On 4/1/2010 8:46 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The point is, the man protesting the government reform is the same one
>> who instituted the near identical thing in his own state.
>
> You *do* understand that we have a federal constitution, right? Are you
> aware of why you pay local property taxes but not federal property taxes?
>
> But sure, I guess if you lump everyone in as "the government" it might
> make sense to complain. That's just not how it works here.
>
For something like this, you need "consistency". If you don't, then what 
you get is what we have already, everyone but the people in state X, or 
Y, get screwed, and lots of people with money from the companies in 
their pockets go around saying, "I don't see anything wrong here!" We 
are not talking about anything crazy, just basically what people that 
work for the fed already get themselves, and half the people scared of 
it passing **already had** in the form of Medicade/Medicare. In fact, if 
that was what we where getting, it would be better, only... the same 
assholes that fought it passing also want to kill those too, and spend 
their time lying about it.

Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent, 
nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of *every* 
citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned plots of 
land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the problem. One 
whole side of the political spectrum does nothing but lie about what it 
is, lie about what they already have, lie about what they claim is going 
to be lost, lie about the cost, etc., while **taking money** from the 
companies that provide insurance. Its a matter of ethics. Its not 
ethical to leave half the country with substandard care, and let 
**insurance companies** tax people for 30%-40%-50% of costs that they 
are inflating in the first place, then stand around, with high quality 
government health care, saying, "Problem? I don't see a problem!" And 
that is what one whole political party seems to be doing. I don't give a 
damn if its done on a state level, or a federal, but the states, not to 
mention the Republicans themselves, had a chance, and did nothing but 
allow it to get this way, even when they have had all the power, and 
time, in the world to see it coming, and do something to stop it.

As for the ones who now "represent" states that did do something... 
Their hypocrisy is even worse, since they are saying, "We can't accept 
having the fed provide a program to everyone, which we did as a state, 
and which some states can't afford, given they are already doing things 
like closing schools. But, instead of just complaining that it should be 
a state by state thing, we are going to call it socialism, and lie about 
our own state already passing it."

Its not about who does it. Its about the lies, the hypocrisy, and the 
outright, in far too many cases, of complete lack of ethics, shown by 
pandering to corporations, instead of representing the ***people***. 
Many of these so "concerned" with the issue are doing all fracking 
three, often in the same bloody sentence, because they don't have any 
desire, or intent, to do a damn thing about a problem that almost 
everyone, including them, when being honest, say **will be** the next 
depression triggering financial crisis in this country.

They don't have plans, unless you imagine, "handing more control over to 
the people already screwing us", (typical libertarian logic...) is a 
"plan", and they don't think any plan that doesn't involve that is 
sound, so they will lie about *everything* to defeat it, including their 
own state's method of providing care. Imho, doing that sort of thing 
should be grounds for firing, but apparently, in the US, its a lot damn 
harder to vote "no confidence" and replace these people, and, 
unfortunately, too many other morons fall for their bullshit to do it, 
even if we could. To quote Olberman, to them, "You where elected to 
serve the *people*." Not corporations.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> For something like this, you need "consistency". 

Great. Pass an amendment.  That's how it works. :-)

> Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent, 
> nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of *every* 
> citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned plots of 
> land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the problem.

I understand that you *want* that. I want it too. But it's perfectly 
reasonable for a state government to say "that's not your job, Uncle Sam."

> Its not about who does it. 

Actually, yeah, it is. At least in *this* lawsuit.

Note that I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of health care reform 
etc. I'm commenting on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for states to 
do something while complaining the feds should not be doing that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/04/2010 4:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:46:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
>>> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>>>
>>> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
>>> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an
>>> accident that causes the death of her unborn child can be held
>>> criminally responsible for the death of that unborn child.  (This came
>>> about because of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a
>>> miscarriage intentionally by causing an accident.)
>>>
>>>
>> Bloody Ada!
>
> Yeah, I know - both on the accusation (and if true, that should carry a
> stiff penalty IMHO) and on the extrapolation.
>

Not a lot to be said.

>>> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>>>
>> Go for it!
>
> Probably another year before we can - Ken's still finishing up school,
> with luck will graduate in the spring (depends on his credit load).
>

Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:03:02 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?

In Scotland, it seems that we would - England is another matter, but 
we've been looking into it for a couple years now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 02/04/2010 8:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:03:02 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?
>
> In Scotland, it seems that we would - England is another matter, but
> we've been looking into it for a couple years now.
>
> Jim

I didn’t realise that there were different criteria. I thought it was 
all controlled by the UK Border Agency.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/1/2010 1:00 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> For something like this, you need "consistency".
>
> Great. Pass an amendment. That's how it works. :-)
>
>> Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent,
>> nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of
>> *every* citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned
>> plots of land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the
>> problem.
>
> I understand that you *want* that. I want it too. But it's perfectly
> reasonable for a state government to say "that's not your job, Uncle Sam."
>
>> Its not about who does it.
>
> Actually, yeah, it is. At least in *this* lawsuit.
>
> Note that I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of health care
> reform etc. I'm commenting on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable
> for states to do something while complaining the feds should not be
> doing that.
>
They are not even complaining that the "fed" is doing it. Their entire 
complaint hinges on the claim that the fed can't "force" people to buy 
it, by charging them more, if they don't. This is flat out wrong, based 
on numerous case histories. The people apposed to the bill would love, 
now that Dems have managed to do what they failed to, pass some other 
version themselves, and they are not going to shoot themselves in the 
foot by declaring federal health care *itself* as illegal. Do that and 
you lose Medicare and Medicade too, since they are federal.

So, no, its "not" about how is doing this, unless you mean, "which party 
are they in".

I'll repeat. The states are not complaining about the fed passing such a 
bill, they are complaining about a specific detail in the bill that they 
think is wrong, and, in a fit of unbelievable hypocrisy, the 
representatives in those states that pushed for such a lawsuit, where 
responsible for *getting* included in the first place. Its all about, 
"We couldn't kill it, so now we will kill it another way." It hasn't a 
damn thing to do with whether the fed passed such a thing, its about 
Democrats doing it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Well, that and the fact that man of the states are also suing over 
things that are ***not even in the legislation***, just like the Tea 
Partiers, whining about things it does, doesn't do, or says, which are 
not in their either.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:12:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> I didn’t realise that there were different criteria. I thought it was
> all controlled by the UK Border Agency.

Yeah, I would have thought so as well, but there are rules specific to 
each country within the UK - Scotland has been in a bit of a population 
decline, so apparently their rules are a bit more lax.

Biggest thing going for me is that I have an employment option in 
Scotland - that counts quite a lot for the points required for entry (and 
we all know what points mean...<G>). :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 03/04/2010 4:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:12:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I didn’t realise that there were different criteria. I thought it was
>> all controlled by the UK Border Agency.
>
> Yeah, I would have thought so as well, but there are rules specific to
> each country within the UK - Scotland has been in a bit of a population
> decline, so apparently their rules are a bit more lax.
>


Well, what do you know? :-)
Obviously more than me. :-D

> Biggest thing going for me is that I have an employment option in
> Scotland - that counts quite a lot for the points required for entry

Hoots Mon.

Chorus:
Over There, Over There
Send the word, send the word,
Over There
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum tumming everywhere.

:-P

> (and we all know what points mean...<G>). :-)
>

Longer rendering times ;-)


<big>Prizes!</big>


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:10:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Well, what do you know? :-)
> Obviously more than me. :-D

Not as much as my wife, though, who's done all the legwork on it. ;-)

>> Biggest thing going for me is that I have an employment option in
>> Scotland - that counts quite a lot for the points required for entry
> 
> Hoots Mon.
> 
> Chorus:
> Over There, Over There
> Send the word, send the word,
> Over There
> That the Yanks are coming,
> The Yanks are coming,
> The drums rum tumming everywhere.
> 
> :-P

:P indeed. ;-)

>> (and we all know what points mean...<G>). :-)
>>
>>
> Longer rendering times ;-)
> 
> 
> <big>Prizes!</big>

This week's prize is just the thing to stop pets from cluttering up your 
house...it's this attractive mahogony cat stand.

Post a reply to this message