Comments
18,001 - 18,020 of 30,474 Comments Last updated 27 min ago
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19879 Aug 10, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, so when you said "Then why didn't it receive any support?" you really meant was "It wasn't supported by every Republican in the Senate." And a "serious" attempt is only one that succeeds and becomes law?
But I find it interesting what you are saying about the Republicans back in 1993 --- that when they were confronted with a serious Democratic healthcare proposal, they made up a response which was not really serious. So they were deceiving the public, and had no real interest in healthcare legislation? Was that Heritage Foundation plan on which it was based also just part of the scam?
More to the point, when you are confronted with hard evidence that you are wrong on a matter of historical fact do you ever just admit your error and move on? This all started with you denying that the healthcare mandate had Republican origins. I presented you with the Heritage Foundation document, and then you responded that nothing ever came of it. When presented with evidence of a Republican bill incorporating those ideas that had 19 Republican co-sponsors, you blow that off as not "serious" by some standard that only you understand.
It wasn't a serious bill. That's what I'm saying. It's called "throwing the dog a bone." The same thing is going on today with immigration reform. Republicans don't really want immigration reform. They are just putting on a show so when Democrats accuse them of being against immigrants, the Republicans have something they can defend themselves with.

This is how the game is played, and if you want to follow it, you have to learn what's BS and what isn't. Politicians will say one thing and do another. We've had representatives sponsor bills and then vote against their very own bill. Harry Weed comes to mind. Keep the liberals happy by getting a bill against guns, and then vote against it to keep other people happy and hope the MSM doesn't make a big deal out of it.

If Republicans were serious about national healthcare, they would have introduced a serious bill after they took leadership of Congress. They didn't. They soon realized that the public was totally against national healthcare.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19880 Aug 10, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Please let me add that Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have".
In more modern times Kennedy also said "..that we can not tax ourselves to prosperity" & Ron Reagan,'The government isn't the solution to the problem, the government IS the problem", & then Maggie Thatcher said, "Socialism only works until the government runs out of the peoples money". It seems to me that 'WE' have run out of other peoples money or we wouldn't be 16 TRILLION in debt.
We don't need to point the finger at any one president or any one congress, we need to point the finger at the voters. Especially the ones that forgot Kennedy's words that you have already posted; what the people can do for their country.
We need to quit F'ing it up and start sucking it up.
Easier said than done.

I often use my raccoon analogy to make the point.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage, so you give him a nice hunk of roast beef. The raccoon dines in delight taking advantage of the gift you gave him. Now try to take that roast beef away from him and see what happens.

That's the way people are--especially when it comes to government goodies. Once you give that raccoon that roast beef, there is no taking it away without getting bit. Even the most conservative politicians realize this, and they don't dare to take away government goodies.

The exception to that was Welfare Reform created by Newt Gingrich. But the only reason he tackled that is because of the numerous complaints by voters who got sick of seeing people using welfare as a way of life.

We've seen this in the past. Democrats are born liars, so you have to watch what you say and do. If you are against the federal government forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control, the Democrats lie and call it a War on Women. Back in the 90's, the Republicans created block grants for states for welfare and the school lunch program. This took out a lot of government paper pushers, so the Democrats retaliated by saying Republicans want your children to starve. Medicare Reform? The Democrats said Republicans wanted old people to die.

When you deal with people as dishonest as the devil himself, you have to be very clever on what you say and do.
Old Guy

New Carlisle, OH

#19881 Aug 10, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If Republicans were serious about national healthcare, they would have introduced a serious bill after they took leadership of Congress. They didn't. They soon realized that the public was totally against national healthcare.
Really? Most of the older folks I talk to like the idea of no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And my younger friends like having their kids covered by their insurance until they are 26. Other aspects of the Affordable Care Act have also found wide public support:

"The Kaiser poll shows that some of the major provisions of the law enjoy tremendous bipartisan support, with 71% of respondents supporting Medicaid expansion, 80% of people supporting the new health insurance exchanges and closing the Medicare “doughnut hole,” and a whopping 88% of people in favor of health insurance tax credits to small businesses."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/30657/obama...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19882 Aug 10, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Most of the older folks I talk to like the idea of no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And my younger friends like having their kids covered by their insurance until they are 26. Other aspects of the Affordable Care Act have also found wide public support:
"The Kaiser poll shows that some of the major provisions of the law enjoy tremendous bipartisan support, with 71% of respondents supporting Medicaid expansion, 80% of people supporting the new health insurance exchanges and closing the Medicare “doughnut hole,” and a whopping 88% of people in favor of health insurance tax credits to small businesses."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30657/obama...
problem is the cons out weigh the pros.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19883 Aug 10, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Most of the older folks I talk to like the idea of no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And my younger friends like having their kids covered by their insurance until they are 26. Other aspects of the Affordable Care Act have also found wide public support:
"The Kaiser poll shows that some of the major provisions of the law enjoy tremendous bipartisan support, with 71% of respondents supporting Medicaid expansion, 80% of people supporting the new health insurance exchanges and closing the Medicare “doughnut hole,” and a whopping 88% of people in favor of health insurance tax credits to small businesses."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30657/obama...
I guess it depends on who you ask:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/big-majoritie...

If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs for free.

Let me ask: do you think it would be a good idea that we force auto insurance companies to take customers with dangerous driving records or multiple DUI"s? What do you think that would do to your insurance rate?

How about insurance companies that insure homes? Do you think the government should force insurance companies to cover people who are constantly getting flooded out or repeated house fires? And if so, what do you think that would do to your home insurance rates?

If you answered no to both of those questions, then why would you approve of health insurance companies being forced to accept people with preexisting conditions?
Cops

South Point, OH

#19884 Aug 10, 2013
I think Trent Smoot should run for Gov
BUBBA

Kenton, OH

#19886 Aug 11, 2013
You people sound like someone with a paper ass and it's all torn up---all blow and no go
d pantz

United States

#19888 Aug 11, 2013
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! your IQ test results came back. They're negative.
good reply. My health insurance got more HR personal at the corporation I work for said its only going to keep going up. When it gets cheaper I will make sure to tell them their IQ scores are in the negative....
d pantz

United States

#19889 Aug 11, 2013
My premiums went up. sorry about the in complete sentence
d pantz

United States

#19890 Aug 11, 2013
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>It's 2013 not 1794, they didn't have huge corporations, Wall Street and huge banks buying the government back then.
you're wrong. The revolutionary war started in part by british merchant banks not accepting fiat currency from the colonies for private debts.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19891 Aug 11, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> good reply. My health insurance got more HR personal at the corporation I work for said its only going to keep going up. When it gets cheaper I will make sure to tell them their IQ scores are in the negative....
I told my employer I was looking to drop our healthcare coverage because it didn't cover anything. He was upset because he pays so much for health insurance and it's not helping his employees. He had to keep getting cheaper and cheaper coverage because of the cost since this moron became president.

I explained to him that I discussed the problem with the billing people at the facility I go to. She told me that if I didn't have any healthcare insurance, the clinic would cover me for everything from a simple doctors visit to major surgery.

Sounds all fine and dandy, right? Wrong. The Communist will take money from me if I go that route as of next year. I will have to have healthcare coverage and may end up in the same situation I'm in today. If not for the Communists, my problems would pretty much be solved.

I was discussing this situation with one of my tenants. She and her live-in boyfriend both work fast food jobs because they don't want to give up smoking pot to get a real jobs. In that discussion, I was bashing DumBama.

She told me that because of DumBama, she and her boyfriend have excellent medical coverage. So what this complete idiot did was fix it so that those who want to smoke pot and make low income to have better medical coverage than a person like me who invested his money in real estate and took on a career as a professional tractor-trailer operator.

DumBama and the Democrats are mortal enemies of responsible hard working people.
Old Guy

New Carlisle, OH

#19892 Aug 11, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I explained to him that I discussed the problem with the billing people at the facility I go to. She told me that if I didn't have any healthcare insurance, the clinic would cover me for everything from a simple doctors visit to major surgery.
Wow! So you've found a "facility" that offers free healthcare, including major surgery? Why don't you share this discovery with the rest of us?

Since everything is covered, why do they need "billing people"?
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19893 Aug 11, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! So you've found a "facility" that offers free healthcare, including major surgery? Why don't you share this discovery with the rest of us?
Since everything is covered, why do they need "billing people"?
Not sure, perhaps it's because I've been a lifelong patient. They also have a program with people like myself who now have crummy insurance, but it only applies if you make less than $11,000 per year.

I don't know if it's a clinic policy or a government policy. But she told me they used to have a program for people like myself and it had no minimum income, but they got rid of it for some reason.
UdintEARNthat

Canton, OH

#19897 Aug 12, 2013
UdintBuildThat wrote:
<quoted text>
Social Security is a straight up ponzi scheme.
Strange how most folks who are against Social Security are already getting theirs.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19898 Aug 12, 2013
UdintEARNthat wrote:
<quoted text>
Strange how most folks who are against Social Security are already getting theirs.
The reason people are against Social Security is because there is no Rights to Social Security and the U.S. Social Security Administration even tells you on their Webpage with the link below that there is no rights and can be taken away or eliminated at any time and the Federal Government now wants to take the Private & the Railroad Pensions along with 401K's and dump them into Social Security Ponzi Scheme and after that, that is when the Federal Government will drop the ball and tell everyone you have no rights to Social Security and is the reason why most people do not trust these Modern Liberals and Modern Conservatives which both like certain aspects of Modern Pseudo Liberalism and some aspects they don't.

Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Social Security’s Sham Guarantee

By Michael D. Tanner

May 29, 2005

How many times during the recent debate over Social Security reform have you heard someone refer to Social Security’s “guaranteed benefit”? The AARP says “Social Security is the guaranteed part of your retirement plan.” Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, touts the system’s “guaranteed retirement benefit.” The liberal activist group ProtectYourCheck.org , headed by former Clinton chief of staff Harold Ickes, is running ads calling Social Security “a guarantee you earned.”

But Social Security benefits are not guaranteed.

They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
Pops

Newport, KY

#19899 Aug 12, 2013
If it's a tax to begin with, why & how is it legal to tax it when it is disbursed?
I believe that this question made it to the SCOTUS but I lack clarity on that.
Pops

Newport, KY

#19900 Aug 12, 2013
UdintEARNthat wrote:
<quoted text>
Strange how most folks who are against Social Security are already getting theirs.
This statement is based on what?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19901 Aug 12, 2013
Pops wrote:
If it's a tax to begin with, why & how is it legal to tax it when it is disbursed?
I believe that this question made it to the SCOTUS but I lack clarity on that.
it is legal because under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, The very first power given to Congress by the US Constitution which is the power to tax and Money is power and the bases for the Social Security Act of 1935 which is Congress's Power to Tax under the US Constitution and why Social Security is no different than any different Federal Government Program that can be altered or eliminated at anytime which is what the SCOTUS confirmed in 1960 in Flemming V. Nestor.

Article 1, Section 8

Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The very first power given to Congress by the Constitution is the power to tax. Money is power, and in the governmental structure created by the Constitution, Congress—not the president—controls the money. Congress also has the power to levy tariffs (taxes on imported goods) but it's not allowed to charge more for imports into one state than into another. The Framers of the Constitution probably put the tax power first on the list of Congress's enumerated powers because they were acutely aware that one of the biggest problems of the old Articles of Confederation was that its version of Congress did not have the power to tax, and thus didn't have the power to do much of anything at all.

http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19902 Aug 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it is legal because under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, The very first power given to Congress by the US Constitution which is the power to tax and Money is power and the bases for the Social Security Act of 1935 which is Congress's Power to Tax under the US Constitution and why Social Security is no different than any different Federal Government Program that can be altered or eliminated at anytime which is what the SCOTUS confirmed in 1960 in Flemming V. Nestor.
http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-...
That's a bit different.

You get taxed when something exchanges hands. This is the first time Americans have been taxed when something doesn't exchange hands. Therefore, it's not a tax but a penalty.

I get taxed on SS and Medicare, but, it's a tax to support a program that I will participate in later in life should I live so long. I get taxed when I buy something from the store. Again, those taxes go to support something. I get taxed on my property. Those taxes go to the county, city and schools all to support those entities.

Now I'm going to get "taxed" for NOT having an insurance policy. What does this supposed tax go to support?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19903 Aug 12, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a bit different.
You get taxed when something exchanges hands. This is the first time Americans have been taxed when something doesn't exchange hands. Therefore, it's not a tax but a penalty.
I get taxed on SS and Medicare, but, it's a tax to support a program that I will participate in later in life should I live so long. I get taxed when I buy something from the store. Again, those taxes go to support something. I get taxed on my property. Those taxes go to the county, city and schools all to support those entities.
Now I'm going to get "taxed" for NOT having an insurance policy. What does this supposed tax go to support?
but the Social Security tax is just another tax that goes to the General Fund and the Federal Government can spend it anyway they want which the SCOTUS ruled in 1937 in Helvering v. Davis and there is nothing special about the Social Security tax which just gives the US Federal Government justification to tax for more money is all and what people don't get is just look at Nestor who was taxed for 19 years and SCOTUS told he had no rights to Social Security because Congress made changes to the Requirements of Social Security in 1954 and made him ineligible which under the Social Security Act of 1935 Congress has that Right under Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

and if you really want to know the purpose getting taxed for not having Health Insurance it is like any other tax created by the Federal Government and that is to help fund the Federal Government which is the purpose of taxes and the bases of Socialism.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 5 min see the light 18,853
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 14 hr the inside track 31,190
Found dog! (Dec '13) 23 hr Hero Officer Wilson 7
Andy's Dean's "America Now" cancelled! Wed Gun Nut 38
Aaron fannigan Aug 26 Krista 1
Be respectful Aug 26 Mike Brown High C... 2
Dr Commander selvam swamiji sri selvam siddhar ... (Dec '11) Aug 26 Albert Stidham 39
•••
Springboro Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Springboro Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Springboro People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Springboro News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Springboro
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••