Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, March 22, 2010

Libertard Health Care

-
The age of Libertard health care is upon us.

Under the Libertard health care system you no longer get to choose if you want health insurance. You have to have it.

If you don't have it and can afford it you get fined. IOW you have to pay for something you never received!

The Libertard hypocrisy runs deep- "pro-choice" my ass...




Hey blipey-tard- I told you Brown wouldn't get a chance to vote on the bill...

44 Comments:

  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Could you analyze the economic impact of requiring everyone to have health insurance? You seem to hate it, but give no reason why...

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Are you saying that they didn't allow him to vote? That's just stupid--par for the course.

     
  • At 7:50 PM, Blogger TFT said…

    The law in California is that you must insure your car. I assume other states have laws similar.

    A law requiring people to by insurance is not new. Fining them is new, but as I understand it, there is no mechanism in the bill to actually enforce the fine.

    And if one doesn't want to buy health insurance, and then gets sick and doesn't have a few hundred thousand laying around, they will either die or become another burden on tax payers.

    That's why we need universal health care.

     
  • At 9:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Are you saying that they didn't allow him to vote?

    As I have already told you SENATOR Brown was elected AFTER the SENATE passed their version of the health care bill.

    Could you analyze the economic impact of requiring everyone to have health insurance? You seem to hate it, but give no reason why...

    Why stop at insurance?

    Next mandate that everyone of age must vote or be fined- wait that is one I happen to like.

    OK everyone must buy American made stuff-oops, another one I like.


    And why not focus on the HEALTH part of HEALTH care?

    Hell why not mandate what we can eat and that excercise is required?

    The following is libertard thinking:

    People with health insurance are healthier than those without it. Therefor health insurance makes people healthy.

     
  • At 9:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TFT:
    The law in California is that you must insure your car.

    You have to have health insurance for your car? Wow I never knew just how fucked up California is.

    But anyway- yes insure the car because of OTHER PEOPLE and if you don't own the car to cover the lender.

    I get that.

    But if the gov't wants to do some good then mandate healthy lifestyles.

    But libertards hate personal responsibility and love to pawn shit off on other people to fix, so here we are.

    But there appears to be a question of Constitionality.

    And what is wrong with natural selection all of a sudden?

    Good enough to get us here but the hell with it now?

    What's wrong with you guys?

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, no. You can't summarize it and have still given no reasons for not liking it. Continue.

     
  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    There's nothing "wrong" with natural selection, you simpleton.

    Natural Selection is a natural phenomenon--it just happens whether we want it to or not.

    The Free Market is an economic choice that we can do something about. The correlation between the free market and biological natural selection is merely a surface similarity.

    And as I have stated on this blog before (and you have ignored): Adam Smith was not a proponent of the Free Market unchecked by moral and ethical regulation. The main purpose of government in many people's opinions (including the majority of the founding fathers) is to protect the people from unchecked power in whatever form that may take: an oppressive monarchy, the possibility of a hardline theocracy, the possibility of a hardline communist state, the roadblock that the free market is to those already struggling, etc...

    The fact that libertarians don't like the government doesn't mean they'll survive when they have to pay for their own sidewalk upkeep.

     
  • At 2:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So blipey is OK with someone else telling him what he has to spend his money on.

    No one will ever accuse a clown of being smart...

     
  • At 2:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Natural Selection is a natural phenomenon--it just happens whether we want it to or not.

    Actually we can do something about that- and we have.

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    JoeG: "Actually we can do something about that- and we have."

    In a manner of speaking. Natural Selection still occurs, it is a force of nature for lack of a better (shorter) term.

    JoeG: "So blipey is OK with someone else telling him what he has to spend his money on."

    Still not really putting thought into anything, Joe? Just like the ultra-conservative libertarian that you are, you assume that a specific case makes a rule. That's simplistic and should be embarrassing.

    As we just discussed, I (and everyone with a car) is forced to spend money on auto insurance. You said that you understood this and implied that it was acceptable. Does this mean that you and I both think that the government should force us to spend money on corn tortillas, or PETA, or to put it in a savings account?

    Of course not.

    You should really try to think about issues and stop parroting what Glen Beck tells you you should believe. If you fault my analysis you should try to put at least as much explanation into your comments as I have this one (which isn't a lot, but more than your usual venom-spouting). Then it would be harder to misunderstand (as you probably characterize is) your positions.

    Don't spout embarrassing drivel like "since A then B", when clearly neither A and B are not root causes.

     
  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Assface- in New Hampshire auto insurance is NOT mandatory- not everyone with a car, who drives that car, needs to have auto insurance.

    But the reason for auto insurance is because an automobile is a piece of machinery. And that piece of machinery can damage OTHER PEOPLE and OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF.

    BTW I don't listen to Beck, nor O'Reilly and certainly not Hannity.

    Get this through your fucking dense skull-

    I don't want the government telling me that I have to purchase something especially when that same libertard run government should be focusing on the HEALTH part.

    You want to regulate something- regulate fast food, junk food, tobacco, booze- all the shit that makes the USA a sadly unhealthy nation.

    The libertard "solution" of putting fingers in the holes of the dam to hold back the water is doomed to fail.

    Getting people health insurance is not going to change the fact that we- as a people- are in sad shape.

    Over 50% obesity, 45,000,000+ smokers, child obesity at levels never seen before.

    But hell with it- at least now these people will have insurance- at the expense of healthy people...

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wow. You learn something every day. What happens when two uninsured motorists have an accident in New Hampshire? I guess that would be okay--they'd both have to pay out of pocket. What happens when an uninsured motorists cause an accident with an insured motorist? Does the insured motorist have to pay out an uninsured-motorist claim?

    Perhaps you can explain the economic impact of this policy? And compare it to universal health care?

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What happens when two uninsured motorists have an accident in New Hampshire?

    How is that relevant to libertard health care?

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, could you give us that economic impact opinion? Really, there's a pretty good piece of data that falls squarely on your side of the issue.

    If you could actually present arguments and reasons for your positions instead of calling everyone dipshits and leaving it at that, you'd probably have better success.

    Anywho...the economic impact of having optional auto insurance is? You can start with the small piece of data that is a good argument against universal health care if you want, or you could start with other things.

    How about it? Some reasoning or more name calling?

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you could actually present arguments and reasons for your positions

    I have.

    You are just too much of a fucktard to understand what I post.

    And you think your ignorance means something.

    Hilarious...

     
  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You have no idea what the best argument against universal health care (based on NH's auto insurance policy) is, do you?

    It's actually a pretty good one. Maybe if you would present arguments instead a calling people names, you'd get along better.

     
  • At 12:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maybe you want to start asking relevant questions and actually demonstrate an understanding of what I post.

    Also I don't call people names- I make observations.

     
  • At 12:13 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    The topic is health care.

    The point was that auto-insurance is universal.

    You corrected this point.

    Since auto-insurance is not universal it offers a nice comparison to an insurance that is universal.

    You fail to make an argument regarding either of these insurances, instead merely making assertions.

    An argument in favor of your assertion exists (a good argument as it turns out).

    In order to make your points effectively, it would be helpful if you made an argument based on the economic impact of NH's auto-policy.

    This is all relevant.

     
  • At 6:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point was that auto-insurance is universal.

    It isn't.

    There isn't a FEDERAL mandate that requires everyone to have auto insurance.

    Nothing to compare.

    But thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance.

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Exactly, auto-insurance is not universal--NH being the one state to not require auto-insurance.

    This offers an opportunity to make a comparison with other--"universal"--policies.

    It would be helpful if you made an argument for your health-care policy stance instead of merely making assertions.

    NH's auto insurance policy gives you a great starting point for an argument to support your assertions. Why don't you use it instead of just spouting assertions?

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Exactly, auto-insurance is not universal--NH being the one state to not require auto-insurance.

    Wrong agin.

    Auto-insurance is not mandated for every person and it is not mandated by the federal government.

    Also the cost is no where near the cost of health insurance.

    IOW clownie you are too stupid to understand anything, yet you spew as if you know something.

    Why is it that you never make a positive case for anything?

    And why is it that you think just because you can badger people with nonsense that your nonsense is meaningful discourse?

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    An argument in favor of your assertion exists (a good argument as it turns out).

    Then shut the fuck up.

     
  • At 11:42 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You should try to come up with it, Joe. You might sound smarter. Probably not, but it couldn't hurt.

    Please compare NH's auto-insurance policy to the the health care bill that just passed. If you can.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please compare NH's auto-insurance policy to the the health care bill that just passed.

    Sounds like irrelevant work.

    You do it if you are so into irrelevant shit...

     
  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Just because you're not able to figure the relevancy out is no reason to say it doesn't exist. Anywho...care to provide any reasoning as to why you don't like the health care bill? I know blind assertion is your preferred method for all things, but it's a terrible way to interact with people.

    Anyway, let me know when you give up on trying to figure out what one of the best arguments for your assertions is.

     
  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just because you're not able to figure the relevancy out is no reason to say it doesn't exist.

    IOW there isn't any relevancy.

     
  • At 8:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Are you claiming to be omniscient? Wow. That's stupid.

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How many stars are there in the universe, Joe? If you don't know the answer they must not exist, huh? Ah, the normal jackassery with a large chunk of solopsism thrown in!

    You knew you thought I thought you were good!

     
  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Are you claiming to be omniscient?

    Nope.

    But obviously you are claiming to be an imbecile.

     
  • At 8:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How many stars are there in the universe, Joe?

    Count them.

    Then you will know something that I don't.

    It would be the only thing so you should get started.

    If you don't know the answer they must not exist, huh?

    What part of your anus did you pull that bit of tard from?

    Must have been elbow deep...

     
  • At 11:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Clearly, you stated that BECAUSE you didn't know something, the subject of that thing was not true.

    Continue.

     
  • At 11:10 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Unless, of course, you count "figuring" as an activity so are claiming to be omnipotent instead. Still stupid, but different.

     
  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Clearly, you stated that BECAUSE you didn't know something, the subject of that thing was not true.

    I didn't state that.

    IOW once again you are lying.

     
  • At 7:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Unless, of course, you count "figuring" as an activity so are claiming to be omnipotent instead.

    Obviously your ignorant badgering is an activity, but one for imbeciles...

     
  • At 8:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. you said that because you didn't see the relevancy, the relevancy does not exist. You can read it yourself, if you forgot, by going right up the thread.

    While you're disputing this, please tell me what liquid oxygen is made of.

    It can't be oxygen, of course, because oxygen is a gas.... Too funny.

     
  • At 9:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe. you said that because you didn't see the relevancy, the relevancy does not exist. You can read it yourself, if you forgot, by going right up the thread.

    I looked and didn't see what you say.

    So perhaps you can look and provide a link to it.

     
  • At 9:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    While you're disputing this, please tell me what liquid oxygen is made of.

    I take this is in reference to water/ ice.

    Well asshole they are different.

    If I take a bucket of water- say two gallons- and dump it on someone- say 40 feet below me- what happens?

    If I do the same with a two-gallon block of ice, what happens?

    As for liquid oxygen go ahead and breath some- please- see what happens.

     
  • At 9:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What's liquid oxygen made of, Joe? Don't avoid it. Show us you have a clue as to what you're talking about. WHAT IS LIQUID OXYGEN MADE OF?

     
  • At 9:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Erik, stop avoiding it!

    Go breath liquid oxygen asshole.

    PLEASE.

    That way we can see if there is a difference.

    Also it's called LIQUID oxygen for a reason.

    That reason is because there is a fucking difference.

    Just as there is a difference between water and ice. And that is why we have different words for both- because of that difference.

    BTW LOX is man-made.

    Ice doesn't have that agency requirement...

     
  • At 10:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, what is liquid oxygen made of?

     
  • At 6:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey's lie:

    Joe. you said that because you didn't see the relevancy, the relevancy does not exist. You can read it yourself, if you forgot, by going right up the thread.

    Why is lying all clownie has?

     
  • At 1:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, what is liquid oxygen made of?

    Liquid oxygen- duh...

    What is hail made of? Ice and miscellaneous particles.

    If someone asked you for a glass of water to you give them:

    a)- a glass full of snow

    b)- a glass full of ice

    c)- a glass of water

    d)- a glass of liquid oxygen

    If your boyfriend asks you for a drink "on the rocks" do you get him:

    a)- the drink with snow

    b)- the drink with water

    c)- The drink with ice

    d)- the drink with liquid oxygen


    The evotard runs deep in this one....

     
  • At 12:10 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, the ingredient list of liquid oxygen is oxygen? Come on, Joe. Why all the evasion?

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If someone asked you for a glass of water to you give them:

    a)- a glass full of snow

    b)- a glass full of ice

    c)- a glass of water

    d)- a glass of liquid oxygen

    If your boyfriend asks you for a drink "on the rocks" do you get him:

    a)- the drink with snow

    b)- the drink with water

    c)- The drink with ice

    d)- the drink with liquid oxygen


    Erik why the evasion?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home