These bastards have contempt for the Constitution and contempt for us. They have sold us out. They work for special interests, and most of them belong behind bars.
This fall all those politicians in favor of this Healthcare bill. I would like to see them roll up their sleeves for this H1N1 flu shot. If they are so sure of their plan
Strip the federal government down to the bare bones--only those functions that can't be carried out on the state or local level, (nation defense, foreign affairs, etc) Then whittle Congress down to 12-year term limits, and shift the main business of government to individual states. This will put bureaucrats within easy reach of their constituents, & bring business back to the states. Time to break this Washington DC syndicate up.
2) exactly. The Constutition spelled out exactly what powers the US Congress has. Healthcare isn't in it, therefore Congress has no authority to regulate, instate, or generally pass laws on the issue.
1) Russia is complicated issue since the soviet collapsed
A) They went from 1st in the world with bed per person in the 70s- early 80 to shit hole for the general public after the fall of soviet union (because the oligarchs stole the system)
2) Yes there is nothing about health care in the constitution. In that case there is noting in the constitution about woman right, black people right or anyone under the age 40 for that matter.
Yes there is language in The Constitution about all of those issues. Check the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.
The Constitution SPECIFICALLY sais that whatever is not covered in the US Constitution, that the Congress shall make no laws. Issues which are not covered shall be delt with in the local state constitutions.
Might wanna re-read your comments AND the constitution while you're at it.
13= emancipation proclamation... kinda had something to do with black rights.RACE
14= 1.everyone gets equal protection, 2 voting age changed to 21.UNDER 40
15= everyone can vote. RACE
19= women can vote. SEX
26= AGE again.
Don't change the subject. No one cares if "lefties" did anything, the topic is that, "noting in the constitution about woman right, black people right or anyone under the age 40". nice try.
You do know after slavery was stopped blacks didn't have the same rights as white did! Thus what i said about blacks didn't having not right is different to slavery.
15th Amendments was there but it was made harder for blacks to vote
a) you had to be literate
b) they were given harder test to qualify than to that of their whites counterpart
19 & 26 was amended thanks to left wing "liberal" whom you guys are fighting
Your arguement about slavery is moot. You said that the Constitution doesn't address race, age, or sex. Weather it is fair or not is another story. 19th and 26th included. don't try to give credit to the liberals for the 19th. Women's sufferage groups protested Wilson's 1st & 2nd inauguration. What party was he apart of? The right passed civil rights & freed slaves.
you guys are fighting? what is that supposed to mean. I have said nothing for or against the protestors.
Well at least you accepted my first part of the comment. As 26th amendment it was due to liberals left wing whom where against the Vietnam war. If you go and check the leading members were left wing. As for president Woodrow Wilson
To address you'r "what is that supposed to mean. I have said nothing for or against the protestors" comment
What was i supposed to say when you guys pull the constitution as if it was a perfect constitution. The woman in the video doesn't even know how many times the constitution had to be amended. In other word you just can't pull constitution this constitution that every time you feel like it.
What's that supposed to mean "you guys pull the const"? You're the one making false claims about it. The lady in the vid may or may not know the amendments, you don't know that. Obviously, you don't know what's in the Const, we just covered that. So, why are you assuming she doesn't, then belittling her for it, when you don't even know it?
No one said the Const is perfect, but it is the law and the Const is what allowed this country to be the most prosperous country in recorded history.
What the hell are you talking about? i am not the one bring up the constitution! The woman did. She talks about "the systematic dismantling of this country" meaning she have problem with changes to the constitution. meaning
No one said you brought up the Const. Quit getting all pissy anytime I mention something that you can assume that I'm accusing you of something.
She talkes about "systematic dis.." doesn't mean she has a problem with the Const. It means Congress has dismantled this country to something the founders did not intend. Where do you get that she doesn't like the 13, 15, 16, 26 amend?
Just like you are dismantling this discussion with accusations & tangents that have nothing to do with ur 1st post
I'm not confirming or denying your claim about the 26th. I haven't studied it or feel like researching it. You may be right, but it's not why I entered this discussion. The fact is that the Constutition does address age, which you said it didn't.
Watch the video again. She never said what the Constitution is or should be. She said that the Congress should bring this country back to what it was intended to be.
And, so what if she doesn't want an amendment. Isn't it her right to have an oppinion? The democrats didn't want the 13th, 15th, or 19th amendments. What of it?
First of all the Lincon republican are not the same as present day republicans.
Second 19th amendment was sighed by a democrat Woodrow Wilson. And not if she wanted to go back to the un-amended version of the constitution she have no right to vote or voice her opinion
WW signed it after being pressured and protested for 8 years. It became an amendment within 6 months of the end of his last term.
Lincoln's party is the same as it is today, just read the Republican party's charter in 1854.
Dems on the otherhand are not. Just look at the differences in the party in just 50 years. What ever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you"?
No one said she wants to un-amend anything. Where do you get your arguements?
Bush wasn't a conservative and he wasn't very fiscal. Bush isn't the face of every republican. Gov101 for ya. Prezs don't borrow and spend.. the Congress writes the budget. We had a surplus when Reps had Congress. 02-04 we were at war. Deficits happen in every war,04-06 the reps spent too much money, that's why none of their supporters came to the polls in 06 and they got voted out.
Dems had majority under Reagan, Bush 41, and the 2nd term of W. Reps had Congress during Clinton. Clinton even threatened to veto ALL of the budget proposals until there was enough in congress to override his veto. Then he passed it and when there was a surplus, he was on the cover of every news paper talking about the surplus he created.
Fical under Obama is 4x Ws, and growing. Who's got congress now?
Reagan was in office during the 97th, 98th, 99th, and 100th congresses. Republicans riding Reagan's coattails made gains in the congressional elections of 1980 and won the Senate majority for the first time in 26 years, but the House of Representatives retained a Democratic majority.
Reagan recognized that he would have to work with them, and find ways to win Democrats over to his policy initiatives. He was able to cultivate a group of southern Democrats, nicknamed the "Boll Weevils," after the pests whose larvae are born in cotton bolls and burrow from within to destroy the crop. Despite their party allegiance, their conservative constituents made them sympathetic to Reagan's policy agenda.
For the first six years of his administration his personal popularity made all Democrats wary of thwarting his pet projects, lest they lose the support of their own districts. The Republicans retained control of the Senate in...
1. taking money from my pocket and putting it into yours does not 'make money' or stimulate anything.
2. the only way the government gets money is thru taxes.
3. Obama and this congress hasn't given us a reason to think they can even balance their check books, muchless manage the largest economy in the history of the world.
4. every major gvnmt agency is bankrupt now, not only that, but they created this problem with nonoversite of Freddie and Fannie. that was a major part of the downturn.
1. Yes tacking money from you'r pocket does make money. all public service be it the police, military, School teacher, etc are paid from you'r pocket in turn they pay tax thus stimulate
2. is addressed with no1
3. A) They didn't even know how deep in shit the economy was until recently thanks to G.W. Bush economy B) the health care reform is one place to start since it cast 3 time to that of inflation to pay for privet insurance.
So, we can agree that Reagan had a Congress of Dems that acted like Rep (Boll Weevels). And we can agree that GWB had a congress of Reps that acted like Dems (McCain, Graham, Specter, etc). If that's the case, then how come we had the greatest economic boom in the 80s, and a shit economy the last year or 2?
And you didn't address #4. Why is every gvmnt agency bankrupt now? And it isn't the Dems or the Reps fault, this has been going on for years now. Ex. Medicaid went into the red in 1990.
The economy started to collapse in the first term of GWB.
As for the 1980 who said the economy was booming ?
The fiscal under Regan was -200 and thanks to his deregulation there was nobody to regulate the banking system thus most of the problem that we have today goes back to Regan era
1. i was trying to explain when you start public service job it stimulate job creation and in turn help the privet sector.
2. if gov is so bad running the economy why is it the Reps didn't do away with Medicaid.
If the privet was so good why is it the privet insurance make it hard to the older generation? If the Privet insurance was so good why is it US spend 6 times on health than Europe? If US health insurance was so good why is it US is 37 in the index?
If the US privet insurance was so good why is it its 3 times to the inflation rate. If US privet insurance was so good why is it some of the bankruptcy is related to privet health health insurance?
It's not at 3x the inflation rate, stop believing everything Obama tells you. My insurance went down this year. Bankruptcy has nothing to do with insurance, check your figures. Bankruptcy has to do with people who do not have coverage. I know Iceland is bankrupt, that's what I've been argueing against. Gov run economy is BAD, ok. And I don't need any figures to tell me the 80s boomed, I lived through them. Good times. Watch some movies from the era.
1) Wrong. Iceland is capitolist but with an extensive welfare system, including generous housing subsidies. Prior to the 2008 crisis, Iceland had achieved high growth, low unemployment, and a remarkably even distribution of income.
2) I know inflation exists, but you said premiums rose @ 3X inflation.
Yes it is to blame. The paresite ended up killing the host. You know what the problem with socialism is? Sooner or later you'll run out of someone else's money.
And, you're right, Assurant doesn't provide health coverage in NY, but if you go to their website & put in your info, it will redirect you to one of their partners. I just did & a policy in NY would cost me $140-$1100/mo, with most of them around $380.
"You know what the problem with socialism is? Sooner or later you'll run out of someone else's money." Ya funny apparently Capitalism shares same problem, and you know what my health care cost $0/mo.....I just pay my taxes knowing that I and my neighbors health are covered (cuz you know cough and sneezes spread deases, you know just to let you know someone else health should matter even to the selfish)
I don't know where you get 'capitalism shares the same problem', because there hasn't been a capitalist society since the 1930s. You health care costs $0, except for when you pay your astronomical taxes. And you'll be happy to pay an American doctor if you need timely lifesaving service, kinda like the premier of Canadas east coast province of Newfoundland and Labrador did back in October. You know as well as I do that he isn't the only one to do that.
ya your right America does have top notch medi-care.....for those that can afford it...tough luck I guess for those that can't. And ya your right there hasn't been a true capitalist society, or socialist society, ever just balances between.
'for those who can afford it'? Maybe you're not familiar with the US law that says no one can be refused medical care, reguardless of their ability to pay.
hmm and how many uninsured Americans are there because of pre-existing health problems or inability to pay? From last I heard that was a very high number.
I don't know how many uninsured Americans there are, but I'm talking about medical CARE, not medical COVERAGE. No one can be refused CARE (ie, service) due to their ability or inability to pay.
sure and I'll also thank the Canadian government that pays for 50% or more of cost of those drugs from RX....funny how American medicine is cheaper or free in Canada. XD
nothing is 'free'. It may be cost you nothing directly, but it is being paid for by the g'mnt, which (correct me if I'm wrong) gets its money from the Canadian tax payers, ie citizens.
By saying that you'll thank the gvmnt, means you should thank your neighbors, if you are a reciepient of the medicine that they paid for.
1. no it doesn't stimulate the private sect because you have to take money from the private sect (the people who actually produce something) to give to the public sect.
2. because they're politicans. Reps over the last few years haven't acted like the Reps of 6-8 years ago, and that's a shame.
Private insurance doesn't make it hard on the older gen. Post figures on your 6x claim, BS until I see otherwise. 37th # is crap. The WHO (UN flunkies) make that list.
the economy started to collapse under the 1st GWB term because we were attacked... Maybe you missed that. Given that and a war, unemployeement stayed under 5.5% for the next 8 years. It's more than double that now.
If it was -200 under Reagan, it is -1600 under BHO thanks to no one regulating Freddie and Fannie. When Reps wanted to regulate, Dems wouldn't allow it. Do I have to post the vid of the regulation hearings?
1. paying for gvmnt services isn't the issue. & Police, etc don't stimulate the economy by paying taxes. It's retarded to say, "we'll pay you $50k so you can pay us $18k in taxes".
2. no, the fact that the gvmnt mismanages EVERY project they ever get their hands on isn't addressed
3. A) how many times do I have to tell you that the Congress writes the budget bills B) wrong. Private insurance is cheeper in many cases. Maybe you should price it. I pay $470/mo for a family of 4 thru private ins.
Where was Obama when the economy started to fail? OOO, he was in the senate voting for all of the budget bills. Again, Bush isn't the poster child for republicans.
So, you admit that Reagan had a Dem congress with your plagerized comments. enotes(dot)com, aye? So, let's continue for HWB, "Both the 101 and 102 Congresses were controlled by Democrats" 103 (WJC) Dems, 104 (WJC) Rep & SURPLUS! 105 Rep Balanced Budget Act 1997.
Do a little research & you'll see that there was no surplus anyway.
you said it idiot.......... Health Care is not a right and you cannot find it in the constitution....... you probably don't even know how many ammendments are in the constitution.......... that is what is sad
your a fool if you think any of those people in congress give a rats ass about you (john,or jane q public !)!,,your just a cash cow to them !!!!!!!!!
blumaxx1 6 months ago
These bastards have contempt for the Constitution and contempt for us. They have sold us out. They work for special interests, and most of them belong behind bars.
abukamoon 2 years ago
My mistake on the name it was Andrew Jackson not Thomas Jefferson. But the fact is true. link to his biography
/watch?v=p63Dvdrggns
theracemixer 2 years ago
Specter is looking pretty small there with all of those AMERICANS around him!
billy2bob 2 years ago 4
Arlen needs to go... what a fool and a tool he is.
ThreePuttinDude 2 years ago
This fall all those politicians in favor of this Healthcare bill. I would like to see them roll up their sleeves for this H1N1 flu shot. If they are so sure of their plan
BeantownJim 2 years ago
Strip the federal government down to the bare bones--only those functions that can't be carried out on the state or local level, (nation defense, foreign affairs, etc) Then whittle Congress down to 12-year term limits, and shift the main business of government to individual states. This will put bureaucrats within easy reach of their constituents, & bring business back to the states. Time to break this Washington DC syndicate up.
courtesyZone 2 years ago 3
What a fruitcake
1) Russia is not a socialist country. not for over 20 years anyway
2) The constitution had nothing to do with health care.
This is the people make fun of Americans
theracemixer 2 years ago
1) no, but they have socialized health coverage
2) exactly. The Constutition spelled out exactly what powers the US Congress has. Healthcare isn't in it, therefore Congress has no authority to regulate, instate, or generally pass laws on the issue.
EatPez 2 years ago
1) Russia is complicated issue since the soviet collapsed
A) They went from 1st in the world with bed per person in the 70s- early 80 to shit hole for the general public after the fall of soviet union (because the oligarchs stole the system)
2) Yes there is nothing about health care in the constitution. In that case there is noting in the constitution about woman right, black people right or anyone under the age 40 for that matter.
theracemixer 2 years ago
BTW there is nothing about police protecting you in the constitution
theracemixer 2 years ago
Yes there is language in The Constitution about all of those issues. Check the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.
The Constitution SPECIFICALLY sais that whatever is not covered in the US Constitution, that the Congress shall make no laws. Issues which are not covered shall be delt with in the local state constitutions.
Might wanna check Article 1, Section 8.
EatPez 2 years ago
*says
EatPez 2 years ago
13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments
have nothing to do with what i said.
13th, 14th Amendments is about slavery not about giving black the same right.
As for 15th Amendments did not change the fact blacks could not vote. For one thing they were unfairly given test to qualify.
As for 19th, and 26th Amendments it was thanks to student activist otherwise known as "liberals" and "leftist"
The same group who are fighting for universal health.
theracemixer 2 years ago
Might wanna re-read your comments AND the constitution while you're at it.
13= emancipation proclamation... kinda had something to do with black rights.RACE
14= 1.everyone gets equal protection, 2 voting age changed to 21.UNDER 40
15= everyone can vote. RACE
19= women can vote. SEX
26= AGE again.
Don't change the subject. No one cares if "lefties" did anything, the topic is that, "noting in the constitution about woman right, black people right or anyone under the age 40". nice try.
EatPez 2 years ago
You do know after slavery was stopped blacks didn't have the same rights as white did! Thus what i said about blacks didn't having not right is different to slavery.
15th Amendments was there but it was made harder for blacks to vote
a) you had to be literate
b) they were given harder test to qualify than to that of their whites counterpart
19 & 26 was amended thanks to left wing "liberal" whom you guys are fighting
theracemixer 2 years ago
Your arguement about slavery is moot. You said that the Constitution doesn't address race, age, or sex. Weather it is fair or not is another story. 19th and 26th included. don't try to give credit to the liberals for the 19th. Women's sufferage groups protested Wilson's 1st & 2nd inauguration. What party was he apart of? The right passed civil rights & freed slaves.
you guys are fighting? what is that supposed to mean. I have said nothing for or against the protestors.
EatPez 2 years ago
Well at least you accepted my first part of the comment. As 26th amendment it was due to liberals left wing whom where against the Vietnam war. If you go and check the leading members were left wing. As for president Woodrow Wilson
he was a Progressive.
theracemixer 2 years ago
To address you'r "what is that supposed to mean. I have said nothing for or against the protestors" comment
What was i supposed to say when you guys pull the constitution as if it was a perfect constitution. The woman in the video doesn't even know how many times the constitution had to be amended. In other word you just can't pull constitution this constitution that every time you feel like it.
theracemixer 2 years ago
In 40-50 years time the right of health care will be in the constitution just like so many of the amendment.
theracemixer 2 years ago
What's that supposed to mean "you guys pull the const"? You're the one making false claims about it. The lady in the vid may or may not know the amendments, you don't know that. Obviously, you don't know what's in the Const, we just covered that. So, why are you assuming she doesn't, then belittling her for it, when you don't even know it?
No one said the Const is perfect, but it is the law and the Const is what allowed this country to be the most prosperous country in recorded history.
EatPez 2 years ago
@EatPez
What the hell are you talking about? i am not the one bring up the constitution! The woman did. She talks about "the systematic dismantling of this country" meaning she have problem with changes to the constitution. meaning
no to 13,15,16,26th amendment.
theracemixer 2 years ago
No one said you brought up the Const. Quit getting all pissy anytime I mention something that you can assume that I'm accusing you of something.
She talkes about "systematic dis.." doesn't mean she has a problem with the Const. It means Congress has dismantled this country to something the founders did not intend. Where do you get that she doesn't like the 13, 15, 16, 26 amend?
Just like you are dismantling this discussion with accusations & tangents that have nothing to do with ur 1st post
EatPez 2 years ago
I'm not confirming or denying your claim about the 26th. I haven't studied it or feel like researching it. You may be right, but it's not why I entered this discussion. The fact is that the Constutition does address age, which you said it didn't.
EatPez 2 years ago
I was referring in context she (the woman in the video) Stated what the constitution is.
She doesn't want amendment.
theracemixer 2 years ago
Watch the video again. She never said what the Constitution is or should be. She said that the Congress should bring this country back to what it was intended to be.
And, so what if she doesn't want an amendment. Isn't it her right to have an oppinion? The democrats didn't want the 13th, 15th, or 19th amendments. What of it?
EatPez 2 years ago
First of all the Lincon republican are not the same as present day republicans.
Second 19th amendment was sighed by a democrat Woodrow Wilson. And not if she wanted to go back to the un-amended version of the constitution she have no right to vote or voice her opinion
theracemixer 2 years ago
WW signed it after being pressured and protested for 8 years. It became an amendment within 6 months of the end of his last term.
Lincoln's party is the same as it is today, just read the Republican party's charter in 1854.
Dems on the otherhand are not. Just look at the differences in the party in just 50 years. What ever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you"?
No one said she wants to un-amend anything. Where do you get your arguements?
EatPez 2 years ago
As i said the republican of the past are not the republicans of today.
For one thing they are made of right wing
As for the economy republicans presidents borrow money and spend.
Under Cliton it was a surplus surplus In Bush deficit.
theracemixer 2 years ago
Bush wasn't a conservative and he wasn't very fiscal. Bush isn't the face of every republican. Gov101 for ya. Prezs don't borrow and spend.. the Congress writes the budget. We had a surplus when Reps had Congress. 02-04 we were at war. Deficits happen in every war,04-06 the reps spent too much money, that's why none of their supporters came to the polls in 06 and they got voted out.
EatPez 2 years ago
Fiscal
Regan -200
G.H Bush -300
Bill Clinton +200
G.W.BUSH -428
" Prezs don't borrow and spend.. the Congress writes the budget" remind me again which party the republicans were the congress.
theracemixer 2 years ago
Dems had majority under Reagan, Bush 41, and the 2nd term of W. Reps had Congress during Clinton. Clinton even threatened to veto ALL of the budget proposals until there was enough in congress to override his veto. Then he passed it and when there was a surplus, he was on the cover of every news paper talking about the surplus he created.
Fical under Obama is 4x Ws, and growing. Who's got congress now?
EatPez 2 years ago
Reagan was in office during the 97th, 98th, 99th, and 100th congresses. Republicans riding Reagan's coattails made gains in the congressional elections of 1980 and won the Senate majority for the first time in 26 years, but the House of Representatives retained a Democratic majority.
theracemixer 2 years ago
Reagan recognized that he would have to work with them, and find ways to win Democrats over to his policy initiatives. He was able to cultivate a group of southern Democrats, nicknamed the "Boll Weevils," after the pests whose larvae are born in cotton bolls and burrow from within to destroy the crop. Despite their party allegiance, their conservative constituents made them sympathetic to Reagan's policy agenda.
theracemixer 2 years ago
For the first six years of his administration his personal popularity made all Democrats wary of thwarting his pet projects, lest they lose the support of their own districts. The Republicans retained control of the Senate in...
theracemixer 2 years ago
Obama inherited a failing economy. The crises started when Bush was in office.
"cutting the tax for the rich" really helped didn't it. We saw treacle-down economy didn't we.
theracemixer 2 years ago
Obama's economy can be explained
"it takes money to make money"
theracemixer 2 years ago
1. taking money from my pocket and putting it into yours does not 'make money' or stimulate anything.
2. the only way the government gets money is thru taxes.
3. Obama and this congress hasn't given us a reason to think they can even balance their check books, muchless manage the largest economy in the history of the world.
4. every major gvnmt agency is bankrupt now, not only that, but they created this problem with nonoversite of Freddie and Fannie. that was a major part of the downturn.
EatPez 2 years ago
1. Yes tacking money from you'r pocket does make money. all public service be it the police, military, School teacher, etc are paid from you'r pocket in turn they pay tax thus stimulate
2. is addressed with no1
3. A) They didn't even know how deep in shit the economy was until recently thanks to G.W. Bush economy B) the health care reform is one place to start since it cast 3 time to that of inflation to pay for privet insurance.
theracemixer 2 years ago
4. You can thank Regan for "deregulation"
theracemixer 2 years ago
So, we can agree that Reagan had a Congress of Dems that acted like Rep (Boll Weevels). And we can agree that GWB had a congress of Reps that acted like Dems (McCain, Graham, Specter, etc). If that's the case, then how come we had the greatest economic boom in the 80s, and a shit economy the last year or 2?
And you didn't address #4. Why is every gvmnt agency bankrupt now? And it isn't the Dems or the Reps fault, this has been going on for years now. Ex. Medicaid went into the red in 1990.
EatPez 2 years ago
The further south you Dem act like Reps.
The economy started to collapse in the first term of GWB.
As for the 1980 who said the economy was booming ?
The fiscal under Regan was -200 and thanks to his deregulation there was nobody to regulate the banking system thus most of the problem that we have today goes back to Regan era
theracemixer 2 years ago
1. i was trying to explain when you start public service job it stimulate job creation and in turn help the privet sector.
2. if gov is so bad running the economy why is it the Reps didn't do away with Medicaid.
If the privet was so good why is it the privet insurance make it hard to the older generation? If the Privet insurance was so good why is it US spend 6 times on health than Europe? If US health insurance was so good why is it US is 37 in the index?
theracemixer 2 years ago
If the US privet insurance was so good why is it its 3 times to the inflation rate. If US privet insurance was so good why is it some of the bankruptcy is related to privet health health insurance?
theracemixer 2 years ago
If gov run economy is so good why is Iceland bankrupt. (you can go and read all about)
theracemixer 2 years ago
It's not at 3x the inflation rate, stop believing everything Obama tells you. My insurance went down this year. Bankruptcy has nothing to do with insurance, check your figures. Bankruptcy has to do with people who do not have coverage. I know Iceland is bankrupt, that's what I've been argueing against. Gov run economy is BAD, ok. And I don't need any figures to tell me the 80s boomed, I lived through them. Good times. Watch some movies from the era.
EatPez 2 years ago
1) Iceland became bankrupt not because of Gov intervention but the opposite.
Since the 1990 Iceland began deregulating its economy.
2) No the inflation rate is correct.
back in 07 a product that cast $1
is now $1.04
theracemixer 2 years ago
3) I don't know how old you are but if you are over 50 you'r rate could not have gone down.
BTW what is you'r insurance company ?
According to all record i seen the insurance has gone up.
theracemixer 2 years ago
4) maybe you should send me a link in a PM of website that backs up you'r claim.
BTW the reason of a PM is URL can't be posted in a comment (YT''s fault)
theracemixer 2 years ago
1) Wrong. Iceland is capitolist but with an extensive welfare system, including generous housing subsidies. Prior to the 2008 crisis, Iceland had achieved high growth, low unemployment, and a remarkably even distribution of income.
2) I know inflation exists, but you said premiums rose @ 3X inflation.
3) yes, they went down. Assurant is my provider.
4) PM sent
EatPez 2 years ago
The extensive welfare system didn't matter at that time because as you said
"Iceland had achieved high growth, low unemployment" This means the welfare is not to blame.
Assurant don't provide short term in the state of New York
theracemixer 2 years ago
Yes it is to blame. The paresite ended up killing the host. You know what the problem with socialism is? Sooner or later you'll run out of someone else's money.
And, you're right, Assurant doesn't provide health coverage in NY, but if you go to their website & put in your info, it will redirect you to one of their partners. I just did & a policy in NY would cost me $140-$1100/mo, with most of them around $380.
EatPez 2 years ago
@EatPez
"You know what the problem with socialism is? Sooner or later you'll run out of someone else's money." Ya funny apparently Capitalism shares same problem, and you know what my health care cost $0/mo.....I just pay my taxes knowing that I and my neighbors health are covered (cuz you know cough and sneezes spread deases, you know just to let you know someone else health should matter even to the selfish)
From socialist Canada XD.
whydid666 1 year ago
I don't know where you get 'capitalism shares the same problem', because there hasn't been a capitalist society since the 1930s. You health care costs $0, except for when you pay your astronomical taxes. And you'll be happy to pay an American doctor if you need timely lifesaving service, kinda like the premier of Canadas east coast province of Newfoundland and Labrador did back in October. You know as well as I do that he isn't the only one to do that.
EatPez 1 year ago
@EatPez
ya your right America does have top notch medi-care.....for those that can afford it...tough luck I guess for those that can't. And ya your right there hasn't been a true capitalist society, or socialist society, ever just balances between.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
'for those who can afford it'? Maybe you're not familiar with the US law that says no one can be refused medical care, reguardless of their ability to pay.
EatPez 1 year ago
@EatPez
hmm and how many uninsured Americans are there because of pre-existing health problems or inability to pay? From last I heard that was a very high number.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
I don't know how many uninsured Americans there are, but I'm talking about medical CARE, not medical COVERAGE. No one can be refused CARE (ie, service) due to their ability or inability to pay.
EatPez 1 year ago
@whydid666 Also, be sure to thank an American RX company for inventing the drugs that Canada buys for you. ;)
EatPez 1 year ago
@EatPez
sure and I'll also thank the Canadian government that pays for 50% or more of cost of those drugs from RX....funny how American medicine is cheaper or free in Canada. XD
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
nothing is 'free'. It may be cost you nothing directly, but it is being paid for by the g'mnt, which (correct me if I'm wrong) gets its money from the Canadian tax payers, ie citizens.
By saying that you'll thank the gvmnt, means you should thank your neighbors, if you are a reciepient of the medicine that they paid for.
EatPez 1 year ago
1. no it doesn't stimulate the private sect because you have to take money from the private sect (the people who actually produce something) to give to the public sect.
2. because they're politicans. Reps over the last few years haven't acted like the Reps of 6-8 years ago, and that's a shame.
Private insurance doesn't make it hard on the older gen. Post figures on your 6x claim, BS until I see otherwise. 37th # is crap. The WHO (UN flunkies) make that list.
EatPez 2 years ago
the economy started to collapse under the 1st GWB term because we were attacked... Maybe you missed that. Given that and a war, unemployeement stayed under 5.5% for the next 8 years. It's more than double that now.
If it was -200 under Reagan, it is -1600 under BHO thanks to no one regulating Freddie and Fannie. When Reps wanted to regulate, Dems wouldn't allow it. Do I have to post the vid of the regulation hearings?
EatPez 2 years ago
1. paying for gvmnt services isn't the issue. & Police, etc don't stimulate the economy by paying taxes. It's retarded to say, "we'll pay you $50k so you can pay us $18k in taxes".
2. no, the fact that the gvmnt mismanages EVERY project they ever get their hands on isn't addressed
3. A) how many times do I have to tell you that the Congress writes the budget bills B) wrong. Private insurance is cheeper in many cases. Maybe you should price it. I pay $470/mo for a family of 4 thru private ins.
EatPez 2 years ago
Where was Obama when the economy started to fail? OOO, he was in the senate voting for all of the budget bills. Again, Bush isn't the poster child for republicans.
So, you admit that Reagan had a Dem congress with your plagerized comments. enotes(dot)com, aye? So, let's continue for HWB, "Both the 101 and 102 Congresses were controlled by Democrats" 103 (WJC) Dems, 104 (WJC) Rep & SURPLUS! 105 Rep Balanced Budget Act 1997.
Do a little research & you'll see that there was no surplus anyway.
EatPez 2 years ago
you said it idiot.......... Health Care is not a right and you cannot find it in the constitution....... you probably don't even know how many ammendments are in the constitution.......... that is what is sad
KCUAC 2 years ago