Cursor_ says:

Maybe I’m the only one in this nation, hell probably the whole planet, that believes our government should protect us from threats both foreign and domestic.

And it is the domestic threat of disease that can sack the people and bring economic and military disaster.

Am I the only one that sees health care on demand is an issue of national security?

I must be.

Cursor_

bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist says:

#40–LIEBERTARIAN==I wish you’d give up the ghost so I didn’t have to be so rambunctious to balance your nonsense.

But you continue your immature self centered silliness bringing down who knows how many on the margin?

I AM A LIBERTARIAN. YOU ARE AN IDIOT USING LIBERTARIANISM AS DOGMA. big difference.

Is taxation slavery?–No.
Does taxation intrude on personal liberty?–Yes.
Does living in a society require compromises of personal liberty?–Yes.
Is there any way at all to avoid this?–No.

The relevant issue is NOT is this too many rules, but only “Is this rule appropriate or not?”

People disagree as LIEBERTARIAN so consistently shows. How to resolve this difference as compliance with law cannot be a individual free choice? The USA has chosen a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC with strong elements of democracy.

Sorry LIEBERTY LOSER–you are and will be out voted because the majority of people “tend to” vote what is best for the majority of people.

Saw a special last night on TV. Seems Rwanda, yes RWANDA, has better health care than the USA==IF you measure it by compliance to anti-aides medical protocols. ((Still taking drugs after two years.))

Its amusing, we see it everywhere in our society and in LIEBERTY’S ravings==money actually interferes in some basic functions of society, with the ability to think clearly, with the rational goal to make society a better place for ALL of us to live==unless you prefer 24/7 armed guards behind a security wall. Seems some people really are greedy, the Midas Touch. I rather think we are all greedy in this way from time to time.

Let not the better Angels of your humanitarian impluses be turned to short term self interest.

Ebb and Flow.

LibertyLover says:

#44, Social Darwinism at it’s finest.

. . . or Government Sponsored Genocide.

Also, it’s fine to disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions,

I guess you’ve never heard about FDR’s court packing threat if they didn’t start ruling in his favor, huh?

The Supreme Court has been nothing but a rubber stamp ever since.

But I guess you think two wrongs make a right?

You can’t have lower costs by not covering people *and* have universal coverage. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

You could have universal coverage if the costs weren’t prohibitive.

Get government out of the “dictating” business, put them back in to the “promoting” business, and prices will come down, charity hospitals will open back up, and you’ll find that more people are getting better quality care than ever.

There’s a reason why no country in the world has *less* government involvement in healthcare *and* better coverage than the US.

I don’t really care what other countries are doing. If they are that appealing to you, a ticket is less than you think.

simongiln says:

#45

“If they are that appealing to you, a ticket is less than you think.”

Says the person who just argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have the rights clearly given to it by the constitution.

One of us has a bigger problem with this country then the other, and it ain’t me.

bobbo, They call me "Mr Constitution" says:

#48–LIEBERTY LOSER==you crack me up: “There is a difference between completely throwing it in the trash and trying to get it restored.” //// Hah, hah.

Yea–every case ruled on by the Sup Ct starts with: “What we are doing today is throwing the Constitition in the trash and ruling to make LIEBERTARIANS but chattel slaves.”

What a dope.

m.c. in l.v. says:

Is Liberty Lover in the insurance business? Sure sounds like it.

Why is he still mad at FDR? The dude’s been dead for 64 years. Give it a rest already.

LibertyLover says:

#50, Sigh.

I know what the purpose of the SCOTUS is for. But in the 1890s it job turned more and more from settling disputes between States and the like to handling lawsuits brought against the US. I find no problem with that.

I bring up FDR as an example of how the Constitution has been subverted. They were doing their job up until then.

When FDR’s socialist programs were being struck down one after the other after he took office, he threatened to dilute the sitting judges’ power by appointing an equal number of judges who would vote in his favor — and not replace the sitting ones when they retired.

Lo and behold (!) all his programs since were approved. And every president since has had the near-perfect approval for anything they support.

BTW . . . I don’t watch West Wing but thanks for describing your educational background.

simongiln says:

#53

So, instead of accepting the SCOTUS rulings as valid (as clearly stated by the Constitution), you simply throw them out because they don’t agree with you. Sorry, reality doesn’t work that way. What the Supreme Court *says* the Constitution means *is* what the Constitution means, unless overruled by a more recent SCOTUS ruling.

Political background is good to know as a historical matter, but it’s irrelevant to the legality of the rulings. You’re peaching about FDR really only serves to prove that you’re opinions have been out dated for well over a hundred years.

The fact is that no country in this would has a health system run the way you wish ours was run *and* produces better results. Completely apart from the fact that you have no legal foot to stand on, there are no countries in this world that you can use as examples to support your ideology.

You’re an ideologue, with no feet to stand on. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can move on from your denial to anger (then bargaining, etc…).

//#54 insert waste treatment joke here

bobbo, knowing libertarianism is not Dogma says:

#56–LIEBERTY LOSER==”I feel that just because it happened once, doesn’t mean it should happen again. We need to correct those mistakes, not build on them.” /// So–YOU correct FDR’s plan to pack the court which never happened by defeating health care?

Well, your feelings run quite high.

Any true libertarian would be “for” universal healthcare and the argument should focus on how to pay for it.

Anything else is self centered BS mascarading as any loose idea put out there.

Having owned my own business, I respect your continuing achievement on that front. You ought to share a few good engineering/shit jokes. I can’t think of any, other than every position you have taken on this blog. An those have just been shit positions without the social engineering considered.