Making Individual Health Insurance Illegal

[moonlightandmargaritas]

John, et. al. has it ever occurred to even ONE of you that maybe, just maybe... letting everyone have access to the healthcare system IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

Heavy government involvement so far has given us poorer quality and higher costs. Can we really expect that the government will come up with a solution to a problem it caused? The answer to the more government problems is more government?

While it may be the "right thing to do", where in the Constitution does it say that access to healthcare is a "right"?

 

[Call4Insurance]

I do not know how any of you get any business written when all you do is argue on this forum.

 

[Guest]

Heavy government involvement so far has given us poorer quality and higher costs. Can we really expect that the government will come up with a solution to a problem it caused? The answer to the more government problems is more government?

While it may be the "right thing to do", where in the Constitution does it say that access to healthcare is a "right"?

It doesn't say voting is a right.

It doesn't say praying to your own god is a right.

It doesn't say that owning a gun is a right.

It doesn't say a free press is a right

The original Constitution had NO rights. It took the first 10 AMENDMENTS to secure any rights.

And it took the 14th and 15th and 19th to add voting rights.

The current US government was formed upon ratificaiton of 9 states in 1789. The Bill of Rights were not ratified in 1791.

Except for the 2nd Amendment, I'm have no doubt that the vast majority of neo-con agents (which is the vast majority of agents on this board) would be only to happy to see all the Amendments repealed.

When I was a teen I heard the same argument that Moon posted from Barry Goldwater when the debate was about allowing black people on public accommodations. He said that nowhere in the Constitution did it say that if you owned a lunch counter that you had to serve a black person.

Of course with you neo-cons (especially those from the South) it would be Hispanics and gays today.

You neo-cons just love your guns and your prejudices. I gotta hand it to you. You're consistent.

How guys like Moon and Winter, who exist on hatred of any change and who fear those from a different cultural (or sexual) background, are able to make a living in a people-oriented biz like insurance in what is now a totally multi-cultural country, is beyond me. (Of course since they both post behind a cloak, we don't know if they really ARE in this biz. For all we know they are both recruiters for one of the Aryan Nation splinter groups. They sure sound like it on this board. The sad thing is that I'm sure so many of you would join if this were true.)

 

[VolAgent]

You really ought to stop and read your own posts, because it is amazing who you sound like. You both hate with a passion, and you both believe you are right and everyone else is wrong. You just hate different things. But your hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with you, or is from the South is downright scary.

One of the principles this country was founded on is difference of opinion. Perhaps you ought to re-examine that.

Also, if you'd stop and read what others posted, most of them are not against everyone having access to health care they can afford. What they are against, as really everyone should be, is ruining it for everyone. The solution to the few being unable to afford health care is not to make it unaffordable for everyone. Instead, we should be exploring options to tweek the system so that those that can not afford it can get it.

But you still ignore one of the biggest problems, that is the willingness to pay. A large percentage of the uninsured are that way by choice. They have an employer offering coverage, or can afford private coverage. Instead, they believe themselves invincible and choose not to get it. Then, when they finally need it, they believe they should be able to get it for the cost they were first offered. No one should be forced to subsidize coverage for such an individual. They made their choice, now its time to live with it.

It doesn't say voting is a right.

It doesn't say praying to your own god is a right.

It doesn't say that owning a gun is a right.

It doesn't say a free press is a right

The original Constitution had NO rights. It took the first 10 AMENDMENTS to secure any rights.

And it took the 14th and 15th and 19th to add voting rights.

The current US government was formed upon ratificaiton of 9 states in 1789. The Bill of Rights were not ratified in 1791.

Except for the 2nd Amendment, I'm have no doubt that the vast majority of neo-con agents (which is the vast majority of agents on this board) would be only to happy to see all the Amendments repealed.

When I was a teen I heard the same argument that Moon posted from Barry Goldwater when the debate was about allowing black people on public accommodations. He said that nowhere in the Constitution did it say that if you owned a lunch counter that you had to serve a black person.

Of course with you neo-cons (especially those from the South) it would be Hispanics and gays today.

You neo-cons just love your guns and your prejudices. I gotta hand it to you. You're consistent.

How guys like Moon and Winter, who exist on hatred of any change and who fear those from a different cultural (or sexual) background, are able to make a living in a people-oriented biz like insurance in what is now a totally multi-cultural country, is beyond me. (Of course since they both post behind a cloak, we don't know if they really ARE in this biz. For all we know they are both recruiters for one of the Aryan Nation splinter groups. They sure sound like it on this board. The sad thing is that I'm sure so many of you would join if this were true.)

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

The original Constitution had NO rights. It took the first 10 AMENDMENTS to secure any rights.

All the obfuscation is nice - but it doesn't change the fact that federal government involvement/oversight/regulation has led to two things - poorer quality, and higher costs - in everything it gets involved in.

How guys like Moon and Winter, who exist on hatred of any change

Boy, sometimes you miss by hundreds of miles. You're not too perceptive. I'm for BIG change. Radical change. Not the campaign crap like "Change You Can Believe In", or the "Contract With America". Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference. Six months later we find it's the same old dung in different packaging!

I would start by changing the military as we know it - 700 installations in 130 countries. Close 'em. It's been proven that imperialism hasn't worked. Stop the needless wars, bring the military back to what it was designed for - protecting Americans on American soil.

My second step would be putting a total and complete stop to foreign aid. The "welfare state" has worked neither here, nor abroad.

That's my idea of "change you can believe in".

 

[DJM]

I agree that someting needs to be done with healthcare, but is the government getting involved ever the RIGHT thing?

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

I agree that someting needs to be done with healthcare, but is the government getting involved ever the RIGHT thing?

I guess it depends on what you think is the "right" thing...

What history has proven is that federal government involvement guarantees two things; lower quality and higher cost.

 

[stormtracker]

Al3-- where you from, boy?

 

[Guest]

Al3-- where you from, boy?

At least 95% of the neo-con agents (which is 80% of this board) think I'm from Planet Zardo.

You can find me here:

InsuranceSolutions123 Agency

(Here is your math question for the day. Given the above statement, if there are 900 neo-con agents, how many agents are on this board? )

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

At least 95% of the neo-con agents (which is 80% of this board) think I'm from Planet Zardo.

That's a tad surprising to me. I would have thought that Ur-anus would have been a much more logical choice...

BTW-You have a very bad habit of repeating things incessantly. Did your wife ever mention it to you?