The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Powerful Paintings...

Obamacare tried to tell people what they have to do, and that they have to provide money to a private company. That is what makes it blatantly unconstitutional. Also the way the Commerce Clause got interpreted, went against the intent of the Founders and was quite a tragedy.

In any case, I will admit I am surprised. I would never have thought even the most rabid Marxist would have advocated for validation of any scheme that legalized congress forcing people to pay money to any crony industry.

Also, under the shoddy implementation we currently have of the commerce clause - making a universal health care system in the same mold as Social Security would have been technically legal. Dont get upset at me that your leaders chose to use an invalid method that screws us all over.

You are also incorrect about my logic regard wealth redistribution, first of all because in the greater sense - infrastructure improvement, if sound in of themselves, do help everyone. Also, most of those infrastructure improvements can also be classified under military use - such is the reason the highways were first built in the 50's for example. certain things, like the Military , are things the govt has a right and obligation to provide.

But even irrespective of that, the cost per capita of infrastructure improvements is so small that it is easy to conclude that most if not all people get a greater benefit than they paid. Also, infrastructure improvements help create wealth.

This becomes un-true when it comes to entitlement programs and other programs that directly take from one person and hand to another. Not only do these programs not create wealth, but there is a clear chain of financial custody that can be followed to identify exactly who paid what and received what.

Trying to twist logic to make a comparison between infrastructure that anyone can use and that creates wealth - and direct taxation and redistribution is disingenuous at best. Blatantly insulting at worst.

Of course knowing you, you will come out swinging at the straw man again saying " Oh so your saying there should be no social safety net, yadda yadda blah blah" and arguing how social safety nets provide a greater societal benefit, and totally ignore the fact that I have never argued against the presence of some forms of social safety nets. The difference you do not seem to grasp, is that the scope and reach of such are what makes the difference here.

There is a big difference between providing a basic social safety net, and the types of sweeping cradle-to-grave micromanagement of society and the economy you are advocating.

Wikipedia? Really? No other sources were available?
I think someone (Sinj) Has been drinking to much of the Kool-Aid!

repeat with me guys

Actually I do get to pick and choose. I get to do that with my vote, and since I wasn't here to vote for the formation of most of things I don't like, I'm using every avenue available to me to persuade my fellow citizens to take action now to change them. You'll note that not once have I advocated revolution or not paying taxes. I'm doing things the way our founders intended. I educate myself and form my opinions and then I attempt to do the same thing for others and effect change through the established political process (even though I believe it to be corrupt nearly beyond repair).

You seem to think that we're advocating going outside the law to achieve our ends. None of us are suggesting that. All of us are suggesting that we use the process in place, unlike your friends at Occupy Everything.

What I mean by "everything" is everything. The common cold, smog, burnt toast, low mileage cars, being late to work, dirty towels, poverty, cat shitting on the floor, lag, crappy mmo's, election fraud, dull knives, ugly vaginas you know everything I could get behind everything if my taxes had to be higher.

Here is how to proper attribute numbers in your own post:

Wolfgang, "Random Collection of Numbers for Intrawebs Asshatery", wolfgang's ass vol 73 , Wolfgang Ass Press

You don't get to criticize my references unless you a) cite your own numbers b) provide higher level of references. Still, you got your basic facts so wrong that I don't need to touch on your conclusions.

Erroneously claiming countries receiving foreign aid, when they don't, invalidates any arguments you build on premises of "take out the financial aid we give to those countries and see how they stand on their own". They ARE standing on their own and they ARE doing much better than US.

How is that different from purchasing your car's insurance? You have to purchase road coverage and you have to pay it to a private company. No mandatory insurance clause, no highway funds for the states so it is not a states vs fed issue, at least not anymore.

Plus, how would you make an insurance scheme that must not turn anyone down, regardless how sick they are, work if not with mandatory buy-in for everyone?



I am as unhappy with the end result as your rabid Tinfoilers crowd. Real reform should have lead to a single player, where "crony industry" part is simply removed from the equation. Instead we got media hysteria where every pundit and Palin bombarded us with soundbites while doing their best to revive Red Scare all over again.

But let look at the facts - Canadian model for example only spends 9% of GDP on health care, to US 15%+, with better overall results. Less child mortality, longer life expectancy and no health insurance job slavery. How is that missing 6% is not an extra-governmental "tax" on everybody?

Canadian healthcare costs. or $3899 per person

US healthcare costs or $7291 per person

Infant Mortality and life expectancy.

You like to talk about inflation effects on personal wealth, how about we talk about ever-increasing health premiums and punitive individual insurance costs stifling small business creation and extracting ever-increasing toll on every household in US?




What cradle-to-grave policies? You think providing affordable and accessible health coverage for the masses so even minimum wager working in WallMart could have coverage is overbearing? Affording to go to see a doctor so people could get better and continue being productive members of society?

So totally ridiculous. You are part of the problem Sinij, and people with your mentality. I shake my head and simply am continually surprised to see such moronic ideology.


We do not have a health care crisis in this country, we have a health cost issue in this country, the solution of which is not mandatory government controlled insurance requirements. The only people who benefit from that are the insurance companies. It is not the solution.

You truly need to seek more concrete resources to back up your arguements. It is fine to find statistics that meet your arguement, but be aware there are just as many to refute it. Take Canada and its bullshit health program for example. Works great for the average joe smo on the street. But if you become sick with a major problem, as a member of KGB's family did, with say Cancer, you can find yourself dieing while trying to navigate an over burdened system incapable of rendering timely life saving care.

You continue to lose, why don't you take your own advice, go in the corner and have a huge cup of STFU.

Vuldan, way I read you recent posts you crossed the line of voicing your opinion well into "go after sinij" territory, name calling and personal attacks included.

Is that the message you want to communicate to me?

LOL..it is neither. I call them as I see them, you are a button pushing drama queen. Your input is less than reliable and in some cases questionable simply based on your choice of supporting data.

Additionally, you ability to rationally debate is nullfiied by your unwillingness to accept any opposing, proven and sensible input. It has been proven repeatedly. Many of the poster's have even agreed with this or that point of yours, in concept at least, but you have failed to agree, or even accept grudgingly, verifiable, proven counters to your arguements. You simply ignore what you do not want to face.

Call it whatever it is, I would boot you from the entire area if I had the power, since I don't, I will continue to interject where I see fit, and point out your arguement flaws. Live with it.