Republicans and the Affordable Care Act

[Koios]

In re: para 1: If you cannot stay in the game, I'd suggest you get out. My position came done to nothing of the sort.

What???

And in re: para 2, no. No one is being punished for something they haven't done yet. That's a cheesy movie with Tom Cruise, and a fiction. We have no pre-crime. What we do is punish those whose policies are deemed unworthy, and not up to the standards of our state, as approved by the voters in our state.

Exactly. We're not punishing people for harming others. We're punishing them for not doing as they are told.

Correct; they're being told: do not harm the people of our state.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.

It never ends. Never.

 

[dblack]

In re: para 1: If you cannot stay in the game, I'd suggest you get out. My position came done to nothing of the sort.

What???

And in re: para 2, no. No one is being punished for something they haven't done yet. That's a cheesy movie with Tom Cruise, and a fiction. We have no pre-crime. What we do is punish those whose policies are deemed unworthy, and not up to the standards of our state, as approved by the voters in our state.

Exactly. We're not punishing people for harming others. We're punishing them for not doing as they are told.

Correct; they're being told: do not harm the people of our state.

Ahh... but they're not. If that were the case, damages would need to be cited and proven in court. The regulatory regime makes assumptions about business practices and policies that might lead to harm (or, more commonly, are merely inconvenient to the state's agenda) and punishes companies for stepping out of line.

This is usually supported by the vested interests in an industry (the last thing they want is competitors innovating) which is why we've been saddled with so much of this crap in the first place. It's the reason PPACA took the form it did.

 

[Oddball]

And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.

It never ends. Never.

Being a progressive/socialist is the most gutless and cowardly choice you can make.

 

[Koios]

What???



Exactly. We're not punishing people for harming others. We're punishing them for not doing as they are told.

Correct; they're being told: do not harm the people of our state.

Ahh... but they're not. If that were the case, damages would need to be cited and proven in court. The regulatory regime makes assumptions about business practices and policies that might lead to harm (or, more commonly, are merely inconvenient to the state's agenda) and punishes companies for stepping out of line.

This is usually supported by the vested interests in an industry (the last thing they want is competitors innovating) which is why we've been saddled with so much of this crap in the first place. It's the reason PPACA took the form it did.

If "they" are not, vote for an Insurance Commissioner who supports what you want. If most in your state agree, you're in. If not, you have 49 other states to choose from; or 50 states to choose from, if you're in DC.

 

[Koios]

And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.

It never ends. Never.

Love is an over-statement. But yeah; a little protection from harm trumps no protections.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.

It never ends. Never.

Being a progressive/socialist is the most gutless and cowardly choice you can make.

I wonder if these types actually see why though. I mean, in cases like this we can't make it any more clear how pitiful they sound with their whining and groveling to the king regarding a piece of fruit and a few shillings. Then complain their aren't enough tithers around.

I wonder if their were so many groveling whiners in colonial times....

 

[dblack]

Correct; they're being told: do not harm the people of our state.

Ahh... but they're not. If that were the case, damages would need to be cited and proven in court. The regulatory regime makes assumptions about business practices and policies that might lead to harm (or, more commonly, are merely inconvenient to the state's agenda) and punishes companies for stepping out of line.

This is usually supported by the vested interests in an industry (the last thing they want is competitors innovating) which is why we've been saddled with so much of this crap in the first place. It's the reason PPACA took the form it did.

If "they" are not, vote for an Insurance Commissioner who supports what you want. If most in your state agree, you're in. If not, you have 49 other states to choose from; or 50 states to choose from, if you're in DC.

No. I'm rejecting the requirement that I need permission from a 'Commissioner' to purchase insurance. Or that said Commissioner have the power to compel me to buy insurance I don't want. This is not freedom at all. This is corporatist fascism and I want no part of it.

 

[Koios]

Ahh... but they're not. If that were the case, damages would need to be cited and proven in court. The regulatory regime makes assumptions about business practices and policies that might lead to harm (or, more commonly, are merely inconvenient to the state's agenda) and punishes companies for stepping out of line.

This is usually supported by the vested interests in an industry (the last thing they want is competitors innovating) which is why we've been saddled with so much of this crap in the first place. It's the reason PPACA took the form it did.

If "they" are not, vote for an Insurance Commissioner who supports what you want. If most in your state agree, you're in. If not, you have 49 other states to choose from; or 50 states to choose from, if you're in DC.

No. I'm rejecting the requirement that I need permission from a 'Commissioner' to purchase insurance. Or that said Commissioner have the power to compel me to buy insurance I don't want. This is not freedom at all. This is corporatist fascism and I want no part of it.

Cool. Reject away, and hope a majority agree. That's the essence of your freedom.

My freedom is to not have it rejected by the will of one: You.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.

It never ends. Never.

Love is an over-statement. But yeah; a little protection from harm trumps no protections.

Right. You're without any doubt petrified of freedom. You want protection in all areas. Of all kinds and you'll give up a lot, including your abilityt o choose to get it. The founders would have probably had you sent back to England. Or maybe hanged.

 

[Oddball]

And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.

It never ends. Never.

Being a progressive/socialist is the most gutless and cowardly choice you can make.

I wonder if these types actually see why though. I mean, in cases like this we can't make it any more clear how pitiful they sound with their whining and groveling to the king regarding a piece of fruit and a few shillings. Then complain their aren't enough tithers around.

I wonder if their were so many groveling whiners in colonial times....

The thing I find positively jaw-dropping is that the grovelers and snivelers try to portray themselves as the smartest people in the room, no matter which room that may be.

 

[Koios]

And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.

It never ends. Never.

Love is an over-statement. But yeah; a little protection from harm trumps no protections.

Right. You're without any doubt petrified of freedom. You want protection in all areas. Of all kinds and you'll give up a lot, including your abilityt o choose to get it. The founders would have probably had you sent back to England. Or maybe hanged.

I'd encourage you to doubt that which is wrong. We call that "critical thinking."

Try it; you may like it.

 

[dblack]

Cool. Reject away, and hope a majority agree. That's the essence of your freedom.

No, that's the essence of majoritarianism. The whole idea of constitutionally limited government is that it protects our freedom even when the majority disagrees.

 

[Koios]

Cool. Reject away, and hope a majority agree. That's the essence of your freedom.

No, that's the essence of majoritarianism. The whole idea of constitutionally limited government is that it protects our freedom even of the majority disagrees.

Then amend your state's constitution, with the help of the majority.

And while indeed our bi-cameral lege protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority -- THE PEOPLE protect us from the tyranny of a minority. Check it out. If you cannot read Cleisthenes in Greek, or Marcus Tullius Cicero in native Latin, as Adams and Jefferson could and did, try just reading John Adams, by David McCollough, in good old Yankee English. Easy, enjoyable, and enlightening.

 

[Oddball]

Love is an over-statement. But yeah; a little protection from harm trumps no protections.

Right. You're without any doubt petrified of freedom. You want protection in all areas. Of all kinds and you'll give up a lot, including your abilityt o choose to get it. The founders would have probably had you sent back to England. Or maybe hanged.

I'd encourage you to doubt that which is wrong. We call that "critical thinking."

Try it; you may like it.

You wouldn't know a critical thought if it kicked you in the head.

 

[dblack]

Then amend your state's constitution, with the help of the majority.

You don't seem to be grasping this concept, or maybe you just don't want do acknowledge it. If your conception of freedom is (as it seems) that it is always subordinate to the will of the majority, then we are never going to agree. There's more to political life than might makes right.

 

[Koios]

Then amend your state's constitution, with the help of the majority.

You don't seem to be grasping this concept, or maybe you just don't want do acknowledge it. If your conception of freedom is (as it seems) that it is always subordinate to the will of the majority, then we are never going to agree. There's more to political life than might makes right.

Thankfully. I did when I was younger and less informed. But now that I'm older and better informed I have indeed rejected such concepts, since they're in conflict with the laws of this land and the freedoms the Framers intended.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Koios]

Right. You're without any doubt petrified of freedom. You want protection in all areas. Of all kinds and you'll give up a lot, including your abilityt o choose to get it. The founders would have probably had you sent back to England. Or maybe hanged.

I'd encourage you to doubt that which is wrong. We call that "critical thinking."

Try it; you may like it.

You wouldn't know a critical thought if it kicked you in the head.

Shit; I was premature in pouring myself a glass, it seems.

 

[Oddball]

I'd encourage you to doubt that which is wrong. We call that "critical thinking."

Try it; you may like it.

You wouldn't know a critical thought if it kicked you in the head.

Shit; I was premature in pouring myself a glass, it seems.

\
Wow...Wat a staggeringly concise and critical thought-packed post!