What will happen if this passes is it will become illegal for insurance companies to drop people. That will raise the price.

To keep the prices down, they will limit what they pay doctors. This will bring the quality of healthcare down.

But that’s ok. At least everyone will be covered. Right? Right?

#21, FTW

#24, OK, so, I suppose you consider Medicare unconstitutional.

Yes.

Public Schools? Highways.

Only if provided by the States and not the Federal Government.

Where does the constitution prohibit social programs, just curious.

The 10th Amendment prohibits it by not authorizing it directly.

#32, unregulated free market has got America into the dire financial situation it is now.

If you consider 330,000 pages of government regulations “unregulated” then you are correct.

#69, A few states have tried it already and it failed. Look at Hawaii’s failed social healthcare system. They shut it down in less than one year because it went bankrupt. Luckily, they didn’t have the power to print more money to keep it afloat.

Now multiply that by 57, er I mean 50, states.

The problem with the healthcare system is the 330,000 pages of federal regulations. It is near impossible to get anything done without violating some regulation. So doctor’s have to hire teams of people whose only purpose is to deal with the government regulations.

And you want to create another agency without fixing that first?

Give me a break, please.

Now that you are off on another one of your useless self absorbed dead end treks, I’ll let you tickle yourself on your own time, not mine.

I didn’t do it for your benefit. I did it for mine. Everything I do is for my benefit.

When I donate so much of my time to social causes, it is because it makes ME feel good about what I am doing — helping other people.

That is something I am sure is a new idea for you — that all exchanges must be beneficial to both parties or it is not an exchange but a looting. Love is a two-way street. So is friendship. And so should charity.

When I pay the taxes I feel are unconstitutional, I do it because the only benefit I see for myself is staying out of jail. I can’t take care of my family if I am in jail. Is this really freedom?

Do you like the rock band, Rush?

I still don’t get the almost if not Faustian Dilemmas you posed.

They are designed to force people to make a decision. Most people will try to say, “I’ll do both!” Both is not an option.

The rest of them will avoid it altogether.

No one wants to think they would ever be faced with any kind of real decision other than, “what kind of ice cream should I buy today?”

Everybody wants someone else to do it. No one wants to take the responsibility for their own actions, even when they have no choice.

If you makes you feel any better, here is one of the less extreme questions but still brings the idea of “good for society” closer to home.

Scenario 47:

You’ve been laid off. The rest of your neighbors have not. In an effort to make the neighborhood look better, they get together and vote that since you are unemployed, you should give something back to the community by mowing their lawns once a week until you find a job and start paying your taxes again.

What do you do? Tell them to get lost or do it because you agree with them?

I still don’t get the almost if not Faustian Dilemmas you posed.

Love is also the reason you would choose your wife’s life over others (if you wouldn’t, you lied to your wife on your wedding day). Any others, including your own. It is not a sacrifice to do so. To let your wife die would be the sacrifice, instead.

It is because YOUR happiness relies on her well being. Her happiness makes YOU happy. Her continued well being is what YOU strive for. If she were to die, YOU would not be happy. If she didn’t return the feelings, YOU would be unhappy.

If you doubt that, ask yourself how long you would remain with her if she started her own Friday Night Nookie Chasing. Not long, I’m sure. It’s because she has let you down. You are not happy anymore.

All relationships based on love or friendship are founded on this idea of selfishness. You cannot continue to love someone if they do not return the feeling. You will probably always hold some special feeling for them, but you will not love them in the same fashion. The same with friendship. You don’t hear people saying, “I’m his friend but he hates me.”

What does this have to do with anything at all? This is where the hypocrisy of the liberal mindset shows itself more than anything else. The liberal idea of altruism rests on the idea that the good of the many should always take precedence. As you and I both know, that cannot be the case where love is concerned. If it did, then all liberals MUST save the 10 over their wives.

You will also hear arguments like, “The many represents society as a whole. It doesn’t apply in personal relationships.” This is a load of baloney. Who gets to pick? What if society decided those 10 were more important than your wife and made the decision for you? Would you sit still and accept what society has decided?

The altruistic morality practiced by liberals today is all well and good until it affects them personally, until THEY have to choose between themselves and society.

I will be happy to carry this further if you wish. The only point of my relentless pursuit was to point out the hypocrisy preached so often on this board. It wasn’t in anyway a personal attack on you. Quite the contrary, I applaud you for fessing up the reason for your vow taking. You are the first. Just 160,000,000 to go

“I let you know when the situation happens”

No

Are you a liar?

answer:: “I let you know when the situation happens”

You are pointless and pathetically boring.

You have my answer, live with it.