Health Care Part 6 – A Right or a Privilege

Health Care SymbolAllow me to first apologize that I was still unable to get through all of the health care bill passed by the House of (Non)Representatives on Saturday night. I am working through the first half of the week preparing for my business to run without me for the second half of the week. Never an easy task. Please remember all that I will have articles set to post for the second half of the week, but I will not actually be here posting them. I will attempt to jump in whenever possible to take care of any moderation, but can make no promises. I will return home after the memorial services on Monday and should be back in full swing then. For tonight I am going to focus the health care discussions on the premise stated in the title. Just a Citizen posted an interesting interview last night and when I watched it I was reminded of the right versus privilege debate. It seems that at the center of the health care debate is the debate over whether health care is a right, and it is time for us to discuss this….

The video in question is one from MSNBC where the moderator was interviewing Florida Democrat Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The topic was the passage of the health care bill in the House. You can see the video here (will open in a new window):

Representatives Schultz tells us that Health Care will finally be made a RIGHT

Debbis Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

For those unable, or unwilling, to watch the video, Representative Schultz comes right out and declares the following: “Well, I think we are going to send a bill to the President, finally making health care a right not a privilege, by the end of this year. I feel confident about that. I think the momentum that has been building is really unstoppable at this point.” (Just for grins and giggles, watch the rest of the video to see Schultz’s further comments about women and the Republican party. She is either seriously demented in her assessment or intentionally misrepresenting the party in order to cause another false divide in America)

The Congresswoman makes a clear statement here that one of the things they are intending to do is to finally make health care a right, not a privilege. JAC, I have to personally thank you for finding that video, because it is enlightening to see the intent of the Democrats in Congress.

I don’t think this is a unique situation for the Democratic party. In my recollection, the progressive movement in America has consistently made their stance that all sorts of things are rights rather than privileges. I mean let’s be honest, there are a ton of new found “rights” according to the progressive liberal movement. People have the right to to a government sponsored public education. A right to government provided housing. A right to own a home regardless of ability to pay for it. A right to take money from those that earn it. A right to a government provided cell phone. A right to come into the country illegally and stay. A right to a wage determined by the government rather than the market. A right to cheap goods and extensive services at the expense of those greedy capitalist pigs. A right to not be offended by a Christmas parade they were not forced to attend. And now a right to health care.

In fact it seems the only rights that the progressive movement doesn’t support are the ones in the actual Bill of Rights. They seem to despise the right to own guns, the right to wear a christian symbol in public, the right to run a news organization that is critical of a Democratic President, the right to keep the fruits of one’s labor. But I digress, yet again.

HC Not a Right Poster SmallThe fact is that health care coverage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. To determine that it is a right is nothing more than a political play. This goes back to the progressive mantra that we must allow emotions to rule the day. It sure would be nice to see everyone in great health. It sure would be nice to see health care be affordable and available to everyone. But that does not make it a right my friends. No matter how many times you say it.

The founders felt that rights were given to man naturally (by the creator or nature depending on your beliefs). They are not the creation of government, they were there the whole time. That is why they were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have a right to those things without or without government’s mandate. Most of us can agree on that premise. If it is a “right” we have it whether government grants it or not. We have it whether government exists or not. The very reason that our country was founded was because the people of that time felt that the Crown did not recognize their natural rights! Remember that the Constitution spoke out and identified our natural rights, it did not grant them. The government has no power to grant natural rights, and is supposed to have no power to infringe upon them.

Health care is not a natural right, folks. It was endowed to us by the creator (or nature). It is a scientific process that helps humans to better care for or repair our bodies. To believe that it is a right is to fall prey to the belief that our rights are the construct of government, that rights are given to us by government, rather than the other way around. To believe that health care is a right is to believe that rights only exist through positive government action.

UHC Dont Be SillyI read somewhere, although I cannot find it again, a quote from someone that said something along the lines of “The rights to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are individual rights that I can pursue or neglect as I wish. Governments are instituted merely to secure these rights by providing the necessary infrastructure for their flourishing—this involves instituting a rule of law and order.” To me, that is the reality around rights. We have them. Government’s only purpose is supposed to be protecting them.

Has health care become unaffordable to many? You bet it has, especially if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of facing a truly difficult diagnosis. But we must first remember that the situation we find ourselves in in regard to health care costs have been driven by many folks who have implemented market controls or market distortions without any regard for factual economic consequences (yes, I am again talking about you, Keynes disciples). As a result it has become more and more a privilege that is more accessible for the wealthy. And that is somewhat of a problem here in the good old US of A. However, the fact that the prices of health care have grown out of control does not change the definition of what is a right and what is not.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff, whom some of you may remember from our “Building a Better Foundation” Series, offers that the founders were clear in defining that our rights are quite limited in that they are a right to action. He defines his terms better than I, and here is an excerpt, the entire speech of which can be found as the second link at the end of the article:

Leonard Peikoff

Leonard Peikoff

Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it, without effort, by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit — to a certain type of action on your part and its result — not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your “right” to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others’ expense means that they become rightless.

Clinton Obama HC ReformI found this to be the absolute best description of the rights of the people in America that I have read. I urge all of you to read Peikoff’s entire speech, which was given back in 1993 in opposition to Hillary’s push for a government health care system. One of my favorite lines of all time in the world of political discourse happens to come from this speech, which is why I know the speech so well and remembered to include it in this discussion. Later in the speech, Peikoff says precisely how the American political system has gotten out of whack in terms of rights versus privileges. That favorite quote of mine is:

The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men’s actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country’s founding documents — rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it — period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens — to their individual rights — to their real rights — in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

Socialize Health Care DMVTherein lies the problem with the direction of society today. The invention and reclassification of so many things into the category of “rights” is morally corrupt and denies the acknowledgement of the true “rights” that we have. Our country has lots of issues. Health care costs are one of them. We are in need of some forms of health care reform. While I am ideologically opposed to government intervention in the market, there has already been far too much meddling by government to do nothing now. The question instead becomes what is the proper approach? I submit that the approach we are taking now is completely wrong. Addressing the costs is the way to go. That could work in some ways. And there are moral approaches that could be taken should addressing the high costs become the route pursued.

HC Bad RightBut establishing health care as some sort of “right” is a recipe for disaster. The current path is unsustainable in even the short term, and will result in a catastrophic change to the American health care system, which is the best in the world, despite the inane claims to the contrary. Beyond that, declaring health care a right is morally wrong, as it ignores the fact that real rights are there whether Nancy Pelosi dictates them to you or not.

And that is why I am opposed to the health care reforms being presented today on principle alone. Declaring health care a right dooms us to an eventual dependence on government for that vital service, which is already being provided for every single person in America, regardless of the abundance of or lack of health insurance. The question becomes not whether we should offer universal health care. The question is whether we are to be equally self-reliant, or equally dependent.

Below I offer a few articles that I either quoted above (in Peikoff’s case) or that I felt did a good job of laying out their arguments. There are articles from both sides of the issue. OK, now you can all fire away at me.

Is health care a right or a privilege? – Health Policy | Physician Executive | Find Articles at BNET

Health Care Is Not A Right


  1. Good Morning!

    USW, again, you have it right. Healthcare is and had been available to everyone for along time, it’s legally mandated that healthcare cannot be denied, irregardless of ability to pay. It’s been that way for years. So when Obama and Pelosi said the wanted this, so everyone has access to healthcare, they are liars, through and through. This is a power grab, it’s about money and power at the worst level. In my opinion, I consider the recently passed House bill as unconstitutional, and those who voted for it should be charged with treason.

    Will follow today!


    • Bottom Line says:

      G-Man said – “In my opinion, I consider the recently passed House bill as unconstitutional, and those who voted for it should be charged with treason.”

      BL – Hell yeah!

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Quick observation before I get my much needed coffee — there’s been a lot of talk about this legislation being the work of the far left and out of the mainstream. Yet 220 out of 435 Representatives voted for this bill.

      I’m not saying I completely agree with everything in the bill (in many respects I personally wish it went further, but I’m not going to go there this early in the morning!) But I will say that I wonder how a majority of Congress was elected if their views are so out of whack with their constituents.

      Hope you guys have a great day.

      • Very simple, Buck…it is called gerrymandring.

      • Buck:

        A majority does not make morality.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Nor does a minority.

          But my point is not about morality. It is about the so called ‘far left’ versus mainstream.

          • Buck:

            A majority, mainstream does not make.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Mainstream: the prevailing current of thought.

              How would you define ‘mainstream’?

              • I would not necessarily define it any differently than you.

                But your assumption that the way elected officials vote on any issue actually represent the “mainstream” is naive at best.

                In fact, in my experience it rarely occurs, especially when trying to cause action. The mainstream opinion can act to deter action (remember immigration reform) but is not as good at getting things changed.

                Perhaps that is because what you view as mainstream is mostly driven by the sound bites provided by those with agendas. If the debate lasts long enough and truth starts to leak out the public starts to waffle and fluxuate in its view. The “mainstream” changes quickly because the “public” has not been given the information or time needed to form a “true” belief system relative to that problem.

                Remember, the “mainstream” is actually the center section of the river where most of the water is carried. It never stays in the middle of the river channel. It always moves from side to side, right bank then the left bank. Only in a man made aquaduct, one that is perfectly straight and uniform, can you make the mainstream remain in the same place.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Yes, the mainstream is fluid, moving from right to left and back again. There is a range to the mainstream that covers a wide range of views.

                I am not saying that just because a bill was voted on by a majority of Representatives means that it represents the view of a majority of Americans; just that it is most likely within the range of the mainstream.

              • Buck;

                You live in a dream if you believe any non-representing representative mirrors the public majority.

                These people are not interested in public desires unless it requires them to in order to get elected or re-elected. Their sole purpose for being in the government is to gain power, influence, money, and authority. They consider themselves to be the elite of the elite and the rest of the public are stupid.

                The majority of Americans do not believe the government represents or mirrors the mainstream wishes; quite the opposite.

                Back in High School some teachers looked for norms in grades for the entire classroom. To do this they would throw out the single highest and single lowest grade and then average out the remainder.

                I would suggest that if you really want a true understanding of waht American’s believe you throw out NY and CA and then average the remaining states.

                Despite what New Yorker’s believe NY city is not America’s city and the DAMN Yankee’s are not America’s team.


              • Buck The Wala says:

                If you throw out the highest and lowest, how does it make sense to throw out NY and CA?

                I will take that as a compliment that you find NY to be the ‘highest’. Now we just need the ‘lowest’.

              • I think he was saying California is the highest..

                Of course, not being from California, I can’t fault him for not drawing the distinction between Southern (real) and Northern (fake) California, but I’ll let it slide this time.

          • Buck:

            When discussing the govt providing health care you are be default discussing morality.

            Your assertion is that a majority of Congressmen represent a majority of people and therefore a “majority” gets to dictate what is “moral”.

            And by “moral” here I mean the imposition on my rights by govt. That is immoral because it interferes with my right to existence as I deem it desirable to be.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          A “majority” does not make anything of significance whatsoever.

          If you intentionally misinform enough people, you can make a majority believe pretty much just about anything you want them to believe.

          If a majority supports something based on a misinformed belief, why should I have any obligation to go along with them?

      • Wait and see what happens in 2012 and then ask if they are doing what their constituents want…

        • Sooner 2010.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Fair enough. But for now, as of this moment, these Representatives were elected as Democrats, many of whom campaigned in part on the need for health reform.

          • Buck;

            Lot’s of questions?

            BF advised us relative to voting in a fixed election. Having said that how did you feel about being given two choices for President this last election? Were either of the two your initial choioe? If obama was your initial choice are you absolutely content with everything he has done with the support of Congress?

            I heard today that your state may be broke by Christmas, who’s fault is it that one of the largest wealth producing states in the country can go broke>

            If in fact they go broke, should those non-representing represenitors be fired or financially penalized for their eneptness? Is the solution higher taxes?

            When the average income nation wide is around $54K why should those elected to represent us by paid an average of $174K?

            Do you feel they work harder or are smarter than you and therefore should recieve 3 times the average income?

            If the citizens of NY were asked to vote on the right to own and carry a handgun do you think the majority would say yes or no?

            As a freeman do I have a right to decide I don’t want health care because I am capable of taking care of myself?

            Does the Congress of the US have the right to create and pass laws not approved by the citizen majority?

            Why does the government have the right to take a higher percentage of my earnings to pay for privledges to others who have not worked for those privledges?

            Using a analogy quoted by Matt last week, why does a government have a right to take X number of bricks from my house to build homes for those who don’t have a home?

            When would you say “enough is enough” relative to the government taking your earnings, and what happens when that government comes along and says “No Buck, you have not yet given enough, we need more, because you have more to give in our oppinion”.

            When should a government be told “No!”? Should they be told no when they chose to standardize everyone’s payroll? How about when they tell you where you have to live? How about when they tell you that your neighborhood is being replaced by a government housing project so that those less fortunate than you live in a nicer neighborhood?

            I could go on and on, but I for one am really interested in understanding where you would draw the line.


            • Buck The Wala says:

              That is a lot of questions, but here are some thoughts in response:

              1) Obama was not my top choice, but I definitely preferred him to McCain (and even more so when he chose Palin as a running mate). No I’m not satisfied with everything Obama has done thus far, but I am generally happy with the direction he is taking the country. As I’ve said before, in a mixed society like ours you are never going to find yourself in agreement with everyone.

              2) Fault on this can be spread across the board – in part Bush’s policies; in part Obama; in part the past few governors; and most certainly in part to Wall Street.

              3) Regarding politicians: $174K is a nice chunk of change. $54K may be the average, but what about the millions made by CEOs? I’m personally ok with the $174K figure and don’t believe that it is because they are better or smarter than myself in the least.

              4) If NY voted to outlaw guns I believe it would be a close vote. Probably such a law would be defeated, but I think it would be a closer vote than you may think.

              5) Moving on to Congress passing a law against the will of the majority: To me there are certain issues that should not be put to a vote (e.g., gay marriage). I dont’ pretend to know exactly where to draw the line on this though.

              6) On taxes, I view taxes as the cost of living in a civilized society. There are programs that we as a society have decided are important (and yes, we may completely disagree on those programs or the proper extent of those programs). Taxes are necessary to pay for those programs. I have no problem with people earning more money paying higher taxes; an individual earning $1M a year can afford to pay 35% in taxes, whereas an individual earning $20K cannot.

              • Buck:

                You said “On taxes, I view taxes as the cost of living in a civilized society.”

                Please explain what it is about taxes that makes us “civilized” as opposed to “uncivilized”!

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I’ll admit, probably not the best phrase to use. In my opinion though, taxes are a necessary evil. No one likes to pay taxes; but they are fundamental to society.

              • Buck,

                Why is theft necessary for society?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                That’s the heart of the matter though – I don’t see it as theft.

                You do and there is nothing I can say to make you believe otherwise.

              • Buck

                It is not a matter of ‘belief’.

                It is a matter of definition.

                You define taking what is not yours as theft – if it applies to an individual.

                Why do you change the definition when it is applied to government?

                What rational do you have to change definitions?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Very inartfully put, but we change the definition because it is a completely different scenario. We as a society have said to the government ‘tax us’.

              • We said that? where? Nobody ever asked me.

              • Buck;

                Thanks for the response:

                1) If obama was not your first choice then you were misrepresented by a tyranical government, and voting for their choice furthers their control.

                2) The government chose Bush as well as his predicessors and obama, your voice was and is irrelivant. Does that make you feel more free or less free?

                3) I assume those Wall Street CEO’s responsible for the demise of many company’s should, in your oppinion, be fired, fined or required to pay back some of thier bonuses? Should those elected to represent the people be dealt with in a similar fashion?

                4) I didn’t ask if there was a vote to ‘outlaw’ guns in NY, I asked if there was a vote to legalize and provide guns to each New Yorker. The results of my vote would be radically different than your vote.

                5) Who says the government has the right/authority to tell you, or me whom I can marry or love?

                6) Why should my efforts and successes be taxed at a higher level than those earning less? What give the government the right to tell me how I should live, what I should buy, and who else should benefit from the fruits of my labor?

                7) When is it enough? How many bricks from my house is enough, and what gives you, and the government you support, the right to tell me how much?

                Should this government continue on its ‘directed’ path there will come a time when there are no more ‘bricks’ or those of us with a ‘house’ to take ‘bricks’ from; then what?


              • Buck/Matt;

                Relative to NY and CA: In most people’s opinion (at least those who opine here) NY and CA are shining examples of extreme left-wing governments, one representative is a so-called Republican and one is a so-called Democrat.

                Throw the thoughts of those two non-representing representatives out, as they are extreme and you get a better understanding of the norm of America.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                But wouldn’t we also have to throw out the representatives of extreme right-wing governments?

              • Name one. There is no such thing as an “extreme right-wing” government. Its an oxymoron. Black Flag is most likely the most extreme right wing person on this board, and everybody else here is to the left of him by varying degrees.
                I havn’t yet figured who is most extreme left wing person yet.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                There are far right views just as there are far left views. To say that there is only such a thing as an extreme left is intellectual dishonesty.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                1) I object to the notion that I am being represented by a tyrannical government. I chose to vote for Obama. My initial candidate did not garner enough suppourt. I could have easily chose to write that individual in. Just because my candidate did not win an election does not mean that I am being represented by a tyrannical government.

                2) My voice is largely irrelevant – in part because of the electoral college, in part because of the state I live in. That’s an argument to abolish the electoral college in favor of popular vote; I’m all for that.

                3) Yes, those CEOs should be at the very least fired. As for those representatives, many were voted out in the last election cycle and many more may face the same result.

                4) Sorry I misread your initial question – guns are already legal in NY. But a vote to lift all restrictions and provide every individual in NY with a gun would probably fail. The majority of people agree with having some gun restrictions in place.

                5) That’s my point: the government doesn’t have the right, nor does any individual. That’s why the issue should not be based on the majority’s whims.

                6 & 7) To me, that right stems from the ‘social contract’ I know many here do not recognize such a contract, but to me, in my opinion, that is where the right of government to tax stems from. If you object to taxes, vote in representatives who agree with you and have laws passed changing the tax system.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “That’s my point: the government doesn’t have the right, nor does any individual. That’s why the issue should not be based on the majority’s whims.

                The decision on who you choose to call your family should be just that, YOUR DECISION.

                It should most certainly NOT be based upon the whimsical decisions of a “majority”.

              • “Fault on this can be spread across the board – in part Bush’s policies; in part Obama; in part the past few governors; and most certainly in part to Wall Street.”

                You really have not researched this have you? Not meaning to insult but government intervention is the single greatest reason for each of the successive “bubbles” you’ve been seeing. Dig deep enough and every time you find the rules of “beholding to the shareholder above all else and the wellness of the corporate entity” being bent or twisted to suit a particular political agenda. Capitalism works in each and every society where socialism has failed miserably and for a very good reason as exceptionalism can’t be mandated, it happens freely or not at all. That exceptionalism exists in all areas of endeavor with business being very much one of the biggies and all have in common winning the competition and the rewards of being at the top. America has some of the best business minds on the planet and believe me you need them far more than you do ANY member of your politico so if they earn their druthers, let them eat cake! Speaking of the politico…

                Look to the very next 30 billion dollar round of “Bigwig Bonus Bonanza!”, comprehend your own Democrat government is up to its neck in that sector of business and tell me again how their share of the blame is sleight or even forgivable. Care to make a gentleman’s wager on some of those tax dollars making their way out of the bigwig’s fattened pockets and into the war chest of the Democrat party? They hold the say in your bigwigs making/taking these big bonuses and “behold!” they are still happening in spite of the uber left defenders of the common American but this time DIRECTLY from your tax dollars! Where’s the outcry from the uber left Americans themselves on this occasion? The story is not that old nor should be the memory of all that righteous fervor in the last instance of the torch wielding masses marching to the castle chanting “Kill the beastly bigwig bonuses!”.

          • Key word there, representatives. The fact that they are Democrats should have very little to do with anything. Sure they campaigned on some things and so have some leeway there, but they need to REPRESENT their constituents. The one republican who voted for the house bill comes from a very democratic area. I applaud him for voting with his constituents over his party. I wish more congresspeople would do so.

            • He’s going to pay dearly next time he comes up for election..

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Or, since he is from a largely democratic area, he may well have saved his hide by voting for this bill.

              • Me thinks he’s going to find himself with a suspiciously well-funded primary challenger

              • And yet he is willing to vote with his people. I say that makes him a good representative whether or not he gets reelected. I wish more people would do what is right over what is politically expedient…

              • He wasn’t going to be reelected anyway…it was a total fluke that he was this time.

            • Plus, he himself has stated that he was promised many things from Obama for his support of this bill.

    • G-man…you are absolutly correct. When hospitals and Drs were forced to see patients that could not pay, the march for socialized medical care was on. Then it became necessary for people to eat although they did not work. They were given homes even though they could not pay. They were given an education even though they could not pay. It seems that in the 20th century it became important to give at the cost of banks, hospital, Drs, and tax payers. When does the madness stop? What kind of mentality gives us the right to say “some one else pays because they can afford it”. Nothing is free…someone pays the price…..we are very quickly coming to the point that no one can afford the price. As business is run out of business we get more and more poor because they can not find work, no work….no house, no food, no healthcare.
      We have allowed a very vicious circle to consume our country. Healthcare is not a right, property ownership is not a right, eating is not a right…..working to accomplish our wants is a right!
      Everyone needs to be on the phone, email or what ever it takes and making sure their Senators know the American people want no more government intrustion.

  2. I have a youtube clip i would like to post in here, and not really sure how its done so here is the link

    It is about the canadian health care system

    • VEEERY interesting video….but I am sure some will say it is biased. I recommend that everyone look at it and then decide. I have three friends in Canada and they come to the US private clinics because, according to them, they can find a doctor here.

      • I have a friend that married a Canadian and moved to Vancouver. He says the healthcare sucks.

        I have another friend that married a Canadian. Her dad is a gynecologist. He moved to the US to make money because in Canada’s system he could not. What is the motive for a doctor to work if they cannot make money for their specialization? The government dictating how much they will get compensated is not a good thing. This doctor said that he will retire if this system is put in place (and I suspect a lot of doctors would).

        I have another friend that married an Austrian while on duty in the army. Her mother wanted her to come back to Austria to have their baby so that it is Austrian. I am not quite sure what type of healthcare system they have but her opinion is that American hospitals are vastly superior.

        • Austria has a version of UHC like the rest of western europe. If they are anything like German hospitals they will be good. I have lived in the US, Canada and the UK and there was not that much difference in the quality of care. Although I must say in the UK I have always been able to have same day doctors appointments which I was not able to do in the US or Canada.

        • I’ve stated before some instances of health care in Canada versus the US. I won’t restate them here, but my experiences tell me their system is far inferior to the US even with the state it is in now.

    • No need for any “I have a friend rhetoric”! The hospitals in Alberta are great with little waiting and seriously good South African doctors as I can see a specialist there tomorrow if I need to. I would put Manitoba next as its a good system and “yes Virginia” you can get a bone scan in 2 days. Saskatchewan is merely “OK” and hamstrung by unionism with unfortunately more politicians having their fingers into things than they should but I can still see my GP within 2 days for most things and in 30 minutes if its an emergency. From what I’ve been told though, we’re far better than BC’s overrun system of even higher yet salaries to match a staggering living cost and emergency services buried under an avalanche of drug addicts. Ontario is definitely better than BC and if you’re lucky enough to have a parent working in the government machine itself, move to the head of the line because its “Game on!”. Quebec is what it is. They are a take-take-take province with more subsidization’s and government handouts across the spectrum than the real France. Little wonder they are in the back of the pack with GPs. The rest of the country has nothing left for them to fill their tin cup from and you’ll not see a single tear shed west of the Ontario-Manitoba border for them having to do with taking less from the rest of us. A little guesstimation on my part but I’d expect your California to be Quebec on a steroids & PCP cocktail.

      For the most part we indeed do fine with Uni-health but we also WANT A PRIVATE OPTION TOO! We don’t mind crossing the border so if you guys are dumping yours, can we have some of it? Just saying its better to not waste it but to think of it as recycling if that makes it go down easier. We won’t need any of the insurance companies though as when its our arse on the line, Alan and the rest of those Canadian capitalist bastards pay in cashy money and in whatever currency desired. Oh and I do believe very much that after all I’ve done for the unwashed masses, I’m not paying for their access to ANY private doctoring.

  3. Good Morning, everyone.

    I think that the H1N1 scare and the resulting vaccine issues are a great look at what public health care will be. I have seen nothing rationing from the very people that said it would not be. Long lines (wait times up to 12 hours or more) no promised vaccine, shortages, the Obama administration and their Wall Street bailout junkies getting it before the public and no wait lines for them…. this is just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing has changed in the “hope and change” crowd except control of power. There is no vaccine available at the VA clinics nor the VA hospital. Welcome to National Health. Long lines, no product, and the privileged are still privileged.

    I cannot say it any more simple. Health Care is a product of the privilege for living free….so far. You are free to pursue it but you are not ENTITLED to it. That simple.


  4. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    A right is absolute. You either have it or you don’t. No calculation is necessary to determine “how much” of a right you have. (Such calculation sometimes BECOMES necessary to determine how much of a right the government has TAKEN AWAY from you, but that is all).

    Healthcare can not be a right. No matter how much healthcare you receive, there is no amount of healthcare that will 100% insure your survival 100% of the time. Life has a 100% mortality rate. Eventually, you are gonna die no matter what anyone does.

    Because healthcare involves calculations, it cannot be a right.

    You have a right to life, but you have the responsibility to do what you can to maintain that life. Just because you are alive does not make it SOMEONE ELSE’S responsibility to ensure that you stay that way. Hopefully your parents take care of that until you reach adulthood, but once you reach adulthood, you are on your own as far as making sure you stay alive, unless someone CHOOSES to help you in matters related to maintaining your life.

    As soon as you force someone else to be responsible for the maintenance of your life, you have violated someone else’s rights. Because “universal healthcare” cannot be accomplished unless you violate people’s fundamental rights, healthcare cannot be a right.

    Not very complicated.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      You are correct insofar as you are discussing natural rights. There rights are inalienable, universal, and ‘natural’ in the sense that they do not derive from any government.

      But there are also civil (or statutory) rights. These are rights that are conveyed by a polity to its citizens. You cannot deny the existence of civil rights in our country. For instance, you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. You have the right to vote. These are not natural rights, but they are rights you have nonetheless.

      The right to adequate, affordable, accessible health care may or may not be on par with these other rights – that we can debate. However, just because something is not a natural right does not mean that it cannot be a right at all.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Civil rights are basically the right of one citizen to be treated equally as any other citizen. There is no need for “Civil” rights, because if government did not interfere in Natural Rights, no one would be threatening to use force or actually using force to restrict the rights of anyone.

        Government CANNOT grant rights, and it never will grant rights. Government can only attempt to restrict the rights which we all have, which are unalienable.

        In attempting to give “universal healthcare”, the government is using force or the threat of force to make me pay for something that someone else wants. This is government attempting to limit my right to be free.

        Therefore, it is not governmental “creation of a right”. It is government using force to attempt to restrict an unalienable right which I have which did not derive from any government.

        One “right” cannot directly contradict another. All rights must be consistent and must come from natural rights. What you seem to be saying is that a “right” which is derived from a government (making the ridiculous assumption that such a thing is even possible) trumps our Natural Rights. Such a thing is an impossibility, because Natural Rights are unalienable.

        Government “rights” almost always attempt to restrict Natural Rights, therefore nearly all government “rights” cannot BE rights.

        The only time a government “right” is valid is when it directly flows from a Natural Right, without contradicting any Natural Rights. Some government laws ARE actually valid, because some government laws flow directly from natural rights. Most government laws are invalid, because most are a restriction on unalienable natural rights.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Peter Said: “Government CANNOT grant rights, and it never will grant rights. Government can only attempt to restrict the rights which we all have, which are unalienable.”

          I am assuming you view anything that is a right – to be a natural right. That would be incorrect. You are right that any natural right cannot be granted by the government – you should acknowledge that in fulfillment and protection of those rights, our government should play a role at the will of her people.

          The focus on Healthcare as a right (It is) should be from a legal and social rights perspective – in here I agree with Madison that many of our rights extend from the social contract we have with our government. It is why, for example, that I would not advocate the current reform bill. I am an advocate of single payer and do not believe there needed to be any foolish, facewashing supposed bi-partisan dialogue for this (don’t be fooled into thinking Grassley or anyone else EVER intended to be bi-partisan).

          • Ray:

            Madison’s grand experiment at mixing the two types of rights got us to where we are today.

            You can not simply take a step back and expect a different outcome.

            If you cherish freedom and liberty you must turn away from this philosophy.

            Madison proved there is no third way. His root grew to a stem that merged with the Statist branch. If we are to learn from history then we should know this, you can not expect a different outcome if you try to mix the two concepts.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              You’ll ignore an entire body of legal and social rights that protect your natural rights? Astonishing.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                There ARE NOT and there CANNOT BE any “legal and social rights” which are CONTRADICTORY to Natural Rights.

                If someone CLAIMS a “right” which contradicts NATURAL RIGHTS indeed exists, you would do very well to ignore them.

                If the government wishes to codify certain “rights” which flow freely from Natural Rights, then fine.

              • Ray:

                What Madison tried to mix were the two distinct philosophical concepts of negative rights and positive rights.

                By asserting that certain rights come from the laws made by govt he opened the door to the concept that rights come from govt.

                I am stating that the mixing of negative and positive rights in the form of govt will eventually lead to statism, regardless of any and all attempts to stop it.

                I am also stating that the concept of positive rights leads to statism as well. It just gets you there much quicker.

                The protection of our natural rights by means of govt law making was not required and may still not be required. Remember, common law/natural law, was a very accepted concept in those days. The undermining of common law was in fact a major concern expressed by the anti-federalists.

                They feared the passage of laws to “protect” or “codify” common law would eventually lead to all laws being considered “statutory” or “given by govt”.

                As I said so many months ago. We are reliving the same debates that occurred in the late 1700’s. At their core, there is very little that is new. Some have found better and more eloguent ways to make their points but the core issues remain pretty much the same.

                I believe the debate has increased these past decades because the basic “compromise” reached between the two philosophies, when they ratified the Constitution, was violated when the traditional “progressive movement” got control of govt.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Your premise, “The focus on Healthcare as a right (It is) should be from a legal and social rights perspective…” is a fallacy, and therefore I need not argue further against it.

            In order for it to be necessary for me to argue against it, I would have to agree that your (It is) was valid, which it is not.

      • Buck and Peter:

        Buck, you can not mix the two types of rights when discussing those rights presented by Peter.

        Peter, you can not discount Bucks claim when discussing rights as presented by Buck.

        The reason?

        You both are arguing from different roots of the tree. Two distinct philosophies that are hundreds of years old.

        One root (Peter’s) leads to Liberty and Individual Freedom. It is the root that our founders relied on mostly. Unfortunately not entirely and thus building a contradiction into our founding.

        The other root (Buck’s) leads to Statism. Which type is of no matter to those who charish Liberty. But is is Statism non the less.

        These two roots do not grow together and are incompatible. You can not accept inalienable rights and then add on that rights are conveyed by govt. If govt conveys any rights, then it conveys them all.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          I do not believe they are completely incompatible views. The Founding Fathers after all did recognize the existence of a social contract and certain civil rights.

          There is though an inherent conflict between the two.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The inherent conflict between the two is that by mixing them you have created unaviodable contradictions.

            If one thing contradicts another, they cannot both be true.

            Also, there can be no such thing as an enforcible “social contract”.

            You cannot hold anyone to a contract who does not agree to said contract. When it comes to a “social contract” I do not recall ever signing one, do you?

        • Both “roots” lead to bizarre and unacceptable extremes, thus a mix is required.

          I can think of no one who better exemplifies your root than our resident pirate friend, but according to his own logic, he would be morally prohibited from intervening to stop the rape of a child, even if it was happening right in front of him.

          At the extreme of my “root,” you find communist statist insanity, where the means of all production and the fruits of all labor belong to the government to distribute “fairly.”

          I think we can all get together and agree that neither of this is correct. So how can you write off my whole tree?

          The truth is that Newtonian physics does not explain the entire universe, nor does Einsteinian. So we need a GUT or morality. Until then, we will have to accept that neither side holds a monopoly on truth.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            No Mathius,

            Both roots do NOT lead to unacceptable extremes.

            One root leads to a series of contradictions, the other root does not.

            You have choosen the root which leads to a series of contradictions, but you either fail to see the contradictions, or you use false “morality” to convince yourself that these contradictions are, in fact, ok.

            I am actively trying to choose the root which eliminates contradictions. It is by far a harder path to follow, because we have become so accustomed to contradictions that many of us have been convinced that these contradictions are somehow NECESSARY.

            Contradiction is a source of evil. Evil is NOT necessary. Statists will use the term “necessary evil” very often, because it is impossible for them to eliminate the contradictions given the root that they have choosen.

            • Pete,

              If I started with a faulty premise (and I do not stipulate this), then my conclusions could be internally consistent.

              If I say that 1=2 and proceed to do all kinds of math with that premise, I’ll get strange and wrong results, but nothing contradictory.

              The reasons for our “necessary evils” are because we do not with to compromise and accept the negative illogical extremes of our world view. You choose to accept these, and say that the consistency means they aren’t evil. We see the evil and say screw the consistency.

              We know that we haven’t figured out the perfect system, and are willing to do the best we can with what we have. You believe (falsely) that you have the perfect belief system and are willing to follow it off of a cliff.

              A thought experiment. Imagine that, using sound logic and reasoning, I were able to follow your “root” to the conclusion that you are morally obligated to kill yourself. (Yes, I know, this runs contrary to your beliefs that you should be obligated to do anything, but go with it). If the inescapable conclusion was that you had to kill yourself, would you still consider that it the correct thing to do because it was consistent with your root belief? You would, I think, but we would not.

              It is the difference between a religious belief and a scientific one. You say “I know the truth, and I can follow it to the answers. And whatever those answers are, they must be correct regardless.” I say “I do not know the truth. I have a good starting place. If I find something that is wrong, I will endeavor to change my “root” theory to better reflect the truth.” One is rigid, one is not.

              • Matt:

                Here is what I see as one of the flaws in your “reasoning”:

                “If I say that 1=2 and proceed to do all kinds of math with that premise, I’ll get strange and wrong results, but nothing contradictory.”

                You see, if you are getting “strange and wrong results” that is evidence of a premise that is in “contradiction” with reality. It is proof of contradiction.

                When BF, Peter or I discuss the need to be consistent with the laws of the universe or nature it is consistencey with reality that we are talking about.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “A thought experiment. Imagine that, using sound logic and reasoning, I were able to follow your “root” to the conclusion that you are morally obligated to kill yourself.”

                Your thought experiment is completely illogical, because my root could never be follwed to your conclusion, so why should I participate in a thought experiment based upon a fallacy?

          • Matt:

            You have once again mis-stated our Pirates stated position, which I share.

            “he would be morally prohibited from intervening to stop the rape of a child, even if it was happening right in front of him.”

            He has never, I have never, and Peter has never stated that we would be “morally prohibited” from intervening.

            What we have consistently said is that we “are NOT morally obligated” to intervene.

            There is a huge difference here. Your continued misrepresentation of this fact is leading me to believe you may be dishonest in your discourse here.

            • Matt:

              To continue, the other point we have made is that we are morally obligated to protect and care for our families.

              If intervening in any event on the behalf of another would carry a large chance of violating that prior obligation then we would not intervene in a way that jeopardizes our families safety.

              That does not mean you do absolutely nothing does it?

              • I recognize the need (overriding obligation) to care for ones family.

                In this particular discussion, that was not of concern. Further, yes, you would be morally obligated to stop a rape of a child. Though one could reasonably make a case for needing to live to provide for your family as a possible override, but absent that, you do have an moral duty to act.

                Therein, again, lies the difference. We see untenable positions and revise our stance, you accept them. But you would choose to act anyway because you know it to be the right thing to do. We would choose to act for the same reason. Regardless of theories.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “you do have an moral duty to act.”

                No Mathius,

                Even in the case of a child being raped, and even if I HAVE NO FAMILY TO SUPPORT, I STILL HAVE NO MORAL DUTY TO ACT.

                My FIRST moral duty is to ensure MY OWN SURVIVAL.

                If I deem that my own survival is REASONABLY SECURE, then I CAN CHOOSE TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD.

              • Matt:

                Why we act as we do is of paramount importance.

                Because the rationale we use for one action will be used for some other with different implications.

                I we act, as you state, our of “moral obligation” then we are accepting the premise that the life of another is more valuable than our own.

                This in turn leads to acceptance of a political philosophy that the good of the many is more important than that of any individual.

                This in turn leads to an ethic that rationalized the murder or enslavement of some for the good of the many.

              • Children are being raped all the time, why aren’t you out stopping them? What does actually witnessing the crime have to do with your moral obligation to step in?

                You live in a pretty dangerous city where lots of bad things happen all the time. I bet you could even find a particular location where you could witness certain things happening regularly. So why aren’t you out there stopping it, since you have a moral obligation to do so by your own argument?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              The root of freedom states that if I see a child being raped, I most certainly CAN INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THAT CHILD, BECAUSE THE RIGHTS OF THAT CHILD ARE BEING VIOLATED.

              However, simply because I CAN intervene, does not mean that I MUST intervene.

              I must JUDGE whether my intervention would pose a direct threat to MY OWN WELL-BEING.

              If I judge intervention to be too much of a threat to my own well-being, that would jeopardize my RESPONSIBILITY to provide for myself and for my family.

              Therefore, the CHOICE I make whether to intervene in the situation or not involves my own judgement as to whether the benefit of intervening in the situation outweighs the risk.

              To state that the position of freedom is that I cannot or must not intervene in a situation like a child being raped is a completely ridiculous as well as dishonest position to take.

              If you think that that actually IS my position (or JAC’s or BF’s), either you cannot read, you are SERIOUSLY misinformed, or you are intentionally mis-stating our postition for your own gain.

              • No, my point is actually the opposite. I think, when pushed into the extremes, your premise fails you. I do not believe that you, JAC, Flag, or anyone else here, for that matter, would fail to act in this situation.

                But he argued this point exactly. He does not have the moral authority to intervene to stop a heinous act of which he is not a victim.

                My point is that you cannot blindly follow a premise which you accept as true without regards for where it takes you. In this situation, though Flag made a very good and internally consistent case, I believe every single one of you would violate the “moral” rules and intervene. This is what we liberals do constantly – we see conclusion which are not correct and we reject them. We prune our logic tree, whereas you choose not to do so until you reach a very severe point where you know that the position is no longer tenable.

              • Read below, Matt – an exercise of rights never contradicts itself.

                Why you are confused on this matter is you are searching for YOUR RIGHT to act – where none can exist.

                Because you are starting in ‘the middle’ of the argument and not from a core premise, you will ALWAYS end up with a perverse, convoluted justification to violate rights for you to act in a manner you believe is moral.

                In your rush, you also end up justifying high crimes, terror, and horrific violence upon innocent people as well.

              • Matt:

                “This is what we liberals do constantly – we see conclusion which are not correct and we reject them.”

                Then please tell me why the “modern liberals” have not rejected the socialist or mercantilist or fascist model?

                The Liberal always concludes that if we just had a little more power, a little more control, a little more…………………. then it would work.

                Marxism was a good idea it was just corrupted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, …………….

                Socialism was a good idea it was just corrupted by the politician who let the corporations get control. We just need a little more ………….control.

                Statism is the opposite of Freedom. Therefore it fails freedom.

                Statism is about controlled and planned economies. Controlled and planned economies have failed to provide lasting prosperity and violate the economics of a free people. Therefore it fails economic reality.

                Modern Liberals = Statism

                If your claim were true then Modern Liberals would abandon their Statist dogma and convert to one of Liberty first and always.

            • He has said that in our discussion the other day. He declared that it is not his right. As much as he may wish to intervene, it is not his right to do so.

              Mathius: “Will the representative from the pirate cave please give a direct answer? Yes or no, do you believe that you would be ethical in not forcefully stopping your neighbor from beating and raping his young daughter if he will not listen to reason?”

              Flag: (among other things) “It is not my right. It is the child’s right. Do you understand this, so far?” […] “She MAY BE DOOMED to suffer and no amount of destroying people’s rights can change that.”


              Next time I suggest you ask me for citations before you accuse me of dishonesty.

              • Matt:

                You are still being dishonest. Either with me or yourself. On the other hand perhaps it is confusion.

                Ethics is not the same as morality and you stated above that there was a “moral obligation” to NOT intervene.

                Please explain how you get that conclusion from the statement made by BF regarding a child’s rights and that it is not his “right” to intervene.

                I think you are confusing a couple of different concepts here.

              • His statement that he lacks the right was based off his belief that to impose violence on another person (regardless of their actions, unless it threatens him) is morally prohibited. Thus, though he (the neighbor) acts immorally and evilly, he (flag) cannot morally act with violence. I’m all ears, tell me what I’m missing.

                Going to lunch for a bit, so take your time. I really do look forward to clearing this up if I have it wrong.

              • Matt – I will clear up this for you.

                1) I have no obligation to act. Period. An obligation to act involuntarily is slavery.

                2)It is not morally prohibited to act. The only immoral actions is the demand for me to act. (see #1)

                3) I have no right to act.

                4) The girl DOES have a right to act. She is being imposed upon.

                5) Any right can be delegated to anyone – she can delegate HER right to act TO ME – and then I can act in her defense, based on HER DELEGATION.

                6) If she refused to delegate her self-defense, I have no right to act.

                7) An act of delegation requires agreement of both parties – I can refuse the delegation and not act.

                Hope that clears up the hows and whys and whens of rightful action in this example.

              • PS: It does not matter how perverse or how minor an imposition may be – the right to act, delegation and voluntary nature remains the same – immutable.

                This is a test to know if you got it right – the intensity of the situation does not change the logic and the reasoning and the right.

                Like gravity – it matters not how important it may be to fall or not – gravity remains the same.

              • Matt:

                Hope your lunch was tasty.

                I did not get the same thing from the discussion between you the other day.

                Perhaps I misunderstood because I was privy to many other such discussions with BF.

                So perhaps it is best if he clarifies the situation.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “Flag: (among other things) “It is not my right. It is the child’s right. Do you understand this, so far?” […] “She MAY BE DOOMED to suffer and no amount of destroying people’s rights can change that.”

                You are wrong again Mathius, what Black Flag stated here is PATENTLY TRUE.

                It is not HIS RIGHT to intervene. Therefore he has NO OBLIGATION to intervene.

                IF HE CHOOSES TO INTERVENE, it is because he is intervening ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD.

                I know that even after that explanation, you still won’t get it, but whatever.

                What you MUST understand is that when someone else’s rights are being violated, you CAN INTERVENE ON THEIR BEHALF, and BF said nothing in his quote to contradict that.

                He said that it was not his RIGHT, and he is absolutely correct.

                If a child is being raped, it is HER RIGHT.

                You obviously still don’t understand that part.

                There is NO “moral obligation” to intervene on her behalf.

                The specific question you asked was, “do you believe that you would be ethical in not forcefully stopping your neighbor from beating and raping his young daughter if he will not listen to reason?”

                He didn’t really provide you with a direct answer to that question, because you did not make it clear that you understood whose rights were being violated in the situation which you described. So, even though you requested a clear and direct answer, you didn’t get one 🙂

          • Matt, your analogy fails.

            As I pointed out in my guest post, you fundamentally believe that human action can be described by formula – like physics.

            Whereas Newtonian physics (called Classic physics) wholly explains the macro physical world very successfully, there exists no economic theory of formula that explains human action at all.

            You cannot describe a chaotic system to be definitive. Like climate science and turbulence, the human equation solution is simply another chaotic equation – infinitely complex. These type of equations are called “Navier-Stokes equations” – the answer to these equations is another Navier-Stokes equation. This is the closest the physics world comes to an equivalent on economics – and it isn’t even close at all.

            Interference in the actions of free men will only create corruption of the system. This will, of course, cause you to claim more interference is necessary – which will only lead to a worsening of the corruption. You will continue to advocate for more interference until the totality of tyranny exists – while facing, simultaneously, a wholly corrupted system.

  5. v. Holland says:

    I think as a society which was founded on freedom of religion but with Christian values used as the basis of our laws-we as a society decided that health care was a moral obligation. One can argue whether this is right or not but it is what we have done thus far. Unfortunately people are trying to turn that moral obligation into a right by trying to include health insurance which only deals with the prosperity of some, not with survival.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      V. Holland,

      It is a typical Statist trick to try to convince the populace that something is a “moral obligation” when the Statists themselves have essentially no morals. Beware of such arguments from the government.

      Left-Statist: “We must have universal healthcare because we are a nation founded on Christian values and healthcare for all is a moral obligation!”

      Left-Statist: “America is not fundamentally a Christian nation.”

      See any contradiction in those 2 statements?

      Statists will talk out of whichever side of their mouth is convenient, depending on who the audience is. Change the audience, and they change their tune completely.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        I also see universal healthcare as a moral issue – but it is not Christian values that have influenced my views; it is my secular humanist values.

        Now I can say that America is not fundamentally a Christian nation without fear of contradiction.

        • Buck:

          My poor youngun, you have stepped in your own pile I fear.

          You see “universal healthcare” which actually means “govt provided healthcare” is in fact a contradiction to what “you claim to be”.

          From our friends at Wiki:

          Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives. The term “secular humanism” was coined in the 20th century, and was adopted by non-religious humanists in order to make a clear distinction from “religious humanism”. Secular humanism is also called “scientific humanism”. Biologist E. O. Wilson claimed it to be “the only worldview compatible with science’s growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature”.[1]

          Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[2]
          • Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
          • Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
          • Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
          • Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
          • This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
          • Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
          • Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

          Take special notice of the one labled ethics. Note it says “enhance human well-being AND individual responsibility” not INSTEAD OF.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Ah but I am a secular humanist. All you can do is point out that ‘Ethics’ entails a commitment to enhancing human well-being and individual responsibility. You simply decide that providing universial healthcare is incompatible with individual responsibility. I say it is not.

            Also, if I were to use Wikipedia to post a spreadsheet of fundamental Christian values I am sure there would be plenty of inconsistencies. Not the best source for your point.

            • Buck:

              If you don’t like the Wiki definition then provide one that you think is more accurate.

              Not exactly sure why you brought the Christian thing up again.

              I also challenge you to show us how “government provided” healthcare is consistent with “individual responsibility” as it is used by “secular humanists”.

              By the way, Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have been called “secular humnanists” by some of their detractors. Somehow I don’t think your philosophy matches up well with theirs.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I don’t think I was the one to bring up Christian values here, though if I was it wasn’t meant to be derogatory at all.

                I was merely trying to point out that there is no inconsistency in finding universal healthcare a moral obligation and positing that the US is not fundamentally a Christian nation. I’m personally going to pass judgment on that latter point for now.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              A true Secular Humanist believes that EVERY INDIVIDUAL should work for the betterment of humanity.

              You sound more like a Governmental Humanist who believes that the government should FORCE every individual to work for the betterment of humanity, whether a givin individual wishes to or not.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Yes, every individual should work for the betterment of humanity.

                I believe the betterment of humanity is served, in part, by ensuring everyone has adequate, accessible, and affordable health care.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                It is a laudible GOAL that everyone have access to quality, affordable healthcare.

                However, by what right do you claim the authority to FORCE me to pay for YOUR healthcare?

              • Buck

                Could you spend 5 minutes give me your economic theory that can explain how you can provide an economic good below its deliverable cost to “everyone”, and it not have it exhausted to collapse?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                BF, I don’t pretend to have anywhere near a grasp on economic theory as you do.

                Clearly though, it would be impossible to provide any good below its deliverable cost without either: (a) coming up with the shortfall or (b) lowering its deliverable cost.

                Why not (B)?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                (B) is a great idea, but even you will probably admit that the current legislation will do nothing to accomplish (B)

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I’m not certain on that one. I know part of the idea behind the public option is to have more leverage in lowering the cost. Will it be effective? Or better yet, how effective will it be? I don’t know.

              • When we ‘don’t know’, delay is far better than error.

                How do you believe you can ‘leverage’ a lower price?

                Why do you believe a larger buying power will lower a price?

                (Again, sorry for the questions)

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Don’t be sorry for the questions; its part of debate.

                One example of a larger buying power lowers price first in the sense of buying wholesale vs. retail. Also, a larger buying power has more power to point out inflated prices to begin with and refuse to pay for those inflated costs.

    • If I have a moral obligation….it is mine alone. If I choose to administer to the poor that is my choice. No one has the right to inforce a moral obligation on another. If I feel a moral obligation to feed or house the poor that is my obligation, not yours. If I force someone to to adhere to my obligation then we are no longer free…..I have no right to force another to adhere to my way of thinking.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        But you could attempt to claim the right to do so if you were a “government”.

      • Amazed:

        What you say is true. But let me ask you this.

        Wouldn’t it be better and more rewarding to you if you did it out of pleasure rather than a sense of “moral obligation”???

        Perhaps you don’t see a difference but I do. Because the sense of “moral obligation” eventually leads down the path of someone obligating someone else. At least that has been our history so far.

        I will grant this. If we could resurrect the American based on Liberty then it really would not matter what you motivation, as long as you did not impose on me.

        Hows that for an uncompromising compromise?

        Hope all is well with you today.

        • Yeah JAC I see your point I was thinking more along the lines of the motivation for the moral obligation. Even with the moral obligation I would not do it if it gave me no pleasure……I like making people happy.

      • I actually agree that morality whatever you base it on is an individual responsibility but when we are talking about a society with many individuals with many different ideas then you are going to have laws that not everyone agrees with because society as a whole, not individuals make the laws. So we say no one has the right to take from me to give to someone else at the same time we are saying but I don’t mind helping the truly needy. Per BF-a contradiction–per Vicki Society can’t be formed with ONLY freedom as the measuring stick, morality however the individuals in said society define it, also comes into play. I personally don’t want to live in a society that allows people to die on the streets without at least trying to help-but as a person who also greatly values freedom I don’t believe it should go past providing health care not health insurance and I believe charity should be used instead of the government unless it is proven that charity won’t work.

        • V. Holland

          Why can’t a diverse group of people with different ideas create a society?

          Everyone except masochists reject anyone else attacking them. This is universal – throughout all cultures across the whole world across all history. What is the mystery here? Why so confused to believe that society of diverse ideas cannot include this?

          You are still hung up in creating “laws” to enforce your morals upon non-violent people. As long as you hold this thread of action upon non-violent people, you will have tryanny over you too.

          • I’m not hung up BF, I just acknowledge that humans base their ideas on more than just freedom and as a society we don’t agree. Forming a society based on the ideal of freedom isn’t simple because humans aren’t simple, we are walking contradictions.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              You don’t have to be “simple” in order to avoid being a “walking contradiction”. However, you must WORK to eliminate the internal contradictions within yourself. They do not actually belong there.

              Until you eliminate your own contradictions, you will certainly not undertand how it would be possible to eliminate contradictions from society.

              • v. Holland says:

                Peter I suspect that there are a lot of people who simply don’t agree that what is by definition a contradiction in relationship to freedom is necessarily a contradiction in relationship to what is right. I want freedom but I am willing to give up a small amount of my freedom in order to allow people to go to the hospital if they are sick and cannot get help any other way-I acknowledge that this is a contradiction to the ideas of freedom if the government is used to accomplish this help. I acknowledge that this opens a door where people who believe that we should not only keep people from dying but basically support them in their every need, which I am strongly against but what can I say I don’t believe my individual freedom is all that’s important. I’m not convinced that the government is needed to accomplish people not dying on the street but I am honest enough to admit that if it is the only way I am okay with it.

              • V.H.

                You are correct in that most in modern society, hell most for some time now, do not operate from a singular base principle of freedom. I submit to you that is why we have so little freedom left.

                Once you, or a majority of yous, give the govt the authority to take care of these poor folks who can’t get medical care, how do you stop govt from going past that point?

                Remember what Social Security was supposed to be?
                How about Medicare and Medicaid?

                This all started with a bunch of men who thought they needed to give the Federal govt the authority to regulate commerce between the states. Why? To use the federal power to prevent trade wars between the states. Seems like a pretty simple concept doesn’t it.

                And look where it got us.

                That is why you must avoid giving the govt authority, and thus the power, to act to remedy what we percieve and inequities in results of economic health.

                Charity is the answer and it must be the only option. Freedom is not in contradiction with morality. There is no reason to give up ANY freedom to accomplish moral purposes.

              • v. Holland says:

                I do agree with you JAC in principal-I suppose the reason I keep bringing up morality is because I think most people have their own definition of what that is and they will ALWAYS use it as a measure of what we should do as a society-I think your following statement is what most people need to be convinced of if we are going to recover or at least retain the freedoms we have: “Freedom is not in contradiction with morality. There is no reason to give up ANY freedom to accomplish moral purposes.”

                Just using freedom as our arguing point without including society’s moral concerns won’t work. People will just keep believing that freedom is a contradiction to morality. We spend so much time saying people are just lazy or unwilling to take care of themselves that people ignore our arguments for freedom.

              • V.H.

                I appreciate your points.

                I will try to address these in one or more articles soon.

                We need to get this part anchored so we can get on with the political reconstruction.

                Moral base first.

              • I repeat JAC, V. Holland.

                You are not only willing to give up your freedom for something – but worse, you are willing to give up my freedom too, without my permission, and with force.

                You rage against your loss of freedom – yet remain steadfast in surrendering it.

                How in this universe do you believe you can reconcile such a contradiction?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “I want freedom but I am willing to give up a small amount of my freedom in order to allow people to go to the hospital if they are sick and cannot get help any other way-I acknowledge that this is a contradiction to the ideas of freedom if the government is used to accomplish this help.”

                If you wish to freely donate of your time or money so that other people who could not ordinarily afford to go to the hospital can, in fact, go, there is no contradiction there to freedom and liberty.

                If you wish for “government” to provide this service, as long as my choice to pay for the service or NOT pay for the service is voluntary, that would also not be contradictory.

                The contradiction arises when you say that it is ok for the government to REQUIRE that you or I pay for other people to go to the hospital, and threatens us with “penalties” if we do not do what they are forcing us to do.

                Some people seem to think that the only way to get people to provide money for other people to go to the hospital is to FORCE people to “give” money. Forced “giving” is not “giving” it is theft.

                Usually honey is a better incentive than vinegar.

                The government would probably be surprised at how many people would VOLUNTARILY provide money for just such a cause.

              • v. Holland says:

                Obviously, I am doing a poor job of it but I am trying to make a point-that people will always use their definition of morality or right and wrong to decide what is okay for society to do through the government, whether it is a contradiction or not and we must take that fact into consideration when we are fighting for freedom. People will even let one moral value trump another moral value-which is why even though I agree with everything you both say in the above two reply’s -I still can have a BUT- (it’s wrong to let people die in the street). I don’t have the answer but I feel that somehow we are not giving the fact that man doesn’t only use freedom as a basis for determining governments place in society enough credence in the discussions of politics.

              • First, helping people – that is a question of ethics – not of rights.

                It is when those two get muddled that suddenly we empower tyranny.

                We must know the line.

                Because it is ethics and not rights doesn’t mean you suddenly become a robotic, compassionate human.

                It means you are not obligated to help.

                There will always be people we cannot save – we must also have the right to know when or when not to intervene.

                When we abdicate that choice to an entity of evil, we only empower evil with our compassion.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The other thing that we MUST realize is that if it is indeed a “moral obligation” to make sure that everyone has universal healthcare, then it MUST be applied to EVERYONE, regardless of where lines are drawn upon a map.

      If I supposedly have a moral obligation to help to provide YOU with healthcare, it does not matter whether the YOU in question resides in Idaho or in Somalia.

      So, do any of you think you have a moral obligation to provide healthcare for me, simply because I live in the same country as you, but you do NOT have a moral obligation to provide healthcare for someone else merely because they live outside of some arbitrary lines drawn on a map?

      Do you have a moral obligation to provide healthcare for me, simply because I am a citizen of the same country as you, but you do NOT have a moral obligation to provide healthcare for someone else who happens to be in this country but NOT be a citizen?

      The standard for rights is that they must apply to EVERYONE, not merely everyone that happens to be citizens of a particular country denoted by arbitrary lines on a map. True “universal” healthcare would have to BE UNIVERSAL. All human beings on the planet would have to have absolutely equal access.

      I cannot think of any way of achieving that that would not be a universal violation of Natural Rights.

      We tend to be very narrow-minded when it comes to discussions of rights, priveledges, and the like. We tend to think that they only apply to us within our own country, defined by our own borders. This MAY be true for priveledges, but it is not true for REAL rights.

  6. Kristian Stout says:

    Just real quick, and I don’t mean to nit pick but this is a pet peeve, irregardless is not a word and even if it were it would be seriously redundant. It’s just regardless. Sorry 🙂

    • THANK YOU!!!

      You have no idea how badly I wanted to say that, too.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Irregardless is one of the few examples of a “word” in the english language which is itself a double-negative (hence the reason why it isn’t actually a word). 🙂

      Regardless is good, irrespective is good. Irregardless is UGH!

      • LOL….double negative, does that make it a positive?????

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Technically yes.

          If you say that you are not not going to do something, I expect you to do it! 🙂

          • So do two wrongs make a right?

            And here’s some math you’ll like: Three lefts make a one right.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Three lefts make a right.

              A negative multiplied by a negative makes a positive.

              A wrong multiplied by another wrong makes something REALLY REALLY wrong!


            • 3 lefts only make a right if the sum of the angle traveled is greater than 180 degrees. Likewise a really long left can make a right. If a person was so inclined.

            • Actually Matt three lefts makes a circle.

      • Irregardless of the term”irregardless” and it’s double negative reasoning, I would expect people to use the term irregardless….irregardless of the meaning of it.

        From: The Department of Redundancy Department.


        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          “Avoid redundancy by not repeating yourself.”

          From the department of redundancy department.

    • Irregardless of it being a word or not people are going to use it.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        And according to the liberal argument, since people are going to do it anyway, it must be ok!

        • Wow, that’s not even in the ballpark of the “liberal argument,” but thanks for trying…

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Yes, that actually HAS been used by liberals to make an argument.

            For example:

            “Even if you make abortion illegal, women are going to get abortions anyway, so it is better for them to be legal.”

            Perfect example of that exact argument, yes?

            • I see where you’re going with that one, but it’s only halfway there.. I award you partial credit.

              The argument goes like this: We do not believe abortion is immoral, but we cannot convince them on the merits, nor can they convince us on the merits because we are starting from different points. Thus we will try an efficacy argument.

              Outlawing abortion does not cut down on abortion. It simply drives the women into back alley clinics. This results in the same number of “child deaths,” but substantially more deaths for the (formerly) pregnant women. Thus, the only thing this law does is kill women, so we should not pass it.

              Also, I saw the statements above on our other discussion, but I just got back from lunch to a pile of work on my desk. I will try to pick it back up later today. In the mean time, happy hunting 🙂

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “The argument goes like this: We do not believe abortion is immoral, but we cannot convince them on the merits, nor can they convince us on the merits because we are starting from different points. Thus we will try an efficacy argument.”

                Yes, I see that. If you cannot convince someone of your argument using one tactic, it is not that the argument itself is faulty, it is simply that the TACTIC was faulty!

                Now I am getting it! 🙂

              • Buck The Wala says:

                But the argument in itself is not faulty. As Matt has posited: the reason for the inability to reach agreement on this issue is that ‘we are starting from different points’.

                If we are starting from different points, it is only logical to attempt a different argument.

                Matt, I hope I am giving your argument justice.

              • But what is your root premise of such argument?

                Starting in the middle only confuses your reasoning.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                I see what you are saying, and it probably is akin to what Mathius would say as well.

                However, the argument that it is the woman’s body and she can do with it as she pleases doesn’t actually hold water.

                Because of what the woman chose to do with her body, she now has a resident within her body which is no longer just “her”. Her duty is to protect that resident that is completely dependent on her body for its survival from any harm.

                Now, if you want to argue that if the woman was raped the new resident in her body is not there by her choice, then I would most likely agree with you there.

                However, if she CHOSE to have sex, even with birth control, she is either (A) a complete idiot or (B) knew full-well that there was a risk that she would get pregnant anyway, and yet she chose to take that risk.

                A 2-month old is certainly capable of life outside of the womb, but it is still completely dependent upon the parents for its survival.

                Two months after conception, a fetus is NOT capable of life outside of the womb, but it is still very much alive.

                Why is it NOT acceptable to kill the 2-month old baby, and yet it IS acceptable to kill the fetus that is 2 months past conception?

                The only difference is one lives outside of the mother but inside of your house, while the other lives INSIDE of the mother and inside of your house.

                Other than that, there is no difference.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                You are perfectly correct IF your premise is that the fetus is a living human being.

                I don’t accept that premise. But I believe that is a debate for another day.

              • Not “living” (therefore dead)

                Not “human” – begs the question, then what, a dog?

                Not “being”, thus imaginary???

                This will be interesting….

      • Kristian Stout says:

        I think I’m gonna be sick if I see that word anymore! 😉

        • Kristian:

          That is why I never brought up the subject many months ago.

          This crowd is far to clever and fun loving to let it slide.

          But I bet you have started something that will last.

          • Kristian Stout says:

            Oops? I’m a word person and it drives me batty to see one used improperly so often. Maybe this will have them doing a little spell check before they hit that little submit button? LOL

            • Kris….I don’t have a spell check button…..where do you find it on here? I need one really bad.

              • Kristian Stout says:

                I don’t have a spell check on here either. That’s where proof reading comes in to play. Guess I did start this didn’t I? Oh well, it needed to be said.

        • Kris….I think somebody made one of Matt’s three lefts…LOL….you did start this.

    • Kristin, BF, JAC, Judy, LI, Weapon, Peter B., and everyone:

      I agree with the notion that ‘irregardless’ is not a recognizable word in America; however, it is still nonetheless a word. It becomes a word when it establishes meaning. It is used in England, Australia, New Zealand, and just about every nation where English is a primary language.

      Just because a POTUS used “normalcy” rather than normalacy it therefore became a word while the correct normalacy, was dropped.

      My pet peeve is this: alot. There is no such word…period. The correct form is of course, a lot. It is alleged by many linguists that Shakespeare used to make up words that would fit neatly into his prose. Then within the ruling elite if one did not know the word – it would become “word.” I absolutely love these discussions on language. Thank you again!


      • Kristian

        Oops! My bad! Sorry! 🙂

      • Kristian Stout says:

        Don’t you mean that “normalacy” replaced “normalcy”? Just because an improper word is used often enough does not, in my opinion, make it an accceptable word. I don’t care how many countries are using it. That tells me one thing, these people are just lazy.

        Don’t worry about the mis-spelling of my name. I et so many variations that I just don’t let it bother me anymore but thank you for making the effort 😉

        • Thanks for the reply and I agree with you, totally. I simply can’t help it however, I am a staunch grammarian with the love of words and language.

          If one were to look up “normalacy” in an American dictionary they’d be hard pressed to even find the word. What one finds is the word “normalcy.” About the others: we all allege that we speak some form of English. Yet, the argument exists that so many of these ‘forms’ have drifted away from the Official King’s English from the UK that we now have a situation where it is fastly becoming — Australian English, American English, Canadian English, and so on. Anyway what I meant to convey is that in the other ‘forms’ of English some words we don’t use in the USA are used in the other countries. That’s all. 😉 Cheers!


  7. I heard some republican was trying to get something added to this recent bill about congress must be on the public option, what ever came of that, did they reject it or did it make it on the bill?

    • No it is not on the bill…Kennedy seen to that….wouldn’t want to mess up the Kennedy’s healthcare would we???? This is one of those….it is good for the peons but not good enough for us elite.

    • These people need to be jerked off their high chairs and made to live on 50,000 per year and made to obey all the laws they inflict on us good people. Idiots they are all idiots who believe they are better than the people who elected them. They believe themselves to be above the law.

    • Natan 53:

      The congress, the president and all federal employees are ALREADY on the public option.

      It may be that they get better private insurance than those in the current bill, but it is all “govt paid for health insurance”.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Perhaps they should simply put EVERYONE on the same plan that the Congress and the Federal Employees currently enjoy then?

        • Sure, why not?

          Remember when that was the Republican mantra a few years ago?

          Matt, Buck, Ray, et al; would you guys and gals go for that?

          It would only take about 2 pages of legislation to make it happen.

          What do you think?

      • Our President and Congress is on Tri-care??? I didn’t know that. I figured they had their own.

      • I have had the Federal Employees Health Benefits insurance (dozens of plans available with different premiums and different benefits) since 1961, although Medicare is now my primary.

        It’s an excellent system, but if it is to be opened to others, I would want a separate risk pool so my premiums don’t go up more than they already are.

        The problem is with pre-existing conditions, people waiting until they are sick to get insurance. FEHB has open season once a year (it lasts several weeks) when eligible people can join or switch plans, regardless of medical condition. I don’t think the once a year open season would be enough to prevent people delaying until they are sick.

        Plus, some of the insurance is not cheap; mine may even be a “Cadillac” plan. For Federal employees and retirees (like me) the government pays for about 70 to 75 % (varies with plan).

        But, it could be part of a health insurance reform if done properly. Biggest thing besides the risk pool issue is, it would have to be voluntary.

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “6) On taxes, I view taxes as the cost of living in a civilized society. There are programs that we as a society have decided are important (and yes, we may completely disagree on those programs or the proper extent of those programs). Taxes are necessary to pay for those programs. I have no problem with people earning more money paying higher taxes; an individual earning $1M a year can afford to pay 35% in taxes, whereas an individual earning $20K cannot.”


    Once again you suffer from the ILLUSION that taxes are collected in order to pay for services provided by the government. This is NOT the case!

    The government funds its services by SELLING DEBT, both to the Federal Reserve, and to foreign nations.

    With all of the current services the government “provides”, every adult in this country would have to pay approximately $330,000 per year in taxes in order to actually pay for them all.

    Since this is, in fact, completely impossible, taxes are actually COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. Taking away taxation entirely would increase our deficit and our debt, but in comparison to how large the national debt ACTUALLY is with unfunded mandates included, the increase due to ceasing all taxation would actually be quite paltry.

    As I have said before, and I will say as many times as necessary to drill it into everyone’s head that reads it, taxation could only be seen as “necessary” if the government limited spending to the amount of “revenue” it took in in taxes. Right now, taxation is the government’s way to control you, and force you to make certain decisions that you would not ordinarily make.

    The consequences of taxation in a society in which government freely spends infinitely more money than it takes in are always merely consequences of economic and social control and have very little (if anything) to do with “funding the government”.

    As a person, at some point you have to choose what to spend your money on. You can not endlessly borrow to pay for your every want and need. Eventually you WILL go bankrupt. In this particular way, governments are no different than people, although they will make every effort to convince you that they are somehow different in this respect.

  9. Why can’t Congress pass a bill that has reform that everyone can agree with. If the health care system is in such shambles, why risk reform on such a touchy issue as a public option? There are things that both sides can and should agree on. Pass those first, then move on to other issues.

    The reason you won’t see this happen… a public option would NEVER pass on its own. It has to be part of a bill that is the only option. You want health care reform, well vote for this public option or you won’t get reform at all! What kind of CRAP is this?

    Is health INSURANCE(that is the true debate) a right? Well, ask yourself this, is it your neighbors RIGHT to have you pay money into an account in case he gets sick while he spends his money on a new car, nice clothes, etc? Is it your neighbor’s right to live like a slob and not exercise and have you pay for his bypass surgery while you do your best to be healthy? I would be more than willing to give money to help those who can’t afford their health care treatments (and I do), but it is not a RIGHT!

    Health care is given to anyone in this country regardless of whether they can pay or not. This will not change, Obama himself has said so. So all you bleeding hearts out there, take a step back and ask yourself what we are really talking about, health INSURANCE!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Good points. I suppose that the Statists could argue that you cannot get healthcare without health insurance, but I think that most of us recognize that to be a false argument.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Briefly regarding the public option: the public option in its current form is already a compromise. Many on the left started with demands for universal health care. From there it went to a robust public option. From there it went to the watered down version it currently is.

      Now let’s take a look at things from the right: where is the compromise? Many on the right are demanding minor reforms and regulations, but mostly leaving the system as it currently stands in tact.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        You are REALLY incorrect. Most of the Congressmen “on the right” want tort reform, want complete healthcare portability, and want all insurance companies to be allowed to freely compete accross State lines (which they are not allowed to do now).

        They argue that by reducing the legal costs associated with healthcare and by opening up real competition, costs for everyone will, in fact, go down.

        I don’t know of ANYONE advocating “keeping the existing system intact” other than maybe the big insurance companies.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          My point is that we need compromise. Many on the left want universal healthcare (unacceptable to the right); many on the right want a few additional regulations and incremental reforms (not nearly far enough and largely ineffective to combat the problem to those on the left).

          As for tort reform, that is inconsequential. Most states (if not all)already have some form of ‘tort reform’ in place. What does tort reform look like to you? Capping damages? Eradicating a patient’s right to seek redress for a doctor’s negligence?

 [article on tort reform I came across this morning that largely summarizes my own views]

          • My point is this. I think people could agree on some points. Opening competition across state lines is a good example. There is NO WAY congress will pass these things on their own because they KNOW that they won’t be able to shove a public option through without “compromising” on these issues. That is exactly the opposite of how the government should run. We should pass what is good and debate the rest. Not use what is good to pass the rest.

            If I think the stimulus is bad, why would I vote FOR it just because you toss a little money to my district. I still think the rest of it is BAD! If I want money for my district, I should try to get it on the merits of my project, not in an effort to bribe me into voting for a bill I think is BAD! That is corruption, plain and simple.

          • Buck:

            “My point is that we need compromise.”

            NO we don’t.

            What we need is a solid set of principles that support Liberty and then we need to stick to them.

            Compromise to the free means give up freedom.

            Compromise to the Statist means the free give up freedom.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              JAC, you miss the point that we are a society made up of people with different views.

              I am more than willing to recognize that not everyone will agree with me and we need to compromise on these issues.

              Why should it be that only your point is valid?

              • Buck:

                If you wish to start from a base of freedom then I will negotiate with you on details.

                But I will not compromise on freedom itself.

                My ancestors did that in good faith and now I face possible servitude to the STATE. My penance depends on the majority in control on any give day.

                My point is the only valid one because it is the only one that protects freedom and liberty.

                If you want to be a slave to the STATE then go your separate way, but do not ask me to compromise.

                Tell me Buck, what is it the Statist gives up when compromising on issues with those of us who want freedom????

              • JAC, this is a great question….

                “…what is it the Statist gives up when compromising on issues with those of us who want freedom????”

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Just because people have different views does not make all views equally valid.

                Part of this depends on your frame of reference.

                You do not see it as contradictory to give up your freedom for “security” or “equality” or whatever ideals you believe are good for society.

                Others believe that this country was founded on the idea that EVERYTHING flows from INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, and therefore, anything that goes against individual liberty is not the way to go.

                It seems that you wish to have a society in which “some individual liberty is ok, provided it does not interfere with the “goodness” of society as a whole.

                I believe that individual liberty is the only foundation on which to build a society that actually posesses any “goodness”.

                However, my way of thinking PREVENTS me from compromising with your way of thinking, because any compromise with your position would constitute an automatic abandonment of my entire position.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                So if I read your argument correctly (and please let me know if I am misreading you), if I were to develop a frame of reference whereby I was incapable of reaching any point of compromise on a given issue, my frame of reference would be the only valid frame of reference?

                The fact that I am able to reach compromise, that I can adjust my views, should not and does not render my frame of reference invalid. If anything, it makes my frame of reference more valid.

              • Buck

                Re: frames of reference

                Well, welcome to the root!

                Yes, you are absolutely right, sir!

                I cannot judge your frame of reference (or, as I put it, your core premise) from my frame of reference (or core premise).

                I cannot prove you wrong from my premise because I would have to first prove my premise is the “Super, only One Universal and there is none other” premise of the Universe – and I can’t.

                As back at me, neither can you.

                So, how can we reconcile?

                Ah! Simple!

                I judge your belief and actions from your core premise!

                Are you consistent with yourself?

                I would use what you believe against what you say and do. I measure you with yourself.

                If I find a contradiction, then I know either

                (1) your core premise is not really what you said it was

                (2) you are violating your own self.

                I have found this to be a very powerful tool. Most people live their lives unhappy because – deep down – they are living a lie to themselves.

                (I speak from my own experience of myself, too, on this).

                When we realize what we really hold as our core premise – and we undertake to live it, our world changes.

              • Buck

                “Why is my point valid?”

                Because where I stand, I have no force to compel you to do anything you do not want to do non-violently.

                Your position forces violence on me so to compel me to your ideas.

                You want the right to hit people over the head with a gun butt if they do not agree with you.

                I see no right of anyone to hit non-violent people ever.

                Which position do you think is the moral starting point?

        • Peter:

          Truth be known, the insurance companies would like the federal govt to require everyone to get private health insurance.

          Remember how they were on board with Baucus?

          The want to use the power of govt force to increase the client pool, thus reducing overall risk while increasing profitability.

          The other Republican proposal is to establish legal tax deductable health savings accounts for everyone. This would actually have a postitive effect as many of us could stop buying insurance and focus on catastrophic insurance. Which is what insurance is really for in the first place.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            There are plenty of ways in which “uncompromising freedom” could get the job accomplished.

            Compromise is never necessary with theives.

  10. Judy Sabatini says:

    Morning Everyone

    Reading along for now.

    Hope all has a great day.


  11. The question USWep poses is moot.

    The fact is the Socialist Health Care will implode financially. As it sits today (nearly Socialist Health Care), it is unsustainable past 2014. With it fully Socialist Health Care it will collapse right out of the gate.

    By collapse, I mean ‘default’. By default, I mean ‘the government will renege on its promise’. What promises? Universal access. There will be rationing. It will be in the form of denial of service and/or denial of timely service.

    Now is the time to make a personal contact with a good doctor. You will need to be ready to pay cash directly for immediate care. One way or another, the market will provide a way as ‘cash is king’. Call it black market Health care – but it will exist and if you are sick, you will want a way and an ability to access it….unless, of course, you are working in Congress or the Senate. Then health care will be readily available for you.

    • Morning Black Flag,

      Maybe the way to get through to those who believe government provided health care is a right is to take denial of timely service and rationing a step further. What I mean is, if health care is a right, what criminal penalties will be inflicted on the person or agency that violoated my right? I’d like to have lots and lots of cosmetic surgery, nose job, face lift, tummy tuck, etc. I also want the best doctors to perform the procedures as is my right. So, if the government tells me they cannot provide this becuase I’m too old, there are no doctors, or no money, who can I send to prision and what agency can I sue for compensation for denial of my rights? What if the government decides my chronic illness is not worth treating because I’m old and gonna die soon anyway? Wouldn’t that be a violation of my rights?

      What if everyone who opposed the government take over of health care raised a stink about that? If I have to wait to see a doctor, or am denied care, criminal charges will be filed. After all, it IS a right, right?

      • Precisely, Cindy.

        If it is a RIGHT, denying your right would be a criminal act.

        Time to imprison those dastardly doctors! That’ll teach’m!

        • Under CommieCare doctors won’t be the people making decisions, it’ll be some government waster, right?

  12. Buck The Wala says:

    As much fun as this morning has been, I am off for lunch. Mathius, you are on your own.

    Hope to be back on this afternoon!

  13. Buck

    Very inartfully put, but we change the definition because it is a completely different scenario. We as a society have said to the government ‘tax us’.

    1) I have no said any such thing to anyone – let alone “government” – authorizing their theft.

    2) If scenarios change our definitions, we are doomed to utter failure.

    Changing definitions to suit a cause is an act of total dishonesty, and if such action becomes normal and systemic it will eventually collapse social order. Such ‘definition changes’ have been the excuse to slaughter millions of innocent people throughout the ages – ‘sub human’ ‘non-persons’ et al.

    Theft is defined well and understood well. Changing its definition ‘midstream’ will not fool anyone here.

    Lysander Spoon:

    “Either ‘taxation without consent is robbery,’ or it is not.

    If it is not, then any number of men who choose may … call themselves a government; assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves [and] plunder them at will …”

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Once again, if the government would provide me a list of services offered, and exactly how much they wish to charge me for each service, I will be very happy to select which services I wish to use and which I do not wish to use at the cost they have quoted, and I will gladly pay for those I wish to make use of.

      In addition, I will gladly find a private source for other services I desire, which the private sector provides at a lower cost than the government.

      That would be taxation WITH my consent, and therefore would not be theft.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      It is not so much having a scenario change the definition, so much as being a different thing entirely based on the scenario.

      BF: You point to the definition of theft and say taxation is theft.

      I say, taxation is not theft. We as a society have established government; we permit government to tax us. If I tell you to take $20 out of my wallet and you do so, that is not theft. The only real difference is we have a middleman (Congress). If I sign a power of attorney authorizing X as my agent and X tells you to take $20 out of my wallet, that is not theft.

      • Buck:

        I did not authorize the govt, you, or anyone else to take my money. No matter what you call it.

        Without my permission that comprises THEFT

        • Buck The Wala says:

          No, you personally did not authorize the government. You never signed a contract. But the Founders of this country did. I sort of remember reading about something called ‘taxation without representation’. You are represented. You may not agree with your representatives, but you are represented nonetheless.

          Probably not the best word for it, and I’m sure I’ll be attacked for using this term, but there is implicit or constructive permission here.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            When congress passes a new law, which will require you to give them even MORE of your money, do they ASK YOU before they do so?

            • Peter wait till they start throwing people into debtors prison for not paying their healthcare tax.

          • Buck:

            Let me get this straight.

            If I have someone representing me at the negotiating table and the other side decides my views are irrelevant, and they go ahead and tax me for the good of others, that I have been taxed with representation.

            In other words, because my guy was at the table I have in fact VALIDATED their decision to take my money without my permission.


            • Buck The Wala says:

              You may not like it, but in a way that does summarize how our government was set up to run.

              You were represented; you had an opportunity to choose (elect) your representative and send him off to the negotiating table. The fact that you lost at the negotiation table does not mean that you were not represented.

              • But I did not authorize him to represent me – he claims it unilaterally.

                What right does he make such a remarkable claim?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                He does not claim that right unilaterally. You voted for a representative and either chose not to vote or lost the election.

                That is the nature of a republic such as ours.

              • I did not vote for no such thing.

                I did not vote.

                I do not vote.

                Thus, the concept of a “Republic” is as evil (or more so) that any other form of tyranny.

      • Buck

        Can you show me the paper that has my signature authorizing this “power of attorney”.

        And if you can, I hereby revoke such power of attorney.

        We ‘society’ have not created government – since I am ‘society’, and I have not created it.

        Further, I am not bound by some men with white hair writing words on a paper that they sign.

        They did not represent me, nor represent me now.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          BF, your starting point is that you never agreed to any of this. Would you argue then, that the Constitution is a meaningless document that does not apply to anyone? We already know that you do not recognize the right of government to tax you — do you pay your taxes? If so, why? Do you recognize the right of the police to arrest you for breaking a law? Do you recognize the right of the courts to sentence you to jail for breaking that law?

          • I have not agreed – True.

            Constitution – Why would I be bound to what a man writes on a paper? Would you be bound if I write something on a piece of paper?

            Whether the Constitution applies to you, is up to you, not?

            Tax: There are some taxes I cannot avoid – sometimes you have to pay off the murderer to avoid being killed by them – but those that I can, I do. I avoid most of them.

            Police: Which law? the Law or the law? The Natural Law of men or the fiat law of government?

            Courts: I do not believe in punishment whatsoever – it is pointless, worthless, revenge-based and evil. I believe in restitution.

  14. The more things change the more they stay the same.

    ENJOY, Freedom aka 1948

  15. Judy Sabatini says:
  16. Judy Sabatini says:

    Cartoon of the day.

  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    Senate to decide if bill is worth the money
    Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 11/10/2009 6:00:00

    A congressional analyst says it will be very hard to obtain 60 votes in the Senate without controversial provisions taken out of the House healthcare bill.

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) says “The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate,” and Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman has pledged to filibuster any version of the public health insurance option approved by the House.

    Brian Darling (Heritage Foundation)Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the Heritage Foundation, says although Graham is right to declare the House bill D.O.A., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) will be pushing hard to pass a more moderate version of “Obamacare” by the end of the year.

    money dollar sign”They’re going to have to have a price tag in the bill that’s under a trillion dollars for it to have a chance in the Senate. There are many moderate Democrats that just can’t move forward on a bill that costs over a trillion dollars,” Darling explains. “Many of the taxes that were put forth in the House, the millionaires’ tax, are non-starters in the Senate. Paying for the bill is going to be difficult, too. They’re going to have to find the right mix of taxes to allow it to pass in the Senate.”

    Darling says the one issue the Senate is more liberal on is abortion.

    “That Stupak amendment that passed in the House, it doesn’t appear that there are votes to attach a similar piece of legislation to bar federal funding of abortion in Obamacare in the Senate,” the director notes. “So in that sense, it’ll be more liberal, but on most of the other issues, this is going to be a package that’s going to have to be more moderate because in the Senate, you need 60 votes.”

    Darling predicts it will be “virtually impossible” for the Senate to pass a healthcare bill before Thanksgiving because there is so much of a right for extended debate in the Senate. Harry Reid has promised President Obama he will try to get something passed by Christmas.

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    I have a question to you regarding being given consent to intervene on behalf of someone else in their defense.

    You stated earlier that you cannot intervene without their consent, because to intervene without their consent would be a violation of their rights.

    I know that wandering around in hypotheticals is like a trip to danger playground, but bear with me here.

    In this situation, a young girl who is clearly a minor is being assaulted. The assault has rendered the girl unconcious. She is unable to delegate her right of self defense to you due to her incapacitation.

    In such a case, are you required to not act, simply because the victim is unable to give her consent for you to act? Would any attempt to act in such a situation be incorrect?

    Were such a situation to present itself, I think that I would be inclined to intervene on behalf of the victim even though she was unable to delegate this authority to me- provided that I could do so with reasonable assurance that my own safety was assured. Is this a contradiction on my part?

    I realize that I cannot assume her consent for me to intervene on her behalf, but in this particular case, she is clearly unable to call for help, or provide any other indication that she desires my intervention into the situation. Is the only way to resolve this simply to do nothing?

    • BF:

      Let me add to your pile of questions.

      You know the guy next door is raping his minor daughter. You are seeing it happen.

      What possible action or actions do you take (conditions for each option are allowed in the answer)?

      What is the basis for the action, or possible actions?

      • BF:

        Please ignore question. Your answer to Peter below adequately answers.

        I would only add that the rule of “good sumeritan” also applies here. It is the ruling of my peers that will decide if I acted in such a manner or was reckless in my assumptions and thus actions.

  19. Buck The Wala

    BF, I don’t pretend to have anywhere near a grasp on economic theory as you do.

    Clearly though, it would be impossible to provide any good below its deliverable cost without either: (a) coming up with the shortfall or (b) lowering its deliverable cost.

    Why not (B)?


    So, in the free market, why do you think entities try hard to lower their input costs? Why do you think, for similar products, there is array of prices?

    Do you believe you can ‘legislate’ a lower cost?

    What does ‘cost’ mean to you? What does ‘price’ mean to you?

    Sorry for the flurry of questions, however, the fundamentals are important to understand why things are the way they are economically.

  20. Peter

    In such a case, are you required to not act, simply because the victim is unable to give her consent for you to act? Would any attempt to act in such a situation be incorrect?

    No. And no contradiction.

    I am an thinking animal – I can reason and judge based on my own experience, learning and moral society guidance.

    Moral Society has already dealt with this by “interposition”…“if I were in that position, what would I hope would happen if I could ask for it?

    Yes, such assumption risks violating her rights.

    If she came to – and then said “You criminal!”, she would be right and I would be judged by my peers to see if I had justification for such an assumption.

    I would need to demonstrate my reasoning, answer for my actions, and then my peers would – as free people – treat me accordingly as they saw fit.

    I believe you and I would risk such assumptions – but we are both clear to Matt – we have no obligation to act.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ok BF,

      That answers my question, and yes, you and I are in agreement. In that type of case, I would choose to risk violating the victim’s rights as long as I could reasonably assure my own safety. Yes, there is a possibility that the victim could accuse me (and rightly so) of violating her rights, which would have the consequences you described.


  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    It is important to remember here that the base cost of a service does not change simply because you decide you are going to pay less for it.

    For example, let us use an MRI on a patient suspected to have lung cancer. When you figure in the cost of the machine, the cost of overhead (power to the instrument itself, power to the building, etc.), the cost of labor (doctors, nurses, radiologists, etc.) and all the other costs you can think of, you might come out with a unit cost per test of $10,000.00. That means that a hospital would have to charge MORE than $10,000.00 to make a profit on that test.

    If the government suddenly comes in and says, “we are only going to pay hospitals $8000.00 per MRI scan” you have NOT reduced the cost of the procedure, you have merely mandated that every time a hospital performs that procedure, they will be doing so AT A FINANCIAL LOSS.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      But would you agree that there are inflated costs?

      The cost of one MRI test is $10K; why? What justifies that cost? Part of that cost is labor. But the cost of labor is not static – it can be negotiated. You say the Doctor can charge X amount for his services. I say, as the consumer, I can give a counteroffer for a lower price. By doing this, the cost of one MRI test is now $8K.

      My car mechanic may charge $85 per hour labor. I guarantee that if I were to bring him 100 customers, he would be amenable to reducing his $85 per hour labor charge.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Your car mechanic can only service so many cars per week. If you bring him 100 customers, it is more likely that he will RAISE his cost of service, because there will be TOO MANY cars for him to service by himself.

        This will cause him to need to build a bigger shop, hire new workers, train them, and then he will be able to service the additional 100 customers that you brought to him. This is a net economic expansion, but it does not necessarily reduce the cost per car serviced.

        The same is true for the doctor. The doctor can only see so many patients per week. The machine can only do so many MRIs per week. Eventually, the machine will do enough MRIs to “pay for itself”, but with age, the machine may break down and require repairs, or the technology may change to the point where the machine is obsolete and the doctor may need to purchase a newer (and perhaps more expensive) machine to stay up with the latest diagnostic tools.

        Also, if the mechanic charges $85 per hour for labor, and say the doctor charges $100 per hour for his labor, and you attempt to cut the amount the doctor can charge to say $75 per hour for labor, what is to prevent that doctor from getting trained to be an auto mechanic and simply quit being a doctor, thus reducing the quantity of doctors available?

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Let’s keep in mind that this is an industry that is notoriously opaque when it comes to cost. As someone mentioned the other day: have you ever tried to find out how much a given procedure will cost before undergoing that procedure??

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        I ask doctors this all the time. If they will not provide me with a straight answer, I flat-out tell them that I will go ahead and find a doctor that WILL give me a straight answer.

        You would be AMAZED at how well that works!

      • Actually their costs don’t matter. Nor does the supposed costs that contribute to the MRI bill.

        The question is whether the PRICE presents a good VALUE to you as the consumer.

        If it doesn’t then the seller must reduce price until it is of good value to you.

        Then it is the seller’s problem if the cost is higher than the price. It it is they can either find ways to reduce cost or stop providing the service.

      • Buck, Good Afternoon Sir!

        I can, and just might go ahead and do, request a pricelist for a number of different tests and procedures that are directly billed by the hospital I work for. Doctors normally bill seperately, but when I asked the surgean who operated on my foot in March, I was given a written quote for the cost of his services.


        • Buck The Wala says:

          Afternoon G!

          Sorry for the delay; just saw this post from you. I have read many accounts of people trying to get price quotes prior to treatment of how difficult a process that is. From my understanding it is not easy getting that quote.

          Fortunately I have never been in that position myself. Hopefully I never will be.

          • Buck:

            I got a quote from a surgeon the other day for him fixing my bad shoulder. They even checked on my insurance and could tell me exactly what my co-insurance payment would be as my deductable was used up for the year.

            And yes, they wanted the uncovered part paid up front before surgery.

            I asked if there is a warranty on the work. If I pay up front I want a refund if it doesn’t work. Got no answer on that one, just a chuckle.

  22. If Health Care is not a right, then neither is gun ownership.

    Someone please explain to me how the 2nd Amendment is derived from natural law?

    Gun ownership…is not a natural right, folks. It was endowed to us by the creator (or nature). It is a scientific process that helps humans to better…kill stuff, defend ourselves, etc.

    Any argument you can make about gun ownership can be made about health care:
    * Gun ownership allows me to protect my life
    * Gun ownership allows me to protect my liberty
    * Gun ownership allows me to pursue happiness

    Replace “Gun ownership” with “Health care”…works out the same.

    There is nothing natural about guns, nor a right to own them.
    That was completely created by the Founding Fathers.

    Gun ownership may enhance your rights, but it is not one of them.

    Dido for Healthcare.

    And remember, your gun ownership infringes on my rights. Since all you own guns, I feel the need to buy a gun to protect myself from you. Since your actions are infringing on my Liberty, you should be arrested for owning a gun… 😉

    • Buck The Wala says:


      You make an extremely good point that I have been trying to make, albeit very inartfully today. Apparantly somebody stole the caffeine from the coffee.


    • Todd:

      You are so very, very wrong. Claiming it to be so does not make it so.

      Gun ownership is a right that is integrally linked to our right to defend ourselves against harm by others.

      The Founders included it to assure we had the means to protect ourselves against tyranny of an overreaching govt, and to defend ourselves against harm by others.

      The right to life is the right to live without fear of the Govt arbitrarily taking my life. It describes my right to exist.

      My right to defend myself against harm in no way imposes upon any or your rights.

      Yet your supposed right to health care imposed upon my rights to live my life and to keep my property.

      Rights can not be in conflict with each other. A right can not negate another right. If it does then it is not a right according to natural rights principles.

      Buck, that means you are also wrong for agreeing with Todd.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Had to throw that last jab in there didn’t you! 🙂

      • JAC,
        And claiming that you are right and only your point is valid does not make it so.

        The 2nd amendment is so ingrained in your psyche that you can’t imagine it not being a ‘natural right’. But it’s not. Guns do not come from nature – man creates them.

        Self-defense is a natural right – you have the right to defend your person, property, family, etc. But that can be accomplished in many ways – guns being one of them. That does not make guns a natural right.

        Think about it for a while JAC – you’ll come to understand that gun ownership is not a natural right in the same way that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are.

        • Hi Todd!

          Back to the healthcare issue, why do you think it’s OK for our tax dollars to be used to provide “insurance”, not actual healthcare?


          • Hey G-Man,
            I agree, we should provide health care not health insurance. In it’s mildest forms that’s called the “public option”, which we all know leads us down the slippery slope to “single payer”. Glad to hear you support that too!

            • Todd, Thanks for the laugh, needed it today!!

              Public Option/Single Payer = insurance

              The sad part, if you have read any of the bills out there, is that it will cost me 42% more in premiums each year (the lowest #), and 1500% more out of pocket. Like most of the 85% of Americans currently insured, this mess is going to be devistating. It might help a few million afford to have health insurance, but the bankruptcy courts are gonna get real busy.


        • Todd:

          I didn’t say guns are a natural right. I said the ownership of guns is a right that is integrally linked to the natural right to defend oneself. But since you raised the point, I would go so far as to say the right to bare arms is in fact a natural right.

          How could a right that is necessary and part of another right not carry withit the same natural basis?

          Man is part of nature and occurs naturally within nature does he not? Man’s free will and use of reason allowed him how to use natural materials, occuring in nature, to build a thing he calls a gun. Thus man and the gun are in fact natural and a product of nature.

          Unless of course you are arguing that man was put here by some other entity, like aliens. But then man would still be part of nature as nature encompasses the universe and all within it. If man is not part of nature then man must be a God. Assuming of course you believe God to be separate from nature.

          Nope, there is only one way to argue guns do not come from nature, and I don’t think you are in that camp.

          Now for the rest of the story. Whether gun ownership is a natural right or not does not change the fundamentals of my argument against your position.

          The right to own a gun is not the same as a right to health care. You can not use the first to justify or rationalize the second.

          They are completely different animals as I have shown. One, right to life/self defens/guns creates absolutely no imposition on any other rights or anyone else’s rights.

          The right to health care creates such an imposition on the rights of others. The concept of a “right to health care” stems from a positive rights philosophy. Meaning all rights come from govt. The ownership of guns comes from the negative rights philosophy. Meaning all rights exist and govt can only take them away.

          If you try to use rights of one nature to justify or rationalize those of the other nature you will constantly fail. If you don’t fail in your argument then one of the rights in question is really in the other class.

          Now, I await your defense or surrender on your original position.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Todd, you would make a great point, except your point makes no sense.

      My ownership of a gun does not REQUIRE you to own a gun, because I have NO RIGHT to initiate violence upon the non-violent. So, as long as I am non-violent, you have nothing to defend yourself AGAINST.

      However, if I own a gun and I DECIDE TO VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS and act violently against you or your family, then it might well be in your best interests to own a gun in order to defend yourself against someone who attempts to DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR RIGHTS.

      Healthcare has nothing to do with this in any way, shape or form.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Oh, and by the way, the right to keep and bear arms derives from natural law directly. I have a right to live. Someone might attempt to DEPRIVE me of that right to live. I have a right to DEFEND MYSELF against this intended deprivation. The right to keep and bear arms allows me to better defend myself against this attempted deprivation.

      • Todd’s point was perfectly worded. His equating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and healthcare is exactly why we are having this debate again. First, the legislation has nothiing to do with providing healthcare, but it is to provide healthcare insurance. There is a substantial difference there. Currently, healthcare providers are legally obligated to provide care to anyone in need, regardless of ability to pay. So next time they use the term “access to healthcare” as a reason, they are either liars or badly misinformed.

        Second, I support gun ownership and own many, but no laws were made to require Todd or anyone else to fund my gun purchases with their tax dollars.

        If the left believe one right can be taxpayer funded, then both rights should be equally funded, based on their premise.


        • Hey G-Man,
          Providing healthcare insurance or access to affordable healthcare insurance makes healthcare accessible. Without healthcare insurance, many people put off routine healthcare which leads to more expensive ER visits.

          Currently, healthcare providers are legally obligated to provide care to anyone in need, regardless of ability to pay.

          Could you elaborate on this? Cause I don’t think it’s really true. Maybe for ER visits, but in my Doctors office you either have to provide insurance or pay up front. At least that’s what the sign says…

          And look into getting cancer treatments in Nevada. Only available if you can pay…

          I don’t consider ER visits to be quality health care, and I doubt you do too.

          If the left believe one right can be taxpayer funded, then both rights should be equally funded, based on their premise.

          Well, since you, Peter, and others here feel that guns are so vital to personal security, maybe there should be taxpayer funded guns for those who can’t afford them… 😉

          Wouldn’t that make everyone safer?

          If the 2nd amendment had been written like this:

          A healthy population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to obtain quality health care, shall not be infringed.

          Would that suddenly make healthcare a natural right?

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Todd, it is certainly a myth that everyone has access to healthcare simply because they can show up at the emergency room door. This is may be access to SOME healthcare, but it is not access to ADEQUATE healthcare.

            People without insurance (or sufficient funds to pay out of pocket, which almost always costs the individual more than it would the insurance company) have no access to preventative care, nor certain treatments such as the issue with cancer treatment in NV (and I am sure other states) as you mentioned.

          • Todd, First the healthcare issue. 75% of all hospitals are non-profit, most of which are faith based. Services beyond ER are offered, My hospital has a dental van that goes into the community to provide for those that cannot afford this service. It’s called charity care and it works very well. I guess if your not poor or don’t work at any of these hospitals you would never know these things. The trith is that the government have been liars, and do not have their facts correct. I’ve been to 39 of the fifty states, and all 39 have these programs in place, with seven more states with health centers related to mine. Too say that healthcare is not available is an outright fallacy.

            You should suggest your new Amendment, that would be interesting.

            I get how your concern for the poor is leading your position, I qualify for many govt programs that I do not use. It’s tough being a single parent, but I can make it without taxpayer help. I won’t be one at the birdfeeder.



            • Let me add, that preventive care and cancer treatment (or any other service) is provided to all who need it. Also, Government pays 57% (medicare)of the actual cost and 47% (medicade). The only way for the hospital to stay in business is to charge more to the rest, which, under a single payer system, many hospitals would close. Access would get alot tougher than it is now!


      • Awww Peter, I thought you’d agree with me right away…

        So, as long as I am non-violent, you have nothing to defend yourself AGAINST.

        So, exactly how long do you intend to be non-violent? That’s kinda the point here…

        And your next statement confirms that I now need to purchase guns to protect myself from crazy gun owners…isn’t that kind of circular logic? Where does it stop? Sounds like the Cold War on a neighborhood basis…

        I have a right to live. Someone might attempt to DEPRIVE me of that right to live.

        Yes, maybe by denying you health care…

        The right to keep and bear arms allows me to better defend myself against this attempted deprivation.

        Yes, self-defense is a right, but the fact that guns allow you to better defend yourself does not make them a natural right. It just makes them convenient…

        • Todd said:

          Yes, maybe by denying you health care.

          This is a completely false statement and obviosly derived from the falsehoods and lies of the government loons that you support. If you would like the truth about healthcare availabilty, I work in the business and know firsthand.


          • G-Man,
            That was kind of a joke – but it shows how many things can deprive you/me of our rights.

            I would (seriously) like to hear your side about healthcare availability. But be warned, I work in insurance and my wife works for the real bogeyman – a health insurance company. So I know little about that too…

    • Todd

      Owning a gun is a right.

      You forcing me to pay for your health care is not a right.


      Me owning a gun puts no obligation on you. You did not buy my gun. I did not force you to buy me gun. My gun sits in my house, and to you, makes precisely the same difference to your life as if I had no gun in my house.

      If what I do, does nothing to you, it is a “right”.

      Now, you want health care, but for me to pay for it.

      You force me – obligate me – to pay for you. You are making a difference. I do not have money after you are done with me. If you do nothing I have money. You do something, I have no money. Hence, what you are doing to me is not your right

  23. Buck The Wala

    Don’t be sorry for the questions; its part of debate.

    One example of a larger buying power lowers price first in the sense of buying wholesale vs. retail. Also, a larger buying power has more power to point out inflated prices to begin with and refuse to pay for those inflated costs.


    What buying power can you leverage on a doctor? There are only 24 hrs in a day – he cannot sell more than that, no matter the demand.

    That dictates hospital beds; he can only visit so many in a day.

    So, there is no leverage on doctors or hospitals or services that are auxiliary to this (tests, x-rays, etc.)

    Drugs – unless “everyone” uses the same drug there is not much leverage here.

    Will the government pre-buy tonnes of medicine, then store it? If so, why buy it and take the cost of storing? What about the cost of money sitting in inventory?

    The reason why products have a lower price with a large bulk is called “marginal utility”. Example:

    You want to eat an apple, so you buy it for a dollar – what the value of curing your hunger. But after that apple, how much hunger is left – not much, so the next apple for $1 is really not that valuable.

    If, though, I offer it for $0.75 – well, you take it.

    Now, what about the third – you’re pretty full so you really don’t want an apple – so I offer $0.25 – and you buy if for your walk, but now the fourth apple – it may rot by the time you eat is, so I offer $0.10…

    The marginal utility of every additional product has less value for you. To make the further sales, I have to drop my price, until I lose my profit (or believe you will come back tomorrow hungry) – then we our commerce ends.

    But now let’s use this for drugs.

    Every drug bought is for a very specific, direct need. If you need this medicine, you need exactly the amount.

    More than amount is wholly useless. If you need it to live for the long term, you need every pill as necessary as the first pill. There is very little difference in the marginal utility when you need the drugs – and absolutely zero utility when you do not need it.

    So, how can ‘bulk buying’, that is, marginal utility happen? It can’t. Thus, no ‘bulk buying’ benefit, period.

    So, now the result is huge middle man – with very little economic benefit whatsoever.

  24. Judy Sabatini says:


    I put this up last night, and thought i would put it up again for those who might not have seen it.

    Senior Health Care Solution

    So you’re a senior citizen and the government says no health care for you, what do you do?
    Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives.
    Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, and all the health care you need!
    New teeth, no problem. Need glasses, great. New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart? All covered.
    And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. Plus, because you are a prisoner,you don’t have to pay any income taxes anymore.

    What a country!

    • Judy,

      I absolutely love this post ^ by you. I am still laughing, albeit, at the reality of the issue rather than any absurdity. It is a sorry state of affairs when this becomes the norm, or ‘acceptable norm’ as it is. Cheers!


      • Jon-Paul

        Nice to see you around for more than one comment. You should hang out more often.

        My Pa told me that during the depression folks would get down and out so they would go downtown and toss a brick through a window. 2 nights in a warm jail with three squares. Then do it all over again.

        I remember some of the same things happening in the late 70’s and early 80’s during those recessions.

        So you are correct that Judy’s joke is much closer to reality that we may all care to think.

        • JAC,

          Thank you. Many times when I come here, it seems that so much has already been espoused on the various topics that any further input would sound redundant.

          I am now realizing that as the discussion continues many other aspects and ideas start coming forth and it gets much easier to comment.

          Btw, great story about the depression from your Pa! And I vaugely remember the 1970-1980s (RIGHT!) however, I do know some folks who actually found it far more comfortable being in jail with its comforts. Cheers mate!


  25. Judy Sabatini says:

    Here is another.

    Stevie Wonder asks
    Tiger Woods, “How is your golf

    He replies, ‘Not too
    bad, I’ve had some problems with my swing, but I think
    I’ve got that right,

    Stevie says, ‘I
    always find that when my swing goes wrong, I need to stop
    playing for a while and not think about it. Then, the next
    time I play, it seems to be all

    Tiger says, ‘You
    play GOLF?’

    Stevie says, ‘Yes,
    I’ve been playing for years.’

    Tiger says, ‘But —
    you’re blind! How can you play golf if you can’t

    Stevie Wonder replies,
    ‘Well, I get my caddy to stand in the middle of the
    fairway and call to me. I listen for the sound of his voice
    and play the ball towards him. Then, when I get to
    where the ball lands, the caddy moves to the green or
    farther down the fairway and again I play the ball
    towards his voice.’

    ‘But, how do you
    putt?’ asks Tiger’

    Well’, says Stevie,
    ‘I get my caddy to lean down in front of the hole and
    call to me with his head on the ground and I just play the
    ball towards his voice..’

    Tiger asks,
    ‘What’s your handicap?’

    Stevie says, ‘Well,
    actually — I’m a scratch

    Woods, incredulous, says
    to Stevie, ‘We’ve got to play a round

    Stevie replies,
    ‘Well, people don’t take me seriously, so I only
    play for money, and never play for less than $10,000 a hole.
    That a problem?’

    Woods thinks about it
    and says, ‘I can afford that. OK, I’m game for that.
    $10,000 a hole is fine with me. When would you like to

    Stevie Wonder says,
    ‘Pick a night.’

  26. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “You are perfectly correct IF your premise is that the fetus is a living human being.

    I don’t accept that premise. But I believe that is a debate for another day.”

    No Buck, lets go ahead and have this discussion today, since federally funded abortion may or may not be part of the eventual “healthcare reform bill” that the President will inevitably sign.

    What, precisely, is a fetus?

    If the fetus was created by the combination of HUMAN male DNA, and HUMAN female DNA, then that fetus is HUMAN, yes?

    And, barring natural causes (such as miscarriage), the only way to KILL that fetus is to forcibly rip it from its environment (the mother’s womb), correct?

    So, the fetus has human male DNA, and human female DNA, and is therefore biologically human, AND the only way to get rid of it (barring natural causes) is to KILL it, right? So, it must be ALIVE…

    So it certainly seems that a fetus is a living human to me, yes?

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      I have to pipe in on that. Yes, that fetus is a live human being, and anybody that says different will get an argument from me.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Afternoon Judy! I’d love to hear your thoughts on my below response to Peter as well!


    • Buck The Wala says:

      I personally view a fetus as a POTENTIAL living human being. I’m not going to get into the 1st/2d/3d trimester issues with development and whatnot right now, but suffice it to say that I do not equate a zygote with me or you.

      Peter, go along with my personal views and assumptions at this point just for a minute — IF you were to agree with my beliefs on this, then surely you would agree that abortion is not killing a living human being. Now I know that you do not hold these same views, and I can tell you feel very strongly on the topic. But that does not mean that my views on this are less valid, or less correct, than your own.

      I have had the abortion discussion with many Republican friends of mine. Perhaps you can indulge me and answer a few questions that have arisen which I have never had a satisfactory answer to:

      You believe that abortion should be made illegal. I understand from your earlier post that you can recognize certain exceptions — rape for isntace. But if you sincerely believe that a fetus in every single stage is a living human being – and I believe that is truly how you feel – how can you compromise that view based on surrounding circumstances?

      Assuming you have the votes and make abortion illegal, what should be the penalty for doctors who perform the procedure? What about for the woman undergoing the procedure? If you equate abortion to murdering a living human being, wouldn’t the woman be guilty of aiding and abetting that murder and equally as culpable as the doctor?

      Lastly, in my experience many people who are against abortion are for the death penalty. I don’t know your views on this, but how would you explain that contradiction?

      I’d be really interested in hearing your thoughts and insight on these issues. Again, most people I know have not provided answers to these questions; here’s hoping you or someone else on this board can.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “You believe that abortion should be made illegal.”

        I do?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Also, I do not support the death penalty…

          Someone that believes that abortion is murder but believes that the death penalty is just has some contradictions to deal with.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Based on your earlier posts I gathered that you would support to ban abortion; if I was mistaken, I apologize. I agree with you on the inherent contradiction with the death penatly.

          But I am still waiting your thoughts on my other questions.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            I will do my best to answer your other questions, but it might have to wait until tomorrow.

            Time to go have dinner with my wife and kids, help the older boy with his kindergarten homework (yeah, he DOES get homework in kindergarten), and then my wife and I have a date to kill some scary virtual monsters on our computers with about 8 other friends of ours later this evening!

            See you in the morning with some more answers if I have time then 🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I believe that abortion is demonstrably the murder of another human being (not just a POTENTIAL one). However, why would that automatically equate to me wanting it to be illegal?

          If you live in New York, and you murder some guy named Joe, why and how is it my job to punish you for it? Why would I even care if murder were legalized in New York? Sure, I would never GO there if that were the case, but I already never GO THERE NOW, so it really wouldn’t affect me all that much.

          There, how’s that for obtuse for you?

          • Buck The Wala says:

            You should at least visit NYC at some point – greatest place in the world.

            I’m sure Matt would agree – even though he’s really from LA he likes to consider himself a NY’er.

            • Proof positive that the USA is bilaterally symetrical.

              For it has two arm pits, one located on each side, equal distance from the center.

              Now what would that make Chicago?

              A single stinky pit in the center……….emmmmmmmm. Oh yeah!

              Sorry, this is a family channel so I can not share my conclusion at this time.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        At what point, for you, does POTENTIAL become ACTUAL?

        The moment of birth, or the moment that the child becomes self-sufficient? Should it be OK to kill a 6-month old if you suddenly decide you do not want it? After all, the 6-month old would be completely incapable of living without the complete support of at least one other human being, right? So, in what way is it DIFFERENT than the fetus?

      • Oh Buck. Why are you younguns always trying to sprint when the race is a marathon? Methoodical steps young man, methodical steps will get you through the cave.

        You have set another trap for yourself. I will stand by and wait for Peter the Great to swing his mighty sword, or perhaps he will simply entangle you with his web of logic.

      • Ah, Buck, good sir, you’ve skewered yourself right out of the gate.

        You are right – fetus is a stage of development of a human being – equally right beside infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc.

        Now, you have to try to contradict science to claim that it isn’t a stage of development, but “something else” – but that will be impossible, since science does not see it any other way.

        OR, you give up on that direction, and then argue that you can decide humanity based on development. Opps, but that is a tar pit, since now – by mere subjective measure – you select one stage over any other. The argument back will be, given the subjective, why not claim ‘baby’ a stage ‘not human’, or ‘child’, or heck, adolescent too. We could dispose of all those unruly hooligans before age 25…but why 25? make 30…no…50 …. or what? why?

        It’s impossible to demonstrate reason on something like
        ‘what stage of human development is human’

        • And PS, I have to concur – many who are pro-life for a fetus are anti-life for criminal adults. I also think it is a bizarre contradiction too.

          But do not believe because some are in contradiction makes it a RIGHT to kill a fetus. ….

          • I do not agree with the death penalty, not do I find abortion as an acceptable practice, but I offer the following justification that I have come to understand as to why people abhore abortion but are fine with the death penalty.

            I think the confusion comes from the fetus did not choose to engange in an activity that cause it to be created. The fetus is innocent and cannot be accountable for actions of others(parents).

            The adult criminal, however acted with prior knowledge to the possibility of the penalty of murder(death penalty); therefore chose the concequence of committing murder, by committing murder.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              That is as good an explanation as I can come up with. But wouldn’t natural rights dictate that even though you were to commit murder and infringe on the natural rights of another, you still wouldn’t be deemed to cede your own natural right to life?

              • Which is one of the reasons I dont support the death penalty. However others have not made that realization. That ignorance does not however make their arguement against abortion any less correct.

                The inconsistancy for their respect to life only hurts the integrety of the person not the arguement(as long as it is a logical arguement).

              • Buck

                That is as good an explanation as I can come up with. But wouldn’t natural rights dictate that even though you were to commit murder and infringe on the natural rights of another, you still wouldn’t be deemed to cede your own natural right to life?

                Good and strong question – it exposes the Law of Mutuality “What I do to you gives others the right to do to me”

                The eye-for-an-eye justification, and yes, it is supported by Natural Law.

                HOWEVER, so is RESTITUTION. “Trying to make whole what was lost”.

                I would submit that the latter works to rebuild society – the former works to dismantle it.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          I grant you it is a stage of development. But to me, and many others, that in and of itself does not equate to a human being.

          I look in the microscope and, not to be crude, see a cluster of cells. Will that cluster eventually develop into a fully functioning human being? Sure, barring any problems. But that doesn’t mean that cluster of cells should or does have all the rights of a living human being.

          To me the breakoff point is viability. I know that that is a blurred line and I have supported restrictions on abortions in the 2d and 3d trimesters. I know I’m going to get myself in trouble with this one (I can already sense it and again, not nearly enough coffee today to be fully coherent).

          However, I am still waiting on an answer to my earlier questions if anyone dares. It seems many of you agree with me on the inherent conflicts with the questions I raised, but can anyone offer insight into these seemingly conflicting positions?

          • I am going to call you on the blurred line of viability. Mainly just so we all can think on the subject.

            As technology has advanced so has viability at a younger and younger age. So ten year from now if thru the advances in technology a baby is viabile at say 10 weeks after conception, how is that child any less of a human than a child that is aborted at 10 weeks today?

            • Buck The Wala says:

              That’s a great point and one which admittedly I haven’t given much thought on. I know that we have reduced the age of viability, which speaks wonders about modern science and technology. I will withhold judgment on your hypo until we reach that point.

              For now though, we are not at that point.

              • Lets consider a better example then a child at 5 months 100 years ago was not viable how is it less human than a child born at 5 months today?

          • Buck,

            I don’t know that I can answer your questions very well, but will give it a shot. I favor the death penalty, much as Seed described, if an adult chooses to commit a heinous crime, they made that choice.

            I am Pro-choice for several reasons. I do not feel I have the right to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy. I will agree with the reasoning others have posted, any abortion is the taking of a human life. This includes the “morning after” pill. The only difference between it and a surgical procedure is, you do not know if you were pregnant or not, so you don’t know if you took a baby’s life.

            I also can understand wanting to make this a “gray” issue, not black and white. In that regard, can we agree that a procedure that involves sucking out the brain, this is a baby, not a fetus?

            And while I support the choice and abortion being legal, I do not think it should be “easy”. You might wonder why does Obama support late term abortion and oppose ANY restrictions? Why does a
            “non-profit” organization like this want to increase the number of abortions they perform?
            Why does a group call themselves “Planned Parenthood” seem to be more concerned with keeping and expanding the abortion business than with helping to educate prospective parents on child raising?

            Myself, I think this is another liberal strategy to undermine the values that our society was founded by. From my guest article Oct. 31,

            In 1960, there were three practical objections to receiving welfare: too little money, no way to supplement it and no chance for couples to live together. By 1970, all three impediments had been removed. If a woman was pregnant, her AFDC payments were now significantly higher, and she received Medicaid, as well. The law had been amended so that she could now add to her income by working if she chose. Further, by Supreme Court ruling, the presence of a man in the house could not be used as a reason to deny a woman benefits. As long as a couple was unmarried, a woman could receive benefits and the man was free to work when and if he chose. Many poor individuals have, and have always had, strong moral objections to going on welfare – but by 1970, the government had removed any financial ones. It had made welfare and illegitimacy a superior short-term financial alternative to marriage and minimum-wage employment.2

            “The government’s post-1960s policies must be examined in their cumulative effect. The state made welfare a more lucrative short-term option than full-time minimum-wage employment. It made chronic illegitimacy a superior financial alternative to marriage and self-supporting family. It increasingly refused to discourage unruly behavior in school. By promoting even those who failed to learn, it undercut the motivation to study and get an education. By permitting disruptions and undermining motivation, it made learning as difficult as possible in the urban public schools. By decreasingly punishing youthful offenders, it encouraged crime. Governmental policies have encouraged indolence, illegitimacy, lack of family structure and supervision, disruptive school behavior, diminished education and crime. “

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Let me just say that the ‘morning after’ pill is NOT abortion. We can debate whether or not abortion is murder and whether or not abortion should be made illegal or what restrictions should we place on the right to have an abortion.

              The morning after pill though does not terminate a pregnancy; rather, this pill prevents contraception and, in some cases, implantation. It is much more akin to a condom or birth control than it is to abortion. Would you similarly argue that these latter methods of birth control are akin to murder?

              • From what I understand about the morning after pill it is not abortion. It is used to delay the release of the egg and to interfer with the sperm fertilizing the egg. Like all contraceptives it is not 100% effective and will not kill a baby if the mother is already pregnant.

                Buck I will agree that the morning after pill is not abortion. Based on what I understand about it.

              • I choose Life of Illusion as a name based on the Joe Walsh song,
                “and see thru the hole in this wall of confusion”. I try very hard to not deceive myself about things. I state that I am Pro-choice. I do not hide behind
                comfortable changes in wording. The only thing separating a fertilized egg from being a baby is time and natural or artificial interference.

                “Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation).”


                Which we don’t have to agree on that, I am much more interested in the late term abortion. If the procedure involves sucking out the brain, do you still call it a fetus? I do not. I say that was a baby, and a act that is not “civilized”.

                And the real issue here, Obama, Pelosi and their following are trying to create a society where
                pregnancy then abortion has no consequences. California PROHIBITS parental notification
                of a minor having an abortion.

                You did not post to my guest article on the 31st. I would like your thoughts on my conclusion, that our government is deliberately keeping and growing a dependent class. I bring this up because deminishing the family structure
                is one of the ways they are accomplishing this. They are not “protecting a woman’s right to choose”, they are installing express lanes in every city in the US, and giving us the bill.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                On the issue of partial birth abortion, I am against the practice. However, I do believe there should be an exception for those (admittedly very rare) cases where the life of the mother is endangered.

                On the issue of parental notification, I have not read the CA law on this topic. I would support a parental notification requirement so long as there is an exception built in in those instances where the adolescent has a valid reason for not seeking parental support (e.g., rape by one’s father).

              • No, the science is clear that until the merge of sperm and egg, no human exists.

              • a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus

              • Buck the Wala says:

                if the fertilized egg does not attach to the wall of the uterus, there can be no child.

          • Buck,

            I grant you it is a stage of development. But to me, and many others, that in and of itself does not equate to a human being.

            And that scares me to death.

            All that is left is a subjective rationalization of what development may or may not be human.

            We’re not human *here*, then we *poof* become human there, and then, heck, we fall out of human *there*. Too bad if you disagree, you’re dead.

            I look in the microscope and, not to be crude, see a cluster of cells.

            So, your argument is your poor vision makes someone not human.

            Oh, they are missing parts – then they are not human.

            Oh, you can’t see the parts of their body – then they are not human.

            Subjective dart throwing….

            Will that cluster eventually develop into a fully functioning human being? Sure, barring any problems.

            Now, you have problems – you’re not human.

            Have Parkinson’s – big problem = not human.

            Down Syndrome – big problem = not human.

            Legs not fully functioning – big problem = not human.

            No arms (obviously, not functioning) – big problem = not human.

            Subjective dart throwing….

            But that doesn’t mean that cluster of cells should or does have all the rights of a living human being.

            Why not?

            You are merely a large cluster of cells.

            When does a cluster of cells become a cluster of cells but with rights?

            To me the breakoff point is viability.

            Sir, I will leave in the middle of the Sahara.
            You are not viable = you must not be human.

            I know that that is a blurred line and I have supported restrictions on abortions in the 2d and 3d trimesters.

            Ah, the moving goal posts – its this date – opps, no, this date -darn, its this date – heck, its any date we want, we get to whack a human.

            I know I’m going to get myself in trouble with this one (I can already sense it and again, not nearly enough coffee today to be fully coherent).

            Yes, you are in deep trouble. So far, you’ve proven yourself not a human by your own argument.

            However, I am still waiting on an answer to my earlier questions if anyone dares. It seems many of you agree with me on the inherent conflicts with the questions I raised, but can anyone offer insight into these seemingly conflicting positions?

            Sorry – missed the question – can you point to post # for the blind pirate (that’d be me).

            • I am so glad I don’t get into this subject. This is a controversy that is beyond my biological knowledge.

              Glad I’m a guy!

              CHEERS my Pirate Friend!


            • Buck The Wala says:

              BF: To be fair you are completely mischaracterizing my post. I have never said nor implied that someone is any less human than me or you due to a biological or genetic disease like Parkinson’s or Down’s Syndrome.

              I understand you are making that comparison to further your own point, but let’s keep the debate fair minded.

              With that, I will leave you all for home…enjoy the rest of your days.

              • Buck,

                I purposely extended your argument since yours was merely subjective, I applied my subjective.

                That’s the problem with subjective – there is no reasoning other than “because – period”.

                You claim something unseen or missing – so do I. You simply don’t like the extent I extended the unseen or missing – but trust me, you can’t argue against me either.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I see your point BF, but my position is not entirely subjective.

                I base my position to a large extent on science. Science has found a point of viability which I am using as my basepoint. Admittedly that line will draw closer to the point of conception and, as it does, I will be forced to reconsider my position. My thinking at the moment is that as the line of viability draws closer to conception, the ‘open window’ for abortion will also draw closer to conception.

                This is a more objective line than you may think.

              • I base my position to a large extent on science. Science has found a point of viability which I am using as my basepoint.

                Then we are merely basing humanity on an equally subjective point, that is, capability?

                I point to the Sahara example. You have no native capability – you will die – therefore, because you are not capable of surviving, you cannot be human??

                Simply because “technology” saves you, you suddenly claim “human”??

                So technology saves a fetus, and suddenly its human??

                So technology makes or breaks you being human or not?

                So a man dying from a heart attack is not human – he is no longer viable – but once on a heart machine – he suddenly is human again?

                Technology defines humanity???

                I would suggest that because you admit if technology creates capability of survivability all the way to zygote, then suddenly it is now “human” – but technology cannot make human – therefore, it must have always been human from the beginning.

                Technology only aided the survival – of zygote, fetus, child or adult.

        • Common Man says:


          I have an 18 month old grandson that was at one time close to not being. He is a delightful, happy, intelligent being equiped with a great deal of potential.

          His introduction into the world came at a time his father and mother did not need the added burden, but they are now better in his existance.

          I am not sure how to debate the abortion issue, as I have mixed feelings. I can tell you that if my unwed daughter told us she was pregnant I would be excited for another grandchild, even if it ment my wife and I raising him or her.

          Years ago my wife and I were told that our first child might be a “Downs Syndrome” and we were given an option to abort. We decided that regardless of the potential challenge we would not abort. My son was normal, although there have been times he acted like he was mentally defficent, but that is another subject.

          Again, I return to my question: who says the government has a right to tell me how to run my life?

          My friend BF might have a few words of wisdom here, but regardless it is not a subject I can force another to side or argue with.

          The world, at least mine, is better for my son and grandson.


          • Buck The Wala says:

            I am sure the world is better for the lives of your son and grandson.

            You argue though that “who says the government has a right to tell me how to run my life”. The government is not telling anyone to get an abortion; rather it is leaving that option open and available to you to freely choose. But if abortion is made illegal, than isn’t that the government telling me how to run my life?

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              I don’t think the government should even have a say in the matter, they need to stay out of the medical profession. I have said that numerous times, I will keep saying that, until they do.

              No government has the right to tell anybody what to do with their bodies, none. Even though I’m against abortions, that should be strictly between a woman and her doctor, not the government, doctor and patient.

            • Buck:

              My young cave dweller. I am having a great chuckle right now.

              For I am guessing that as of about 5:10 p.m. you have become most confused.

              Am I wrong?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Wrong as usual JAC 🙂

                I agree that government should not be telling someone they can or cannot tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion. Much like I agree the government should not be telling someone who they can or cannot marry.

                I know your mind has just exploded at what you surely find to be my contradiction. But just because I feel government has no role in X or Y does not mean I feel the same way about Z.

                Regarding the health reform debate specifically, I feel the government has no place telling me what doctor I can or cannot see; but that is not the same as finding no place for a public option.

              • Buck:

                You misunderstood my chuckling and assumption about your confusion.

                I expected you to be confused by the positions taken here by your antagonists after they so vehemently presented the argument that aborition is in fact the killing of an innocent human being.

                But since you brought up your position. Do you think the Govt should provide funding for said abortions?

                If you say yes, then you are contradicting your position that they have no business in medical affairs. For once someone agrees to pay, they will have a say in the care. That is the trap in relying on insurance to pay for medical care.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Why should I be confused by your positions?

                As for the issue of government provided funding of abortions, I can see both sides of the issue. One point though: FUNDING an abortion is not the same as REQUIRING a woman to have an abortion. By providing funding, how is the government getting involved in making your medical decisions for you?

              • Buck,

                If I said the government should FUND murderers choice of weapon – because it means the government is NOT FUNDING murder, would you buy it?

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I’ll answer that JAC.

                No, the government should NOT at any time provide funding for an abortion. If a woman gets pregnant, then it should be on her or the guy to pay ofr it, not the government.

                NO< SILCH< NODDA.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                That’s a fair argument.

                But my point to JAC was that providing funding for abortion is not the same as granting the government a say in whether someone has an abortion.

            • Common Man says:


              Can’t objectively answer the abortion question, but I can take a stand of the government being involved. Because they have historically proven to screw 99% of what they stick their noses into, they need to stay out of individual rights; especially those they violate by being involved.

              My answer to anything going into or coming out of washignton is “NO!”


          • Hi CM!

            The government of course. But we know better, and they will lose in the long run.


          • I can add nothing to your wisdom of experience, sir.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi Buck

        Boy, this is going to be hard for me here. Do you have any idea what a baby goes through when it’s getting aborted? Do you not think that it can feel what is being done do it? I can’t for the life of me understand that anybody thinks that a baby, doesn’t matter what stage, cannot feel anything, because it can.

        You didn’t want to get into the the fetal development, but I’m sorry, we have to go there. As soon as conception takes place, all those cells start to divide, until they start forming into a human. By the 3rd week, the heart starts beating, although it be very faint, the brain starts to develope, body starts taking a form of becoming human. By the 4th week, it is pretty much developed, and all it needs to do is grow.

        As is gets bigger and bigger, yes, that baby can hear outside noses, can recognize it’s mother’s voice, hears her heart beat, starts moving about by the 2nd month, but only it feels more like flutters until it gets bigger. That baby starts to take practice breaths believe it or not. If you were to shine a light in it’s eyes, it will try and protect it’s eyes from that light.

        So when an abortion takes place, yes that baby can feel when it’s starting to get cut into pieces, or the saline solution being poured on to it so it will burn it’s skin. Partial birth abortion, I think is one of the worst things anybody can do, wait until it’s almost born, then suck it’s brain out like it’s nothing, then it’s born the rest of the way, then dies, I’m sure shortly after that, then just thrown in the dumpster like a piece of garbage.

        I know this is going to sound contradictory to some, but I think if they make abortions illegal, then what’s going to happen is going back to the back alley abortion clinics and who knows what could happen then. The mother’s life could be in more danger with the procedure, and who knows what could go wrong, and she would then would have to go to the hospital in case of massive bleeding or possible infection.

        I am against abortion 100%, sorry, but that is my thoughts and how I feel about it. Maybe it’s because it has to do with what I went through to get pregnant, I don’t know. When I got pregnant the 1st time, lost that one in the 4th month. Got pregnant again but had to have my cervix stitched so I wouldn’t lose that one. That was the problem the first time, went into premature labor. As I was saying got pregnant again, had my son who is now 27 years old. Ten months later after having him, got pregnant again, had my cervix stitched, but still lost that one in the 5th month, that was my girl, the first one was also a boy.Her central nervous system wasn’t developing right which cause me to miscarry her. Took me a little over a year to get pregnant again, almost lost him in the 8th month because he was going into stress, had to take him by C-section. He will be 24 on the 18th of this month.

        So you see Buck why I feel about abortion like I do. Me and my husband went through hell just to be able to have our 2 boys that we have now. By the way, we were married for 13 years before we finally had our first son, that’s how long it took for us to be able to have kids. And that’s why I feel so strongly about it.

        As for why a woman shouldn’t be charged with murder, I don’t know. But let me ask you this one. If a pregnant woman is murdered, and so is her baby, then why is the person who killed her and her baby, charged with a double murder? Can you answer me that?

        • Buck The Wala says:

          I am truly sorry to hear about what you had to go through. And I’m sure that most certainly influenced your views on this issue. But now you have two undoubtedly amazing boys!

          To answer your question about charging someone with double murder for killing a pregnant woman – I don’t agree with that.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Okay, why? Is it because it’s legal to have an abortion and that’s not considered murder, but, it’s considered double murder if someone else kills her and her baby? Sorry, but I believe abortion is murder, murder to an innocent human that doesn’t even have a chance to live a life or have a say in the matter.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              And By the way, yes I have to wonderful son’s who I wouldn’t trade for all the money on earth. They mean the world to me and my husband.

      • Buck:

        Let me give you some more questions for your Republican friends on this issue.

        If they are died in the wool R’s they will hold the party line on abortion should be illegal excetp in the case of incest, rape and threat to the mothers life.

        But if the killing of an innocent unborn child is murder then what has said child done to remove the label of “innocent”?

        Is not the unborn child product of incest and rape equally innocent?

        Is not the unborn child of the mother who may die also innocent?

        How can one justify the killing of one innocent and not another based on factors outside the control of the one being killed?

        Now don’t jump to conclusions regarding my personal views here. I am just giving you a few things to point out the hypocrisy that exists within the Elephant’s platform. Or in this case, carefully constructed position statment created after extensive and careful polling and focus groups.

        And yes, that is how the R’s came up with that position. They hunted high and low until they could find a defense that was accceptable to the majority of swing voters and would keep their base intact.

        While I do not agree with the Dems position on federally funded abortion, I do believe they have been much more principled in their arguments. I don’t agree with their principles but at least they state them and then stick to them on this issue.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          JAC, I think we found ourselves in agreement on this.

          I may be biased but I certainly find the Dems position more static and concrete. If you begin with the premise that a fetus is not a living human being (and I know I am in the minority on that on this site) then there is no contradiction on many of the issues you have raised.

          • Buck:

            We are in agreement on the Dems argument.

            But as you stated, it depends on the beginning premise.

            As was pointed out on this issue many months ago, on this site, there are only two distinct points from which we can declare that life begins.

            One is at conception. The other is at birth. These are events on a natural pathway of developement. The selection of either does not require human decision. Anyother point, 1st trimester or 1 year is an arbitrary point in time created by human decision.

            But as BF just pointed out, anything between conception and birth is scientifically described as a step along the pathway of human development. This creates a seriouse logic problem for those who wish to justify abortion on the premise of “not a human being”. This does not mean your premise is wrong, only that the standard arguments in its defense are wrong.

            If we are going to use logic and reason as our foundation we must use it always.

      • Careful, Buck – classifying certain entities as “non-human” is what got us such wonderful historical footnotes as slavery and the Holocaust.

        • PS: I always found the whole “a fetus isn’t human” arguments oddly amusing. Obviously it’s human. But that doesn’t necessarily make abortions wrong, any more than killing someone in self-defense is wrong. I find the pro-choice people simply don’t want to admit that abortion is killing a human being, because that would hurt the public perception of the issue.

  27. [The New Yorker’s John] Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. “The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment,” he writes. “Let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration … is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.”

    Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of “making the United States a more equitable country” and furthering the Democrats’ “political calculus.” In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

    • And that, is the scariest part of all of this….

      • Morning Kathy and LOI,

        Several times in the past, I’ve mentioned to my friends that the goal of the Democratic/Leftist cabal, is to destroy the American middle class. Of course, I was ridiculed and dismissed, after stating that the reason for this is simply because we are in the way of the elitists. We have our own ideas about things and have enough wealth and power to thwart the elitists plans for us. So before the Grand Utopia can be created, we, the American middle class must be destroyed. I’m sure I seem crazier and stoopider by the day, don’t I? I can’t help but be bitter about this. I’ve busted my ass and sacrificed a lot of time, money and effort to accomplish my personal goals just to have the government pull the rug out from beneath me.

        • Cyndi,

          I am not sure they are out to destroy the middle class. I am sure they are intent on expanding the dependent class they created, and using its numbers to make themselves the dominant power in America. They only need one more liberal
          S.C. justice and the constitution and bill of rights will be
          abolished. Their agenda is to transform our nation into some socialist something. I don’t think they even know what they want it to be, just not a free republic, where people think of themselves as “citizens”.

          • Where are the new memebers of the dependent class going to come from? The superwealthy? I don’t think so. I think the elitists know exactly what they want to create. Yes, some are just power hungry but some are very intent on the reason they want the power. I’m pretty sure the socialist something doesn’t have much use for a prosperous and independent middle class. That’s what we had and apparently the socialists/elitists don’t have much love for it, so far as I can tell.

            • I can’t argue with that. I just cannot show or prove they are deliberately trying to eliminate the middle class. Not that it is not going to be a consequence of their actions, just that that is their intent.

              If you can’t raise the river, lower the bridge? They want to elevate the lower class, (including the never worked a day in their life)to the same level as those who work 40-60 hours a week.

              • LOI,

                They HAVE to know what the consequences will be. Otherwise, why bother to go to the trouble? Just because you and I don’t have proof doesn’t mean that isn’t what’s going on. Does stupidity and incompetence really explain it? For stupid and incompetent people, our ‘leaders’ have done pretty well for themselves don’t you think? Most of the incompetent brain donors I know don’t get beyond living pay check to pay check. Indifference vs intent. Which is it? Who knows?

              • From my May 13 article,

                Progressives think capitalism is inherently wrong, that it will deny most people a fair share of what they are due in life. The extreme left has sided with oppressive regimes such as North Vietnam, Cuba and the USSR. Despite millions exterminated under the rule of these oppressive regimes, the left has defended their actions as a step along the path to full equity for all people. Moderate progressives do not view those failures as relevant. Just because these attempts failed, does not change the progressive belief that capitalism is unworkable, and must be replaced with a socialist system that has yet to be designed. Nihilism is the will to destroy without a concept of what will be done next.

              • below, too the bottom

      • Yep, its all about gaining the power to complete their agenda.
        They can only get away with it because the media has the same agenda, otherwise they would be screaming bloody murder cutting 500 billion from Medicare. As if Sr, care is not going to be cut. Sorry Grandma, its for the Greater Good.

  28. Off Topic but another WTF Alert…;txt

    Justice Dept. Asked For News Site’s Visitor Lists
    Posted by Declan McCullagh
    (AP / CBS)In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

    The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Web site “not to disclose the existence of this request” unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

    Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department’s subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward “promoting social and economic justice” and “social change.”)

    The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

    “I didn’t think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention,” Clair said in a telephone interview with on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.

    Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that “no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media” without “the express authorization of the attorney general” – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be “directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter.”

    Still unclear is what criminal investigation U.S. Attorney Morrison was pursuing. Last Friday, a spokeswoman initially promised a response, but Morrison sent e-mail on Monday evening saying: “We have no comment.” The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. also declined to respond.

    Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, replied to the Justice Department on behalf of his client in a February 2009 letter (PDF) outlining what he described as a series of problems with the subpoena, including that it was not personally served, that a judge-issued court order would be required for the full logs, and that Indymedia did not store logs in the first place.

    Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison’s office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena — claiming it “may endanger someone’s health” and would have a “human cost.”

    Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn’t stand up in court: “If you get a subpoena and you’re a journalist, they can’t gag you.”

    Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented. “I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter’s privilege says, ‘Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general’s office’… I’m willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking.”

    Making this investigation more mysterious is that is an aggregation site, meaning articles that appear on it were published somewhere else first, and there’s no hint about what sparked the criminal probe. Clair, the system administrator, says that no IP (Internet Protocol) addresses are recorded for, and non-IP address logs are kept for a few weeks and then discarded.

    EFF’s Bankston wrote a second letter to the government saying that, if it needed to muzzle Indymedia, it should apply for a gag order under the section of federal law that clearly permits such an order to be issued. Bankston’s plan: To challenge that law on First Amendment grounds.

    But the Justice Department never replied. “This is the first time we’ve seen them try to get the IP address of everyone who visited a particular site,” Bankston said. “That it was a news organization was an additional troubling fact that implicates First Amendment rights.”

    This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia — a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism. In 2004, the Justice Department sent a grand jury subpoena asking for information about who posted lists of Republican delegates while urging they be given an unwelcome reception at the party’s convention in New York City that year. A Indymedia hosting service in Texas once received a subpoena asking for server logs in relation to an investigation of an attempted murder in Italy.

    Bankston has written a longer description of the exchange of letters with the Justice Department, which he hopes will raise awareness of how others should respond to similar legal demands for Web logs, customer records, and compulsory silence. “Our fear is that this kind of bogus gag order is much more common than one would hope, considering they’re legally baseless,” Bankston says. “We’re telling this story in hopes that more providers will press back and go public when the government demands their silence.”

    Update 1:59pm E.T.: A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just told me that the attorney general’s office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that’s correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the “express authorization of the attorney general” for media subpoenas — and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility; my source would not confirm or deny that.

    • Cyndi:

      Aside from the obvious scary implication what angers me most is that the “special rights” afforded the “media or news organizations” are the very rights the Constitution was supposed to protect with the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.

      Any grand jury that signs off on a subpoena that is that general in nature should be tried for treason.

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    Down here Buck


    That’s a fair argument.

    But my point to JAC was that providing funding for abortion is not the same as granting the government a say in whether someone has an abortion.

    No, it’s not the same, but either way, I don’t think government should be funding them in any way, shape or form. Why should the government have to pay for some one else’s mistakes? Is the woman doesn’t want to have any kids, then perhaps she should practice contraception before she even thinks about having sex, and I don’t care who it is. Abortion is NOT a form of contraception, never has been, never will be. But, that’s just my humble opinion.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Almost missed you down here!

      I agree — abortion should not be treated as a form of contraception.

      On the issue of funding though, I am personally torn. As I’ve said, I see both sides of the issue. Just to play devil’s advocate here, government funding of abortion is not necessarily paying for someone’s mistakes (the exception of rape jumps out to me). I can see where it is ‘paying for someone’s mistakes’ in other cases, and I can see where you could validly reach the conclusion that by so funding the government is promoting the idea of abortion as contraception.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        On the rape issue, I too am torn on that one, but as usual my thoughts go with the baby. Why should the baby have to pay with it’s life? Why can’t the woman just go ahead and have the baby and then give it up for adoption, at least that way it will have a chance at life.

        Like I said last night to JAC, this is a very touchy topic for me, and I have a hard time sometimes saying what I think. Hope you understand that.

        • The “rape” question is like asking someone a calculus question when they are still trying to get a handle on multiplication.

          I would suggest becoming firm in reason from a immutable premise to why abortion is wrong – able to deflect EVERY argument of consensual sex and its consequence of procreation before one delves into the highly complex cross of rights and action due to addition of violence and non-consent.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            That’s a really good analogy; never thought of it that way.

            The issue of rape really does throw a monkey wrench into the whole equation.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              That’s why I say, why make the baby pay with it’s life, have it, give it up, let it have a chance at life.

              I think I’ve said all I can on this subject, it’s very hard for me to talk about really, I’m surprised I said what I did, but I had to let you know Buck how I stand on it.

  30. Humor and beer 30, nite all

    Life is like an analogy.

    Sometimes I wake up moody; other times I let her sleep

    The noblest of dogs is the hot dog, it feeds the hand that bites it.

    Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and I thought to myself, where the heck is the ceiling.

    Jesus says to John come forth ill give you eternal life. John came fifth he won a toaster

    Tennis is a fickle sport. No matter how good you are at it, a wall will always be better.

    Before you insult a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, whern you insult him, you’ll be a mile away, and have his shoes.

    Your mum is so fat, she walked past the TV and i missed the first season of Lost.

    Who’s General Failure & why is he reading my disk?

    I put the sexy in dyslexic.

    “Practise makes perfect”…but no one’s perfect, so why practise?

    I still miss my ex-girlfriend… but my aim is improving

    I’d like to meet the person who invented sex, and see what they’re working on now.

    You\’re like a slinky – completely useless, but fun to push down stairs.

  31. LOI, Have to agree with you on thier agenda. It’s destructive and things are moving faster than I ever would believe. No telling how much damage will be done over the next year. It feels like a different country than what it was ten years ago, and I don’t like that feeling at all.

    Hope today finds you well!


  32. Judy Sabatini says:

    I don’t want to sound stupid here, but, WHAT THE HECK IS BEER 30? I hear that a lot, but still don’t know what that means. Someone, please tell me.

    • That would be quitting time at work! Time to go home and relax with a cold beer and relieve the stress. Beer-30 = the end of the work day. Now on Friday’s, it’s beer-30 and party time!


      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Thank you, all I wanted to know.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I posted before I refreshed the page. I didn’t see your answer before I posted. Funny how we came up with the almost same exact definition. Not that it’s not an uncommon or complicated thing, just interesting, thats all. I assume you are a working man G.

        • Bl. Your assumptions are correct. Just got off the phone with a good friend from out of state, it’s really a small world. Maybe if your near OHIO sometime we can meet up and drink a few!


          • Bottom Line says:

            Small world indeed. I’m not sure when I’ll be near Ohio. But it sounds fun. I’ve been all over Ohio. I grew up an hour away from there, In the land of whiskey, horses, and bluegrass.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Beer 30 is to describe the appropriate time to crack one open, You’ve worked hard all day and are in need of an induced relaxation period. I.E. A couple of cold delicious refreshing beers. YUM!

  33. Hey BF, what do you think of that Joe Cada?

    • I think he is lucky.

      • Hi BF!

        I was always playing Black Jack or three card money back when I played. Havn’t got into Texas holdem yet, but it’s a long winter here and will need to do something, any advice?


        • Start with
          Harrington on Hold’m Vol 1 and 2


          David Sklansky’s Theory of Poker

          Practice at the lowest stake table possible.

          Best Poker site for variety and availability of tables: PokerStars

          Site with the most pros that really play online: Fulltilt

          Do not play on UltimateBet or Absolute Poker

          • Thanks BF

            You knowledge is always a fun thing for me to read. I was a;wys good at Jack, killed Vegas on many occasions!


  34. Esteemed colleagues and associates:

    Esteemed colleagues and associates:

    In the beginning of this discussion a lot of comments were directed at what is referred to as “protected groups.” Just out of curiosity do you believe that the government has intervention powers to declare what group of people gets protected status? Should any group of people receive protected status? Love to hear from you. Cheers!

    jps 😉

    • JP, Good evening Sir!

      I do not believe that any group of people should receive protection above and beyond any other group. My biggest complaint with the “progressive movement” is just that. I can’t stand the sight of people who live off the tax dollar and refuse to better themselves. I’m not wealthy, rather far from it, but I earn my way. I pay for my health insurance, although I can utilize the VA medical program. Everything going on in America now is bullshit, and has no place here, but they will only learn the hard way, so be it!


    • Good Evening, Jon-Paul!

      I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law. Its seems I’ve seen that somewhere before…..


      • G-Man and Cyndi P

        Thank you both so much for your feedback which certainly has helped me out. Cyndi P the entire notion of ‘equally under the law’ is certainly the language of the 14th amendment; however, my real question is that at some point in the mix it seems evident to me that “protected classes” are not only treated equally but rather continue to gain at the cost of others’ rights and/or equality.

        G-Man I’m with you! I believe there was a time in our Nation’s history when it was the appropriate thing to do – if only during an interim period. However, these “protected classes” now are finding every which way to skirt the law; consequently, it reeks of reverse-discrimination and getting a lot of something for absolutely nothing. Cheers! (And thank you again!) 😉


        • JPS,

          I’ve noticed the same things with some protected groups. of course, not all individuals try to get over.

          I have noticed what feels like reverse discrimination. Did you see the news story where a Columbia University professor punched a woman in the face over ‘white priviledge’? I think its on Drudge….

  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    I thought this was an interesting article.

    More random thoughts
    Thomas Sowell – Syndicated Columnist – 11/10/2009 9:35:00 AMBookmark and Share

    Thomas SowellRandom thoughts on the passing scene:

    If politicians stopped meddling with things they don’t understand, there would be a more drastic reduction in the size of government than anyone in either party advocates.

    It was fascinating to see Barack Obama warning us not to leap to conclusions about the killings at Fort Hood, Texas — after the way he leaped to conclusions over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, when he knew less about the facts than we already know about the massacre at Fort Hood.

    My first column, more than 30 years ago, was titled “The Profits of Doom.” Recent news stories about the millions of dollars that Al Gore has made out of his “global warming” hysteria suggest that some things haven’t changed much in three decades.

    Although the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation backs up bank accounts, a recent audit suggests that the FDIC does not have enough money in its own account to do its job. No doubt more money will be printed in Washington if necessary. But what this means is that even the record-breaking federal deficit understates the government’s real financial liabilities, because agencies like FDIC and the Federal Housing Authority are likely to need increased amounts of money to keep going.

    An e-mail from a reader says that liberals like to take the moral high ground, even though their own moral relativism means that there is no moral high ground.

    I doubt whether the man responsible for the massacre at Fort Hood will pay with his life for the lives that he took. He may well be free again someday. We can only hope that he does not get a hero’s welcome when he arrives in some terror-sponsoring country, the way the Lockerbie bomber did.

    A recent study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights showed that, after the housing boom and bust, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asian Americans and American Indians all reduced their subprime mortgage loans. Only politicians seem not to have learned anything from the economic disaster, and to persist in the reckless policies that brought it on.

    Baseball has too many close plays and too many judgment calls to have wholesale instant replay that could add hours to a game. However, there is no reason why there can’t be some device to show automatically whether any part of a ball went over any part of the plate, before an umpire can call it a strike. How wide the strike zone is shouldn’t depend on what umpire is behind the plate.

    Among the many infirmities of age is omniscience.

    What I most remember about the late Irving Kristol, aside from his wisdom — which is much rarer among intellectuals than one might expect — was that I never saw him angry, either in person or in the media. And he lived in a time when there was much to be angry about. Those of us who are getting along in years are unlikely to see another like him, and even those who are younger will be lucky if they do.

    No statement is more unnecessary than the statement that the government should “do something” about some issue. Politicians are going to “do something,” whether or not something needs to be done, and regardless of whether what they do makes matters better or worse. All their incentives are to keep themselves in the public eye.

    There is no point dwelling on all the foolish mistakes we have made in our lives. For one thing, it can be very time-consuming.

    One of the few advantages to the country in having Congress overwhelmingly in the hands of one party is that the lack of need to compromise lets the leaders of that party reveal themselves for what they are — in this case, people with unbounded arrogance and utter contempt for the right of ordinary people to live their lives as they see fit, much less the right to know as citizens what laws are going to be passed by their government. The question is whether voters will remember on Election Day in 2010.

    Even if this country can survive intact and unharmed after the Obama administration — or, heaven help us, two terms of Obama — the gullibility that led to his being elected in the first place will still be there for some other slick demagogue to come along and get the power to put the American way of life, and even our physical safety, at risk again.

  36. Judy Sabatini says:

    Calling it a night. I hope all you Vets here will have a great day tomorrow, and thank you all for serving, and thank you to those who are serving now, for you all are in that special place deep within my heart and always will be forever.

    Good night and sleep well.


    P.S. I love you all. Take Care

  37. USW,

    I’m not much of a morning person, so I would ask that you move this to the OPEN MIC forum. I’m posting early because of a phone call, so everyone disregard till tomorrow!

    Today, November 11, 2009, is Veterans Day! Special to me, because without the Vets, we couldn’t discuss much, if at all. Too often, our freedoms are taken for granted, and in many eyes, being stepped on today. I was lucky, I’m alive! I was lucky, because I worked with every branch of the military in my short 12 year tenure! Why? Because I worked the very best that our country has produced. The Marines, the Army, the Navy, the Coast Guard, and my crew, the Air Force. I worked with all of you, and never met anything less than a professional. The best that any man or women can be, in any branch of service, I worked with! I’m lucky! I’m so lucky, I cry when I bury one of those that served. I’m so lucky, that I worry about those that are in harms way each day, to continue the American way of life. No, it’s not perfect, but it’s what we have today.

    I’m lucky, because a good friend called tonight, we served in Desert Storm together, talked a lot when he was havin some rough times afterwards, today he and his family are doing fine, I’m lucky!

    I have great friends who have been through hell, like me. I’m lucky! I don’t even know what they look like, but they are with me, to share this day! I’m damn lucky!

    I listened as TAPS was played in Texas, as we said goodbye to 13 of our own, I cried. Damn I’m lucky.

    A month ago I watched a vet get buried in a field in Pennsylvania, the American Legion provided the Honor Guard, and played TAPS, I cried. Damn I’m lucky.

    I can only write what you have read, because I’m lucky. Today, I’m only here because of those that this day celebrates, the American Veterans, past, present and future.

    I am USAF. I am American and I WILL always be free. I WILL always fight for those that choose to stand beside me!

    On this Veterans Day, 2009, I offer the USAF’s best on video, and say to my fellow Vets, May God Bless You!



    • Sorry G, I couldn’t wait.

      You know me, I covet the 4 x 400.

      Thanks for the video and your service, but most of all your faith and committment to resurrect a nation build on liberty.

      Live Free My Friend

      for then there will be



  38. A quick Google of health care ratings by country finds the US in the middle of a big pack … I don’t know how we ignore that or disqualify it because we don’t like the results.

    • Because it doesn’t mean anything Charlie.

      First of all such studies and reports are extremely suspect by their design and execution. Largly poll data collected by and from folks with a dog in the fight.

      Secon, its not relevant to the problems with our health care system. It just becomes convenient policital rhetoric.

      We have actually discussed the problems with such surveys on this site before. A stroll back through the first healt care posts might dig up some of the stuff.

      Here’s the True deal Charlie. The whole health care crisis debate is B.S. in its current form. No body is discussing the real underlying problems and what caused them.

      That is escalating medical costs. Why are the doctor and hospital bills rising at 5 times the rate of inflation? What are the real underlying reasons for this?

      I think as part of that analysis we should recognize that the only other institution with similar cost increases is college education. Now why are their costs mirroring those of medical care?

      Do these two have things in common that can be linked to cause and effect?

      At times Charlie you display a tendency towards Pragmatism, so I hope you think on this. The current ourcry for universal health has been around for over 100 years. It started long before any supposed “health care crisis” existed.

      There are far to many holes in the argument supporting the move to govt provided health care, when digging into the evidence provided by the supporter. This leads me to conclude that the hard core proponents of this started with the answer and have been building justification to fit the answer.

      What better way to justify than to create a system doomed to failure, then provide govt care as the solution and utopia. It was the left who built the existing system which used to work but stopped working some time ago. And by left I don’t mean just Dem’s.

      The whole thing has the stink of dead skunk about it. It needs to be derailed and some serious investigation done by parties without a vested financial or political power interest in the outcome.

      Hope there is something in this we could agree on.
      The Best to you and those stuck in the city.


  39. Health care IS a right, but only in that you have a right to provide it for yourself, or to purchase any kind you want and can afford. No “right” can place an obligation on others whether to provide it or pay for it.

%d bloggers like this: