Exclusive – Sen. Rand Paul: Senate GOP Decides to Keep Obamacare

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You don't--no one has a right to someone else's time, effort, skill, and product unless spelled out in the constitution.

We have an absolute inalienable right to life... and the right to nurture, nurse and sustain that life. Whatever we can do for ourselves and by ourselves is our absolute inalienable RIGHT.

It's government intervention and interference that precludes us from doing for ourselves and forces us to turn to others. It's government that needs to get the hell out of our way so we can take care of ourselves whenever and however possible.

Hell will freeze over AND pigs will fly AND unicorns will fart rainbows before I cower like a mutt and relinquish my God-given rights.

a reply to: lordcomac

It's hard to vote those weasles out when the welfare rats have the upper hand.

I don't know about that. I don't think the poor vote in those kinds of numbers. I'm more inclined to believe it's the yuppies with a guilty conscience that are the biggest problem... won't lift a finger or break a sweat to help themselves, but are quite happy to empower Big Gov and then pat themselves on the back for their oh-so-noble selflessness.

a reply to: Boadicea

A right to life does not equate to a right to medical attention. Hell, a right to life (which, btw, is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and not the constitution) doesn't equate to a right to medical care or prolonged life at the expense of others, no more does the 'right to liberty' preclude the government from enacting laws that limit what we can do, or the 'right to the pursuit of happiness' protect us from all things that make us sad.

We agree about government intervention and interference being the inhibitor to a better existence (at least to a point), but I must disagree with your assertion that a "right to life" (guaranteed by no governing document of the federal government, btw) means that healthcare is a right (which is how I took your initial comment...I'm beginning to think that I misinterpreted that).

a reply to: Boadicea
Im nearly certain the welfare rats he mentions are the hypocritical companies and CEO's that are begging for subsidies and tax breaks.

That demographic is the largest recipient of government money/welfare more than any other group in America.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Why not insurance? The costs of healthcare are astronomical- we should work on bringing those down - but they are what they are and to destabilize such a necessary industry is insane.

While your point about government subsidies for the greater good are well taken, in the case of healthcare, I would say that insurance is not the appropriate model for providing healthcare. At one time, when docs either fixed you up or you died, it may have been practical. But not today when so many health conditions are managed long-term rather than cured. People need healthcare -- not health insurance.

Nor can we ignore one of (if not thee) greatest costs in healthcare: Big Pharma monopolies.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

A right to life does not equate to a right to medical attention.

Again? Are you really trying to tell me that the government can deny me the right to tend to my medical needs? Really???

Hell, a right to life (which, btw, is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and not the constitution)...

Oh dear. It's the law of the land:

U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

[quote...doesn't equate to a right to medical care or prolonged life at the expense of others...

As I have already stated.

We agree about government intervention and interference being the inhibitor to a better existence (at least to a point), but I must disagree with your assertion that a "right to life" (guaranteed by no governing document of the federal government, btw)...

We shall have to agree to disagree then.

Anyone that thinks the insurance industry is not going to profit, no matter which health care act is approved, is a fool.

It's the way we do business in America. It's capitalism. Deal with it. Just like you deal with oil company records profits getting subsidies paid for by the taxpayers. Or big Agri getting govt. money for not growing crops. And companies that profit from WAR.

You have no rights, only what the Corporatacracy allows. You wanted a businesman....you got one.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Boadicea
Im nearly certain the welfare rats he mentions are the hypocritical companies and CEO's that are begging for subsidies and tax breaks.

Ahhhhh... gotcha! That's a whole 'nother animal -- and I agree.

That demographic is the largest recipient of government money/welfare more than any other group in America.

That's the truth!

Is this winning?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And these are the same folks that tell us WE DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE!!!

You don't--no one has a right to someone else's time, effort, skill, and product unless spelled out in the constitution.

kinda hard to pursue happiness though when you can't afford health care.

here is my problem with all of that. We the people have made enough money and given enough taxes that bags of our cash can be carried to enemies and handed over. Think for a moment how much tax dollars got to things we the people DON'T Approve Of!
The same money could create a society where everyone can keep their teeth and have their kids healthy. Not just the elite who steal your tax money and look ever for another way to get further into your pockets!
If a person becomes part of the government now they become wealthy instantly I read. Why is public taxpayer time used to meet with corp lobbyists and why do representatives show up to vote only when they please. Why are they allowed insider trading and GREAT insurance and month long vacations?
There are still many Americans who would gladly do their job for just room and board that is a fact!

originally posted by: olaru12
Anyone that thinks the insurance industry is not going to profit, no matter which health care act is approved, is a fool.

I don't have a problem with anyone profiting as long as they provide a quality service/product that actually serves our best interest. Insurance can play a positive part... just not as is.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: olaru12
Anyone that thinks the insurance industry is not going to profit, no matter which health care act is approved, is a fool.

I don't have a problem with anyone profiting as long as they provide a quality service/product that actually serves our best interest. Insurance can play a positive part... just not as is.

How do you think the insurance companies maxamise profit? By charging as much as allowed and not paying on claims. How do you change that when lobbyist pay off the congress and representatives with super bowl tickets, and a cushy board position when they leave govt service.

Of course the laws governing corporation will always favor the Kleptocracy. Do you think that Trump is going to change that system? Not in your wildest dreams!!

a reply to: SeaWorthy

You have the inalienable right to the pursuit, not the attainment, of happiness. Whether you achieve said happiness is irrelevant to your inalienable right; whether the pursuit is difficult is not the role of the government to subsidize or "fix."

By stock in health insurance corps. maybe they will give you a break on a policy. lol.....

a reply to: olaru12

How do you think the insurance companies maxamise profit? By charging as much as allowed and not paying on claims. How do you change that when lobbyist pay off the congress and representatives with super bowl tickets, and a cushy board position when they leave govt service.

Hence, our mission -- should we choose to accept it!

We both know that it can be done, the question is how... and what will replace it.

a reply to: Boadicea

I was almost agreeing until I got to 'let us die in pain and misery in the streets'.

Can you show me some sources for when this happened? Are there sources in your imagination? Are they credible imaginary sources?

You damage your own case when you use absurd exaggeration to make a point. I stopped reading when I got there as I suspect many reasonable people would.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I was almost agreeing until I got to 'let us die in pain and misery in the streets'.

So everything else is thrown out the window because you don't know of anyone who has died in the streets? And somehow you just know that they would never ever let that happen, right?

Okay.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Boadicea


VOTE THEM OUT!

If know one is running against these RINO's find someone!

Yeah, that's what we've gotta do... but it's harder than it seems. Last time McCain was up for re-election, the party put up JD Hayworth who has even more baggage than McCain (if that's possible!). There wasn't a chance in hell that he would win. And I'm pretty sure the party PTB knew that and it was the plan all along.

I made a post most likely while you made this one to me. It's a rigged game. The money has to be taken out of the equation if our system has any chance of becoming true and just.

Better start watching your 6 with that kind of talk.

We need a citizen's sponsored constitutional convention.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Again? Are you really trying to tell me that the government can deny me the right to tend to my medical needs? Really???

Not exactly, and I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse on this issue. I'll spell it out even more specifically for you:

You do not have a right to someone else's time, products, or services. But, you have the absolute right to do what is within your own individual powers to treat anything that ails you. You, however, have no right to my income to pay for your medical attention, either, or the income (derived from charging for services rendered) of the healthcare providers.

But, nowhere did I say that the government can come in and tell you that you cannot purchase a service that helps you tend to your medical needs (although it does it all of the time through FDA regulations and drug laws).

Oh dear. It's the law of the land:

U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

Oh dear. But it doesn't say that the path to your inalienable right is through someone else's income or services rendered without due compensation. In fact, it doesn't say that it's the government's job to provide for those rights, which is the main foundation of my comments to you. In fact, if you'll recall, the founding documents of our country exist to limit the uses of the federal government, not give it broad control over all aspects of American business. At best, the 10th Amendment allows the states to do usurp control over healthcare, but nothing explicitly gives that authority to the federal government.

Yes, we'll agree to disagree.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I was almost agreeing until I got to 'let us die in pain and misery in the streets'.

So everything else is thrown out the window because you don't know of anyone who has died in the streets? And somehow you just know that they would never ever let that happen, right?

Okay.

No, I stopped reading because it became clear you were not engaging in anything but emotional blackmail. You want me to agree and will use that tactic in order to make disagreeing seem morally repugnant.

I'm sure somebody has died in the street today, but not due to lack of accessible emergency care. As has been the case since long before the ACA emergency rooms cannot turn people away to die in the street.

Like I said I was following along until that point and you stifle any real chance of progress on coming together for a solution when you make absurd claims that are gross exaggerations.