AP: says" health care will cover more, cost more"
Comments
-
I disagree - we are simply talking about varying degrees of the same problem. Most food chains carry large brand names which are all owned by the same corporations. So basically, it is not a case of real free market choice...and in my opinion, it's less discussed simply because the FDA regulates some of the control issues, but it also has less repercussions, less discussed in the media and has less immediate results. Of course people get food poisoning or even die because of bad or tainted products, but it's less talked about, effects less people, so therefore isn't considered to the same level as healthcare. It's very comparable but a much lower degree of mention and response. And if you really want to nitpick, the reason we have many of these issues in healthcare or other similar area's of society is because of free market policies which have caused the lowering of fair competition in the market place and led to less choice which was backed by loosening of policies regarding monopolies and industry standards.know1 wrote:polaris_x wrote:know1 wrote:This may sound obvious or just plain dumb, but what are the reasons health care costs so much that very few can afford it on their own without the affluent and health purchasing it for them? I mean the REAL REASONS, not just the same BS about malpractice, etc.
For example, would we ever let groceries get so high that only a small percentage could afford them and we'd all need grocery insurance to purchase it? I don't think we would, yet food is probably as important as health care. What would we do to keep it from getting so high? Why haven't we done those same things with health care?
i think you bring up an excellent point here ...
the answer is that this is the foundation of the capitalist society America so loves ... where profits are the primary goal ...
Actually, I think I bring up the exact opposite point. That capitalism is not at play at all in health care anymore. That we've allowed the remote control of insurance to allow all the players in health care - doctors, medical professionals, pharmaceuticals, etc. - to screw us over.
With my example of groceries, the answer is the market doesn't allow it because we are shopping for food on our own. We don't stand for the shenanigans the health care industry is pulling on us.
Do you think grocery prices would be what they are now if we had our employers pay and deduct money from our checks automatically to cut checks for the food we buy at stores where the prices aren't even on the shelves?CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis0 -
scb wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:DriftingByTheStorm wrote:In other words,
I'm a healthy 30yr old male
who hasn't been to the doctor in almost a decade.
If you have not been to the doctor on almost a decade, how do you know if you are healthy?
Excellent point!
how the fuck is that an excellent point.
it has ZERO bearing on the debate at hand.
My health IS MY OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
Is the government going to start mandating:
a. that i have life insurance?
b. that i have fire AND flood insurance?
c. that i have adequate money set aside to cover burial costs?
d. that my comprehensive auto policy is large enough?
I mean SERIOUSLY folks.
Do you need the fucking government to tell you how to wipe your own goddamn ass
so that you don't inconvenience your neighbor with your dingleberries?
I understand health is a touchy subject for some people,
but truly ...
What i hear around here are 2 things primarily
a. the system is unfairly burdensome on those who can't afford the high price
b. those who aren't insured are an unfair burden on those who are and should therefore be REQUIRED to have it.
If you feel that way, why don't you work on a solution that DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.
You can NOT have it both ways.
If you feel like your "RIGHTS" (and believe me when i tell you, this FAR left\liberal ASSumption that healthcare is a "right" is nearly laughable, no matter how cruel you think the statement) are being violated by not being adequately provided for, why don't you work on a solution that doesn't affect the LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others?
To "solve" YOUR problem any other way (by violating MY rights or the rights of millions of your fellow americans) is pure hypocritical bullshit.If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
know1 wrote:Actually, I think I bring up the exact opposite point. That capitalism is not at play at all in health care anymore. That we've allowed the remote control of insurance to allow all the players in health care - doctors, medical professionals, pharmaceuticals, etc. - to screw us over.
With my example of groceries, the answer is the market doesn't allow it because we are shopping for food on our own. We don't stand for the shenanigans the health care industry is pulling on us.
Do you think grocery prices would be what they are now if we had our employers pay and deduct money from our checks automatically to cut checks for the food we buy at stores where the prices aren't even on the shelves?
actually ... hahaha
you corroborate my point about the form of capitalism that exists in america ... because the "rules" are formed to allow for corporations/industries to do these kinds of things ... so, it isn't really a free market type of situation ... which is one of the problems and the other of course is whether or not services such as health care and education should be open to these conditions to begin with ...0 -
are you sure you don't have hypetension? you might want to get that checked because its the silent killer and most people never know they even have it. its very common in people who are irritable or have a temperDriftingByTheStorm wrote:
how the fuck is that an excellent point.
it has ZERO bearing on the debate at hand.
My health IS MY OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
Is the government going to start mandating:
a. that i have life insurance?
b. that i have fire AND flood insurance?
c. that i have adequate money set aside to cover burial costs?
d. that my comprehensive auto policy is large enough?
I mean SERIOUSLY folks.
Do you need the fucking government to tell you how to wipe your own goddamn ass
so that you don't inconvenience your neighbor with your dingleberries?
I understand health is a touchy subject for some people,
but truly ...
What i hear around here are 2 things primarily
a. the system is unfairly burdensome on those who can't afford the high price
b. those who aren't insured are an unfair burden on those who are and should therefore be REQUIRED to have it.
If you feel that way, why don't you work on a solution that DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.
You can NOT have it both ways.
If you feel like your "RIGHTS" (and believe me when i tell you, this FAR left\liberal ASSumption that healthcare is a "right" is nearly laughable, no matter how cruel you think the statement) are being violated by not being adequately provided for, why don't you work on a solution that doesn't affect the LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others?
To "solve" YOUR problem any other way (by violating MY rights or the rights of millions of your fellow americans) is pure hypocritical bullshit.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:how the fuck is that an excellent point.
it has ZERO bearing on the debate at hand.
My health IS MY OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
well ... it is and it isn't ... if you contract a virus because of your poor health and spread it to others - you are in fact contributing to health care costs unrelated to you ... we are interconnected that way ...
i think the point kel is trying to make is just because you have chosen to not go to the doctor and feel fine today - you may not in fact be healthy ... your blood sugars could be high - something that your body can accomodate now but will be harder to when you get older which could lead to diabetes ... this is just one example and you may indeed be as healthy as it comes ... but simply stating you've only gotten sick a day here or there and never been to the doctor doesn't necessarily mean you are a healthy individual .. it is why they recommend people get physicals once a year ...0 -
How are your "rights" being violated by laws passed to get millions of americans more or adequate healthcare? And if your answer is "taxes" in any way, shape or form - your problem is not with healthcare, but merely taxes and how the government decides to allocate the funds it raises. If you feel just in saying your rights are being infringed upon because you do not like how the government is spending to attempt to fix our healthcare system, would you feel equally obliged to allow others to pick and choose where they can have a say in what programs they support or don't? And just to be super clear - for example, if I feel we spend too much on military, is my right or are my rights "infringed" if in my opinion, the government is spending too much on this? Doesn't this merely open a can of worms to dictate which specific government items you want your tax funds to go too? I mean, I don't have children but pay towards education. I don't have a car, but pay towards upkeep of roads and bridges. Where does this line of thought end?DriftingByTheStorm wrote:What i hear around here are 2 things primarily
a. the system is unfairly burdensome on those who can't afford the high price
b. those who aren't insured are an unfair burden on those who are and should therefore be REQUIRED to have it.
If you feel that way, why don't you work on a solution that DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.
You can NOT have it both ways.
If you feel like your "RIGHTS" (and believe me when i tell you, this FAR left\liberal ASSumption that healthcare is a "right" is nearly laughable, no matter how cruel you think the statement) are being violated by not being adequately provided for, why don't you work on a solution that doesn't affect the LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others?
To "solve" YOUR problem any other way (by violating MY rights or the rights of millions of your fellow americans) is pure hypocritical bullshit.Post edited by FiveB247x onCONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:scb wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:If you have not been to the doctor on almost a decade, how do you know if you are healthy?
Excellent point!
how the fuck is that an excellent point.
it has ZERO bearing on the debate at hand.
My health IS MY OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
YOU are the one who brought up your own health as if it has bearing on the debate at hand. To now say it shouldn't be discussed and has zero bearing on the debate is "pure hypocritical bullshit".
I think it's an excellent point because you can't really know for sure that you are healthy if you haven't been to any doctor in a decade. How do you know you don't have an STD, for instance? Or cancer? (In reality, even those of us who see our doctors regularly don't all know for sure that we are perfectly healthy. But we have a better sense of it than those who haven't been.)DriftingByTheStorm wrote:Is the government going to start mandating:
a. that i have life insurance?
b. that i have fire AND flood insurance?
c. that i have adequate money set aside to cover burial costs?
d. that my comprehensive auto policy is large enough?
I mean SERIOUSLY folks.
Do you need the fucking government to tell you how to wipe your own goddamn ass
so that you don't inconvenience your neighbor with your dingleberries?
I understand health is a touchy subject for some people,
but truly ...
What i hear around here are 2 things primarily
a. the system is unfairly burdensome on those who can't afford the high price
b. those who aren't insured are an unfair burden on those who are and should therefore be REQUIRED to have it.
If you feel that way, why don't you work on a solution that DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.
You can NOT have it both ways.
If you feel like your "RIGHTS" (and believe me when i tell you, this FAR left\liberal ASSumption that healthcare is a "right" is nearly laughable, no matter how cruel you think the statement) are being violated by not being adequately provided for, why don't you work on a solution that doesn't affect the LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others?
To "solve" YOUR problem any other way (by violating MY rights or the rights of millions of your fellow americans) is pure hypocritical bullshit.
Geez Louise! This gets back to the first point... how do you know you don't have an anger management problem if you haven't been to a mental health professional in a decade? I think maybe a screening is in order...0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
are you sure you don't have hypetension? you might want to get that checked because its the silent killer and most people never know they even have it. its very common in people who are irritable or have a temperDriftingByTheStorm wrote:
how the fuck is that an excellent point.
it has ZERO bearing on the debate at hand.
My health IS MY OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
Is the government going to start mandating:
a. that i have life insurance?
b. that i have fire AND flood insurance?
c. that i have adequate money set aside to cover burial costs?
d. that my comprehensive auto policy is large enough?
I mean SERIOUSLY folks.
Do you need the fucking government to tell you how to wipe your own goddamn ass
so that you don't inconvenience your neighbor with your dingleberries?
I understand health is a touchy subject for some people,
but truly ...
What i hear around here are 2 things primarily
a. the system is unfairly burdensome on those who can't afford the high price
b. those who aren't insured are an unfair burden on those who are and should therefore be REQUIRED to have it.
If you feel that way, why don't you work on a solution that DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.
You can NOT have it both ways.
If you feel like your "RIGHTS" (and believe me when i tell you, this FAR left\liberal ASSumption that healthcare is a "right" is nearly laughable, no matter how cruel you think the statement) are being violated by not being adequately provided for, why don't you work on a solution that doesn't affect the LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others?
To "solve" YOUR problem any other way (by violating MY rights or the rights of millions of your fellow americans) is pure hypocritical bullshit.
Excellent point.
0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:how the fuck is that an excellent point.
it has ZERO bearing on the debate at hand.
My health IS MY OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
Is the government going to start mandating:
a. that i have life insurance?
b. that i have fire AND flood insurance?
c. that i have adequate money set aside to cover burial costs?
d. that my comprehensive auto policy is large enough?
I mean SERIOUSLY folks.
Do you need the fucking government to tell you how to wipe your own goddamn ass
so that you don't inconvenience your neighbor with your dingleberries?
I understand health is a touchy subject for some people,
but truly ...
What i hear around here are 2 things primarily
a. the system is unfairly burdensome on those who can't afford the high price
b. those who aren't insured are an unfair burden on those who are and should therefore be REQUIRED to have it.
If you feel that way, why don't you work on a solution that DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.
You can NOT have it both ways.
If you feel like your "RIGHTS" (and believe me when i tell you, this FAR left\liberal ASSumption that healthcare is a "right" is nearly laughable, no matter how cruel you think the statement) are being violated by not being adequately provided for, why don't you work on a solution that doesn't affect the LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others?
To "solve" YOUR problem any other way (by violating MY rights or the rights of millions of your fellow americans) is pure hypocritical bullshit.
:thumbup:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 0 -
polaris_x wrote:actually ... hahaha
you corroborate my point about the form of capitalism that exists in america ... because the "rules" are formed to allow for corporations/industries to do these kinds of things ... so, it isn't really a free market type of situation ... which is one of the problems
This is what i was screaming loudly last year.
You can't fault "free market capitalism" when that is NOT the predominant force at play here.
The problem is you are dealing with a largely ignorant public that, unaware of the real issues, is clamoring for contrived solutions, fed them by the same massive corporate-lobbyist-government machine.polaris_x wrote:and the other of course is whether or not services such as health care and education should be open to these conditions to begin with ...
Again, right to the crux of the issue.
But to remind the masses, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE FOR, PLEASE DO IT LEGALLY BY EXPANDING IT'S EXPRESSED POWERS VIA A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. To do it via legislation or through the courts is simply to further spit in the face of our founding document! THIS IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, SO IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, THEN CHANGE IT. DON'T SET A REALLY BAD PRECEDENT FOR THE USURPATION OF POWERS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE CRYING OVER THE COST OF YOUR HEALTHCARE BILL!
If people want socialized medicine in this country WITHOUT a constitutional ammenment, THEN YOU NEED TO LOOK TO THE STATE LEVEL FOR YOUR SOCIALISM.
I'm not necessarily against it. In fact you would probably have my blessing (along with that of Adam Smith, who certainly accepted and even endorsed the efficiency of a municipal government in the administration of large infrastructure utilities\services, like gas, electricity, and possibly medicine).
BUT FOR GODSAKE QUIT SUBVERTING YOUR OWN GODDAMN FOUNDING DOCUMENT WHICH GRANTS YOU THE VERY LIBERTY TO BE SO ASININE IN YOUR "LOGIC"!If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
Like I said before and I will say it again.
Just wait until around 2014 when this bill kicks into over fucking drive.
all you progressive,Marxist,Leftist (it's all the same to me) are going to be singing a different tune guaranteed.0 -
i will take that bet. and again learn the difference between leftist, marxist, and stop generalizing.prfctlefts wrote:Like I said before and I will say it again.
Just wait until around 2014 when this bill kicks into over fucking drive.
all you progressive,Marxist,Leftist (it's all the same to me) are going to be singing a different tune guaranteed."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
prfctlefts wrote:Like I said before and I will say it again.
Just wait until around 2014 when this bill kicks into over fucking drive.
all you progressive,Marxist,Leftist (it's all the same to me) are going to be singing a different tune guaranteed.
Singing what tune? a larger deficit? Which is projected to hit 20 trillion by the end of the decade? Is this all because of the Leftist?
sorry i just read this post and jumped in-0 -
Can you do me a favor and leave "socialism" out of the discussion as it has zero place in it to begin with. It's merely scare and fear tactics. We aren't nor will ever be socialist. This program isn't socialist anymore than the post office.
Also, please let me know about this.. I'm excited to hear the answer (http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=129838&start=15#p2931499)DriftingByTheStorm wrote:If people want socialized medicine in this country WITHOUT a constitutional ammenment, THEN YOU NEED TO LOOK TO THE STATE LEVEL FOR YOUR SOCIALISM.
I'm not necessarily against it. In fact you would probably have my blessing (along with that of Adam Smith, who certainly accepted and even endorsed the efficiency of a municipal government in the administration of large infrastructure utilities\services, like gas, electricity, and possibly medicine).
BUT FOR GODSAKE QUIT SUBVERTING YOUR OWN GODDAMN FOUNDING DOCUMENT WHICH GRANTS YOU THE VERY LIBERTY TO BE SO ASININE IN YOUR "LOGIC"!CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis0 -
Please understand the terms you use before screaming them at everyone. "progressive" isn't a political leaning or philosophy. And I suggest you read and understand Marx before calling all left such things. If you did so, you'd clearly know you're making a fool of yourself by lack of understanding them.prfctlefts wrote:Like I said before and I will say it again.
Just wait until around 2014 when this bill kicks into over fucking drive.
all you progressive,Marxist,Leftist (it's all the same to me) are going to be singing a different tune guaranteed.CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:i will take that bet. and again learn the difference between leftist, marxist, and stop generalizing.
it allows him to not listen ...
in any case - i consider myself a leftist and i totally believe in socialized health care ... however, much to Drifting's post above - I do feel that the general populace is being hoodwinked in a way ... partly by the Corporate structure of America but also because ultimately America is a divided nation with a huge divide ...
so many people are paralyzed into partisan idealogues that you end up with a solution that is good for only a small percentage of the people ...
All the bills go by
And initiatives are taken up
By the middle
There ain't gonna be any middle any more0 -
Double Postpolaris_x wrote:know1 wrote:Actually, I think I bring up the exact opposite point. That capitalism is not at play at all in health care anymore. That we've allowed the remote control of insurance to allow all the players in health care - doctors, medical professionals, pharmaceuticals, etc. - to screw us over.
With my example of groceries, the answer is the market doesn't allow it because we are shopping for food on our own. We don't stand for the shenanigans the health care industry is pulling on us.
Do you think grocery prices would be what they are now if we had our employers pay and deduct money from our checks automatically to cut checks for the food we buy at stores where the prices aren't even on the shelves?
actually ... hahaha
you corroborate my point about the form of capitalism that exists in america ... because the "rules" are formed to allow for corporations/industries to do these kinds of things ... so, it isn't really a free market type of situation ... which is one of the problems and the other of course is whether or not services such as health care and education should be open to these conditions to begin with ...Post edited by know1 onThe only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
know1 wrote:polaris_x wrote:know1 wrote:Actually, I think I bring up the exact opposite point. That capitalism is not at play at all in health care anymore. That we've allowed the remote control of insurance to allow all the players in health care - doctors, medical professionals, pharmaceuticals, etc. - to screw us over.
With my example of groceries, the answer is the market doesn't allow it because we are shopping for food on our own. We don't stand for the shenanigans the health care industry is pulling on us.
Do you think grocery prices would be what they are now if we had our employers pay and deduct money from our checks automatically to cut checks for the food we buy at stores where the prices aren't even on the shelves?
actually ... hahaha
you corroborate my point about the form of capitalism that exists in america ... because the "rules" are formed to allow for corporations/industries to do these kinds of things ... so, it isn't really a free market type of situation ... which is one of the problems and the other of course is whether or not services such as health care and education should be open to these conditions to begin with ...
These rules aren't forming themselves, though. PEOPLE have allowed this to happen. I don't think you and I are so far apart on this one, though.
I know there are debatable parts of my hypothetical example, but I'll go back to this:
What would the cost of food be today if we had allowed employers to use a portion of the money they would be paying us in addition to automatically deducting a portion for our premiums and then paying bills submitted to them by grocery insurance companies for goods that the people just went out and bought without knowing the price? We'd be paying 10 times what we are now.
My point is, I think if we want reform, we need significant amounts people to stand up and take themselves out of this corrupt system they've allowed to happen. In other words, say no to insurance and pay out of pocket.
The answer is NOT for the government to force more and more of us to participate in a broken, corrupt system. The answer is for us to break the cycle.
If my company would just give me the $500 per month it is paying for my health insurance, I'd walk out and do a dance in the parking lot. I could buy the same policy for half. But I wouldn't do that. I'd buy a catastrophic policy with an extremely high deductible, sock the rest away and pay cash for medicines and doctor's visits.
If my employer had given me $500 per month for the 15 years I've been in the work force, I'd conservatively be sitting on $200K today that I could use as my own insurance. By retirement, we'd probably be looking at about $750K.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
I'm not here to do ANYone any favors.FiveB247x wrote:Can you do me a favor and leave "socialism" out of the discussion as it has zero place in it to begin with. It's merely scare and fear tactics. We aren't nor will ever be socialist. This program isn't socialist anymore than the post office.
Also, please let me know about this.. I'm excited to hear the answer (http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=129838&start=15#p2931499)
And can you explain to me how being PENALIZED (via taxation) BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for NOT ACCEPTING COVERAGE falls:
a. within the constraints of the Federal Government's EXPRESSED POWERS
b. within the category of "NOT a Violation of Personal Liberties"
?
If the Federal Government is acting
a. OUTSIDE ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY EXPRESSED AUTHORITY (which it NO DOUBT IS)
and
b. AGAINST MY EXPRESSED RIGHTS (this whole tax penalty for the uninsured is a logical violation of my rights, but it is a moot point because Income Tax itself is a scam put upon us to ENABLE such unconstitutional practices by "sleight of hand")
then your goddamn right, it violates my rights.
And SUBSIDIZING AND SHARING COSTS EQUALLY AMONGST UNEQUAL USERS sure as hell sounds like SOME form of Socialist policy to me.
Whether you care to acknowledge it with your semantic arguments or not,
I'm not here to play semantics, and i don't really care to try.
Look.
We can pretty much drop the whole Income Tax portion of the equation, since it is a FUCKED argument to begin with ... because FORCED income tax is a blatant violation of the ORIGINAL INTENT of the constitution.
But we don't need that.
Let's just stick with
A. IF YOU CAN NOT PROVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE EXPRESSLY MANDATED AUTHORITY TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION, THEN IT IS DE FACTO A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.
The Federal Government is, BY DEFAULT, in breech of contract, AND THAT IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE GOVERNED BY A CONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICTED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
So.
Here is YOUR question.
WHERE in the constitution do you see ANYTHING resembling the following:
"Congress is given the privilege and authority to mandate and regulate health and medical expenses for the people."
You would SERIOUSLY have to pervert "general welfare" to get this to jive with what the constitution authorizes. But i'm guessing you have NO problems making that leap, do you?
:(Post edited by DriftingByTheStorm onIf I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
YES.know1 wrote:My point is, I think if we want reform, we need significant amounts people to stand up and take themselves out of this corrupt system they've allowed to happen. In other words, say no to insurance and pay out of pocket.
The answer is NOT for the government to force more and more of us to participate in a broken, corrupt system. The answer is for us to break the cycle.
YES.
YES AND YES.
YES YES YES! :thumbup: :wave: :thumbup: :wave: :thumbup: :wave:
and i may add, AND TRICK US IN TO TRAMPLING OVER OUR VERY OWN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENT USURPATION OF POWER.
What a scam!If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help