Just an anarcho-capitalist extropian type here in Albuquerque posting in response to those who want a bigger, more intrusive, more expensive State.
For more, see http://kcufmedia.xanga.com/.
And don't forget to tune in to Channel 27 on Thursday nights at 8PM.
My personal stuff.
I looked and looked but couldn't find it. I'll fix it now.
Not a problem -- it's all good! :)
I'm Mike Blessing, and my campaign page is here.
Mark Curtis can be reached at 505-256-1993 or email@example.com.
Gotta love this article's subtitle -- Being black in Albuquerque in a post-Obama world.
At the time the article was written, the Obama Adminstration had another 47 months of crypto-fascism to put over on America. Or maybe Gene was implying that Obama the Candidate should be seen as a wholly separate person than Obama the Sitting President?
i have no problem in voting for a black person per se -- I'd vote for Wesley Snipes or Walter E. Williams -- they both support the Second Amendment, getting rid of the income tax, etc. I voted against Obama on the issues -- his inclinations seem to be towards restricting individual liberties, where mine are for supporting the individual.
I was at the 15 April Tea Party centered around the Independence Grill -- there were quite a few people there who said they voted for Obama and that his post-election policy stands were NOT what they were voting for.
As soon as I can afford to do soThat sounds a little low rent for someone who, I presume, can afford the exorbitant rates of a private health care plan.
As soon as I can afford to do so
That sounds a little low rent for someone who, I presume, can afford the exorbitant rates of a private health care plan.
I'm one of the "47 million uninsured" that Obama & Co. keep harping about. Right now, I'm working at a discount store for 10 bucks an hour. All I can see from this plan is more regulations, taxes and subsidies that will drive health care costs up even further.
Maybe I'm wrong -- what existing restrictions on health care does ObamaCare repeal?
Back in August 2007, I had strep throat and paid 80 bucks cash for the doctor visit and prescription (amoxycillin). A week later I developed an allergy to the amoxycillin but was able to fix that with over-the-counter Benadryl -- no paperwork, no run to the emergency room, etc.
Realistically, this is paranoia. If you investigated any of the health care systems of the other G8 countries you will see that the majority of them have both private and public options. The main attraction of a public option, in my opinion, is to force the insurance health industry to be more competitive by putting them up against a bottom line that is accessible to the least of us.
If you're dead-set on the public option, why not set it up as a non-profit 501-c-3 outfit, then push for Obama to get rid of regulations propping up drug prices, existing HMOs, etc.? That way you get something to compete with the for-profit companies without the top-down coercive approach favored by Washington DC politicians.
But that's not the argument I want to have. Let's stay on topic
You didn't answer the question --
If "single-payer," er, I mean "public option" is such a great deal, what about the cases in the States where it's already been put in place -- the Indian Health Service and the Veterans Administration? Why aren't you citing these as examples of how things should be run? What about the Massachusetts mandatory-health-insurance law?
Let’s put it this way: If tea baggers get their jell insert-filled sneakers on the ground en masse in Washington, and if they’re not trounced—not just answered—then a very singular slice of "the people" will have spoken. Again.
All the Tea Party people want from the system is to left alone to their own devices when they're not hurting others, to fend for themseleves, and make their own way. They have no problem at all helping others in need with voluntary charity, but aren't too thrilled to say the least about being forced to "donate" via taxation.
This of course stands in sharp contrast to the people who are turning out to support the ObamaCare plan and its "public option." The Obamatons think of other peoples' property and money as their own, to be taken and spent as "the people" dictate -- "the people" of course being the Obamatons. Tea Party people, libertarians, free-marketers, agorists, voluntaryists, etc., don't seem to really qualify as being part of "the people" in Obamatons' minds.
Of course, Obama supporters will say I'm deluded on this. Then why do I keep seeing YouTube clips of Tea Party protesters being physically attacked by ObamaCare supporters (many wearing union T-shirts) for the "crime" of holding signs outside "Town Hall" events held by politicians supporting ObamaCare?
if a public option is passed and you don't like it, how about you find another country to live in?
As soon as I can afford to do so, I will -- I'm looking at possibilities now. This of course means that there will be one less tax serf to pay for your "public option."
What a stupid argument. It's not like anyone is going to take away your private insurance. Why so vehement?
That will be the net effect, as the "public option" system will not only be able to operate in the red far longer than any private system, using tax dollars to buffer its losses, but will also be able to charge less than the private system, using tax dollars to make up the difference.
Funny, in that sample of G8 countries the one without a public option spends more of it's GDP on health care than those that do and still has a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rate.
If public health care is so great, then why are Canadians who can afford to come to the US for health care doing so instead of staying up there? There's a rather healthy strip of medical clinics along the U.S.-Canadian border that cater to Canadians. How do these places stay in business if Canada's "single-payer" system is so great?
If "single-payer," er, I mean "public option" is such a great deal, what about the cases in the States where it's already been put in place -- the Indian Health Service and the Veterans Administration? Why aren't you citing these as examples of how things should be run?
Hey, Gene, hopefully you realize that all of this insurance-company lobbying is The Barack's escape hatch should "public option" get signed into law and turns out to be the disaster that we on the other side say it will be. He'll just say that "If I didn't include part of their terms, we would have never gotten it passed," and then blame it on "special interests controlling Washington."
If you think "single-payer" (taxpayer-pays) is such a great idea, why bother trying to get it passed here? Why not just move to Canada or the UK, where it's already there, and has been for decades? Surely they've had the time to work out the bugs by now. After all, I and my fellow libertarians, Tea Partiers and such aren't keeping you in the States at gunpoint, are we?
I've got some change for those who believe that Barack the Mad Obomber will bring about changes of the desirable sort.
That change consists of quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies.
If anything, the changes that Obama will bring about are the <b>bad</b> kind -- more spending, more taxes, more deficit borrowing, more bombs being dropped abroad, more arrests for pot smokers. As if George XLIII and the Busheviks weren't bad enough, the Obamination proposes <b>more of the same</b>. But it's all OK, right -- he's a "progressive" Democrat, after all.
And before you start calling me a Republican hack, I have no plans to vote for McClown (John McCain), the hero of Hanoi turned cowardly traitor in Washington, DC.
Where the phrase "voluntary public campaign financing" is used, does the word "voluntary" mean that the taxpayer has a choice over whether or not to subsidize the candidate? Or is it (more likely) that the candidate has a choice over whether or not to participate in this Roundhouse-run scam?
If it's the former, what will the black and hispanic voters say should a Ku Klux Kandidate qualify and apply for funds?