out that I said that about BDN and Kaneman first.

"NO, I mean that all of your posts and all of his posts are generally full of a bunch of wanking each other off."

But then, we all know that BDN isn't much into original thought.

High Five Kwicko!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Speaking of wankers, I note for the record that BDN vamoosed pretty quick once I started asking him for specifics on his "strict constitutionalist" line of reasoning. I'm still here, BDN, waiting patiently.

---

Why don't you just show me where in the constitution is the provision for universal healthcare. After all, that is the discussion at hand, not your smoke screens about sufferage or slavery.

---

Quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
- um OK. So what's been happening with autos and homes for decades?

---

That's the point. Do you think your ancestors ever thought they would need to tow the government line in order to provide a roof over their families head? You can start to see how pervasive it can become. What your ancestors railed against you take as status quo now.
What if the government starts limiting what you can eat or drink in the name of public good?

You mean like drinking and driving, or using methamphetamine at work, or heroin in public schools?

---

Why should I bother to answer your ever changing questions? What does any of that have to do with the discussion at hand. I quite literally cannot tell you apart from Mal with all of your jokes and high fives and generally wanking each other off. I deem you not worth responding to as you are really not interested in reasoned discussion. Now tell me, does that sound vaguely familiar?
And why did you leave this thread all together for a couple of days only to return asking "where are all the righties"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Riverlove - welcome back! Did you sort out what "mandate" means? And did you find those cites as to how "Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn"?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Without a doubt the state taking on pre-existing conditions at the regular premium rate is killing Mass(i live on ct mass border and read this for two years), but i think more relavent to this thread is this little snip from the nation(down below). It seems like the biggest trouble is people are paying the fine and staying uninsured.The hospitals still have to give the freecare. That's what i'll do, i'll pay the fine and my 2 yearly dr visits and still come out ahead. multiply that by millions...this is going to break this nation further.......Read this I see this happening in the near future nation wide....

The nation,
"I wouldn't characterize the situation as dire," says Jon Kingsdale, chief executive of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, which administers the program. "The affordability issue has always been there." Just last Thursday Leslie Kirwan, state budget director and chair of the authority, said the program next year will cost "significantly" more than $869 million. Money counted on by the law's architects has not materialized. Lawmakers had counted on getting about $500 million to $600 million from the state's free-care pool, which paid hospitals to treat the poor. The theory was that more insured residents would mean less need for free care. But apparently people are still uninsured and need care, so that money is not available. And assessments from employers are not adequate either. Instead of requiring them to cover their workers, the law allows employers to pay $295 per employee per year to help cover the uninsured. The sum was a compromise to keep employers from fighting a mandate that would have required them to spend upwards of $9,000 a year on real insurance for each employee. The state has collected only $6 million so far. One reason: before he left office, Romney changed the rules so fewer employers would be subject


It is an older article from 2009.

---

Now see, why do we have to get all over your ass just to get some sort of reference? It's really not that hard, is it?

Well, apparently it's hard to actually post a link to the article, so I can see where that last sentence was going.

And don't tell me to look it up. If you have a point to make, you need to provide the research. I'm sick of doing all your thinking for you. Wanker.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Riverlove - welcome back! Did you sort out what "mandate" means? And did you find those cites as to how "Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn"?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right here in the Preamble:

Quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

I gather that's not how YOU interpret it, but certainly you'd have to admit that it CAN be interpreted in that way. After all, if you're promoting the general welfare of your people, what's more key to that than their overall health?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Because I was patiently waiting for your response, your specifics, since you deem yourself a constitutional expert.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And, of course, now you claim that I'm not worthy of your expertise or any answer. Now tell me, does THAT sound vaguely familiar? I literally cannot tell you apart from Rappy what with all your sucking each other off. Quick- what's the plural form of "leftist"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for my "ever changing questions", I only ask questions to try to nail you down to specifics, because, like Wulfie, you will never say what you're FOR, only what you're AGAINST. When asked what you believe, it's all generalizations like "Babies cute, puppies good, evil bad, all government bad, except all cops good, all military good, unless other miltary, then bad."

You say you're against the gubmint telling you what you can do and what you can eat or drink, so I asked specific examples. You - as ever - dodged them and refused to answer.

Seems to me that you're dodging an awful lot these days.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Isn't a Man-Date what BDN goes on with Rappy when they suck each other off?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right here in the Preamble:

Quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

I gather that's not how YOU interpret it, but certainly you'd have to admit that it CAN be interpreted in that way. After all, if you're promoting the general welfare of your people, what's more key to that than their overall health?

---

That's a reach Kwicko, even for you. Why are cigarettes and booze still legal? Why is skydiving legal? Why are fast food chains legal? Why is suntanning legal? Why is car racing legal? I could go on and on about things that do not promote the general welfare if that is your argument. Come on Kwicko, who has the ultimate say?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for my "ever changing questions", I only ask questions to try to nail you down to specifics, because, like Wulfie, you will never say what you're FOR, only what you're AGAINST. When asked what you believe, it's all generalizations like "Babies cute, puppies good, evil bad, all government bad, except all cops good, all military good, unless other miltary, then bad."

You say you're against the gubmint telling you what you can do and what you can eat or drink, so I asked specific examples. You - as ever - dodged them and refused to answer.

Seems to me that you're dodging an awful lot these days.

---

Bullshit! You're not hear for reasoned debate, you're here to argue. We've been down this road before. I could give you the answers you're supposedly after and then you would argue about something else. You're only interested in getting the last word and trying to score points with your cadre, IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Isn't a Man-Date what BDN goes on with Rappy when they suck each other off?

---

Ah yes, another shining example of your well thought out and highly topical posts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
I'd just like to point out that I said that about BDN and Kaneman first.

"NO, I mean that all of your posts and all of his posts are generally full of a bunch of wanking each other off."

But then, we all know that BDN isn't much into original thought.

High Five Kwicko!

---

Ah yes, the ol' do as I say, not as I do defense. Careful Mal, your condescension is showing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Bullshit! You're not hear for reasoned debate, you're here to argue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Don't many of those things come with attached "sin taxes", legal restrictions (such as those regarding age, etc.), and/or waivers of responsibility attached? Are you saying that we should start taxing people for not having health insurance, since life is a risky thing? By your examples, most risky behaviors come with added taxes, legal restrictions (are cigarettes and booze still legal for those under a certain age?), higher premiums, and the like. If all life is a risk, shouldn't we all be paying into the high-risk pool?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Don't many of those things come with attached "sin taxes", legal restrictions (such as those regarding age, etc.), and/or waivers of responsibility attached? Are you saying that we should start taxing people for not having health insurance, since life is a risky thing? By your examples, most risky behaviors come with added taxes, legal restrictions (are cigarettes and booze still legal for those under a certain age?), higher premiums, and the like. If all life is a risk, shouldn't we all be paying into the high-risk pool?

---

DOUBLE BUUUURRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!


(I'll get to reading that article and replying on topic eventually. For now, it's just too damned much fun to mock. Besides, it's Friday. I'm going out!)


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was thinking about going out drinking and driving, just to show BDN that I don't want The Man telling me what I can and can't do! AND I'm canceling my auto insurance and taking my guns with me!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Don't many of those things come with attached "sin taxes", legal restrictions (such as those regarding age, etc.), and/or waivers of responsibility attached? Are you saying that we should start taxing people for not having health insurance, since life is a risky thing? By your examples, most risky behaviors come with added taxes, legal restrictions (are cigarettes and booze still legal for those under a certain age?), higher premiums, and the like. If all life is a risk, shouldn't we all be paying into the high-risk pool?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why, because you don't have an answer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why is it you're here, then?

And talk about assigning positions to others! That's all you've ever done!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Stopping now. Really.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was thinking about going out drinking and driving, just to show BDN that I don't want The Man telling me what I can and can't do! AND I'm canceling my auto insurance and taking my guns with me!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Riverlove - welcome back! Did you sort out what "mandate" means? And did you find those cites as to how "Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn"?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Isn't a Man-Date what BDN goes on with Rappy when they suck each other off?




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

---

Quote:

---

I'd rather have that than being told I have to buy it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Don't many of those things come with attached "sin taxes", legal restrictions (such as those regarding age, etc.), and/or waivers of responsibility attached? Are you saying that we should start taxing people for not having health insurance, since life is a risky thing? By your examples, most risky behaviors come with added taxes, legal restrictions (are cigarettes and booze still legal for those under a certain age?), higher premiums, and the like. If all life is a risk, shouldn't we all be paying into the high-risk pool?

---

Yeah, that's right, shift the goal posts again. So you are saying that the promote the welfare clause is a catch-all for the federal government to regulate how we live our lives. How come you did not get on board with the Patriot act? Couldn't that be construed as promoting the welfare of the people?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Riverlove - welcome back! Did you sort out what "mandate" means? And did you find those cites as to how "Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn"?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Isn't a Man-Date what BDN goes on with Rappy when they suck each other off?




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

---

Be honest. Are you drinking? You are normally a tool anyway, but go look at your and mals last ten posts on this thread...I think you are twelve....And drinking....probably together...each with a finger in the others ass....giggling and yelling bunnny and other wierd shit. Those are the gayest posts I have ever seen. Try to act like a human.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Last post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
You're only interested in getting the last word and trying to score points with your cadre, IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
You're only interested in getting the last word and trying to score points with your cadre, IMHO.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
QED

---