Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 11
Rush Limbaugh: I think the president should shut the border. If he shuts the border and builds the wall, there is nobody that can beat him in 2020. It remains the issue for the vast majority of freedom-loving, Constitution-loving, American-loving citizens. We as a nation stopped, we shut down legal immigration, all immigration from the early 1920s through 1965. We just shut it down. The reason for it was that there had been so many people emigrate legally in the late 1800s through the early 1900s when Ellis Island was going bananas. The reason we did was to assimilate all of those people.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/03/29/trump-threaten...

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Limpballs is a waste of air.

Spankie will get his butt whupped big time in 2020 if he closes the Mexico border for any meaningful length of time. The same rationale applies to the Canadian border.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Limpballs is a waste of air. Spankie will get his butt whupped big time in 2020 if he closes the Mexico border for any meaningful length of time. The same rationale applies to the Canadian border.

One of the nice things about having you lefties post is that it is a sure bet the exact opposite is true. Thanks for the concurrence!

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think the president should shut the border. If he shuts the border and builds the wall, there is nobody that can beat him in 2020. It remains the issue for the vast majority of freedom-loving, Constitution-loving, American-loving citizens.



If it was important, he would have done something before midterms.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
One of the nice things about having you lefties post is that it is a sure bet the exact opposite is true. Thanks for the concurrence!

*Still* waiting for that "better healthcare, far less expensive" promised by Spankie. Take a shot at it (you won't).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
*Still* waiting...

I hope you continue to wait. The government doesn't belong in the insurance business. Healthcare is not a right. Pre-existing conditions are best handled through charity.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Healthcare is not a right. Pre-existing conditions are best handled through charity.




In other words, the GOP's health plan is for the sick to die quickly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The government doesn't belong in the insurance business.

Still haven't learned from US history?

https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf

Fifth Congress, 1798:

An Act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen (bottom of the page)

Mandatory premiums collected to pay for insurance in case a covered person got sick or became disabled. Just *how far* above the right-wing pay grade is US law? This IS the US Congressional Record, so it is no secret.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The government doesn't belong in the insurance business. Healthcare is not a right. Pre-existing conditions are best handled through charity.

Rope


Right on all counts but; I do have some ambivalence on the pre-existing / chronic topic.

Automobile insurance: Assigned risk.
Folks in CA with auto accidents / citations records that insurance companies want to avoid can still get coverage via what is called 'assigned risk'. All companies in the state writing policies are mandated to take their share of AR's, in a percentage proportion to the volume of biz they do in the state. If they have 40% of all the biz, they have to take 40% of the AR cases. Premiums are higher than 'normal' policies, but not so sky high that drivers can't buy. (Personally been thru all this many, many years ago, in a previous life, in a land far away. LOL.)

Why can't there be a similar program for the pre-existing / chronic folks, in the health sector, along the same lines of percentage apportionment, higher premiums, etc? I have zero expertise in the actuarial / statistics biz, but it sure seems it should somehow be doable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Obamacare Has Nothing to Do with Seamen Mandate of 1798. The 1798 act was a targeted law, addressing a specific problem (international trade and piracy on the high seas), of importance to the very survival of a fragile, young Republic.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/02/06/a-hist...

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why can't there be a similar program for the pre-existing / chronic folks, in the health sector, along the same lines of percentage apportionment, higher premiums, etc? I have zero expertise in the actuarial / statistics biz, but it sure seems it should somehow be doable.

The state of Washington HAD a system much like that - enacted by the state legislature two years after it enacted Hillarycare (which turned out to be a disaster, almost exactly as predicted by right-wingers and sane economists, but even many of those people didn't expect it to fail that badly that quickly).

It worked pretty well, until Obamacare was enacted.

It didn't comply with Obamacare. So it didn't matter that it worked, it had to go.

Medical-care insurers were allowed two risk pools, and could assign 10% of would-be customers to the "high risk" pool - which also made them eligible for state tax-funded subsidies on their insurance premiums, depending on income and other conditions.

I think insurers were still allowed to delay coverage for pre-existing conditions, but not to outright deny coverage... but I may be wrong about that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The 1798 act was a targeted law, addressing a specific problem (international trade and piracy on the high seas)

Then the Marine Hospital Service (MHS)could never have been created if what is claimed is what was intended. As the MHS was created by the US govt, and eventually became the US Dept of Health and Human Services (an official division of the US govt), that means the author's *desired* interpretation of the 1798 law is not what was intended by the lawmakers in 1798. His opinion is just that, and nothing more. The *facts* contradict his claims, and he totally ignores those facts ("an inconvenient truth" that was never mentioned by him *because* it killed his allegations dead in their tracks).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
the MHS was created by the US govt, and eventually became the US Dept of Health and Human Services (an official division of the US govt)

Still doesn't make it Constitutional. If the founders thought that health care was a right, they would have included it in the Bill of Rights. We would have also seen widespread applications of that belief over the past 200+ years. Funny that we managed to avoid government mandated health care from the founding until recently when the Obama administration rammed it down the throats of the American people. Now we have federal judges ruling it to be unconstitutional. Why so if the 1798 law is proof that HC is a right?

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If the founders thought that health care was a right, they would have included it in the Bill of Rights.

It is not in the Bill of Rights. It is in the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, last clause:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

All fall under the "promote the general welfare" clause of the Preamble to the US Constitution (one of the *specific* "foregoing powers"). Thus, they are all *specifically allowed* per the US Constitution.

We would have also seen widespread applications of that belief over the past 200+ years.

Marine Health Service (over 200 *continuous* yrs in the US). Plus a wide variety of public health services and so on--particularly at the national level.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
All fall under the "promote the general welfare" clause of the Preamble to the US Constitution (one of the *specific* "foregoing powers"). Thus, they are all *specifically allowed* per the US Constitution.

BS. Promote the general welfare means to treat all men equally and with respect. Equal justice for all supports my general welfare. What supports yours?

The left makes all kinds of foul laws and maligns the Constitution to support their twisted ideology. This health care for all argument based on that 1798 law is in the same camp with the militia being the national guard (to limit the scope of the 2nd amendment), the made up right to privacy (to legalize abortion), and America is a nation of immigrants (to support the invasion of migrants). These and many other examples are the pollution of history by leftist thugs who would stamp out Judeo-Christian culture and the original intention of our Constitutional Republic. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If the founders thought that health care was a right, they would have included it in the Bill of Rights.




This is a stupid statement.




we managed to avoid government mandated health care from the founding until recently when the Obama administration rammed it down the throats of the American people.





The people voted for it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
the made up right to privacy (to legalize abortion)




The Founding Fathers supported the right to abortion. It abortion-inducing products were freely-advertised at the time.





the pollution of history by leftist thugs who would stamp out Judeo-Christian culture




There you go again. You're confusing a lack of taxpayer support for Christianity with stamping it out. You just can't handle neutrality towards religion, can you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BS. Promote the general welfare means to treat all men equally and with respect. Equal justice for all supports my general welfare. What supports yours?

You just shot yourself in both feet with a shotgun. The phrase "provide for the common defence" is with the phrase "promote the general welfare". Then they listed SOME of the things the govt was required to do to fulfill that "foregoing powers" obligation. There is NO LIMIT placed on the power of the federal govt to fulfill its obligations under those "foregoing powers". Or is there? You say there IS a limit.

If a limit exists, then the Second Amendment can ONLY apply to the types of weapons used in the 1790s and earlier. My *personal* right to own--and use as I deem fit--nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons is nowhere prohibited by the US Constitution. Second Amendment means I can choose whatever weapon(s) I deem appropriate. If not, then the Second Amendment fails to allow me to "bear arms"--which it specifically states I have the RIGHT to do. Thus, your claims fail on multiple fundamental points.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There is NO LIMIT placed on the power of the federal govt to fulfill its obligations under those "foregoing powers".

More BS

The Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Reads like a worthy goal for the People of the US along with limitations on the power of the federal government.

Second Amendment means I can choose whatever weapon(s) I deem appropriate.

Exactly right. Why then do leftists constantly put limitations on the right to keep and bear arms?

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The people voted for it (Obamacare)...The Founding Fathers supported the right to abortion...You're confusing a lack of taxpayer support for Christianity with stamping it out. You just can't handle neutrality towards religion, can you?

Good one! Happy April Fool's day to you too!

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The people voted for it (Obamacare)...The Founding Fathers supported the right to abortion...You're confusing a lack of taxpayer support for Christianity with stamping it out. You just can't handle neutrality towards religion, can you?

I like neutrality.

Informing high-school football players that they are not allowed to kneel and pray in the end zone after scoring a touchdown, is not neutrality. It violates the first amendment - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

(On the flip side, I don't see how they can say churches are tax exempt without a legal definition of what does and doesn't qualify as a church for tax purposes, or how the mere existence of such a legal definition - without regard to its content - can be seen as NOT conflicting with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The Baptist church, the mosque, the Holy Rollers Skating Rink, and the Church of Bacchus Tavern ought to be treated the same.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If the founders thought that health care was a right, they would have included it in the Bill of Rights.

True but it did not cross their mind that stealing, looting, pillaging, and the raping and plundering of the American people needed to be placed in the Bill of Rights. They assumed, and rightly so, that we can take care of the lowlifes with imprisonment and executions.

They had absolutely no idea that the lowlifes would own the American government one day.

You might say we came a long way since then and we need to get back on track.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top