Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hchrqu$h0m$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

Commerce Clause under Raich.  Namely, Congress has a rational basis
for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves
interstate commerce) would be undercut.

Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

60 some years of what?

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.

As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted
justification. And, no one is proposing that the government be a
health care provider.

???

That's precisely what the government itself is proposing. Pelosi, et
al, will tell you one thing, and do another. The fact is, if they put
in the Public Option (with any f---ing name she pulls out of her fat
ass), it will signal the end of private care. Period.

The public option is government-provided health insurance, not
government-provided health care.

It's the difference between Communism and Fascism.

It's a difference without distinction.

Government controls insurance. Government controls hospitals, medical
supply, medical schools, doctors, nurses, pharmaceuticals, all
of it. Government is the reason costs are high.

We're going to have fun with this one. We should be able to arouse
enough anger to remove every federal and state politician from office

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:18:34 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:12:56 -0500, Strabo
str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:

Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy with
Socialized Government health Care.

The more knowledgable are very upset.
By "more knowledgable"----do you mean a few who wear
lightening rods on metal hats?

Good one....    They sure were noisy when Bush was in,

For proven reasons, Batboy

and Suddenly they
see no problem with Obama the Socialist playing in our privacy.

Except you can't name any "playing in our privacy"
.....

It's the static from your tin hat you keep hearing.

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?  I won't be
opening the door or volunteering my papers.

Which ever Agency comes to force the question will be sued.

--

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an
insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can
b) law enforcement
c) the law.
And you can't stop 'em

If it comes to that, no.

But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in the
Middle East.

If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used to
invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
believes it proper to use violence to defend against it. Historically,
this is the beginning of the end of nations. The Framers granted us the
2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to defend against the tyranny of
the majority.

I suspect enforcement will something akin to tax enforcement.  

I would expect that's correct. It's the least intrusive method.

Of

course, we all hate the IRS because the power of authority has gotten
to their heads, but you aren't suggesting it's OK to violently revolt
against a legitimate IRS "invasion of privacy" enforcement of a tax
cheat.

This level of enforcement belongs in the courts, IMO. The original
scenario at the least implied a forcible entry of law enforcement into
a home without any evidence of wrongdoing; so a different matter, and
not one that could be engaged without an expectation of violence.

There's your answer Poetic Justice.  See you in court.

Josh Rosenbluth

Kool I'll be there if/when the Subpoena or warrant arrive.

till then I will Not turn over any information papers or person to the
government.

I'll cost you millions in courts to force me to pay $3,000, and then
I'll refuse and take the jail time and cost you 30,000 to 50,000 a
year...  That socialism should go broke fast if a few more people will
follow me. And I'll have all day in prison to spend suing your favorite
socialist government and supporters.

Lets dance...

--

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hct4r8617rt at (no spam) news7.newsguy.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:16:18 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:kdgse5d81crthmjiq96mm8geq171c0f38q at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni7damks5ji4hjnov0d at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:




Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

But only on those he already said he would.


It is a broken promise.

How can it be "broken" if nothing has passed yet, you dingbat


Becuase he is pushing for a bill that cannot possibly keep his
promise.

So what NIT do you think you've found this time?

Don't know. What is a NIT?

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hct609717rt at (no spam) news7.newsguy.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:20:47 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcoidi11cmu at (no spam) news1.newsguy.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni7damks5ji4hjnov0d at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:




Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

But only on those he already said he would.


It is a broken promise.

Obama said he would raise taxes on people with incomes over a quarter
of a million bucks and that is what is going to happen.

Besides, even your statement if a lie, because the healthcare reform
proposals in Congress, DOES raise taxes on those he said he would
not raise taxes on.

LIE!

Who is the liar?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0609-57.pdf

Cato is lying as usual. If a tax is placed on lollipops then that is a
tax on people with incomes of less that $250k according to Cato. Yet
Obama's claim that he would not raise taxes on people under the 250k
level was meant by Obama and interpreted by all the sane people to say
that he would not increase income or wage taxes on people with income
under $250k. He has yet to do so.

http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704107204574471292249934348.html

He does not HAVE TO DO anything.

The tax on health care policies is not part of the House Bill and if it
is in the final legislation it will probably be vetoed. It is stupid
and it was placed in the bill by Max Baucus who is working to defeat
health care reform and to defeat Barak Obama and the Democratic party.
He and LIEberman are real pals.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/will-health-care-bill-raise-
taxes-finance-committee-debates.html

Splitting hairs.

A fine is a tax only to a lying pig Republican Jerry. Next time you
get a speeding ticked why don't you attempt to write it off as a "state
tax" on your itemized deductions.

Not to the person who is paying the fine. To that person, whether you
call if a fine or a tax, the bottom line is the government took their
money away from them.

Do you want me to continue....there were a whole lot more sites I
could have posted on the subject matter.


No need for you to continue, lying pig. This nice sample is quite
sufficient to illustrate your commitment to the Republican pledge of

What lie? Or are you the one who is lying by saying I lied?

On Oct 31, 11:22 am, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
smor... at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message

news:cmgne59cm9n988aer9ee25k55f1525q3ml at (no spam) 4ax.com...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

He's taxing EVERYBODY for health care. If your employer pays all or part
of
your health care, Obama is gonna tax it as income

Sounds like TownHall propaganda, JeffyLoon

Sounds like it until you read the bill.

There's no way in Hell that Obama can provide health care without raising
taxes. No f---ing way.

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

Jeff if you had actually read either of the bills, which are not fully
been presented in their final form yet, you would know that the only
tax that was proposed was for those that are High End plans that offer
well beyond normal healthcare. That would be a tax on the uber-rich
Jeff not on the normal everyday working man. Now read things for
yourself and stop listening to right-wing talk radio.

On Oct 31, 12:18 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:
And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.
Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis for
the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall regulatory
scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate commerce) would
be undercut.
Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.

Jeff the Government is the largest health care provider there is maybe
you have heard of it they call it the VA and Medicare, both very
efficient and cost effective unlike the private sector with its high
profits and low poor out comes.

On Oct 31, 12:18 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

Commerce Clause under Raich.  Namely, Congress has a rational basis
for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate
commerce) would be undercut.

Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.

Jeff the Government is the largest health care provider there is maybe
you have heard of it they call it the VA and Medicare, both very
efficient and cost effective unlike the private sector with its high
profits and low poor out comes.

draccus876 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:18 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:
And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.
Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis
for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate
commerce) would be undercut.
Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.

Jeff the Government is the largest health care provider there is maybe
you have heard of it they call it the VA and Medicare, both very
efficient and cost effective unlike the private sector with its high
profits and low poor out comes.


Medicare has 35 trillion in unfunded mandates, where will that 35
trillion be coming from?

On Oct 31, 6:19 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hciep5$no3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...





Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hcica9$3i9$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hci437$qbr$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

There is no justification for the government to become a
health care provider, nor to demand you become a participant.

As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted
justification. And, no one is proposing that the government be
a health care provider.

???

That's precisely what the government itself is proposing.
Pelosi, et al, will tell you one thing, and do another. The
fact is, if they put in the Public Option (with any f---ing
name she pulls out of her fat ass), it will signal the end of
private care. Period.

The public option is government-provided health insurance, not
government-provided health care.

Same thing.

No.  With the public option, health care providers remain in the
private sector.  In contrast in Britain, health care providers are
government employees.

The government is forcing you to participate, that's government
health care. Period.

No, you can do that without even a public option.

So what.

So, you can now stop making false claims about government provided
health care.  Please be accurate and say it is government provided
health insurance with an individual mandate.

That assertion does not make the Public Option any worse than it
already is.

The fact is, there is no requirement to participate now, and with
the proposed plan for health care, there will be. That makes it
public health care for no other reason than it's compulsory. There
is no Constitutioinal authority for compulsory health care.

As I already explained, because it is rational for Congress to
believe the mandate is necessary to support the requirement on
private insurance companies not to reject people because of
pre-existing conditions (*), it is permitted under the Commerce
Clause.

So, you can call the fire department before calling the insurtance
company for fire insurance? That's absurd.

You're gonna wait to have coronary herart disease, then set about to
buy health insurance, and expect the insurance company to cover the
coronary heart disease? That's absurd.

Jeff it would cover people like myself who having had injury that has
caused ongoing medical issues who can not get insurance it also covers
people who change jobs who if they say their wives are pregnant
insurance companies claim that is a preexisting condition. Then there is
the woman who was raped and was put on a months worth of AIDs protocol
meds because they were not sure if he used a condom or had a disease so
they cut her off her insurance and will not allow her to get insurance
unless she can show she is two years with no symptoms. These are real
people Jeff real people that are effected because of Insurance Companies
looking out for the bottom line.


Now, if you HAVE coverage, discover you have coronary heart disease and
then get fired, it's reasonable that the next insurance company give
you the coverage you had under the prior job. If THAT'S the
pre-existing coverage you think should be covered, then I agree.

But you have no underlying RIGHT to be healthy, and that means the
government has no underlying right to IMPOSE health insurance upon you.


You sir are a moron and unworthy of life in our Nation.

Josh Rosenbluth

(*) Even Republicans believe this requirement is a constitutional
regulation of commerce and a good idea

On Oct 31, 11:22 am, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
smor... at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message

news:cmgne59cm9n988aer9ee25k55f1525q3ml at (no spam) 4ax.com...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

He's taxing EVERYBODY for health care. If your employer pays all or
part of
your health care, Obama is gonna tax it as income

Sounds like TownHall propaganda, JeffyLoon

Sounds like it until you read the bill.

There's no way in Hell that Obama can provide health care without
raising taxes. No f---ing way.

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

Jeff if you had actually read either of the bills, which are not fully
been presented in their final form yet, you would know that the only tax
that was proposed was for those that are High End plans that offer well
beyond normal healthcare. That would be a tax on the uber-rich Jeff not
on the normal everyday working man. Now read things for yourself and
stop listening to right-wing talk radio.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:42:40 -0800 (PST), "draccus876 at (no spam) gmail.com"
draccus876 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 11:22 am, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
smor... at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message

news:cmgne59cm9n988aer9ee25k55f1525q3ml at (no spam) 4ax.com...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

He's taxing EVERYBODY for health care. If your employer pays all or
part of
your health care, Obama is gonna tax it as income

Sounds like TownHall propaganda, JeffyLoon

Sounds like it until you read the bill.

There's no way in Hell that Obama can provide health care without
raising taxes. No f---ing way.

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

Jeff if you had actually read either of the bills, which are not fully
been presented in their final form yet, you would know that the only tax
that was proposed was for those that are High End plans that offer well
beyond normal healthcare. That would be a tax on the uber-rich Jeff not
on the normal everyday working man. Now read things for yourself and
stop listening to right-wing talk radio.


Sure, read the bill and try to make heads or tails of it;

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

1 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE 2 HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE.
3 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual 4 who does not meet
the requirements of subsection (d) at 5 any time during the taxable
year, there is hereby imposed 6 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess
of— 7 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income 8 for the
taxable year, over
9 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in 10 section 6012(a)(1)
with respect to the taxpayer.

I gave up, there must be a lot of Indians in
America, almost every section I read mentioned something about Indians.

It would seem 2.5 percent tax would be very
low cost for most people, I am paying about 30 percent of my income for
Part B Medicare ($96.40), plus $177 for AARP Plan C Part B Supplemental,
$7.95 for added Plan D preferred, plus co-pays, plus I have to pay full
cost for some prescriptions, and pay for Blood Glucose test strips in
addition to the two per day Medicare pays for.

Even at that, I can't complain, the actual costs
I would have to pay without insurance are not even within any sane price
range, Medicare sets the amount they will pay.

The version in the above url is 1990 pages,
and there doesn't seem to be anything specific in it.

I couldn't find anything about a fine for not
buying insurance, maybe they changed the fine to a tax, taxes have to be
paid.

On Oct 31, 12:32 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchrqu$h0m$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...





Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

Commerce Clause under Raich.  Namely, Congress has a rational basis
for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves
interstate commerce) would be undercut.

Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

60 some years of what?

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.

As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted
justification. And, no one is proposing that the government be a
health care provider.

???

That's precisely what the government itself is proposing. Pelosi, et
al, will tell you one thing, and do another. The fact is, if they put
in the Public Option (with any f---ing name she pulls out of her fat
ass), it will signal the end of private care. Period.

Jeff then the private sector should die if it can not compete then it
deserves a death. That is the very heart of Capitalism.


The government will operate health the way it operates the mail. It has
no competitors, and does not have to make money to survive. Private
health care for the masses will go away. The rich will afford private
care, but the rich can afford a tandem-axle diesel pusher to take them
to the marina where they park the yacht.

If they could have a system for everyone like Medicare for everyone or
the VA system we would all be better off. Do you ever hear anyone that
has said they do not want their Medicare? We hear them all not wanting
to lose it but never willing to give it up. The facts are that the
United States pays twice as much for healthcare of any other
industrialized nation and we get poorer results. That is a fact like it
lump fuck it I do not care but you can not argue with the cold hard
facts.


I'm not dissing the rich for having stuff. Please don't construe my
comments like that.

I'm dissiing you for buying the bullshit story that Pelesoi is
pedalling. You can be sure that if everybody is forced to buy health
care, your costs will be high to cover the overhead. Public health care
is not free, or even cheap. And in many instances it's not even
effective.

You are the one that seems to be on the Right-Wing Kool-Aide Jeff and it
is time you had a dose of reality. The Public Option has an overwhelming
level of support it is what the American People want and it is what they
deserve.

On Nov 2, 6:41 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com
wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an
insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can
b) law enforcement
c) the law.
And you can't stop 'em

If it comes to that, no.

But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in
the Middle East.

If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used
to invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another
person believes it proper to use violence to defend against it.
Historically, this is the beginning of the end of nations. The
Framers granted us the 2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to
defend against the tyranny of the majority.

I suspect enforcement will something akin to tax enforcement.

I would expect that's correct. It's the least intrusive method.

Of

course, we all hate the IRS because the power of authority has
gotten to their heads, but you aren't suggesting it's OK to
violently revolt against a legitimate IRS "invasion of privacy"
enforcement of a tax cheat.

This level of enforcement belongs in the courts, IMO. The original
scenario at the least implied a forcible entry of law enforcement
into a home without any evidence of wrongdoing; so a different
matter, and not one that could be engaged without an expectation of
violence.

There's your answer Poetic Justice.  See you in court.

Josh Rosenbluth

Kool I'll be there if/when the Subpoena or warrant arrive.

till then I will Not turn over any information papers or person to the
government.

I'll cost you millions in courts to force me to pay $3,000, and then
I'll refuse and take the jail time and cost you 30,000 to 50,000 a
year...  That socialism should go broke fast if a few more people will
follow me. And I'll have all day in prison to spend suing your favorite
socialist government and supporters.

Lets dance...

--

No in your case we simply will treat you like a second time drunk driver
in Columbia we will take you out back and shoot you.

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:18:34 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:12:56 -0500, Strabo
str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:

Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy
with
Socialized Government health Care.

The more knowledgable are very upset.
By "more knowledgable"----do you mean a few who wear
lightening rods on metal hats?

Good one.... They sure were noisy when Bush was in,

For proven reasons, Batboy

and Suddenly they
see no problem with Obama the Socialist playing in our privacy.

Except you can't name any "playing in our privacy"
.....

It's the static from your tin hat you keep hearing.

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door? I won't be
opening the door or volunteering my papers.

Which ever Agency comes to force the question will be sued.

--