Hello ;) Thanks heaps for this indeed!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website Super Piano Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

Are you nuts? I bet you want life insurance comapnies to be banned from taking age into account. Please tell me how an insurance company can live when it is forced to sell insurance for a few thousand dollars to someone who knowingly has a disease that is going to cost $400,000? That’s is just retarded.

Please tell me how this works in your fantasy world.

progressoverpeace on September 16, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Personally, I laugh at the preexisting condition canard the wackos trot out. Hey I’ve just been diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer, but, it’s going to be okay because I can still get insurance to take care of me and my family even though it’s a preexisting condition. WOW!

Wait a minute, there was a girl in my car last night. Now the car and her are in a river. Better call GEICO!

In fact, his White House press office announced that Obama would have his own plan launched before the speech, which has yet to materialize.

There’s a trend here. While Congress steadily produce plans, however dubious, the Obambi admin has yet to produce a single plan, despite repeated promises. Remember the “Geitner” plan that never materialized despite repeated pressers? Then, the excuse was he was short handed. When the so-called plan was finally released, it was nothing but a bunch of cut-n-paste drivel lifted from politicos (can I use that word now?) that were already eclipsed by events.

To whit, stress testing banks under a ceiling of 8% unemployment, which was eclipsed within days. Hello!?! We’re now just bare points shy of 10%, although when factoring in real unemployment, it’s nearly twice as high.

Sheesh… The brainpower of this bozo posse is indeed mind-blowing.

Rasmussen now reports that opposition to ObamaCare has hit its highest level yet at 55%, with its low equaling its August nadir:

Racist!!

there are no black conservatives…

right2bright on September 16, 2009 at 1:19 PM

So Thomas Sowell is just a figment of my imagination. Great!

MB4 on September 16, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Nope. It’s worse than that. Google search provides over 10 thousand hits for Thomas Sowell and Oreo. I suppose he might really like those cookies…

When Carter gives a speech, he is rallies the radicals and does serious damage to those he targets simply because he was a former president.
……

Yes I’d say it has backfired.

thanks again Axelrod!

Jimbo3 on September 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM

*sigh*

You don’t understand the difference between pursuing your individual desires for yourself (freedom) and pursuing your individual desires in formulating restrictions on others (tyranny). You are really dense.

Both Rand and Smith would have slapped you silly. You have not a clue what they were talking about.

then they will scream ‘racism’ in crowded cities in an effort to burn the cities to the ground.

progressoverpeace on September 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Well … it was close, anyway. Beck used the actual “crowded theater” form. He should have read Hotair :)

Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations expounds that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by a so-called “invisible hand”. Smith believed that when an individual pursues his self-interest, he indirectly promotes the good of society: “by pursuing his own interest, [the individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he intends to promote it.”

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Using the commerce clause is NOT going to work. In the past 15 years the Supreme Court has narrowed the unconstitutional use of the commerce clause by the Federal government because of the violence it does to the 10th Amendment. These blatant power grabs will not make it past the Court.

Nevertheless, folks its time to put pressure on your local representatives in the state governments (I’ve reached out to 5 in Florida )to educate them on the Federalist doctrines of Nullification and Interposition. These doctrines are going to to be resurrected to stop Obama’s unconstitutiional plans. We are headed to a Constitutional crisis if anything Obama wants passes into law.

The limiting of the federal government was one of the guiding principles of the Constitution.

progressoverpeace

So, you’re not buying the argument that the Founding Fathers, who created the Constitution specifically for the reason of limiting the federal government, put a couple of clauses in there in order to give the federal government unlimited power, lol?

It’s truly sad that this country has millions of Jimbos in it. You’re right….they will be the death of this great nation if they get their way.

You got a better plan that gives me what I want? Then show it to me.

The current Republican bills don’t do enough to ensure that individual policies will be available.

Jimbo3 on September 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM

And here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we find a prime example of what was called “liberal logic”. We see one individual who expresses the view that the only important subject is himself and what he wants, while at the same time refusing to recognize the “wants” of anyone else, claiming what he wants is good for everyone.

(1) Car insurance is not now sold with guaranteed insurability or guaranteed coverage. This health insurance will be. If car insurance was sold in this way, there would be changes in premiums.

Huh? If the federal government trashed the Constitution and declared that everyone is entitled to car insurance, no matter their history of accidents or tickets, premiums would go through the friggin’ roof and keep going out of the stratosphere. Health insurance would be even worse. But, you don’t care. You like that because of your personal issues. Great stuff, Jimbo.

(2) My understanding is that the state governments now restrict insurance pricing now for some insurance

State governments have that power. The federal government doesn’t. Of course, the problem is that states that have instituted the same moronic ideas that you advocate are going broke because of it, so the federal governemtn is trying to rescue those ideas by increasing the pool and making more people pay. But the federal government would go broke, the same as the states that tried. If you want a universal mandate, move to Massachusetts and stop bugging the rest of us. But, you won’t do that, because the world must revolve about you.

and that the bill allows the use of actuarial tables for age and smoking (subject to limits). How is that significantly different than what goes on now?

Yeah … right. Smokers cost less than non-smokers, because they die earlier and more quickly. I love the way people want to charge smokers more for insurance, even though they are paying for insurance for others through the insane cigarette taxes, and no one ever talks about letting smokers out of Social Security, even though they tell us how smokers are all going to drop dead long before they ever collect. You people are great. Thinking isn’t your strong point, but you don’t let that get in your way.

And you, with a history of cancer – which is never “cured”, you know – don’t want that taken into account but you want to charge me extra for smoking. Disingenuous, dihonest, stupid and nasty. That about sums up your position.

(3) Look at the commerce clause. Congress has the power to regulate insurance and, by Supreme Court decisions, matters of interstate commerce other than non-economic matters affecting only one state. Although several people have said that a part of this bill might be unconstitutional, I think most lawyers would tell you that the odds are that this bill, including the individual mandate, will be upheld until either the commerce or taxing authority provisions of the US Constitution.

Jimbo3 on September 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM

The Commerce Clause does not give Congress the right to dictate health insurance policy. Period. And, yes, I’ve seen the insane arguments, by lawyers, no less, that anything bought or sold is “commerce” and, therefore, the federal government can do anything it wants with it. That is just crazy and is the view of those who think there are no Constitutional restrictions on the federal government. Madison, who wrote the Constitution, and Adams, whose Massachusetts Constitution was the template, would disagree strongly with such morons. The limiting of the federal government was one of the guiding principles of the Constitution.

You, and those like you, think that we have a national government, not a federal government. You’d be happier living in one of the collectivist, party-oriented systems of Europe, where you don’t have to worry about restrictions on the government, nor any silly separation of powers …

How America has bred people like you is quite beyond me, but it will spell the end of this nation.

Your idea that actuarial tables are illegal and need to be forcibly restricted by the government is insane.

And, as I tried to tell you before, the federal government does not have the power to regulate the health care choices of individuals. Health care and health insurance fall within the powers of the states. But, you don’t give a sh*t about Constitutional restrictions, I’m guessing. You just want whatever you want, at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of the actual structure of our nation. You’re a gem.

–No, it’s not.

(1) Car insurance is not now sold with guaranteed insurability or guaranteed coverage. This health insurance will be. If car insurance was sold in this way, there would be changes in premiums.

(2) My understanding is that the state governments now restrict insurance pricing now for some insurance and that the bill allows the use of actuarial tables for age and smoking (subject to limits). How is that significantly different than what goes on now?

(3) Look at the commerce clause. Congress has the power to regulate insurance and, by Supreme Court decisions, matters of interstate commerce other than non-economic matters affecting only one state. Although several people have said that a part of this bill might be unconstitutional, I think most lawyers would tell you that the odds are that this bill, including the individual mandate, will be upheld until either the commerce or taxing authority provisions of the US Constitution.

No, dogsoldier. I’ve already emailed my reps to tell them to support the bill (they’re in Texas, so they’re likely to ignore me again). You got a better plan that gives me what I want? Then show it to me. Jimbo3 on September 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM

What you want Jimbo is a free ride at the taxpayer’s expense. PERIOD. Nothing written in this current bill allows for any other alternative than to put this burden, (in the trillions) onto some one else’s back. Your failure to comprehend this, (by rubber-stamping the bill in its current form), proves that you trust your government much more than many of us who have seen the failures of the past, ie SS and Medicare that are both headed for financial disaster. If you really care about this legislation for purposes other than a free ride, write you reps and demand that they fix those two programs before they attempt to tackle anything else.

So, in your example, it’s like Aetna now refusing to cover you for any future damage to or liability from your car even though you did have insurance with State Farm when someone hit you.

Jimbo3 on September 16, 2009 at 2:47 PM

No. It’s like you having to pay more for car insurance, or being unable to get it, if you have a history of getting into accidents or tickets.

Your idea that actuarial tables are illegal and need to be forcibly restricted by the government is insane.

And, as I tried to tell you before, the federal government does not have the power to regulate the health care choices of individuals. Health care and health insurance fall within the powers of the states. But, you don’t give a sh*t about Constitutional restrictions, I’m guessing. You just want whatever you want, at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of the actual structure of our nation. You’re a gem.

The current Republican bills don’t do enough to ensure that individual policies will be available.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Well said.

Jimbo3 on September 16, 2009 at 2:47 PM

No socialized medicine. You cannot give the DC toilet any excuse to take your money or hire more idiot nephews, ok?

So, in your example, it’s like Aetna now refusing to cover you for any future damage to or liability from your car even though you did have insurance with State Farm when someone hit you.