Equality?

[DuncanONeil]

That will likely be no choice in the future if this stands!
You will receive the amputation, no choice!

I've covered several times why Emergency Care doesn't meet the standard of care, and you have responded to it in the past.

Here we go again.

Emergency care just covers life-threatening care. It doesn't cover what most of us would want. If I have a choice between an expensive surgery to save a limb or a less expensive amputation as a result of you hitting me, should I be forced into an amputation because you don't have the ability to pay damages, even if you have protective assets that would cover those costs?

[SadisticNature]

That will likely be no choice in the future if this stands!
You will receive the amputation, no choice!

As you would say,

Your "citations" are without foundation.

[DuncanONeil]

The legislation is engineered in such a fashion as to increase the cost of insurance to a point that business can not afford to carry the burden. As has been demonstrated by the massive increases to business already reported.
Then there is the fact that the Government is to decide what MUST be covered and what the CHARGE for that coverage will be. As is the case with Medicare the Government decides what it will pay irrespective of the charges on the bill. When they have all private providers out of business that will extend to all. As Medicare has shown in spite of total control of the money paid in claims the costs of the program have done nothing but increase.

As you would say,

Your "citations" are without foundation.

[Canyon]

Would it not be interesting to be able to experiment with the redistribution idea though. I think I can predict the outcome. All wealth is redistributed equally. Some buy new cars, some party, some save some, and a few invest, take risks, gain or lose. In the end two things happen. the investing risk takers employ many, have control of a large amount of the wealth, and strengthen the ecomomy, and those who did not take those chances, demand redistribution.

I think that is why I would prefer the fair tax

[Canyon]

How do you get the nice colorful lettering?

[Canyon]

Guess I figured it out.

[Canyon]

War protesters were jailed for "disturbing the peace" by getting too loud or disruptive, even though they might not have been violent. It is a state's right, or even a community's right to do that if their laws prohibit loud or disruptive behavior.

The same thing occurs with gun bans. The federal government cannot ban citizens from owning guns, but a community, municipality, state or county can do so. If the citizens don't like it, they can move to a community that allows guns.

The "piece of paper" you refer to prevents the federal government from dictating what citizens can and cannot do within the confines of what the "piece of paper" outlines.

The constitution does two things, It enumerates rights, and restricts government, and therefore is the most abused document in our land. I cannot imagine that in courts, presedent takes place over the constitution but it seems too. The only doucment a Supreme Court Judge should read is the constitution, but they seem to read it the least. It is so simple. The "Right of the People to peaceable assemble and petition the government for redress." I agree that the requirement for it to be peaceable is often misused in our system, but certainly a quiet presence and respectful manner cannot be disputed. Here it is plain that the right of the people means all citizens of this nation, at least, if not all people living in it.

"The right of the people,to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed." Here we have a right the founders equally saw as a right of all Aericans, therefore no municipality or state should restrict it, these are rights given to all Americans. I would rather see the people who cannot be trusted with this right imprisoned, isolated, or even executed, prior to punishing the lawful citizen. If any regulations need to be placed on this right, the federal government should be the only one, and the restrictions, should be minimal, or equally placed on all of the rights of the people. Lose one you lose them all.

In the first amendment we have an intresting restriction, "Congress shall not..." Here is a restriction on government which has been so misinterperted. Its obvious from a simple reading the only one restricted is Congress. Not the states, or municipalities. Several States had state sponsored churches while the founders lived. The most basic thing would be that any restricton concerning the first amendment should apply to all ot its provisions, speech, religion, press, and assembly to petiton equally.

Sadly with courts on power trips, and our representatives more concerned for their adjenda's than the people they represent, I wonder if we will ever see that type of system. Constitutionally we should have a strong central government, but extremely restricted and limited. The true dynamics in American life should be provided at the state level.

[DuncanONeil]

Welcome aboard! You are the first of all the places I have posted about the FairTax that has had a positive response.
Is it possible to ask you if you have a favorite part of the FairTax?

On the other hand if everyone is paid the same, how is there anything left for investing? Further married or extended families are instantly better of than the rest of the country!!

Would it not be interesting to be able to experiment with the redistribution idea though. I think I can predict the outcome. All wealth is redistributed equally. Some buy new cars, some party, some save some, and a few invest, take risks, gain or lose. In the end two things happen. the investing risk takers employ many, have control of a large amount of the wealth, and strengthen the ecomomy, and those who did not take those chances, demand redistribution.

I think that is why I would prefer the fair tax

[SadisticNature]

The legislation is engineered in such a fashion as to increase the cost of insurance to a point that business can not afford to carry the burden. As has been demonstrated by the massive increases to business already reported.
Then there is the fact that the Government is to decide what MUST be covered and what the CHARGE for that coverage will be. As is the case with Medicare the Government decides what it will pay irrespective of the charges on the bill. When they have all private providers out of business that will extend to all. As Medicare has shown in spite of total control of the money paid in claims the costs of the program have done nothing but increase.

Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

[DuncanONeil]

Then why is there so much fraud? And promises, ad naseum, to end the fraud? You are talking admin costs aren't you?
All the third party insurance programs are one of the major causes of cost increases in health care.
Yes that is an opinion!

Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

[DuncanONeil]

Flimsy argument!?!?!
Sorry SN, the language is right there in the bill.
In fact nothing in your reply refutes the statements I actually made.

Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).